lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Enallagma cyathigerum

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Enallagma cyathigerum 1(loz).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 28, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-02-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Enallagma cyathigerum 1(loz).jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture :File:Common_blue_damselflies_(Enallagma_cyathigerum)_mating_composite.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 4, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-07-04. Any improvements or maintenance to this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Common_blue_damselflies_(Enallagma_cyathigerum)_mating_composite.jpg]] scheduled for POTD
Talk:Rhagonycha fulva

message: I see that someone recently removed an edit which referred to this beetle, Rhagonycha fulva, as the "Hogweed Bonking Beetle" on the grounds that it looked like vandalism.  I can assure you that it is known as the Bonking Beetle hereabouts, at least (London Borough of Bromley).  This is not the first time that name has been edited out.  The name probably deserves a mention somewhere in the article, if not a prominent one.
Moremoth (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a name popularised by some NCC entymologists in the 80s, if I recall correctly, and is now in general use across the UK. Stub Mandrel (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: , about your move: where is the binomial name more commonly used? I've mostly seen them referred to using the vernacular name (though I haven't dug through the scientific literature, only in more accessible places). – Uanfala (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ngrams doesn't pick up "common red soldier beetle" at all. What reliable sources have you seen that don't mention the scientific name? Other vernacular names include "black-tipped soldier beetle", and more colloquially, "bloodsucker beetle" and "hogweed bonking beetle". How would you determine which vernacular name is the most appropriate article title? Plantdrew (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We need RS that don't mention the scientific name? But any half-decent entomological text will invariably include it. I do see stuff like this or this (I don't know these places so I won't assume they count as RS) and they prefer the term "common red soldier beetle". How do we generally decide which name is more common though? – Uanfala (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title
Talk:Hemigrapsus sexdentatus

message: That reference appears to be talking about Cancer productus, a completely different crab...
203.184.26.139 (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.
For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter,  here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you.  --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: I would recommend adding more to the article such as more about breeding and reproduction and variation in the sexes as well as more information on predation and what they eat and how they eat. Otherwise the information present is good it just needs to be built upon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendenB2002 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review
Talk:Panorpidae

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Panorpa alpina 2 Luc Viatour.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 5, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-06-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Panorpa alpina 2 Luc Viatour.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Do they sting like scorpions?98.183.30.108 (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scorpion 

message: Is much wihder, includes much more information. mfG --178.197.225.234 (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  German article
Talk:Kay Hawtrey

message: Notification of an intended speedy deletion of the wiki entry for Kay Hawtrey has been posted.
Upon reading the notification of intention I read this Kay Hawtrey page and found it immensely interesting.
There is no other page on Wikipedia which gives any depth to the Hawtrey family.
I have in fact created a link to this page as it is now modified by me to the section the Hawtrey family from the Early developments section on the Eastcote page where in that section —where it is first mentioned in the first three words— there is much some interesting information of the family at Eastcote. Further depth of the family can only be found on this the Kay Hawtrey page.
The modest life of Kay Hawtrey herself is nice and it may not be quite worth a Wikipedia entry.
But I should consider this page of great value. I consider what I read here of the Hawtrey family history fascinating, that it should be retained for it is nowhere else in this encyclopedia, and here are my words towards it.
regards _ --Laurencebeck (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for attempting to address the issues claimed. But regardless of your views on the topic, there very little information on his person to justify an article. Especially when there are ZERO sources backing any claims in this article. Quite frankly, I am surprised that it has lasted this long without it being addressed, other articles have been deleted for less.  MisterShiney ✉  13:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is possible to say that Miss Hawtrey would have primary sources in her possession or knew where they would be yet unpublished I believe it would very well mean ZERO to Wikipedia. Secondary sources is the real material for Wikipedia ( except exceptions , of course ) regards _ --Laurencebeck (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

text: The position that an article about an actress should tell us about the actress, not give us over 2.5x as much information about her surname and ancestors as about her and her career (82 words versus 228 words).  The position also that material needs to be sourced. The position that arguments along the lines of "other articles have similar material so this can too" are very weak arguments on Wikipedia. BencherliteTalk 22:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, yes, I am sure you are very practiced  . . but my question to myself was , in a round about way was that I didn't know where YOU were  ( in the scheme of things . .) 
--Laurencebeck (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? BencherliteTalk 23:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The considerations against speedy deletion of wiki page Kay Hawtrey
Talk:Conopidae

message: The known distribution of Neivamyrmex army ants includes parts of the US along the Canadian border (near the Great Lakes), so it is NOT noteworthy that Stylogaster have been recorded from Canada when Neivamyrmex has not; there is no magical fence at the border that would keep army ants from crossing, so it is entirely reasonable to expect that they are simply uncommon there, as are the flies. It is trivially easy to fail to record the presence of army ants in a given geopolitically-defined region; consider that there are several army ant species with records from Kansas and Texas, but not from Oklahoma - in each case, it is clear that the ants occur in Oklahoma, but that no one has yet bothered to collect any specimens. In fact, the presence of these flies in Canada is considered proof that some army ants (probably Neivamyrmex nigrescens) do occur there. Dyanega 18:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution of army ants in North America 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Wasp mimicking hoverfly.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 19, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-02-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 23:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Wasp mimicking hoverfly.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 
Talk:Copromorphidae

message: Hello all,
I am proposing some minor and fairly major edits on this page.
 
1. Inserting wikilinks for various terms in the article
2. Remove the Nasu (2004) citation that is never utilized in the article.
3. Using footnotes to address citations with URLs, if any are left after removing the one citation which is never cited in the article.
4. Add a citation for the Host Plant data to the reference list --> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/hostplants/search/list.dsml?searchPageURL=index.dsml&Familyqtype=starts+with&Family=Copromorphidae&PFamilyqtype=starts+with&PFamily=&Genusqtype=starts+with&Genus=&PGenusqtype=starts+with&PGenus=&Speciesqtype=starts+with&Species=&PSpeciesqtype=starts+with&PSpecies=&Country=&sort=Family
5. Add this Creative Commons photo of a Copromorphidae moth as the page's photo --> https://www.flickr.com/photos/papilioshih/25042530204/in/album-72157663391978243/
6. Removing the "etymology" section, since the only citation I can find for the Greek etymology information is from revolvy.com, which does not seem like a credible source on its own.
Thanks, and let's make these moths proud!
t.a.
Ternsaround (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Edits
Talk:Coreidae

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Squash bug Coreidae hz.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 22, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-01-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Squash bug Coreidae hz.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon
Talk:Coxal gland

message: The oft-downloaded diagram on this page is incorrectly labeled. It is not showing a chelicerate's coxal gland, which are near the base of the legs, but a decapod crustacean's antennal gland (aka green gland)!! The image should be replaced with an appropriate species and label, e.g., a spider. Better still might be a side-by-side comparison of the excretory glands of both taxa with labels, since they are mentioned in the text. 184.183.254.194 (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image error
Talk:Modeling agency

message: In order to qualify as a top modeling agency, there are certain criteria:
1. The agency must be located in a top fashion capital for the simple reason that the most lucrative and prestigious modeling assignments are there. These cities include: New York, Milan, Paris, London, Tokyo, São Paulo and Barcelona. 
2. The agency is well-known and respected in the fashion industry and has a good reputation, in so far, as monitoring agencies or governing bodies in their respective country, like the Better Business Bureau in the US and the association of fashion designers and the group handling the city's fashion week.
3. The agency has directly provided a model with a lucrative assignment for a top fashion design house (for example Gucci, Dolce and Gabbana, Calvin Klein, Prada, Valentino and Giorgio Armani among others).
Please consider these criteria before adding any agency in the list.
:I removed the names of fashion houses as unnecessary product placement. Your three item list is a good rule but does not have a reputable third-party source. Please and a source. I  suggest future editors keep the list with the source. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top modeling cool agency list 
Talk:Crabronidae

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Tachysphex specie edit1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 28, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-05-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 00:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Tachysphex specie edit1.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon
Talk:Crambidae

message: I have just created my account.
This is just a comment.
I was redirected here while reading Canna Lily.  The highlighted keyword "moth" with the taxonomic name preceding it in parentheses.  No mention of this specific moth in Crambidae, nor any mention that any of this species would attack Canna Lilies.
I fully appreciate that a huge number of articles in Wikipedia are "works in progress".
Mitcorb (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

message: WHERE do they live? On one continent, on several, on all ~s?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3035:2:44D:1:1:5B42:2938 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHERE?/Distribution?
Talk:Battle of Wesenberg (1268)

message: I agree with some previous posts, since you can tell that the article has been written by a Russian nationalist, it needs ti be rewritten from a serious military history point of view. --Termer (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was written by a Russian nationalist, but I have edited it, and I am not a Russian nationalist.  If you see improvements that can be made in the article, and can cite your sources, then by all means do so. Larry Dunn (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: I am no historian but I assume that the troop numbers are absolutely overestimated. No human settlement in medieval Livonia and neighboring countries had more than 10.000 inhabitants at the time and the region was only thinly settled. The Livonian Order at its height had only a few hundred knights. And several 10.000 fighters shall have participated in this battle? This reminds me of descriptions of the battles in the Persian Wars by Herodotus who estimated the strength of Xerxes' army at one million men while we today know that it were certainly less than 100,000. --Furfur (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Troop numbers are most likely grossly exaggerated

message: Why is it written in the Did You Know section of the main page that Russia won the battle, when the article itself claimed that Livonia was the victor? Mimihitam (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know on main page
Talk:Cryptocercus

message: This 2005 article proposes three new species: C. hirtus, C. meridianus, and C. parvus. They are not currently listed in itis.gov. Agyle (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposed species 

message: we have a red link to Cryptocercoidae. Some sources say that this is epifamily. Validity? Eg related Termitoidae is a redirect--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see this red link? There is no such link on the Cryptocercus page. Dyanega (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the what-links-here for that article - the source seem to be a cladogram - used in Dictyoptera etc. Shyamal (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptocercoidae?
Talk:Culicinae

message: The article says there are 108 genera, but at the same time, it lists 109 genera? Ivo (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of genera 

message: It is well-known in the scientific community that Toxorhynchitinae is a major subfamily of Culicidae. Yet it's still under the subfamily Culicinae. I've recently edited the subfamilies of the mosquito wiki, but I'm yet to be sure if I should also edit the Toxorhynchites page. Proffypaul (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxorhynchites: Subfamily of Culicinae or a genus of Toxorhynchitinae
Talk:Daphnis nerii

message: "The chrysalis is pale reddish (...)"
Moth pupae are not named chrysalides.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atreyiu (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pupa, not chrysalis 

message: Surely the "1cm" indicator on the dorsal and ventral view pictures is not correct? I think it's about half the right size, making the wingspan more than 20cm...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A452:F4DA:1:7C83:1A9:78A1:989 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size
Template talk:Welcome-m2

message: This template doesn't seem to allow for putting a parameter into the template which is included in . For example, let's say I wanted to welcome a user but also give them a  warning for the article Water. Normally I would go  but putting that into this template would only make the template think that my "personal message" was water. Anyway to fix this? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Deer botfly

message: I realize this was not what the entomologist who asserted "400 yards/second" meant. Interesting how easily a physicist could debunk the claims of an expert on insects using purely physical/chemical arguments. I recall reading the 800 MPH claim as fact in probably some popular book -- the debunking is so much less interesting than the claim itself. Be skeptical of wild claims. 50.230.251.244 (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scaled up it flies pretty fast
Talk:Dadda multiplier

message: The example would be a lot clearer with a diagram. Zuiram 06:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commenting out because images have been added now. --pfctdayelise (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram request

message: Three of five pictures just seem to be added to let it look like more. But in this article, the picture of a binary tree makes no sense at all especially with this confusing title “Would be used in reverse order.”
Further, the pictures of an AND gate and full adder are very loosely related to the topic and distract from the only two useful illustrations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.38.211 (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless pictures 

message: Please markup "min" in one of the math section as an operator/function rather than variables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.70.40.55 (talk) 
: ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  min 

message: As can be seen in the image below, the MathML portions of the page failed in my Microsoft Edge browser.
 PaulStSmith (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  MathML failing to render
Talk:Delhi Sands flower-loving fly

message: I think this page needs some mention of the court case involving the fly.  It was fairly significant in environmental law and endangered species issues.  I may take the time to add something on it next week if there are no objections.  Kilmanjaro1 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wow how sad that people do not prefer biodiversity. i guess people rather see a bunch of houses around everywhere. these fly's pollinate citrus trees. also that is a lie that they can not build. actually allowing the fly habitat is great because it slows down build out of the inland region. if not there would have been more than double the amount of foreclosures than there is right now.Javiern (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Elaphrus viridis

message: Rather that write everything about this out, please refer to the GA Ant for comparison. I think you'll see where this article on the Delta beetle needs work easier that way.Sumoeagle179 16:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failure

message: Where exactly is Solano County?  It was mentioned where the beetle is located but does not give a broad example.  Is it located in America, Asia, Europe? Where?
ABuescher (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location
Talk:Dicopomorpha echmepterygis

message: The species is found in the US, in Illinois, not in Costa Rica. My english is poor, I won't correct the article, so i just say. Regrds, --Hirvenkürpa (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Costa-Rica? 
Talk:Dictyoptera

message: Suggest it would be good to move / combine this page with Dictyoptera_(cohort)  Roy Bateman (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be difficult, as that page doesn't exist. If there had been such a page, it should certainly have been redirected here, or deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Roscommon

message: The intro said that Roscommon caters to half the population of the county, as Boyle is the only other major town in the county. I've edited that to include Castlerea. However, I think this statement is still not entirely accurate. Much of the county's population is "catered" to by towns outside the county, including Athlone, Carrick-on-Shannon, and Ballinasloe. Wanderingaengus (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: It appears that only one of the people listed Luke 'Ming' Flanagan is actually from Roscommon, the others are from towns in the county, so should possible be moved there. Are there no other genuine Roscommonites we can add? ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable people
Talk:Dinopis

message: The genus has been renamed. FelixReimann (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Made into a redirect. The information in the article actually seemed to be about Deinopis subrufa or some other Australian species, rather than the genus, because it started "Dinopis is the genus name for the more commonly named Gladiator Spider, Ogre faced spider, or Net casting spider. It is found in eastern Australian forests." The genus has a world-wide distribution. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Deinopis]]
Talk:Blaberus discoidalis

message: the information regarding moisture in the introduction seems to be conflicting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.248.80 (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction needs to be revised 

message: -The picture is not of Blaberus discoidalis. The pattern on the head shield (pronotum) is incorrect. A new picture is necessary for accuracy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.215.69.208 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the image in question. I am an amateur, but based on a non-scientific Google image search, the pronotum pattern does seem at least atypical, extending as a point at the front and points on the sides of the dark spot. Perhaps that variation occurs with aging? Agyle (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misidentified species in image