Talk:Hornet

message: In the "Prey" section, the article states "hornets are able to kill large or dangerous insects such as honey bees, grasshoppers and locusts". Honeybees, grasshoppers, and locusts are not generally thought to be "dangerous" to people, and likely not to hornets, generally speaking. I believe this part of the article should simply say: "hornets are able to kill larger insects such as honey bees, grasshoppers and locusts".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.87.70 (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dangerous? Really?

message: Am I blind, or are there no references to the sizes of regular hornets? A hornet decided to invade my room, which I placed next to a Swedish Krona, a coin with an "exact" diameter of 2.5 cm or roughly 0.984251969 inches, after it had been... properly dealt with.
:http://www.zelaron.com/gear/hornet1.jpg
:http://www.zelaron.com/gear/hornet2.jpg
With its body stretched out, the hornet seemed to be about 1.35 to 1.4 inches in length. Does this comply with the specifications of a Vespata crabro (European hornet), or did it come from outer space?
- Zelaron 14:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extremely late answer, but since the pictures are still online, a guess from a layman: Hornet queen. The markings on it's back look like hornet markings. You may have decapitated a whole society. :) Ypps 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is true, at least for temperate vespines: the life cycle of Vespa crabro, as well as its nest structure, is very similar to those of Vespula spp., Dolichovespula spp., at least the temperate species (are there any tropical members of these genera?). My concerns in moving this to Vespidae are the following:
* do the life cycles of tropical Vespa species conform to the same pattern?
* life cycles of other Vespid subfamilies are different, e.g. in (at least some) Polistinae there is little or no size difference between workers and queen, and the nest is open and has a single comb; and Eumeninae aren't social at all AFAIK. Tjunier 14:16, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Agreed, and I'm not so sure either. My reasons for changing it is that "European' hornet" is misleading because i) it's found outside Europe; and ii) it's not the only hornet found in Europe. On the other hand: i) as you point out, "European hornet" is a largely widespread common name; ii) the "Oriental hornet" V. orientalis also occurs in Europe and Asia and would deserve the name as well (BTW its common name is even worse since all hornets can be found in the Far East). Maybe we just have to accept misleading common names (after all we can always use scientific names for accuracy). - Tjunier 15:23, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: If a common name is confusing, then it's a public service to add an article explaining the possibilities and linking to specific species, sort of a disambiguation on steroids.  See sardine for a fish example (FishBase has a very convenient section listing known common and vernacular names for each species). Stan 17:09, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The scientific classification charts on wasp, hornet, and yellowjacket are not consistent, making it impossible to compare how closely related these insects are.  I am not familiar enough with them to make the correction.  --zandperl 04:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific classification consistency 

message: This section is a little confusing.  When the term hornet is used to compare with a yellojacket are we talking about true hornets or what is called a hornet in the US?  Are the baldface hornets less aggressive or not?--Counsel 17:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed that section needs a slight cleanup. Widefox 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hornets and other Vespidae 

message: User Dyanega did a massive cleanup, which I have just reverted for the following reasons:
*Too many massive changes for one edit.
*This article has a quality award. If this award is justified, it can't be that bad and a massive edit such as the one by Dyanega is likely to have diminished the quality.
Please note that I do not contest any of the individual edits of Dyanega at this time. I'm sure some or maybe even most of them may be OK. I do request that they be done more gradually, giving other editors more time to review the proposed changes. Alternatively I request that Dyanega reverts my revert, but explains the changes felt to be required on this talk page. Thanks!
I note that most of Dyanega's revision has to do with distinguishing the European hornet and the other types, so it is also a question of terminology: which type of hornet ist the real Hornet? Should the pages perhaps be merged? My undoing of Dyanega's revision on Hornet but not on European hornet has now resulted in a temporary duplication of material, which should be seen to soon. At present Wikipedia seems to have this general main page Hornet and 4 pages on specific species.
Comments?  --Theosch 07:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly as you noted, this is the general main page for ALL hornet species. Since the European Hornet has its own page, then material which is EXCLUSIVELY about that species should be on that page, the same way the honey bee page is dedicated to a discussion of information which applies to all species of honey bee, and not just the Western honey bee, which has its own page. The rule of thumb is simple; if the information presented only applies to one species, and that species has its own page, then it should be placed on that species page FIRST, and only if it seems of more general relevance should it be put on the more general page - and when done, it should be in a comparative context (in other words, the information is given explicitly with reference as to how this compares to other species in the genus). If the page for bird contained 50% of its text referring to only the pigeon, then that would not be appropropriate, and should not be tolerated. There is no reason to tolerate a similar phenomenon on the hornet page, either. If you would like to see all the material about the European Hornet left in place, then my suggestion is to balance it out with an equal amount of text on all the other species; failing that, species-specific information should really go on the designated pages. Peace, Dyanega 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, a number of the other edits you reverted had been necessary, because of various problems (including misspellings of species names, failure to italicize, grammar, etc.) - especially bad were all the completely unrelated pages which were listed under "See Also" simply because they dealt with other wasps in the superfamily Vespoidea, and the omission of the fact that larvae feed the adults. I can assure you, as a world authority on bees and wasps, that I improved the quality of the article with my editing. I've made massive changes to other pages elsewhere in the past, and no one has seen fit to revert them simply because they felt that too much was being changed. It isn't the quantity, it's the quality. Dyanega 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your logic, Dyanega, and don't question the quality of your contributions. I just request that such large single-step changes be documented for the benefit of other editors. See the current history of Hybrid_vehicle for a way of doing this transparently. User Improbcat actually went to even more trouble, adding a "page under construction" tag, describing both proposed and completed edits on the article's talk page, and even copying the contents to his user page and inviting others to participate. Maybe this isn't all required, but at least the documented section-by-section editting is visible in the history at a glance. The other open point is: if the article was so badly in need of a large cleanup, why was it given a quality award previously? Anyway, as there have been no other comments, I'll leave it at that and thank you for bearing with me. --Theosch 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quality rating of A is not an "award"; it simply means that Stemonitis, in his examination of the page, felt that it looked clean and well-written; he was not examining the technical accuracy of the content (that's my role in Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods). If you want an example of what the hornet page should look like, and how taxonomically hierarchical pages work when a large group contains one commonly-known species, look at the page for sparrow, a Wikipedia CD article (meaning it has been vetted for quality), and note that there is almost nothing on that page that specifically refers to the house sparrow, even though nearly everyone in the world thinks of the house sparrow when they hear the name "sparrow". "Sparrow" refers to many organisms, just as "hornet" does, and the article is short and clean. The hornet article could still be considerably cleaner and shorter, but I prefer to move text or correct it rather than simply delete it. Dyanega 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the explanation. I agree that the "sparrow" page is very well done. Rereading "hornet" in detail, I agree with your revision and thank you for it. My unneccessary and perhaps hasty revert had been entirely due to procederal reasons. --Theosch (whose garden is entirely dominated by house sparrows and blackbirds and has noticeable European Hornet guests about every two years!)--Theosch 09:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of 21. February 

message: I'm curious as to why this is a particularly dangerous action aside from the obvious poisoning of the environment. Or is that the only reason? Does it disturb the hornets in a different manner?
If someone could explain this and perhaps edit it onto the page, I'd appreciate it.PrinceForte 07:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of a chemical that is toxic to humans AND highly flammable, in a manner that is illegal, should not require any detailed explanation. If someone suggested the use of napalm, or dynamite, I would expect that a rationale for NOT doing so would likewise be unnecessary. Dyanega 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course it worked, but at a cost to all of us. That's a few orders of magnitute beyond killing rats with dynamite. A tiny amount of gasoline can pollute a LOT of ground water with carcinogenic compounds. If you were my neighbor and I knew you did this - a violation of environmental laws - I would definitely report you. Maybe we'd get lucky and you'd be assesed to clean up the pollution, which could run into quite a few figures. Pollinator 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pouring gas or petrol into the nest? 

message: When I was much younger, me and a friend found a bald faced hornets nest which was very large. We threw rocks and sticks at the nest for over an hour. I had heard a rumor that all bees needed motion to identify a threat, so in case we got swarmed, we would hold absolutely still. Our neighborhood dog was enjoying the game of "fetch" with the rocks and sticks we were throwing at the bee nest. It wagged its tail very happily. I finally got lucky when I threw a decent sized stick and split the nest in half. Hundreds of wasps swarmed out of the nest looking for a target. My first impulse was to run away as fast as I could. I held as still as I could and I watched in terror as hundreds of wasps buzzed towards me. Would I get stung? My friend standing next to me did not move a muscle either. The dog, wagging its tail suddenly started getting stung and ran away. Every wasp flew right past me. My friend got stung once on the arm by almost sheer randomness, but he didn't move while getting stung. After waiting for a few minutes, we finally moved away. Now, this personal experience leads me to believe that all hornets, wasps and bees are sensitive to motion. If they didn't see you moving around they have no way of knowing you're a living being & a threat. This wasn't a fluke coincidence either, the whole day when bees came close we'd hold still and they'd go past us. In other circumstances, holding still has worked.
However, if you get stung a few times, the bees know that you're a threat and they'll call their friends to come sting you. At this point, run away as fast as possible.
:Hahahaha great story. We don't put personal research into wiki. Wolfmankurd (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh I enjoy it when people share their original research on the talk page though...makes Wikipedia seem less uptight. Zell65 (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Holding Still

message: Sometimes in australia But mostly in America  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.50.114 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where Do Hornets live 

message: hornet stings like wasps can be very painful
first you need to remove the stinger that might still be there by just brushing a butter knife or credit card over the wound, try to avoid using tweesers as they might squeze the venum bag at the top of the stinger which will release more venum into the body.
then, clean the area thourly with soapy water then apply a cream which has an ingredient of either antihistamine, analgesic or a corticosteroid. an ice cube or something cold will reduce swelling and numb the pain.
If you are prone to having anaphylactic reactions to bee hornet or wasp stings, you should carry a preloaded syringe of epinephrine at all times. One sting can cost you your life if you are allergic and not treated immediately.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.124.135 (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief this is unfortunate. Hornet stingers do not lodge. Hornets are capable of multiple stings so there is not stinger to remove. Did you even read the article? 2601:18C:4301:2880:F401:35CF:9CAD:6A64 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  how to treat a hornet sting 

message: From the article: "Materials that come in contact with pheromone, such as clothes, skin, dead prey, or hornets, must be removed from the vicinity of the hornet's nest." Seems a bit silly, doesn't it? --MQDuck (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Alarm escalation"

message: I've seen a hornet going to the top of my house and it is black,what type of hornet is it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.89.209 (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hornet 

message: I was in Romania (Transylvania) a couple of years ago on a walking holiday.  We came across a hornet nest in a tree.  Our guide said that they were not aggressive unless provoked.  We sat down within three meters of the nest to watch them.  While watching I ate some cheese and fruit and biscuits and juice (Had it been a wasp nest I would have been mobbed for the sugar).  The hornets were no bother to me or my company, they were not aggressive, they took no notice of us.  Given my good experience of this (and others of single hornets in the UK) I find it hard to believe they are a particular hazard to humans.  This article seems to suggest they are an extreme hazard.  I suspect that this article is not representative of hornets. 2.101.241.253 (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerous? 

message: So European hornet stings are not possibly deadly? B137 (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Except v. crabro)