lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Fattail scorpion

message: The stub description should be changed. A scorpion is not a spider. Avihu (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spider stub? 

message: Tracked down some of the citations in paragraph 1 via http://www.insipub.com/ajbas/2009/2217-2225.pdf.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygnosis (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Hello ,
Please fix too many redlinks under taxonomy tab. Sarvarkar (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many redlinks under taxonomy tab 

message: Hi!
I plan to edit this article. The comments above left many suggestions and I plan to incorporate them in the editing process of this article. I plan on researching various peer reviewed sources.  Anniewhelan (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Edits 

message: — Assignment last updated by Bluepoppyseed (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ENGL2650 Science Writing Origins, Ethics, and Emerging Genres
Talk:Gryllinae

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Field cricket →  – This is another inappropriately placed common name IMO – I have edited the introductory section for more explanation. In Britain "field cricket" specifically means Gryllus campestris – reference given, but goes back at least to Gilbert White's day.  It is actually nonsensical since, as the article states (by another editor), placing "field cricket" here at the subfamily level includes the genera Acheta and Gryllodes, which are "house crickets". Roy Bateman (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

text: * Why do you feel the taxobox is incorrect? Cwmhiraeth is a redirect to the page and the majority of the genera and species arent actually called "field crickets"--Kevmin § 17:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The identification section was plagiarized (see here). The article was created 31 January 2005, and mention of scientific names was first added on 23 March 2006. A taxobox was added on 1 October 2006. For most of the articles existence it has purportedly covered Gryllinae, and the edit history should be associated with Gryllinae (or field cricket if the page is not moved). With the plagiarized section removed, taxonomy remains a big part of the article. No references are provided for any of the prose text. Whether the prose applies to Gryllus or Gryllinae is unclear. Anything prose that is applicable only to Gryllus should be moved to that article and sourced. Plantdrew (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored that content. I think you're mistaken in the direction of the copying. That document includes a copy-pasted wikipedia footnote. Colin M (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Given how species specific that section seems to be, should it be restored here though?  Or should it be moved to the the genera/species that is applicable to?--Kevmin § 17:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am opposed to moving the article as it is to Gryllinae, but it could be moved to Gryllinae and the first half hived off and merged into Gryllus, if that is the appropriate destination for the field cricket information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Many thanks for all your comments: I have converted field cricket into a dab page - for your consideration. Roy Bateman (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 August 2019
Talk:Flacherie

message: Hi  This edit seems incorrect to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flacherie&curid=3372919&diff=999518789&oldid=999518735 . Unless you're going to make a category for B. m. diseases or B. diseases, this page belongs in that category. Obviously it should be alphabetized differently than it was: . Invasive Spices (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Invasive Spices I think it should be in a diseases category, which it already is, namely :Category:Insect diseases, not a taxonomic category. The moth taxonomy categories are in practice used for the moths themselves, not for things related to moths. Of the 71,000 or so articles I've updated by bot over the last week or so, there can't be more than a handful that - like this one - have just been put into the taxonomic tree 'by association'. Anyway, I don't feel strongly, and I'm happy for you to change or revert the edit if you do. All the best, MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

text: * Ok. I've made a :Category:Diseases of Lepidopterans instead in that case. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: Hello  I have reverted the larger change of this edit. See my edit summary for explanation. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 January 2022 (UTC)
:This part :
::"Louis Pasteur, who began his studies on silkworm diseases in 1865, was the first one able to recognize that mortality due to viral flacherie was caused by infection. (Priority, however, was claimed by Antoine Béchamp.[2]) Richard Gordon described the discovery: "The French silk industry was meanwhile plummeting from a 130 million to an 8 million francs annual income, because the silkworms had all caught pébrine, black pepper disease…He [Pasteur] went south from Paris to Alais, and rewarded them by discovering the silkworm epidemic to be inflicted by some sort of living microbe…Pasteur threw in another disease, flâcherie, silkworm diarrhoea. The cures for both were culling the insects which showed the peppery spots — the peasants bottled the silkworm moths in brandy, for display to the experts — and rigorous hygiene of the mulberry leaf."[3]
:is bad. It comes from a book of "amusing anecdotes", a title that does not announce a very serious work. This passage first talks about pébrine, which is not the subject of the Wikipedia article. Moreover, it is false that Pasteur "rewarded them by discovering the silkworm epidemic to be inflicted by some sort of living microbe": other scientists than Pasteur had understood that pebrine was caused by a living organism, but Pasteur claimed to first that they were wrong. He had to withdraw later. Please, read the Louis Pasteur article, section "Silkworm disease". For me, Richard Gordon has no scientific authority. Balbiani, who disregarded Pasteur's theoretical works on silkworm diseases, is a greater authority than Richard Gordon. Marvoir (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discovery
Talk:Flame skimmer

message: I believe that this article is no longer a stub because it has a decently sized table of contents, a few pictures 
and fact filled information.  This editor could add a few more references to their information and add a little 
bit more information, but over all I think that we can take the stub tag 
off.--Margaretq13 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Flea beetle

message: , I undid your reversion of my change. You state in your edit summary that using the abbreviation sp for species "is the way it is done". Yes, in a scientific journal where the word species occurs frequently. You and I understand this without hesitation. But this is an encyclopedia article for general consumption by readers who are not necessarily familiar with biology texts. I think that in this case, where the word species has not already been employed in the sentence, it is preferable to spell out the word. Eric talk 03:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Altica sp. and thousands of others. You would be busy for the next few months if you tried to revert all of them. It is too bad you see it this way. --Polinizador (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it as "too bad". We might instead call it regrettable that the authors of those thousands may not have considered their audience. Eric talk 19:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation of the word ''species''
Talk:Florida woods cockroach

message: Palmetto Bugs can fly. This article is inaccurate.97.93.94.82 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about this species but I think the discussion here pretty accurately describes roaches' flying behaviour.  Essentially in that they can fly short distances if they jump from a height, but they can't just buzz around like other flying insects do (say a bee or some beetles).  That's been my experience and that article points to some actual research in the area.  So the article is basically accurate in saying the wings are useless for actual flight.  It's kind of like how chickens can fly, but usually they are too fat to fly very far, and they don't fly around like ducks and geese do.  Rifter0x0000 (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither could the Wright Brothers' plane, but it is still considered capable of flight.  The original poster is correct, Palmetto bugs are capable of flight - I've seen this species of roach do it many times. While my personal observation is obviously not a RS, there are plenty of technical descriptions out there that are - this material is not sourced in the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the statement HammerFilmFan removed that described them as a non-flying species. The cited source, Robinson 2005, says "Front wings extend slightly past the mesonotum, while hind wings are absent; the adults do not fly." If other reliable sources contradict this, then the opposite should be mentioned, though I did not find that info. The description of their wings makes flight seem very doubtful. Note that other species of insects are commonly referred to as palmetto bugs; one mentioned in this article is the American cockroach, which is a good flyer. Agyle (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The hell they don't fly.  https://ortho.com/en-ca/insect-control/how-to-identify-get-rid-of-and-prevent-palmetto-bugs.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:4200:B7A0:2C83:3C97:20E1:F4C8 (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight

message: What do they eat? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Food

message: Humans seem to have a very irrational reaction to these insects, esp. people that come from New England.  If you live in Florida, these are just a part of everyday life.   139.138.6.121 (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction 

message: All of the cockroaches in the photo are nymphs, which are cute but not helpful with recognizing adult forms. Any other pictures with winged adults that can get added? Would add them myself but I don't know how sorry 2600:100C:B056:660:28B4:BB61:430F:5386 (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo
Talk:Flower chafer

message: I have been unable to find any information on the etymology of Cetonia, the type genus of the subfamily. (See BugGuide for speculation.) Please add such information if you can find it from any authoritative source. Cotinis 16:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology
Talk:Formica

message: I reverted one edit by User:CarolSpears. S/he is now a banned user and many of her edits are suspicious or odd.  Especially, her/his choice of the "ants on wood" image. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted Image

message: I added information on the ants social aspects supported by citations. I also added some information about the size of the ants and their habitat in relation to humans.
--Luxembourg96 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New Edit
Talk:Formica fusca

message: A study recently came out showing experimental evidence that these ants can be taught to detect volatile organic compounds in cancer cell lines
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.103959
Is one study enough to make this research notable for the article or should we wait until these ants potentially become actually used in medicine? does this information belong in a different wikipedia article? I found it interesting regardless Feralcateater000 (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  research on using F. fusca to detect cancer in humans
Talk:Formica rufa species group

message: Hi all. I am currently participating in a school project to contribute to Wikipedia. I am learning a lot and would like to leave some comments regarding this article. Please feel free to respond.
The ant sub-generic group Formica rufa is a stub-class article of low importance to Wikiproject Insects. The article lists many species of ants, however, many do not yet have article pages. In particular, an article on Formica truncorum has not yet been created on wiki. This is significant since many studies have been done with F. truncorum to elucidate the mechanisms behind the sex-ratio conflict in this eusocial colony. In addition to the addition of information regarding F. truncorum, citations should be added to the article regarding the facts stated in the discussion of the ant species located in Britain. I would be interested in creating an article for F. truncorum. Under the guidelines of WikiProject Insects, the full taxonomy can be given in a taxobox. Most of the information I would present would include Lotta Sundstrom’s 1994 work. In addition to information regarding the mechanisms of sex ratio conflict, I would include information regarding the diet, predators, life cycle, and distribution as modeled by the Featured Article “Ant”. References will be included and will use a mixture of both primary and secondary sources.
GenesBrainsBehaviorNeuroscienceKL (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments
Talk:Formica rufibarbis

message: ;Description
Instead of describing the insect as "relatively large", it seems to be more helpful when there is at least an approximation of the size of the insect. 
;Life Cycle
Is there a way to leave a hyperlink on the word "gynaecoid"? Instead of going back and forth for the dictionary, I think it would be really great if there was a link to the word's definition just to make reading more convenient.
;Behavior
There is a lot of information about the worker ants, but not much at all about the queens. What are some of the behaviors the queens have? It mentions in the "Life Cycle" category that:
Queens found colonies in the same manner as other ants from the Formica fusca group.
but it doesn't have any elaborated information on the behaviors of the "other ants" either, so an additional discussion about what behaviors "other ants" have would be very helpful. 
Dwjoanne (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Formiciinae

message: I have run across an article with length info for the workers of one species of Formicium giganteum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/436.shtml
I don't know where that information comes from. Also this article needs citation badly. Phatom87 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workers
Talk:Four-spotted chaser

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Four-spotted chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata) female dorsal.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 4, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-07-04. 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) 02:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Four-spotted chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata) female dorsal.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon
Talk:Fungus-growing ants

message: If all the ant-fungus mutualisms occur in this clade, shouldn't the details be included in this article? Bendž|Ť 17:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be good to keep the ecological aspects separate even if the phenomenon is restricted to a taxon. Shyamal (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by 'separate'. The ecological aspects should certainly be discussed here as well even if there is a 'separate' article. At the moment there is nothing at all here so the merge seems sensible. Maybe a broader article call ant-fungus ecology could be created instead, which could include exploitation as well as mutualism (surely something not limited to this clade). Richard001 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: Should ants be plural? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fungus-growing ants --> Fungus-growing ant
Talk:Gall wasp

message: It seems from the lack of mentioning of the pupa stage that there isn't one. But it clearly isn't simple metamorphosis either. What's going on here? — Martinship 22:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The larvae develop in the gall, however the metamorphosis is much like a regular wasp. For more infomation users should visit the page on Hymenoptera. Uberloofah (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  metamorphosis? 

message: I got redirected here from Asclepiadoideae - Diplolepis which should be done something about by someone who knows more than me about wiki-editing... what you call a split? Lindacse 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diplolepis is a genus of gall wasps, and lacking a specific page for this genus I think that redirecting to the family here is acceptable. Uberloofah (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Diplopeis is also a genus of flowering plants in the Asclepiadoideae. Clearly a disambiguation page is needed. Semudobia (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad redirection? 

message: The first sentence of the 2nd section reads "Like all Apocrita, gall wasps have a distinctive body shape, the so-called wasp waist." The last two words link to an article on corsets... Given that this appears to be 2 distinct uses (and that the body of a corsetted woman, while similar, is not actually an example of the actual shape of a wasp's body), perhaps this link could be removed/clarified, for pedantic accuracy's sake?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.22.178 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate link?
Talk:The Homosexuals

message: Despite having little major recorded output, this band is highly influential and I feel it should have an article on wikipedia. They are listed on allmusic and discogs.com and their records are for sale on Amazon. Furthermore, the record label on which their music has been re-released has its own article on wikipedia in which The Homosexuals are called "critically acclaimed," and the archive of the proposed deletion of an article on a side project of one of the band members mentions The Homosexuals multiple times as proof of notability. Re-releases of the band's music have been written about in The Village Voice, The Wire, Forced Exposure, Dusted Magazine, Pitchfork Media, and elsewhere. They meet WP:MUSIC criteria 2, 4, 5, and arguably 7. If Die Trip Computer Die is to be considered "notable," then they also meet criterium 6.
--TeN 07:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Article today was given a notability tag. I believe, while the article definitely needs tightening, and sources added, there is little doubt that, given such, it would pass WP:BAND. While there has not been that much in the way of recorded output, mainly due to the band's defiant anti-professionalism 1) they were an important force in the early days of UK DIY, 2) uniquely disco-oriented as such, and 3) have toured internationally, and there will be press to back up all three. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: This reads like it was written on speed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.241.73 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is in keeping with the Bruno Wizard persona! Rewrite is definitely needed to bring it up to Wiki standard. I'll extend the tagging to reflect that. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow
Talk:Garden tiger moth

message: The article was well-researched and included many specific details, such as the type of toxins used in digestion. My minor edits included formatting edits such as fixing the citation style to match the Wikipedia footnote format and matching the titles to only capitalize the first letter. I also made the list of parasites into a bullet-point list to make it easier to read. Larger edits included moving the "Caterpillar" and "Adult" section as subsections into the "Life cycle" category, and moving their subsequent feeding information into a new category titled "Food resources." One thing I was confused about was in the "Plants deterrents to herbivory" section. Are the effects of the fungus on the plant specific to the garden tiger moth or is the decline in larvae consumption a general trend seen in many larvae? I also think that the "Sound generation" could be expanded upon to include why adults making wing and squeaking sounds would be beneficial. As a smaller note, the "Geographic range" section appears to be missing a citation at the end of the paragraph. Overall, I thought the article was very informative and well-written. Catejiang (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: Hello! This is a very well-written article - great job! I made a couple of edits to various sections of the article. I fixed some grammatical errors and changed sentence structure for proper order. I also added images of the larva and adults to help add more clarity and add images. I added links to various terms throughout the article. One thing I recommend is adding more details to some of the shorter sections in the article, if the information is available. For instance, I thought the section on Sound generation was very interesting and unique to this butterfly, and I would love to know more about why the butterfly does this and how it uses these sounds in nature. Overall, well done! Pranita.kaginele (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavioral Ecology WikiProject - Peer Review 

message: Hi, when looking over your article I noticed a couple things that I would want to change to elevate it to good article status. Firstly, the habitat section is pretty vague (yet has 4 separate sources)- I think the article could benefit from some extra details about the actual types of plants that they are able to eat. I realize you go into this a little bit in the caterpillar section but I think it would be beneficial to have additional details in the habitat section as well, perhaps noting differences across the different regions that this moth is distributed. Kind of going off of this, it would be beneficial to specify the host plants that you mention in the life cycle section (caterpillars and adults are both are dependent on their host plant to obtain compounds that deter predators.). Aside from these minor details, the article writing is generally clear and easy to read. 
liu.emily (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Review for Good Article Behavioral Ecology Peer Review
Talk:Gasteracantha fornicata

message: I edited your article for some minor grammatical errors and changed some wording to make your sentences more clear. I also added an additional picture in the "webs" section. The article didn't have many embedded links so I added more of those as well. Overall, the article has really good information and is well-written. I only had to make some minor edits relating to grammar and structure. Nickh994 (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled