Talk:Nematode

message: So how do we know for certain that they are not telepathic? I think that as it is a significant proposition that can't be refuted it is probably worth mentioning in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.199.204 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Abundance

message: We are confused over at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Soybean cyst nematode. Is the "egg" in the picture a single egg or a cyst, or something else? Thanks --liquidGhoul 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture caption

message: Why is spongebob mentioned in the trivia?  it's hardly relevant to the species at all.  nematode have probably been mentioned in TONS of popular media.  i think it's not needed.  anyone else have any feelings on this? 130.49.4.75 06:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly not needed, and at the same time it really isn't doing a whole lot of harm, as long as it's only a sentence or two and at the end of the article.  If you wish to delete the section, by all means feel free to do so.  However, keep in mind it'll probably be less than a month before someone replaces it.  Cerealkiller13 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur, and have deleted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.131.148 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spongebob? 

message: "The nematodes or roundworms (Phylum Nematoda from Greek νῆμα (nema): "thread" + ode "like") are one of the most common phyla of animals," I might be wrong here, but isn't Aschelminthes the Phyla? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.67.54.244 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phyla? 

message: Is Nematode pronounced "Neh-mah-toad" or "Nee-mah-toad" or something else? --Yvesnimmo 22:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: I would like to add a Prevention section to this page. I work for Fleishman-Hillard who represents Bayer Animal Health. We would like to provide users with information regarding how they can protect their pets from nematodes. The text below was copied from some of the other pet disease pages. 
Prevention
Moxidectin has been re-released in the United States as part of Advantage Multi, which utilizes moxidectin for control and prevention of roundworms, hookworms, heartworms, whipworms, and well as imidocloprid to kill adult fleas.
Preventative drugs are highly effective, and when regularly administered will protect more than 99 percent of dogs from infection. Most failures of protection result from irregular and infrequent administration of the drug. However, the monthly preventives all have a reasonable margin for error in their administration such that if a single month's dose is accidentally missed, adequate protection is usually provided so long as the next two monthly doses are administered on schedule.
68.91.226.241 18:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article is about an entire phylum of animals, and pet parasites only make up a very small fraction of nematodes, I think it would be better to just have that information in those parasites' articles.  I would also recommend just giving the basic information without anything that sounds like advertising.  For instance, someone else (or possibly you) added something similar to the heartworm page a few days ago.  I cut it down to "Moxidectin has been re-released in the United States as part of Advantage Multi, which utilizes moxidectin for control and prevention of roundworms, hookworms, heartworms, whipworms, and well as imidocloprid to kill adult fleas."  We don't want to be seen as pushing one product over another, and we also don't want to be giving people medical advice for their pets (e.g. dosing information).  Thanks for asking, and let us know if you have any other questions.  --Joelmills 00:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoops, looking at whipworm and hookworm, you already cut out the advertising tone.  Great.  --Joelmills 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevention

message: I removed the line, "Only the Arthropoda are more diverse" since there are about 60,000 Chordates (according to the Chordate page).  That is 3x more than the 20,000 species of Nematode mentioned in this article. Redhookesb 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, though there are probably far more nemotodes than we know about - they aren't exactly the most conspicuous animals. Richard001 07:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity 

message: Cultural References and Robustness sections are just trivia under a different name, which is a violation of wiki policies (this is common in Wiki articles). It should be removed/ worked into the text. Removal is best because it is utterly unimportant to anyone but the cartoon fans who added it.
:Trivia Sections aren't against Wikipedia Policies. Maybe you should check the rules before stating falseties --Kurtle (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References 

message: I've heard (World Facts by Dr James Mackay, ) that the nematode could possibly be the fiery serpents mentioned as a plague in Numbers 21:6-9. I will incorporate this into the article unless someone can find reason otherwise. --MosheA 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nematode in the Bible 

message: If you're going to add a prevention section-- maybe a treatment page would be helpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.161.3 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: i never knew they existed... by the sounds of it i thought it was a mythical creature like the jackalope
24.5.57.90 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow  

message: Hi, I wonder why the following is written in this article:
"Since Cobb was the first to exclude all but nematodes from the group, the valid taxon should be Nemates Cobb 1919 or Nemata Cobb 1919."
On which nomenclatural grounds (i.e. article of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) is this assertion made? This is just a personal opinion. There are no rules (for the moment) covering higher taxa in Zoology, so anyone can name his/her pet group as he/she likes.
Yours, --Dryas (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The citation style used on this page is very variable and doesn't conform to wikipedia standards. There is a mixture of footnotes and references, and citations are often not to the best sources. I will try to start cleaning up and making things fit the usual wikipedia format- unless there is a reason we have references in footnotes and then a separate unlinked reference section? Any helpers? XCalPab (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: This section talks a lot about Ecdysozoa, but sounds very old-fashioned now and importantly does not reflect well the consensus of the Ecdysozoa main page on wikipedia. It is clear that the phylogenetic consensus overwhelmingly supports ecdysozoa, and the nematode page is not the place to re-run this debate. I note that this section was written quite a while ago now. I suggest that the nematode page just use the term Ecdysozoa without reviewing old controversies. Discuss here if necessary, then I'll try to clean up the section appropriately.
Along the same lines the next section on the phylogenetic relationships within the phylum is getting old too "The understanding...as of 2002 is summarised below" and should perhaps be tackled at the same time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by XCalPab (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think cutting the second paragraph in the "Phylogeny" section entirely is probably a good start. Danger! High voltage! 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

text: -I agree, glad I'm not alone in this! XCalPab (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IRL, I'm going to be doing quite a bit of work on nematode phylo starting in the next couple of months. I'll definitely be working on this article then. Danger! High voltage! 21:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Phylogeny

message: so how big are the worms in the pictures? wouldn't it be nice to have a scale in/under at least one the pcitures? --193.175.206.234 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: This top line is not quite correct as it is linking only to one type of infection but there are others as well?
This article is about the organism. For the infection, see Ascariasis.
Should it rather say:
This article is about the organism. For the infection, see soil-transmitted helminthiasis? EvM-Susana (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (Yes, I'm responding almost a year late) I changed the link to Helminthiasis rather than soil-transmitted Helminthiasis. The latter doesn't capture all nematode infections, some of which are transmitted by insect bites or eating of infected meat. There is no perfect link here, but Helminthiasis at least includes all the types of nematode infections that we have articles on. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information in the top, linking to disease Ascariasis 

message: The article says, "Nematodes are slender worms: typically approximately 5 to 100 µm thick, and at least 0.1 mm (0.0039 in) but less than 2.5mm long.[31] The smallest nematodes are microscopic, while free-living species can reach as much as 5 cm (2.0 in), and some parasitic species are larger still, reaching over a meter in length." So is it under 2.5mm, or is it over a meter? (It's the latter.) I'll change this myself unless someone can explain why the first quoted sentence makes sense.
IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it makes sense in context. Reference 31 is referring to soil nematodes, though I would not refer to soil nematodes as "typical nematodes" (I would not refer to any nematodes as typical, as there is no shortage of species of all varieties, such as marine, aquatic, parasitic, etc). The largest nematode is also 8 meters long, which seems like it would have been mentioned there. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nematode length ... contradiction? 

message: An unsourced claim was made in the infobox that Chromadorea and Enoplea are disputed classes but I can find no further mention of this anywhere, either in the bulk of the article (where I rescued a class for the infobox) or in the articles alluded to. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Enoplea has been argued to possibly be a polyphyletic taxon , but I don't see anyone arguing for its removal from the nomenclature. I can find no evidence in the literature that Chromadorea is disputed. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I agree we shouldnt remove either, it is just the tags I have removed. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I understood what you said. Just trying to let you (or any other lurkers) know that I looked into the claims these taxa are disputed and found them wanting. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed classes

message: I don't have a problem with the trivia section being there (although I am not a great fan of it), but it would still need to be properly referenced, otherwise I would say it should be deleted. EvMsmile (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nematode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://knol.google.com/k/klaus-rohde/nematodes-roundworms-of-man/xk923bc3gp4/99
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027152335/http://intramar.ugent.be/nemys/start.asp?group=2 to http://intramar.ugent.be/nemys/start.asp?group=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Nematode's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Anderson":
From Pest control: 
From Halicephalobus gingivalis: 
From Amphibian: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Nematode]] 

message: Came to this article specifically looking for information on their lifespan.  Saw a video in which the person claimed they live only hours and would like to verify.  Unfortunately, the article has nothing along those lines, unless I missed it.
Unschool 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifespan 

message: The parasitism section seems to be missing some sort of verification of information. At the moment, the section on Myrmeconema neotropicum and Lasioglossum zephyrus paragraphs seem to be properly cited, but the paragraphs on human parasites and fig wasp parasitism seem to lack sources. The human parasites paragraph links specific species, and I imagine that a lot of the sources needed can be found there, but the fig wasp paragraph lacks any specific information or citations. None of this is marked for missing citations, but I'd imagine the fig wasps bit needs SOMETHING. I'd be happy to track those down, but I'm also new to the editing side of Wikipedia and wanted to check in before I made any sorts of changes.
LanceJAndrew (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing references in Parasite Species section?