Talk:Hemiptera

message: The article says, "However, in larval Cercopoidea and Membracoidea, the far ends of the tubules secrete proteins, while the near ends produce both proteins and glycosaminoglycans for the cocoon." Far and near to what? Does this refer to ventral/distal? Coelomic/exterior?
OK, checking [ the reference], the authors say "distal" and "proximal". May I suggest that "far" and "near" are not good ways to simplify that technical terminology? If someone else doesn't fix this, I will (try to remember to) replace with distal/proximal and make those links to the Anatomical terms of location article.
IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Great username, btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malpigian tubules: anatomical terminology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hemiptera. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/rcen/v34n1/v34n1a01.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 20:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: As usually numbers are totally throw up (and with comas, instead of space, as reading facilitator. Comas are, as points, decimal separators)...
50 000 to  80 000. 
Total bullshit.
I estimate about 7000 species. And I dare anyone to prove me wrong.  
I always knew this. Never took those bullshit invented numbers serious.
Finally some one else thinks the same: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3106107/Number-animal-species-worldwide-greatly-exaggerated-scientists-new-method-counting.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.22.126 (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please be civil on talk pages. It is entirely acceptable to use commas as separators: there are different varieties of English (e.g. British vs American usages) on Wikipedia. The Daily Mail is often an unreliable source on scientific matters - see Ben Goldacre's Bad Science for examples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: True bugs redirects here, but there is inadequate description of that phrase. I am no entomologist, but my guess is that something like this should be added to the article:
    The term true bugs is neither scientific nomenclature nor is it from common usage. Rather, it reflects that "bugs" has become a term of art among entomologists who understand it to mean specifically the genus Hemiptera.
Of course, a true entomologist should write that up and add it as I am not qualified. Ben (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: True bugs are actually a common name for the order, or at least the suborder Heteroptera as mentioned in the lead already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really so "common".  In American general usage at least, a "bug" is any insect.  Therefore, to an American ear, "true bug" is saying that the subgroup is more truly an insect than all the other insects, which is a circular nonsense statement.  So the "term of art" (WP:jargon), when used without explanation becomes ridiculous fallacy, non-communicative, and unencyclopedic.  Also, yeah you don't need to be an expert to add in that explanatory text, you just need a reliable source.  2604:6000:1115:585:803D:D785:C36D:96B3 (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "true bugs" 

message: Source number 3 doesn't appear to load for me  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbleton (talk • contribs) 22:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source number 3 

message: An IP added a lengthy and chatty discourse on the word "bug" to the article. That is at best only tangentially relevant here, as the word has multiple senses Inc insect, arthropod, leggy pest, small vehicle, and possibly hemipteran or some subset of that. 
The other obvious point is that a word is the subject of a dictionary not an encyclopedia, see WP:DICDEF. 
I've therefore removed the additions as a WP:COATRACK, if not simply as off-topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive essay on the word "bug"