Jump to content

Talk:Fly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.


Nomenclature: Diptera

This is another page that uses a redirect from the scientific taxon Diptera - effectively bypassing its talk page, where several concerns were expressed about doing so. See my comments below. Roy Bateman (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So one editor, working under a pseudonym, took it upon himself to turn the contents of the Diptera page into a redirect in spite of concerns expressed on its talk page. One obvious one, that also occurred to me, is what about mosquitos and gnats: hardly trivial, but not even mentioned in the first paragraph here (at the time of writing). Cwmhiraeth has made some good observations on size of cladograms, etc.: is there any reason why the Diptera page shouldn't be reinstated, to cover the taxonomy, basic biology, etc. of this important insect order?

At the heart of this is the dumbed-down inference that "Diptera means flies" and I am beginning to think that WP policy is flawed (also see Talk:grasshopper and Talk:Caelifera). Botanists do not have this problem because the guidance is different. Roy Bateman (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fly. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to lead

Many edits have recently been made to the GA-reviewed text of the lead section. These may or may not be desirable; it would be best before going much further if the approach, clearly different from that of the GAN process, could be discussed here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most tactful suggestion, and your contribution to this article of 137 edits containing 17,000+ characters. I am unfamiliar with any changes in the editing process with a GA-reviewed article. I only know "BRD": if I think I can improve an article, I Boldly edit; any editor can Revert; and if I disagree with a reversion, then I take to the Talk page and Discuss.
Perhaps you could summarize here the GAN process, or direct me to a WP policy statement that changes the editing rules, so I can comply; and if you have reservations about any of my edits, consider spelling them out here, and I will be happy to respond. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are no rules, a la Jimbo, just the fact that the article has been carefully written, seen by numerous pairs of eyes including a formal look-over, and the lead has been summarized from the text, as it should be. We editors, like Socrates, are mortal and fallible; but there has to be rather good reason to "BRD" all over something that's been done thoroughly, and we'd like to know what you're about. Right now the approach just seems, well, a little bit random, so unless there's something definitely wrong, we'd just like to know what you're up to, that's all.
To take just one example: on the question of mentioning some well-known types of fly in the lead. Giving concrete, linked examples seems to me a completely good idea - the lead is an introduction to the subject as well as an overview of the article. We want(ed) to give the reader who may know nothing of the subject an idea of the scope of the topic: hence, we chose some flies of widely differing appearance from different families. In other words, the types mentioned are chosen to illustrate the topic and to give some idea of its range, while also leading the reader into the subject through familiarity with the mentioned instances (even if they supposed that the horse-fly and crane-fly were single species: at least they'll see that there are multiple types of fly, and the article will then widen their conception further: that illustrates the relative size of the tasks facing the lead and the article body). I suggest, therefore, that we put the examples back: they have a job to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation of why you want to include examples of types of flies in the Lead, I yield to your opinion regarding their usefulness.
My criterion for editing is different from yours: my motive in editing is to improve the article, whether it be punctuation, grammar, spelling, sentence structure, organization, phrasing, or content - not just look for items that are "definitely wrong". Others, of course, are free to disagree that any given edit of mine is an improvement, and revert it or discuss it here. I trust that you have scrutinized my 22 edits, and either agree with or can tolerate those you have not reverted or brought up here on the Talk page. I have looked at your 6 edits since I began editing 3 days ago, and have thanked you for the five I agree with: IMO they are all improvements! Let's work together to make the article better. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for discussing rather than editing blindly. Cwmhiraeth and I have not yet scrutinized all your changes so will feel free to revert further if necessary. As a personal philosophy, I certainly go along with the traditional "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image in infobox

Currently, the image in the infobox is that of a Syrphus ribesii, a hoverfly with alternating yellow and black stripes on its body. Now, to a complete ignoramus like me, this looks like a wasp 'Do wasps belong to this order?', I found myself wondering, and I wasn't helped by the mention of the very large number of species there ('Around a million? Probably half of all insects I know of are there!'). I had to look at the image for some time and carefully read the article's text before I was able to conclude for myself that wasps do not, after all, belong to Diptera. Isn't there a way to use an image of an insect that will have less resemblance to the stereotypical member of another insect order? – Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #82 lacks source (in Anti-predator adaptations)

Re: Eslin P & Doury G. "The fly Drosophila subobscura: A natural case of innate immunity deficiency". Retrieved 30 September 2019. This reference lacks the source, and lacks a link, without which it is difficult to trace. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Shyamal (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article topic and the Vice Presidential debate in the campaign for the 2020 U.S. Presidential election

This is a WP:BRD discussion. I have restored the relevant portion of the article to its post-revert state, where it should remain while this discussion is in progress.

See this unrevert which I have just undone, the edit summary of which says Undid revision 982660692 by Wtmitchell (talk) It is important for users to know what is currently going on with the fly on Pence's head situation., see the lead sentence of this article and MOS:FIRST, see WP:UNDUE. This is undue weight for the relevant material, considering the topic of this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)the topic of this article.[reply]

Problems with images

Most images violate WP:SANDWICH. Do we really need all of them? Could we at least remove some unnecessary ones that are already mentioned as text in the article, or simply ones with trivial facts already mentioned? Thanks. Wretchskull (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed one and moved another. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cwmhiraeth. I have also removed another trivial image because we do not need an image for every single thing, in this case, it was maggots. I also moved images to correct locations and fixing sandwiched text. There is still one WP:SANDWICH violation in the Anatomy and morphology section, but because it is not a fixed rule and more of a guideline, I think we are done with the issue. Cheers! Wretchskull (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Family Trichoscelididae?

we have the red link to Trichoscelididae? Can anyone have ideas about this suspicious family?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been a reference to Trixoscelididae. Shyamal (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genus Darwinomya?

we have a red link Darwinomya? Can someone solve it?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aware of environment

Flies are also aware of there environment, specifically what is around them, they can anticipate vibrations or more specifically movement towards them, for instance, if a fly sits on your computer screen and you move your mouse cursor on the screen towards them they won't move an inch, if its sits on a clear glass and you touch it the glass towards the fly, it will anticipate your movement and will fly away, which suggests that flies can Differentiate between artificial light and light. 102.182.190.8 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting observation but Wikipedians would refer to it as "original research", which is not allowed here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

Change the link under the heading External Links Anatomy Fly: Anatomical Atlas at CSIRO from Way Back Machine to https://www.ento.csiro.au/biology/fly/fly.php AnnieLeeW (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fly&oldid=1244624391"