Examine individual changes

[ 0 => '{{GA|14:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)|topic=Biology|page=1|oldid=671716229}}', 1 => '{{Talk header|search=yes}}', 2 => '{{User:MiszaBot/config', 3 => '|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}', 4 => '|maxarchivesize = 100K', 5 => '|counter = 1', 6 => '|minthreadsleft = 4', 7 => '|algo = old(100d)', 8 => '|archive = Talk:Bee/Archive %(counter)d', 9 => '}}', 10 => '{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=GA|subpage=Biology}}', 11 => '{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=', 12 => '{{WikiProject Agriculture|class=GA|importance=Mid|beekeeping=yes|beekeeping-importance=Top}}', 13 => '{{WikiProject Insects|class=GA|importance=High|Hymenoptera=yes|Hymenoptera-importance=Top}}', 14 => '{{WPCD}}', 15 => '}}', 16 => '{{archive box|auto=long|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=100}}', 17 => '{{dyktalk|9 August|2015|entry= ... that as flowers developed longer tubes, '''[[bee]]s''' ''(pictured)'' [[Coevolution|coevolved]] by developing longer tongues to extract the [[nectar]]?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/Bee}}', 18 => false, 19 => '==Lead image==', 20 => '[[File:Tetragonula carbonaria (14521993792).jpg|thumb|''Tetragonula carbonaria'' (14521993792) Sugarbag bee]]', 21 => false, 22 => '@[[User:Alvesgaspar]]: During the GA, the lead image (right) was chosen to be a bee that represents the many hundreds of species other than the familiar honeybee, which of course has its own (major) article. Since there is a real danger (easily cited) of confusion among readers of 'bee' with 'honeybee', there is a strong reason not to use a honeybee (no matter how beautiful the image) to begin the article - such an image would reinforce the wrong view that all bees are honeybees. There may be a place somewhere in the article for such an image: but there are already at least seven images of ''Apis mellifera'' in the article - seven, so it is simply [[WP:UNDUE]] as well as misleading to have the lead image of this same, single species. Therefore, if it's all right with you, I'd like to put the image back to a different bee - the sugarbag bee is not a bad choice as it is obviously a bee, is clearly visiting flowers and collecting nectar and pollen, and is plainly not ''Apis mellifera'': all useful messages. I do not have any special attachment to that particular image: if anyone knows of another image that conveys those same messages better, that would be fine. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bee&oldid=571115694#/media/File:Osmia_ribifloris_bee.jpg Back in 2013, the article had] [[:File:Osmia ribifloris bee.jpg]] which was a good choice also.) Thank you for your understanding. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 09:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)', 23 => false, 24 => 'Other good images:', 25 => '* we could use a crop of [[File:Bee collecting pollen from Vellozia, Serra do Cipó, Brazil.jpeg|thumb|[[Halictidae|Halictid]] Bee collecting pollen from Vellozia, Serra do Cipó, Brazil]] (a prizewinning image)', 26 => false, 27 => '* But the image quality is on the poor side... Did you check Commons FP? There are couple of suitable images [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera there]. For example, the 'bull-like' ''Antophora'' (which is mine) -- [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] ([[User talk:Alvesgaspar|talk]]) 12:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)', 28 => false, 29 => ':: That's also a fine photograph, but the pose makes it quite 'difficult' as a bee image. The point here is that the criterion for a lead image is that it illustrates the article, not that it would win a photo competition. We'd try to find an image of reasonable quality, obviously, so that the quality would not distract from the message; but in the trade-off of photographic quality versus clarity of message, there should be no doubt that message is more important. At the moment, the sugarbag bee is easily the most suitable image, and I've looked through dozens now. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 12:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)', 30 => '::: I'm in agreement with [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]]. I think the image should either be reverted back to the original used during the GA review, or find another one (which is what you guys are doing atm). I think the images should be diverse and not just focus on the single, yet very familiar honeybee. At the moment I cannot pick out a new image, but I'm fine with retaining the image of the sugarbag bee. [[User:Burklemore1|Burklemore1]] ([[User talk:Burklemore1|talk]]) 14:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)', 31 => '::::I agree with Chiswick Chap and Burklemore1. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 17:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)', 32 => false, 33 => '[[File:Anthidium February 2008-1.jpg|thumb|''Anthidium'' 2008]]', 34 => '::::: Here are three alternatives, which are FP as well: [[:File:Female Tetraloniella sp edit1.jpg]], [[:File:Bee June 2009-1.jpg]] and [[:File:Anthidium February 2008-1.jpg]]. Image quality is important not for aesthetical reasons but because of the details a good photo depicts -- [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] ([[User talk:Alvesgaspar|talk]]) 18:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)', 35 => ':::::: Well, sort of: quality helps up to the point where enough detail is shown for encyclopaedic purposes, which is to say for explanation. Further detail is maybe nice to have but isn't necessary, that's the point. Now: ''Tetraloniella'': rather static, not suggestion of activity, pollination, or flight. First ''Anthidium'': a little better, but still static, that might be pollen but who knows. Second ''Anthidium'': more like it, interacting with flower, a hint of pollen. I hesitate because it isn't flying, and because the bright colours of the flowers actually reduce the visual contrast with the bee - on a small screen it's actually almost camouflaged by the strongly [[disruptively patterned]] background. The sugarbag bee remains the best at the moment; and we are spilling a lot of ink on a simple question. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)', 36 => '::::::: Having slept on this, and still feeling on the evidence and the above consensus that we need something other than ''Apis mellifera'' and that the sugarbag bee is best for now, I shall put it back. That is without prejudice to a better bee turning up: I just haven't seen it buzz past yet. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 12:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)', 37 => false, 38 => false, 39 => '==Bee families==', 40 => 'The classification in this article is out of date. There are currently 7 bee families; Dasypodaidae and Meganomiidae are not current families, and are instead classified under the families Melittidae. The phylogeny from Danforth (2006) has been superseded by Hedtke et al (2013) "The bee tree of life: a supermatrix approach to apoid phylogeny and biogeography." <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/144.39.133.49|144.39.133.49]] ([[User talk:144.39.133.49|talk]]) 01:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->', 41 => false, 42 => ':: Updated, thank you. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 11:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)', 43 => false, 44 => '== External links modified ==', 45 => false, 46 => 'Hello fellow Wikipedians,', 47 => false, 48 => 'I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Bee]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=711369677 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:', 49 => '*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070513022914/http://mr.caltech.edu:80/media/Press_Releases/PR12772.html to http://mr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12772.html', 50 => false, 51 => 'When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).', 52 => false, 53 => '{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}', 54 => false, 55 => 'Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 13:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)', 56 => false, 57 => '== Apitherapy ==', 58 => false, 59 => 'Hi guys, I'm Javier Waase currently a student in Radford University. I have been assigned for one of my classes the order Hymenoptera and one of our assignments is to find things to edit or contribute on the order's wikipedia page. As you all may know, Hymenoptera is a huge order so I am focusing on a specific species within it. Bees. I have been reading several articles on the potential for bee's venom to have significant medicinal contributions for humans and though it would be a good section to add to the page. Below is what I have written so far on the subject and the articles I have gotten my information from.', 60 => false, 61 => '"Apitherapy is the use of honeybee products for medicinal purposes, this includes, honey, pollen, beeswax and surprisingly, bee venom. The most common way to medically administer bee venom is by using small doses on acupuncture needles. This treatment is mostly used on patients suffering from inflammatory disorders such as arthritis, tendinitis and Lyme disease (1). Also, bee venom has shown to have neuro-protective and neuro-modulating chemicals that may have a key insight into new treatments for certain neurodegenerative disorders. Their venom could help treat diseases such as Parkinson, Alzheimer’s, and ALS among others (2). "', 62 => false, 63 => '<ref> Silva, J., Monge-Fuentes, V., Gomes, F., Lopes, K., dos Anjos, L., Camples, G., Arenas, C., Biolchi, A., Goncalves, J., Galante, P., Campos, L & Mortari, M. (2015). Pharmacological alternatives for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders: Wasp and bee venoms and their components as new neuroactive tools. Toxins.</ref> ', 64 => false, 65 => '<ref> Mohan Ram, S.K., Jayapal, N., Nanaiah, P., Sign Aswal, G., Ramnarayan, B.K., Taher, S.M. (2014). The therapeutic benefits of bee venom. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 3(11): 377-381. </ref>', 66 => '{{reflist}}', 67 => false, 68 => ':: Before you get too far into this, be aware there is an article on [[Apitherapy]] already. Perhaps you could check and improve that article first, using the above materials if they aren't already there. Then you could make a summary of the revised article (new parts and old), with (some of) the same references, for this ([[Bee]]) article, placing "<nowiki>{{main|Apitherapy}}</nowiki>" (without the quotes or nowiki tags) at the start of your summary section (inside the [[Bee#Bees and humans|Bees and humans]] section, where I guess it could make the final subsection). You might also note that we use straight quotes (') not angled quotes or apostrophes (’). Finally, some terms such as disease names should be wikilinked. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 15:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)', 69 => false, 70 => '== Merger proposal ==', 71 => false, 72 => 'I propose that [[Specialization in bees]] be merged into [[Bee]]. Basically, it's a misguided fork (split) as bees have a wide range of specializations essential to their ways of life, from nectar-lapping mouthparts to pollen baskets, not to mention 'castes' with specialized queens and workers in some species. Therefore, the separate article is trying to cover core elements of the existing Bee article, and it can only duplicate what is here, or find newly-researched facts that would better be here. There are already subsidiary articles on some of the major specializations, such as [[pollen basket]]: these provide narrow, detailed coverage that would not comfortably fit into the parent article. An article that purports to cover all the different specializations must summarize these subsidiary articles, yet their parent, Bee, already exists, so duplication is the inevitable result: in other words, we have a [[WP:FORK]]. A merge of any new content is therefore the right answer.', 73 => false, 74 => 'The content in the Specialization article can easily fit into Bee. Since it covers a range of fundamental Bee topics it belongs here. Given there is not much new content and substantial overlap (duplication), merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 07:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)', 75 => false, 76 => '*'''Support'''. Note that [[Worker bee]] also contains a whole list of bee jobs to which [[Specialization in bees]] could be merged. - [[User:HyperGaruda|HyperGaruda]] ([[User talk:HyperGaruda|talk]]) 08:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)', 77 => ':: OK, thanks. Done the basic merge; will look at Worker bee also. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 10:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)' ]