Talk:Hornet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
||
| A | This article has been rated as A-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Hornet as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia. |
Contents |
[edit] Can they be red and yellow?
I have seen( in the middle east esp. Kurdistan/iraq) which are red and yellow hornets and much larger than these seem to be,We call then hornets but I have been searching the web and not been able to find out exactly what they are. Wolfmankurd 10:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Am I blind, or are there no references to the sizes of regular hornets? A hornet decided to invade my room, which I placed next to a Swedish Krona, a coin with an "exact" diameter of 2.5 cm or roughly 0.984251969 inches, after it had been... properly dealt with.
With its body stretched out, the hornet seemed to be about 1.35 to 1.4 inches in length. Does this comply with the specifications of a Vespata crabro (European hornet), or did it come from outer space? - Zelaron 14:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, "Hornets are large, aggressive social wasps." is not true! See [1]. Please correct it. thx taxibernd
There is a difference between being aggressive and being dangerous witout provocation. Hornets are not the latter, but they are definitely the former, and its a big part of what sets them apart from other wasps. It may be noted the page in question was checked when the article was written.
[Ok I've implemented some corrections - tjunier]
Much of the life history applies to other vespids as well. Someone who knows exactly how much should move it to the family page, since at the moment material applicable to yellowjackets and such is very lacking.
- This is true, at least for temperate vespines: the life cycle of Vespa crabro, as well as its nest structure, is very similar to those of Vespula spp., Dolichovespula spp., at least the temperate species (are there any tropical members of these genera?). My concerns in moving this to Vespidae are the following:
- do the life cycles of tropical Vespa species conform to the same pattern?
- life cycles of other Vespid subfamilies are different, e.g. in (at least some) Polistinae there is little or no size difference between workers and queen, and the nest is open and has a single comb; and Eumeninae aren't social at all AFAIK. Tjunier 14:16, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the "Eurasian hornet" change. I don't dispute that V. crabra is found in Asia, but I understood "European hornet" to be the common name for the species, rather than a description.
Ortonmc 14:25, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I'm not so sure either. My reasons for changing it is that "European' hornet" is misleading because i) it's found outside Europe; and ii) it's not the only hornet found in Europe. On the other hand: i) as you point out, "European hornet" is a largely widespread common name; ii) the "Oriental hornet" V. orientalis also occurs in Europe and Asia and would deserve the name as well (BTW its common name is even worse since all hornets can be found in the Far East). Maybe we just have to accept misleading common names (after all we can always use scientific names for accuracy). - Tjunier 15:23, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- If a common name is confusing, then it's a public service to add an article explaining the possibilities and linking to specific species, sort of a disambiguation on steroids. See sardine for a fish example (FishBase has a very convenient section listing known common and vernacular names for each species). Stan 17:09, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Scientific classification consistency
The scientific classification charts on wasp, hornet, and yellowjacket are not consistent, making it impossible to compare how closely related these insects are. I am not familiar enough with them to make the correction. --zandperl 04:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Movie
- The movie about 30 hornets killing a bunch of honey bees seems a little out of place. Is it an actual video or doctored? It seems very pulpy and of little use and I think that it is not appropropriate for this wikipage. --chiefhoser 6:09 (UTC) 29-05-2006
[edit] Hornets and other Vespidae
This section is a little confusing. When the term hornet is used to compare with a yellojacket are we talking about true hornets or what is called a hornet in the US? Are the baldface hornets less aggressive or not?--Counsel 17:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed that section needs a slight cleanup. Widefox 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revision of 21. February
User Dyanega did a massive cleanup, which I have just reverted for the following reasons:
- Too many massive changes for one edit.
- This article has a quality award. If this award is justified, it can't be that bad and a massive edit such as the one by Dyanega is likely to have diminished the quality.
Please note that I do not contest any of the individual edits of Dyanega at this time. I'm sure some or maybe even most of them may be OK. I do request that they be done more gradually, giving other editors more time to review the proposed changes. Alternatively I request that Dyanega reverts my revert, but explains the changes felt to be required on this talk page. Thanks!
I note that most of Dyanega's revision has to do with distinguishing the European hornet and the other types, so it is also a question of terminology: which type of hornet ist the real Hornet? Should the pages perhaps be merged? My undoing of Dyanega's revision on Hornet but not on European hornet has now resulted in a temporary duplication of material, which should be seen to soon. At present Wikipedia seems to have this general main page Hornet and 4 pages on specific species.
Comments? --Theosch 07:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly as you noted, this is the general main page for ALL hornet species. Since the European Hornet has its own page, then material which is EXCLUSIVELY about that species should be on that page, the same way the honey bee page is dedicated to a discussion of information which applies to all species of honey bee, and not just the Western honey bee, which has its own page. The rule of thumb is simple; if the information presented only applies to one species, and that species has its own page, then it should be placed on that species page FIRST, and only if it seems of more general relevance should it be put on the more general page - and when done, it should be in a comparative context (in other words, the information is given explicitly with reference as to how this compares to other species in the genus). If the page for bird contained 50% of its text referring to only the pigeon, then that would not be appropropriate, and should not be tolerated. There is no reason to tolerate a similar phenomenon on the hornet page, either. If you would like to see all the material about the European Hornet left in place, then my suggestion is to balance it out with an equal amount of text on all the other species; failing that, species-specific information should really go on the designated pages. Peace, Dyanega 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Further, a number of the other edits you reverted had been necessary, because of various problems (including misspellings of species names, failure to italicize, grammar, etc.) - especially bad were all the completely unrelated pages which were listed under "See Also" simply because they dealt with other wasps in the superfamily Vespoidea, and the omission of the fact that larvae feed the adults. I can assure you, as a world authority on bees and wasps, that I improved the quality of the article with my editing. I've made massive changes to other pages elsewhere in the past, and no one has seen fit to revert them simply because they felt that too much was being changed. It isn't the quantity, it's the quality. Dyanega 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see your logic, Dyanega, and don't question the quality of your contributions. I just request that such large single-step changes be documented for the benefit of other editors. See the current history of Hybrid_vehicle for a way of doing this transparently. User Improbcat actually went to even more trouble, adding a "page under construction" tag, describing both proposed and completed edits on the article's talk page, and even copying the contents to his user page and inviting others to participate. Maybe this isn't all required, but at least the documented section-by-section editting is visible in the history at a glance. The other open point is: if the article was so badly in need of a large cleanup, why was it given a quality award previously? Anyway, as there have been no other comments, I'll leave it at that and thank you for bearing with me. --Theosch 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- A quality rating of A is not an "award"; it simply means that Stemonitis, in his examination of the page, felt that it looked clean and well-written; he was not examining the technical accuracy of the content (that's my role in Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods). If you want an example of what the hornet page should look like, and how taxonomically hierarchical pages work when a large group contains one commonly-known species, look at the page for sparrow, a Wikipedia CD article (meaning it has been vetted for quality), and note that there is almost nothing on that page that specifically refers to the house sparrow, even though nearly everyone in the world thinks of the house sparrow when they hear the name "sparrow". "Sparrow" refers to many organisms, just as "hornet" does, and the article is short and clean. The hornet article could still be considerably cleaner and shorter, but I prefer to move text or correct it rather than simply delete it. Dyanega 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. I agree that the "sparrow" page is very well done. Rereading "hornet" in detail, I agree with your revision and thank you for it. My unneccessary and perhaps hasty revert had been entirely due to procederal reasons. --Theosch (whose garden is entirely dominated by house sparrows and blackbirds and has noticeable European Hornet guests about every two years!)--Theosch 09:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- A quality rating of A is not an "award"; it simply means that Stemonitis, in his examination of the page, felt that it looked clean and well-written; he was not examining the technical accuracy of the content (that's my role in Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods). If you want an example of what the hornet page should look like, and how taxonomically hierarchical pages work when a large group contains one commonly-known species, look at the page for sparrow, a Wikipedia CD article (meaning it has been vetted for quality), and note that there is almost nothing on that page that specifically refers to the house sparrow, even though nearly everyone in the world thinks of the house sparrow when they hear the name "sparrow". "Sparrow" refers to many organisms, just as "hornet" does, and the article is short and clean. The hornet article could still be considerably cleaner and shorter, but I prefer to move text or correct it rather than simply delete it. Dyanega 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see your logic, Dyanega, and don't question the quality of your contributions. I just request that such large single-step changes be documented for the benefit of other editors. See the current history of Hybrid_vehicle for a way of doing this transparently. User Improbcat actually went to even more trouble, adding a "page under construction" tag, describing both proposed and completed edits on the article's talk page, and even copying the contents to his user page and inviting others to participate. Maybe this isn't all required, but at least the documented section-by-section editting is visible in the history at a glance. The other open point is: if the article was so badly in need of a large cleanup, why was it given a quality award previously? Anyway, as there have been no other comments, I'll leave it at that and thank you for bearing with me. --Theosch 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Further, a number of the other edits you reverted had been necessary, because of various problems (including misspellings of species names, failure to italicize, grammar, etc.) - especially bad were all the completely unrelated pages which were listed under "See Also" simply because they dealt with other wasps in the superfamily Vespoidea, and the omission of the fact that larvae feed the adults. I can assure you, as a world authority on bees and wasps, that I improved the quality of the article with my editing. I've made massive changes to other pages elsewhere in the past, and no one has seen fit to revert them simply because they felt that too much was being changed. It isn't the quantity, it's the quality. Dyanega 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
