Talk:Fly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of arthropods. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Maybe move the stuff on the act of flying to flying? -- Tarquin 11:35 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC) -- moved it to flight - Tarquin 12:55 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

"For the kids" paragraph about walking on ceilings... What do kids have to do with it? I suggest including the answer in the article, but getting rid of the "For the kids" Q&A thing that's going on. --64.228.82.89 05:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] For The Kids section

I felt the same way as 64.228.82.89 and I reworded this section because it was too colloquial. Sp0ng 11:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody told me a fly only lives for 24 hours, is this true? What is the life expectancy of a fly? Edward 13:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) were do maggots live?

The life expectancy of a fly probably depends on the type of fly. Try looking up the specific species you are interested in. Jerdwyer

I've heard it's on the order of weeks, not days —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I've had one fly living in my bathroom, two in my kitchen, and two in my office for weeks now. The fact that it's always the same number of flies leads me to believe it's always the same flies. Thus, at least a few weeks. :-) 205.206.207.250 09:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


If flies have suckers, how do they inflict "painful bites"? Bastie 23:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Should probably redirect to Housefly

Not clear what the question is. Some flies (e.g. horse-fly) inflict painful bites, others (e.g. housefly) have suckers. What are you proposing we redirect? Jerdwyer

[edit] Attraction to light

There are many pages on the internet discussing how various insects fly around and into lights, but I was wondering if anybody has any theories on an observation I made last year.

I was in a room with a window at each end on a bright summer's day. A fly would crash into one of the windows and continuing to try to fly through it, but would then give up after a couple of seconds then fly across the room and do the same thing to the other window. This went over and back for some time until I opened a window and let it out. It was extremely regular in terms of time, and it would fly in pretty much a straight line between the windows.

Why should it give up on one window and try to fly towards to the other window? I expected that it would keep flying at the one window constantly. It was a large fly of some sort, and unfortunately I have no idea what species it was.

Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 12:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Hey there's light over there" *bonk bonk* "looks like I can't get to it" *turn around* "Hey there's light over there"... not like a fly is going to have much short-term memory. By the time he's given up on the second window, he's probably forgotten all about the first. 205.206.207.250 09:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You expacted what,from a brain the sise of the tip of a pin.--Pixel ;-) 18:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Lord of the flies why is the song mentioned, but not the book by golding, on which the song is clearly based? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

[edit] Proposed merger

It's been proposed a couple of times at Talk:Diptera that these two articles be merged, but it has never been carried out. I think the time has come. "Fly" (as covered by this article) and "Diptera" are essentially synonymous, and WP:NC(CN) states that we should use the common name. --Stemonitis 07:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree. Shyamal 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've merged the two articles now. I've been fairly severe, and some sections that seemed less relevant have been entirely removed, along with several pictures, and many external links and references. If someone's favourite section has been removed, then by all means reinsert it, if you can make a case for its inclusion. I think the references could do with a further clean-up; ideally, we would have only inline citations, and no unlinked sources at the end. --Stemonitis 11:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin, or trivial trivia?

I've always wondered how this insect got named. Rather ingenious, eh? Fly? Does anyone know how it came to be named, and if so, is it worthy of mention as trivia, or simply trivial? --Steam Giant 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] annoyences of flys?

i was wondering if there is a high pitched noise, a color, or mayble a smell that might keep the flys away? im asking this because im looking towards creating some kind og item that will keep those pesky flys away from my dog...i dont always have time to put the fly medicine on his years EVERY day.--user:Foxtails 3:12, 22 july 07

[edit] Nice Picture

Lol, very nice pic to use for the page. Mating flies, don't know if that's appropriate for the kids, eh? Couldn't you have chosen some random pic of a fly and used that one for a mating section? Dunno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.45.116 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion

Consider an explanation for the photo in the info box. Why is one fly so skinny (torso)? Are they mating? Polounit 02:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who decided that a photo of an anorexic fly blowing his load into a fat-chick fly would make a fantastic infobox picture? Call my flyist, but fly-fucking just isn't all that appealing to look at. At least for me. Perhaps that photo might be better placed in the section on mating (if and when one is created)? Piercetheorganist 06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
See sexual dimorphism and WP:CENSOR. The picture doesn't have to be attractive, merely informative. As it happens, the photo is a featured picture, and is an excellent illustration of a particular species of fly and of flies in general. --Stemonitis 08:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sticking to walls

Just how the heck do flies stick to walls anyway? O_o 205.206.207.250 09:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I bet they have sticky grips on their legs.--Rory666 08:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I came here to read about sticking to glass and found nothing. Add this information if possible. Pseudohuman (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This would not be the correct article for such information, because many fly species CANNOT cling to smooth surfaces, as they do not have tarsal pads like a house fly. This information should be in the house fly article, but not here. Dyanega (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move Duja► 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

At present, the title is patently incorrect. This page deals with Diptera, and (true) flies are only one group (Brachycera) of Diptera. The intro statement should start, for example:

True flies, mosquitos, and their relatives are insects of the order Diptera

The merge has created a major mess. Fly and flies need to redirect to Brachycera, and much of the text on the present page needs to go there too. Dysmorodrepanis 18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the {{move}} template because the instructions at WP:RM were not filed completely. If you still want this article to be moved, please re-list this request at WP:RM with the instructions fully followed; this needs more feedback to get moved. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That was a consequence of the subst code breaking when parentheses are used in it. Dysmorodrepanis 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
These claims are simply untrue. Flies are Diptera and vice versa. Even "true flies" almost always refers to the whole of the Diptera. Common names for Brachycera are never very frequently used, and seem to include such vague phrases as "mid-order flies", "circular-seamed flies", "short-horned flies"; I have yet to see a single use of "true flies" for Brachycera. It may well be that some entomologists would prefer a world in which "true fly" was used for Brachycera to the exclusion of Nematocera, but that's not how the terms are used in the real world. There is thus no justification for this move. --Stemonitis 08:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
At least in non-English speaking countries, what you say is certainly not correct - try the interwiki links and check their taxoboxes and the terms used. A non-native speaker would almost certainly use "true fly" = Brachycera and not = Diptera, and this is highly confusing. Mossies and midges are precisely that and not flies, says Google. Be it by a move or by a reworking of the intro section, this needs to be fixed. Personally, I'd prefer "dipterans" replacing "true flies" - as per Google, "dipteran(s)" is more common than "true fly/flies" almost by an order of magnitude! "True fly", in conclusion, is a misleading term for which Google gives less than 100.000 hits worldwide, which is a bit meager.
Perhaps make Fly a disambiguation? Because no matter that some call Diptera "true flies", the article's title is "Fly" and not "True fly", so it is factually wrong regardless. Dysmorodrepanis 13:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that "true fly" is used less often than "Diptera" is just one more reason why the article isn't titled "true fly". "Fly", on the other hand, is much more frequently than "Diptera" and (when used as a noun) means exactly the same thing. There may be a few people who would prefer to use "true fly" for Brachycera, but I haven't seen any examples yet, and they are clearly in a small (and possibly negligible) minority. The terms "fly" (in its technical sense), "true fly" and "Diptera" are exactly equivalent, and WP:UE and other guidelines mandate the use of "fly" as a title in cases like these. There is no need to complicate the matter further. A dablink to flying may be appropriate (although it is already linked from fly (disambiguation) which is in turn linked from fly), possibly, but converting fly into a disambiguation page would add problems while solving none. --Stemonitis 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
No move please. Attempts to make common names follow taxonomic structure can only cause confusion. I would suggest that Diptera=Flies is sufficiently valid and should be retained. Links to other taxonomic categories are reachable from this article in any case. Shyamal 06:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Duja► 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Reference

..is thinly disguised trivia. I have placed the trivia template here and intend to remove this section pending discussion or lack thereof.Nickrz (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm about as technical an editor of scientific articles as they come, but I'll confess I have no idea why there seems to be so little leniency given when there ARE legitimate cultural references - yes, I can see how it can get tiresome and trivial when all of the "cultural references" are to songs, TV shows, movies, or computer games, but what on earth is wrong with including things like "In Greek mythology, Myiagros was a god who chased away flies during the sacrifices to Zeus and Athena. Also, Zeus sent a fly to sting the horse Pegasus causing Bellerophon to fall back to Earth when he attempted to ride to Mount Olympus"? Likewise, there are some pop-culture references that are going to be impossible to keep OUT of articles, in this case the movie reference (if you delete it, editor after editor after editor is going to come along and re-add it). It seems to me far more useful to exercise a little judgment as to the merits of each individual bit of trivia - there is nothing WRONG with admitting that there are cases where science and culture intersect, and acknowledging such intersections can, if nothing else, help keep primarily scientific articles from being totally sterile; one of the best features of Wikipedia is the facility with which cross-referencing can be made, and readers can get a little more out of an article than "just the facts". What's wrong with learning that adding a fly to a trompe l'oeil painting was a common trick? Again, I understand the desire to reduce clutter and fluff, but not it is not true that all cultural references are trivial. I'd suggest removing the template, and simply removing the most genuinely trivial items. Dyanega (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I second Dyanega. I don't understand this sacred fire pushing Wikipedians to burn all trivia (or similar sections). If there is genuine and interesting content it should stay, period. What should go away is irrelevant content, but this is valid both for trivia and non-trivia sections. Most content of the "Cultural references" section in this article seems perfectly legit and interesting content. Please stop this anti-trivia bookburning. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. Nobody is burning anything but strawmen here.
Perhaps a re-reading of the wiki policy on trivia is in order: WP:TRIV Selected excerpts:
Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts.
Trivia sections should be avoided, but if they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined.
Such sections should not be categorically removed: it may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections; others can be grouped into a new section of related material.
A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list."

Another helpful wiki policy article is "Popular Culture". Similary, Handling Trivia

An effort at incorporating the important, relevant, and verifiable items into the main body of text could be made by those interested. I agree, there are interesting facts, but they should reside in this list only as a temporary measure. Nickrz (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted the section over the Holidays, I've just restored it. Rather than deleting it, maybe someone who finds lists offensive can look at the Ant article to see an example of how one can edit a list of cultural references into a text format rather than simply deleting content. Dyanega (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the trivia template and deleted the most egregious of the trivia. I reiterate my original comments; Wiki guidelines are still the same. If the material is truly important and relevant, it should be incorporated into the main body of text or given expanded coverage elsewhere. Nickrz (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. See what you think. Dyanega (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done! A worthy addition and enhancement. Thank you. (Give him a hand, people). Wait... you are Doug Yanega? I used to be a moderator (Nickrz) in General Questions at The Straight Dope message board many years ago when you first came on board there. Small world, hey? Nickrz (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Once a know-it-all, always a know-it-all. ;-) Dyanega (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] work this one out

As a kid i did allot of kid stuff :D.. I had a few flys in my bedroom one night and they got very annoying. So I caught one and held it in my fingers and spent a good few minutes looking at the detail in its eyes, as their design interested me.

Anyway, i had microscope and decided i was going to take its head off and stick it under the microscope for further inspection.

So I removed its head and it landed in front of its body, So then i let the fly go expecting it to die seconds later.

However, the fly picked up its head with its front legs and flew off.. I was in shock, disbelief... and I'd like to know how it managed that!!