Talk:Grasshopper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Grasshopper is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 5, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
January 21, 2017 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 8, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that grasshoppers (pictured) lay their eggs in pods in the ground?
Current status: Featured article


WikiProject Food and drink (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Insects (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Redlink[edit]

The Pneumoridae appear in the cladogram but we say nothing about them. Would be handy to have an article on them! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Like this? LittleJerry (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks a good place to start. The other families have articles like this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy[edit]

This may have been a featured article, but the taxonomy is all over the place! ... with references to the "great-green grasshopper" (obsolete name by the 1970s) and potentially confusing content with other Caelifera: which should not be a redirect page. Roy Bateman (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The only great green thing in the article is a bush cricket, mentioned to say it is NOT a grasshopper. Where other pages redirect is not an issue for this particular article.
My point was: why have a picture of a bush cricket under grasshoppers then? (I didn't explain well above - apologies). What I attempted to do was to juxtapose this with the grasshopper picture, partly to make the point - but you just deleted all my edits. Don't understand your point in second sentence. Roy Bateman (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I haven't made any edits. The picture's caption makes (or made) its point simply and clearly: many readers will assume that green insects with long thin legs and long antennae are grasshoppers, so the image shows that they are crickets. Its function (to spell things out rather) is to show by exception where the boundaries of the group lie, i.e. just before you get to the crickets and bush crickets.
The "second sentence" states that what other articles may say or contain is not an issue for this particular article. However, if you create a WP:FORK of this article at Caelifera, that is a matter for discussion somewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The mapping of common names to taxa is always loose as there can, by definition, be no formal control of common names; taxonomists necessarily use Latin. However, "grasshoppers" is widely used as a common name for the Caelifera, as at well-maintained and heavily-used sites such as Orthoptera.org.uk, Grasshoppers of Europe, BugGuide.net, and Encyclopedia of Life. The Tree of Life site uses the less snappy "Shorthorned Grasshoppers, Locusts and Relatives". Respected entomology textbooks like Gullan and Cranston use the phrase "grasshoppers and locusts", essentially agreeing that Caelifera and grasshoppers are synonyms, as few would disagree that the locusts are themselves grasshoppers. Other biology books such as Hoffmann's Insect Molecular Biology and Ecology are similarly happy to equate the Caelifera with grasshoppers. In short, while no common name can be a perfect match for a taxon, grasshopper seems a good, widespread, sensible and largely uncontroversial name for the Caelifera. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Roy Bateman, it appears you made your giant changes after Chap addressed your concerns. That is not productive. Please establish a consensus first before you do these changes and don't edit war. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted Caelifera but will make no more edits to this until resolved HERE - suggest you and Chiswick Chap do the same Roy Bateman (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The reason we use scientific classifications is precisely to avoid "loose" taxonomy: for example, to include Tridactyloidea under "grasshoppers" is just plain wrong. You are wrong to say that are a "sensible and largely uncontroversial name for the Caelifera". I could equally quote textbooks going back to Uvarov and Ragge, which would be equally valid for the common terms (the latter being responsible for getting rid of "shorthorned Grasshoppers" I believe). A page called "grasshoppers" should indeed be 'user friendly' to the public, so I would suggest putting the more technical taxonomic content where it belongs at sub-order level, and focusing on the important and relevant content such as "locusts" being a subset of and taxonomically indistinct from grasshoppers (which is an important point). I object to the high-handed deletion of my edits. Roy Bateman (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If you look at international links, it is also a mess: with some (e.g. French, Spanish) using Caelifera, some using local equivalents of "grasshopper" - is it really too difficult to have 2 separate pages? Roy Bateman (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Wait until a consensus before you change. Your edits do not get to be the default. It is not our concern what international wikipedias do. Also the sources you are citing, appear to be outdated, Chap's sources are more recent. LittleJerry (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You miss the point and I wrote "... going back to...". As Chiswick Chap observes: ToL has "Caelifera: Shorthorned Grasshoppers, Locusts and Relatives" - accuracy is often "less snappy". Roy Bateman (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The only group where you may have a point is Tridactyloidea (the most basal clade). The other branches on the tree are commonly known as grasshoppers. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Any names other than "pygmy mole crickets" for Tridactyloidea? Then the Tetrigidae are usually called "groundhoppers" (see your Grasshoppers of Europe). Aren't 2 out of 8 'exceptions', plus Tanaoceroidea & Trigonopterygoidea for which we only have scientific names (so 4/8), enough to just get the science right? My main points are (1) "grasshoppers" are NOT an internationally recognised scientific taxon and (2) that we need Caelifera (with appropriate links), especially since Ensifera have their own page. Roy Bateman (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion should centre on common usage: it cannot centre on taxonomy as common names are by definition not taxonomic names. Wikipedia policy is to use common names where they exist, plainly the situation here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Tetrigidae= "pygmy grasshoppers", Eumastacidae = "matchstick grasshoppers", Proscopiidae = "stick grasshoppers", Pneumoridae = "bladder grasshoppers", Pyrgomorphidae = "gaudy grasshoppers". Acrididae and Pamphagidae are the typical grasshoppers. Anyway, the fact that some species don't have "grasshopper" in their name does nothing to dispute that grasshopper and Caelifera are synonymous. Not all Coleoptera have "beetle" in their name. LittleJerry (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
(1) Who actually uses these names though? ... although I have heard of "monkey grasshoppers" for Eumastacidae - it seems to me many of the so-called 'common names' (on various pages) should be deleted if there is no reference.

(2) LittleJerry - I thought we had agreed to use talk pages in Caelifera and here - I have reported 3 reverts by you.Roy Bateman (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not agree to have your edits be the default. You have to have a consensus to split the pages. You are the one making major changes so you are the one who need consensus and by reverting before the discussion is over you are the one edit warring. Stick to the discussion on this talkpage. LittleJerry (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
As for Ensifera. I could easily argue in reverse and say that cricket and Ensifera should be merged because grasshopper and Caelifera are the same page. Hence WP:OSE. LittleJerry (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In general, high level insect taxa have the page listed under the English language name (Diptera as Fly, Coleoptera as Beetle, Ephemeroptera as Mayfly). Where there is no vernacular equivalent, as in Lepidoptera, the scientific name is used. In this instance, if Roy Bateman thinks that there is sufficient difference between Caelifera and Grasshopper, he could expand the article Caelifera instead of having it as a redirect. However, he should not wreck the present article Grasshopper in doing so. By removing the "Phylogeny" section, he rendered it no longer comprehensive, a requirement for its present FA status. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I see no justification in rushing ahead with editing without consensus, nor in creating a WP:FORK at Caelifera. If we have to name this article Caelifera, so be it, but the world is pretty much agreed that Grasshopper is a good and proper name for the group, widely used and accepted by authorities of all kinds. Wikipedia policy strongly favours using common names where they exist, as stated at Names and titles (which cites WP:MOSand WP:Naming conventions (fauna)). The status quo before yesterday was appropriate and by the rules, and should remain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I may have found a solution: if you really insist on "grasshopper" as a taxon, we have what appears to be the accepted clade Acridomorpha (see: EoL and OSF). If you can live with that: restoring Caelifera as page, replacing it with Acridomorpha and removing Tridactyloidea & Tetrigidae from here - we could all move on and get on with better things like 'filling in gaps'. For example, providing some content for Tanaoceroidea & Trigonopterygoidea would also be wonderful: volunteers? Roy Bateman (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm good leaving things as is. As others such as Chiswick Chap mentioned already, Caelifera is often referred to as grasshoppers as a common name for better or worse, and we usually redirect a formal taxon to a common name when available even with the understanding that common names don't always mesh great with formal taxonomic names. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Kingofaces43: "often referred to as grasshoppers" doesn't mean it is correct - in fact we know that it is incorrect, since the logical consequence is that pygmy mole crickets are grasshoppers! I think there is a serious dander that WP will loose credibility if we allow these half-truths to just slip through. Roy Bateman (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I object to LittleJerry persistently reverting my work on Caelifera to a redirect page: none of you have given produced a rational argument that a pygmy mole cricket is a grasshopper! Some of us have to teach Orthopteran biology (in my case to masters level) and this is just plain wrong. See comment by Cwmhiraeth above (if I appeared to "wreck" the phylogeny section here, that was not my intention - and for that I apologise). If this page is synonymous with anything, it is with Acrididea - a page that was set-up more than a year ago - not by me I hasten to add, but I have attempted to make improvements there recently. LittleJerry has been editing out all reference to this which IMHO is rather high-handed on his part - he also keeps threatening to report me - for what precisely? Accuracy matters. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, I am sure that those of you who refer to WP policy on encouraging English language names for pages are quite correct - but only when unambiguous surely - it seems to me that some of the Orthoptera pages illustrate the problem well ...
  • starting with this page: the coding says "{Use British English|date=May 2015}" - yet the first line refers to 'katydids' (which I had to edit to include 'bush crickets' - but it should be the other way round surely).
  • link to 'katydid' or 'bush cricket' and you are redirected to Tettigoniidae - the only sensible resolution of this issue.
  • go to Acrididae: does "spur-throated grasshopper" mean Catantopinae or Melanoplinae? (there is also the spur-throated locust in Australia of course).
I suggest that this conversation moves to the Talk:Caelifera page - I will not be making any more edits here. Roy Bateman (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, the source you cite does not state that only Acrididea are true grasshoppers as opposed to groundhoppers. It only supports Acrididea as a valid clade.LittleJerry (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This should be continued on the Talk:Caelifera page, with full explanation with refs. on the page itself - if LittleJerry will kindly stop deleting my work! Roy Bateman (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomenclature: Caelifera[edit]

Having promised not to edit more here, I felt it was necessary to clarify things a bit: no more now until the discussion is resolved!

It all seems rather unnecessary and I think that flawed WP policy is at the heart of the problem (your comments as above). I have also commented where "Diptera means flies" (no mention of mosquitos which are hardly trivial). Botanists do not have this problem because their guidance is different and suggest a discussion is needed on the policy talk page ... Roy Bateman (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grasshopper. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)