Talk:Gryllinae

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 2009-01-22 to 2009-02-12. Further details are available here.

Requested move 29 August 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Field cricket → Gryllinae – This is another inappropriately placed common name IMO – I have edited the introductory section for more explanation. In Britain "field cricket" specifically means Gryllus campestris – reference given, but goes back at least to Gilbert White's day. It is actually nonsensical since, as the article states (by another editor), placing "field cricket" here at the subfamily level includes the genera Acheta and Gryllodes, which are "house crickets". Roy Bateman (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move - Agree that the vernacular name is rather imprecise. Would Field cricket then be a disambiguation page? --Nessie (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support "field cricket" refers more to the genus Gryllus than the entire subfamily. Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree that field cricket do not equate to Gryllinae, but this article is about field crickets and not Gryllinae, and it is the infobox which is inappropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Why do you feel the taxobox is incorrect? Cwmhiraeth is a redirect to the page and the majority of the genera and species arent actually called "field crickets"--Kev min § 17:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The identification section was plagiarized (see here). The article was created 31 January 2005, and mention of scientific names was first added on 23 March 2006. A taxobox was added on 1 October 2006. For most of the articles existence it has purportedly covered Gryllinae, and the edit history should be associated with Gryllinae (or field cricket if the page is not moved). With the plagiarized section removed, taxonomy remains a big part of the article. No references are provided for any of the prose text. Whether the prose applies to Gryllus or Gryllinae is unclear. Anything prose that is applicable only to Gryllus should be moved to that article and sourced. Plantdrew (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I restored that content. I think you're mistaken in the direction of the copying. That document includes a copy-pasted wikipedia footnote. Colin M (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given how species specific that section seems to be, should it be restored here though? Or should it be moved to the the genera/species that is applicable to?--Kev min § 17:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to moving the article as it is to Gryllinae, but it could be moved to Gryllinae and the first half hived off and merged into Gryllus, if that is the appropriate destination for the field cricket information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Move, as the majority of the page is not about "field crickets" but about the subfamily, and the small areas that were about the "field cricket" were in-fact plagiarism. --Kev min § 17:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Just thought it funny--I saw the RM and thought about a different kind of cricket. Red Slash 06:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Many thanks for all your comments: I have converted field cricket into a dab page - for your consideration. Roy Bateman (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]