Wikipedia

Talk:Asian giant hornet/Archive 2

< Talk:Asian giant hornet
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Fram in topic "Two separate Asian giant hornet introductions in North America" listed at Redirects for discussion
Archive 1Archive 2

"Murder hornet"

Latest comment: 3 years ago45 comments13 people in discussion

So it looks like there have been a few edits to add the nickname "murder hornet" (including mine — sorry, should have looked at the history first!) and they have all been reversed by anonymous editors. The media now consistently refers to this species as the murder hornet, so it seems like it's worth including the term.

For instance one anonymous editor writes: "No where except the NYTimes article (Published May 2nd 2020) calls the Asian Giant Wasp (Or its subspecies) "Murder Hornets" No where has this title ever been attributed to these creatures. This edit is to remove false information about The Asian Giant Hornet, and to prevent misinformation related to the Asian Continent, or its flora/Fauna." A commonly used nickname doesn't really seem like misinformation, and there are now many sources using the term.

Thoughts? Milhouse10000 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of references to the term "murder hornets" by notable sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/us/asian-giant-hornet-washington.html
https://www.livescience.com/murder-hornets-in-washington-state.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/murder-hornets-united-states-honeybee-populatiopn/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgU68wLOPf4
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2020/05/asian-giant-hornets-arrive-united-states/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/03/us/washington-giant-murder-hornets/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/52533585
I'd recommend adding a phrase like "sometimes referred to as murder hornets" with one or two citations. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This generally has not been accepted as a common name by entomologists and reporting on that name has been criticized. Probably best to wait with anything on this to avoid WP:RECENTISM issues too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
It turns out it's not strictly recentism; the term dates back in Japanese to at least 2004, and I provided a link to a broadcast from 2008. As detestable as the term is when adopted into English, it does have an actual history, and so it's appropriate to include it, though without over-sensationalizing it in the process. Dyanega (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Entomologists don't need to approve of a name for it to be a common (and therefore notable) term. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 15:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
That actually does hold a lot of weight in notability or naming discussions as some common names just aren't accurate or appropriate. The current bit in the article of t least by 2008, some popular media outlets in Japan also referred to this wasp as "satsujin suzumebachi" (殺人スズメバチ, literally, "murder hornet")[11], a name that was passed along in 2020 to a New York Times reporter.[12] tackles that fine without getting in to the weeds without the unencyclopedic sensationalism in the other linked articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kingofaces43, the coverage on the page is fine as it is. I also think it's possible that the people (I mean the news sources, not the Wikipedians) calling it a "murder hornet" instead of "giant Asian hornet" are engaging in censorship or have POV problems as a result of last month's criticism of Trump for calling the Coronavirus the "Chinese virus" (i.e. news outlets criticized Trump over "Chinese virus", so it would be giving Trump ammo to use against them if they said "giant Asian hornet"). But that's just my speculation, take it with a bucket of salt. Ikjbagl (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The media has got to have something to worry about apart from coronavirus, and all of a sudden murder hornets have become a hot topic for news stories. It's funny how these things take off, and there is a good article in the Smithsonian magazine here. Even The Simpsons are in on the act.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Murder hornet" is getting dozens of searches every day [2]. The term already redirects here, so I've added murder hornet as a synonym in the lead so that people know this is the article they're looking for, per MOS:BOLDSYN. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Re this edit: As of 2020, the term "murder hornet" seems to have stuck, but there is a certain element of media hype involved. Australians are more likely to die from a kick from a horse than they are to die from a black widow bite, but horses have not been renamed "murder horses". Many people die from bee stings but bees have not been renamed "murder bees". Personally, I don't think that the term "murder hornet" should be seen as existing on a par with the official term "Asian giant hornet" in the opening sentence, although it should be mentioned later on.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Previous discussion have been to focus on it in the body, so I've removed the sentence since it was WP:SYNTH. That part of the article already handles the subject appropriately. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Months later, reliable sources including the AP are referring to this insect as the murder hornet. I agree there is a lot of hype surrounding it, but the name is sticking, whether we like it or not. I think it'll be a matter of time before WP:COMMONNAME kicks in. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Those same months later, there have still been no sightings more than 80 miles from the original sightings, and there has been a grand total of ONE colony found in the past 12 months. While it is an explicit policy statement that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the point remains that the odds are better that this invasion will fizzle out and die than that it will spread in any significant manner. Over-sensationalizing is more of a concern; why promote a fear-mongering "common name" in English for an insect that could likely vanish from North America within another year or two? As it stands, if you type "murder hornet" into Wikipedia, it directs you to this article, and the term does appear in the article already, so it's not that this name is being ignored, it's just not being *promoted*. Dyanega (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not that it matters but I thought the term refers to their ability to destroy a bee hive. Fettlemap (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The name is mentioned somewhere in the article and is used for a redirect, but it is not in boldface (per MOS:BOLDFACE) and it is not mentioned in the lead section. I think it should be in boldface in the lead. The insect is getting a lot of press that is referring to it by this name. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dyanega: I see that the mention in the lead was removed again with a suggestion to participate in the Talk page discussion – which is something that had already occurred. I think it is clear that this name is being widely used in English-language reliable sources around the world (e.g., those listed above), and it should be mentioned in the lead. This name is currently mentioned only under "Japan" in the article, which makes no sense. In Japan, this insect is called satsujin suzumebachi (殺人スズメバチ) and other names, but not "murder hornet" – that is not a Japanese phrase. The "Murder hornet" redirect is now getting more than a hundred views per day on Wikipedia [3]. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with BarrelProof that "murder hornet" should be mentioned in the lead section (following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Organisms, MOS:BOLDSYN and WP:OTHERNAMES). It's clearly a term people are looking for (trends) and it would be good for the lede to confirm that Asian giant hornets are the same thing. There are numerous verifiable uses of "murder hornet" in reliable sources. It's kind of bizarre that the term "murder hornet" is currently hidden away in the Geographic Distribution section. Is there a valid Wikipedia policy reason why the name "murder hornet" keeps getting removed or just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? KenShirriff (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the MOS, "Alternative names should be mentioned and reliably sourced in the text where applicable, with bold type in the lead if they are in wide use, or elsewhere in the article (with or without the bold type, per editorial discretion) if they are less used." I contend that where "murder hornet" is applicable is in the context of the NYT article that borrowed the term from Japanese and coined it in English. That alternative name appears in NO scientific literature to date, and is not being used by either the USDA or the WSDA, the two entities that are producing the official news reports about this wasp. The name "murder hornet" has existed for less than a year, and I don't buy the claim that a term going viral in popular media is synonymous with "wide use"; if the experts on a subject do not use the name "murder hornet", then I think our fundamental difference of opinion centers around whether blogs and popular media that are taking official statements, and paraphrasing them, should be treated as "reliable sources" that override what the original sources they are paraphrasing are using. I would like to suggest this: the primary source of information is presently the WSDA website at this link, and I believe that what the WP article says about these hornets should reflect what the WSDA website says - including what they call them - regardless of secondary sources in popular media. If the WSDA website starts calling them "murder hornets", then we have evidence of this name actually being adopted. Dyanega (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The term "murder hornet" is in wide use as shown by multiple reliable published sources (New York Times, CNN, CBS News, NBC News, National Geographic, Collins Dictionary, etc), and quantitatively is in wider use than "Asian giant hornet". There is no reason to treat the WSDA as the one authoritative source (secondary sources are preferred over primary sources WP:PSTS). Wikipedia is based on what can be verified from reliable, published sources WP:RS such as well-established news outlets WP:NEWSORG. Yes, "murder hornet" is a silly name but the article should reflect a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, not personal opinions on which terms are "detestable". KenShirriff (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Nobody is asking each other "Did you hear about the Asian giant hornets?" and no late-night comedians are making jokes about Asian giant hornets. Restricting the lead to what's in the scientific literature is wonky and, I daresay, elitist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the people. The people should know from the first sentence that the redirect has landed them on the right article — it shouldn't confuse them. -Jordgette [talk] 22:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is not just one article in The New York Times. Many sources that are universally considered reliable are using this term. I see no basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines for the idea that Wikipedia should pay attention only to a particular small number of specialist authorities that may not prioritize the tracking of relatively rapid changes of common names used by the public. As stated above, people should know, from boldfaced highlighting in the lead section, that they have landed on the article about the topic they are looking for. More than a hundred people per day are being denied this basic information. It should not be deliberately buried. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
While I could point to numerous examples of nicknames (especially for people) that are widely-used and do not appear in Wikipedia articles about those subjects, raising complaints about double standards are also unlikely to be considered persuasive. I must also confess that I find the WP policy about preferring secondary sources over primary sources to be pretty darn baffling, especially when the topic is scientific in nature, and secondary sources demonstrably often get things WRONG when they attempt to summarize or paraphrase scientific sources; being misquoted and misinterpreted is one of a practicing scientist's worst nightmares, and a VERY common experience, myself included. It is disheartening to consider that Wikipedia would condone the enshrinement of misinformation in this way. That being said, if I am to be placed on the losing side in this because I'm an expert and an elitist, then maybe you'll do me the favor of being explicit about the discrepancy between what us elitists call this wasp, versus what the popular media are choosing to call it - I would suggest something along these lines, as the last sentence of the lede: "Although the scientific literature and official government sources continue to refer to this species by its established common name, the popular media have taken to using the nickname "murder hornet" - citing this link that uses both names in its title, so you are at least citing a source that directly connects the two names, and explicitly states that one is a nickname. Dyanega (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Common names are reported by observing usage in the vernacular, not "established" by fiat declaration. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Much more concise and to the point the way it is right now. Leave it. -Jordgette [talk] 14:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Dyanega, I think I understand your perspective better now. It makes sense to explain why entomologists object to "murder hornet". Looking at a similar case on Wikipedia, the misleading name Mosquito Hawk for crane flies; the name appears in the lead, but a "Misconceptions" section explains that they don't actually attack mosquitoes. My proposal is to add a section "Problems with the 'Murder Hornet' name". Potential references are Why 'murder hornet' is a terrible name, About those Asian giant hornets, American Bee Journal. (You probably have better references.) This would make it clear that Wikipedia isn't promoting the "murder hornet" name, while recognizing its existence. This section would also provide a place for the history of the name, which is now awkwardly in the Geographic Distribution section. What do you think of this approach? KenShirriff (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@KenShirriff: I think your suggestion is good, and those references are suitable. @BarrelProof: you do in fact have that backwards; first off, there ARE official bodies in many scientific disciplines that declare and maintain official lists of common names (including entomology, as well as ornithology, ichthyology, and more). Names used in the vernacular are nicknames, but common names are, for many taxa, formally established and documented entities. The second point is even worse for your claim: the prime break from the historic practices surrounding common names is the increasing trend of publishers to insist that field guides must include a "common name" for every species - even if one has never existed before - and since most insect species don't have established common names, either in the scientific community or in the vernacular, the authors of field guides are unilaterally coining "common names", with no feedback from the community, and no oversight. In effect, single authors are now declaring common names by fiat, exactly as you claim does not happen, and this is particularly evident if you look at dragonfly entries in Wikipedia, where essentially every species that has ever appeared in a field guide has a "common name" listed while the remainder do not; the overwhelming majority of these are emphatically NOT names that were ever in use in the vernacular, but were coined by a single author, in a single work, within the last decade or two, and not screened or approved by any governing body - i.e., established by fiat. You'll forgive me if I seem a little sensitive on this issue, but since I myself am the author of an insect field guide, I have had to contend at great length with the distinction between what is and is not a common name; in my case, thankfully, I was able to convince the publisher to restrict the listing of common names ONLY to species that actually already had them. The bottom line is that for a name to work its way from the vernacular into use as a common name (rather than arising from a single expert authority), there generally have to be decades of such usage, not just viral news items. Dyanega (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your last bit on viral news is what makes this a WP:RECENTISM issue by trying to include murder hornet in the lead in addition to misunderstandings you corrected others about above with respect to common names. Nothing has really changed on that subject to try to push that in now, I'd still be opposed to including it in the lead like that. I've undone the additional attempt to reinsert it. At the end of the day we already have discussion about the Japanese translation of the name, and I don't see the ESA listing murder hornet as a common name for the species yet. We can expand some discussion in the body, but we really should have more in-depth sourcing from scientific sources on naming before making more declarative sentences in the lead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there are official bodies that maintain lists of common names, but they ultimately do not have the ability to disallow common names that they dislike. That is the nature of true common names. There are lots of common names for species that scientists consider inappropriate. Raccoon dogs are not raccoons and they are not dogs, honey badgers are not badgers, milk snakes have nothing to do with milk, and turkeys were named after a country in which they are not found. It would probably be easy to produce a list of a hundred such examples. But once a common name has come into use, it cannot be "overruled" by a committee of biologists. And many species have multiple common names. In this case, the public has rapidly adopted a new common name for this species, faster than the committees have reacted. The committees might also try to resist for a while, but ultimately anything that something is commonly called is a common name and needs to be recognized as such. We do not serve readers by trying to hide the information they are seeking. And Wikipedia does not recognize any particular external authorities as having the right to bury or remove Wikipedia article content. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
All of the examples you list - and very likely, all of the examples of widely-used common names you COULD list - are names that have over a century of vernacular usage backing them up. "Murder hornet" has not even existed in English for a single year. In fact, I'd say it is a precedent-setting example; I can think of no other cases that combine all of the significant elements here, namely (1) it is a species that has been known a long time (2) it has been known under a specific common name in English for a long time (two, in this case, in fact, since one of the former subspecies also had its own common name) (3) an entirely new name for it went viral. With no genuine precedent to go on, this discussion is in slightly uncertain territory, and we have to look at a variety of WP policies that might apply. I think that User:Kingofaces43 raises good points regarding WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:NOTNEWS, as they do seem to potentially apply here. Dyanega (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
So then let's keep it out of the lead but put it in a hatnote to help out confused readers. Helping out confused readers is all I'm asking for. I added such a hatnote yesterday but it was removed and I have asked for discussion, below. -Jordgette [talk] 17:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise solution by inserting a hatnote. Most readers will come to this article having seen "murder hornet" in the press. They should not be confused by reading the entire intro and seeing no mention of that term. -Jordgette [talk] 21:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  • To Dyanega:
I must also confess that I find the WP policy about preferring secondary sources over primary sources to be pretty darn baffling, especially when the topic is scientific in nature, and secondary sources demonstrably often get things WRONG when they attempt to summarize or paraphrase scientific sources
For questions of geographic extent, exact wing dimensions, etc, yes they should be the preferred sources. However this is a question of common names and "common" doesn't mean Common Name like something voted on in a committee. It literally means common. In this case the authoritative source is the North American English (and to a lesser extent worldwide English) news media usage. And that is clearly in favor of this name. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Invasive Spices & Dyanega, to clarify, a newspaper wouldn't be an appropriate secondary source here when discussing a scientific source (i.e., a primary journal article). A secondary source in that context means something that meets what's described in WP:SCIRS, which can range from reviews or meta-analyses or statements by scientific organizations, etc. Depending on the degree needed (we're not at WP:MEDRS-level strictness), the level of vetting or expertise of the author can vary, but newspapers or magazines are practically never going to cut it for the example you brought up. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Popular_press has more info on that. That's supposed to be a guard against common mistakes seen in some of the comments above.
With that in mind, I don't see the peer-reviewed literature using the term, so we do have to give some deference to that. Right now, the term just amounts to a flash in the pan WP:NEOLOGISM. Great for news articles regardless of how many use it, but I'll remind other editors that have posted here that we are an encyclopedia rather than WP:NOTNEWS. If there are secondary sources of sufficient quality that specifically discuss the use of "murder hornet" in English use as an actual common name rather than a nickname, then we can expand what's currently in the body of the article in addition to the Japanese translation and then decide if something should be higher up per WP:LEAD. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the hatnote was removed? The hatnote "Murder hornet redirects here" (perhaps with an explanatory note) is a compromise solution, satisfying the goal of both signaling to the reader that they are on the page they likely searched for after hearing "murder hornet" in the press — which is very important for user-friendliness, as supported by several editors — without that term being actually in the article lead or creating the impression that Wikipedia is promoting/ccepting the term, something at least two editors object to. What exactly is the problem with the hatnote? Do a couple of people hate the term so much they just refuse to allow its appearance, like, anywhere at all where it may actually be seen? -Jordgette [talk] 17:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

At least in my last partial removal, that was because the compromise language had been disputed by BarrelProof and removed, so we were largely back at square one. At least in terms of a hatnote, I wasn't against what you originally had written, and that context was better than just having the version I undid that simply said murder hornet redirects here.
That said, I'm not so sure we really need a hatnote here, much less mention in the lead. As Dyanega mentioned above, this is a pretty extreme case to all of a sudden be trying to put the WP:NEOLOGISM at the top of the article in any fashion. It's not encyclopedic and runs afoul of WP:RECENTISM among other policies like WP:NOTNEWS when it comes to random nicknames like this newspapers come up with all the time instead of more legitimate common names. If someone types a random nickname into the search engine, they shouldn't be surprised when a formal encyclopedia doesn't immediately disclose all the random nicknames. Even the news articles out there tend to use Asian giant hornet while treating murder hornet as a passing mention in terms of name. We just haven't been given any sources that indicate we as editors should give the nickname any attention at all in the context of how common names typically work that warrant any mention a the topic of the article. Memes, etc. typically just getting passing mention in the body at best until it's established they actually have some long-term significance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Just to tack on one last thing, but I went and took a look at murder hornet, and barely even 1% of the people viewing this page are coming through that one. Definitely not on a magnitude of significance for us to be concerned about. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's correct. I think the 1% reflects editors who actually viewed the redirect page. I find it hard to believe that only 1% typed "murder hornet" into the search bar and the other 99% typed "Asian giant hornet", considering "murder hornet" is what it's being called overwhelmingly in headlines, and Google hits are 3x greater for "murder hornet" than for "Asian giant hornet." -Jordgette [talk] 21:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
On an absolute basis, more than 100 people per day are viewing that redirect. It is also very common for people to conduct their search outside of Wikipedia and then click on a search result that may link directly to the article. The original phrasing of the hatnote used a phrase "scientifically accepted common name", which contains an unsourced notion that common names need to be accepted by scientists and implies that such recognition is necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. I do object to that. Although, as stated in the common name article, "some organizations have created official lists of common names, or guidelines for creating common names, hoping to standardize the use of common names," their hopes may not always be fulfilled and their reaction time may be somewhat slow. After removing that statement, the hatnote merely said that "'Murder hornet' redirects here," which is a simple statement of fact about Wikipedia that is similar to what is found in tens of thousands of hatnotes. I do not understand how that could be objectionable. I also object to the removal of the amply sourced alternative common name, of course. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Organisms says "Alternative names should be mentioned and reliably sourced in the text where applicable, with bold type in the lead if they are in wide use". The name "murder hornet" is both reliably sourced and in wide use. Among other things, it has been added to the Collins English Dictionary and has been used in Science, the top US scientific journal. The WP:RECENTISM arguments have been going on for 6 months, so it's not recentism. Can we reach a consensus with my earlier proposal? I think that using the term in the lead and adding a section on problems with the "murder hornet" name both helps casual readers (by preventing confusion) and supports the entomological community (by explaining what is wrong with the term). KenShirriff (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur. It needs to appear somewhere at the top of the article, whether in the first paragraph or in a hatnote, to help out confused readers. Given the usage "on the street," it's absurd that the term is buried in the Geography/Japan section. Come on, people...this is Wikipedia, not Entomolopedia. If this doesn't get resolved soon, there will be an RfC to resolve it. -Jordgette [talk] 21:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Then I'm going to go ahead with the edit I suggested a while back, that places it in the lede, but not in the first sentence, and explicitly stating that it's a media-derived nickname rather than a common name. Dyanega (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
We should probably add some more citations (examples above, such as Science, Smithsonian, Collins Dictionary, and BBC) to illustrate the use of the name. I would do that, but I think I won't bother with it until seeing whether it is likely to just all get deleted again. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd be wary of WP:SYNTH with that, which even the current version is drifting into. We need sources directly addressing the name with more than passing mention. Either way, since people have been so intent on adding a neologism to the lead that hasn't been established to have wide longstanding use, it's probably easier to just wait awhile. That's an unfortunate problem when WP:RECENTISM is pushed in articles like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I added a citation to the Collins English Dictionary. I notice that some of the other articles also specifically address the name in their text. The Smithsonian article includes "so-called 'murder hornets', as some researchers call them". The Science article says they are "dubbed the murder hornet". The CNN article says "The giant insects are nicknamed "murder hornets.'" The Live Science article says they are "Massive, deadly hornets affectionately known as 'murder hornets' 'hornets from hell' and 'yak-killer hornets'". The National Geographic site is demanding some kind of registration or subscription to read their article. I haven't checked some of the other above-listed sources yet for specific discussion of the name. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Ugly citation format

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have used duplicate <ref>{{cite}}</ref>s to refer to different quotes on different pages of the same paper. This is obviously ugly but I am unaware of any better syntax on Wikipedia. If anyone knows how to do this please fix: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_giant_hornet&oldid=986273072

Invasive Spices (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I looked into fixing this, but gave up. I think the approach is to use shortened footnotes (Help:Shortened_footnotes) for the quotes and page numbers, which then refer to the references. So the Notes section would say "The average number of stings is 59. Yanagawa 2007, page 806." and then the References section would have the full citation for Yanagawa 2007. But I'm not sure you can switch to this format without redoing all the references. Maybe you can use groups (Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_groups) to separate the notes into one section and the references themselves into a second section. In any case, I'm leaving this information here in case it helps someone more adventurous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenShirriff (talk • contribs) 22:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Short description

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd like us to improve the {{short description}}. At the moment it's something probably bot-generated, "Species of wasp". I'm thinking "Predatory hornet, largest in the world" which is 38 characters, under the 40 limit. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

New common name

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Looks like a flurry of edits happened after ESA's recent common name adoption. Just a reminder that we're usually behind the ball on WP:COMMONNAME to see if they are actually adopted in use, similar to Lymantria' articles. It's definitely appropriate to add a new common name adopted by a scientific organization in text, but not so much to move pages or make it the primary common name in the article at this time. If usage changes (keeping WP:CRYSTAL in mind), that can definitely be revisited though. KoA (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@KoA I have restored my lead edit to take that last paragraph out of the lead. If anything, I had wanted to register my disagreement at WP:RM/TR, but @2pou had already processed the move. – robertsky (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense, I missed that in the numerous changes, but the paragraph as you have it is good. KoA (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for setting things straight! -2pou (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME still applies though. It can take time for these things to filter through the system. The article title should not be changed without a consensus discussion on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't be changed without a full RM (per n-grams the present name is the common name, except for maybe Murder hornet). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, if the problem is that there are two or more common names in competition, then we could use the scientific name as the primary title instead. This strategy has avoided disputes in the past for a number of pages, with Lymantria dispar and Coccinellidae being two of the best examples. In the present case (as also in the case of "spongy moth"), the Entomological Society of America is not the sole arbiter determining what common name is used for this species outside of North America, so the question of widespread adoption remains to be seen. Unless I have missed something, adherence to the ESA list of official common names is largely voluntary, the sole exception being that one must use the official listed name in any publication produced BY the Entomological Society of America (e.g., any of their journals or periodicals). In this respect, I would advocate, and very strongly support, moving this article to Vespa mandarinia to sidestep the entire issue surrounding its three common names. Dyanega (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of that approach of sticking with the species name when there are issues, though overall, I generally prefer to let things sit for a few months when usage of the new name becomes clearer (or even muddier). KoA (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
As a reminder, there is WP:COMMONNAME, but scientific organizations do have some weight in designating (non-wiki) common names for species. There are some subtle differences between the two. However, ESA doesn't have singular authority either in pronouncing brand new names like this either. The short of is that we'd never use murder hornet as a common name for the article. If the new ESA common name becomes predominant in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, then the page might change, but Asian giant hornet likely will continue to have use. Depending on how things play out in the future, this page much just go to the species name instead. KoA (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses the most common name in English, which is the present page name, where it should stay until the common name actually changes. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
This is more of a heads up for other folks reading this, but it's usually not as simple as just the most commonly occurring name for WP:FAUNA articles. There's usually a few additional parts moving in the background in those decisions. KoA (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There was a long, long talk page discussion in 2020 reaching a consensus that the name "murder hornet" should be included in the lead section [4]. That sentence was removed in July. I propose restoring it per the consensus. KenShirriff (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  • This is the thread. I agree as long as we, again, avoid sensationalism. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The sentence that was removed is still in the article, almost entirely unaltered, under "Common names". It is simply not in the lead, presently. Dyanega (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Asian giant hornet in sc

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Closing as WP:NOTFORUM. This does not contribute any sourced content to the article. KoA (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi I’m from SC just want it to known these hornets are here I killed one yesterday well thought I killed it it was still moving body severed in half 2600:6C5E:49F0:8060:44EF:5179:E6E6:C9AB (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

In SC you have Vespa crabro, not V. mandarinia. It's well-known, well-established, and commonly mistaken for the Asian species. Dyanega (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
We have found 3 now in our home in NE GA 173.190.153.147 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Two separate Asian giant hornet introductions in North America" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Two separate Asian giant hornet introductions in North America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 13 § Two separate Asian giant hornet introductions in North America until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_giant_hornet/Archive_2&oldid=1243916459"