Talk:Langstroth hive

==

Untitled

I see a photograph of a "Langstroth" frame in this article, but when I look at his patent, didnt he use straight frames? I think these are Hoffman (self spacing) frames, not so called Langstroth frames (?)

The frames pictured definitely are what are most commonly accepted as a standard langstroth frame. There are a few variations for using wax foundations, plastic inserts, wire etc. But those look like the "wedge" type.

I make beehive woodenware for a living if that means anything.

re: re: recent edits

I support the edit made\mentioned below. I make beehive woodenware for a living and have studied many different "langstroth" designs as well as researched and consulted with instructors and beekepers with more than 45 years personal experience. ALL the above brings me to the conclusion that yes, the accepted "industry standard" for "bee space" is ⅜ inch with a ¼" minimum to ½" maximum. Various honey bee species can range slightly in size themselves, some can easily work with ¼" while some are more comfortable with ½", but most all honey bees do just fine with ⅜.

I do feel that it's important to the article to include information about "bee space" because that is a vital part of langstroth component construction. However, I also agree that perhaps it should just be mentioned in the opening paragraph, with further details given in a subcategory below. As this is my first time being involved in editing Wikipedia in any manner, I will leave this comment but refrain from editing the main article at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFixitNC (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re: recent edits

Anon [[user:]] recently made this edit, adding some history about bee space research. I have temporarily reverted the edit. While I have not yet been able to verify the claims made in the edit, I have not been able to disprove them either. However, I am not sure that they are completely appropriate to this article which is, after all, specifically about the Langstroth hive, not the general concept of bee space.

There are also style problems. If we ultimately decide that the content does have a place in this article, it should not be in the opening paragraph. As added, it disrupts the readability of the article and makes it harder for someone unfamiliar with the topic to understand what a Langstroth hive is. Rossami (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>Anon [[user:]] recently made this edit, adding some history about bee space research. I have temporarily reverted the edit. While I have not yet been able to verify the claims made in the edit, I have not been able to disprove them either.

I give you any help you need to verify the subject.

>However, I am not sure that they are completely appropriate to this article, which is, after all, specifically about the Langstroth hive, not the general concept of bee space.

Without the Jan Dzierzon’s innovations would not be the Langstroth hive. This after all is the truth. I think the article should be edited with this consideration. I mean the spaces in modern hive cannot be put under one topic and named “beespace”. Finally, it should be clarified when and who introduced the spaces concepts.

>There are also style problems.

It could be. English is not my native language; however this is minor problem if the issue is clarifying historical truth.

>If we ultimately decide that the content does have a place in this article, it should not be in the opening paragraph.

I hope the opening paragraph will be with accordance to objective picture. Studding the beekeeping history I met many subjective attempts.

>As added, it disrupts the readability of the article and makes it harder for someone unfamiliar with the topic to understand what a Langstroth hive is.

Well, readability is one think, it is important, but it should not be reason to mix technical and historical facts. This is what I found in literature. The “bee space” term is used without sense. There are more than one distances in hive, though they goes mainly from one honeybee perception.

Best regards, Andrew PS. I will return to this discussion page for correspondence.

Because I did not get answer for longer then week I feel free to reedit the article according to my best knowledge and objectivity. Andrew

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Langstroth hive. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041223045836/http://www.gobeekeeping.com/lesson%20three.htm to http://www.gobeekeeping.com/lesson%20three.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am reading this article today, April 22 2020 because in a search I noticed that the date for the granting of patent 9300 was incorrect, which I have now corrected to 10/5/1852. I'm not going to take the time now to do any more edits, but have a couple of comments. First, LLL did not mention bee space originally and never claimed to have invented or even discovered it. Anyone looking at a natural nest can measure the space the bees use, so that was familiar to the ancients. He invented the practical movable frame hive. Second, dimensions were not a part of patent 9300, so discussions about historical dimensions should make clear that they were a matter of practice and not an essential aspect of the Langstroth invention. Third, the article does not distinguish between the original invention and modern developments. It's as if the original Turing computers and the Cray were all in one article as if they were the same thing. Fourth, as I learned recently, there are at least three designs that can claim to be the "original" Langstroth hive, and for example, the patent 9300 design does not have a portico. These are all areas in which this article could be, and should be, improved. MRH, Maryland. Conscientia (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Movable-frame beehive

This article is about movable-frame beehives, which Langstroth pioneered. They can indeed be called Langstroth hives. But they don't all have Langstroth frames in them - this is a specific dimension of frame, again pioneered by Langstroth. In ordinary discourse, over most of the world at any rate, a "Langstroth hive" refers to a hive with that specific dimension of frame. Other movable frame sizes include that Dadant, British National, etc, see https://beekeepingforum.co.uk/threads/a-list-of-beehive-sizes-and-dimensions.856/. I suggest that it will be appropriate to rename this article to Movable-frame beehive, and that the article Langstroth hive should offer disambiguation between Movable-frame beehive and Hive frame. Both pages will need a little copyediting to bring them into line. Does anyone have any objections, or refinements? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bee space" redirect

Some copy editing in the propolis article led me to bee space, which redirected to the "Bee space" section of this article. In my view, the "History" section offers a concise description of bee space in its second paragraph. I believe a reader clicking a bee space link will be better served by landing on that section, as it now stands.

Putting this article's "Bee space" section in better order and fixing the redirect are on my to-do list, with an indeterminate priority. One benefit of some delay is the opportunity for seeing other editors' insight and suggestions. Have at it, folks! Just plain Bill (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was also redirected to bee space from the article on propolis. The problem is, that although bee space is defined at the head of the Langstroth hive article, the place where the reader lands after the redirect does not. It would be helpful if the phrase a gap size between 6.4 and 9.5 mm (1⁄4 and 3⁄8 in) in which bees will not build comb, nor will they close it with propolis, though not strictly germane to the logic of the sentence, were inserted at just the place where the redirect lands. Otherwise, the reader has to scroll down and back up through the article, searching for the definition they seek.

Nuttyskin (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the "History" section offers a better description of bee space, mentioning what the bees do with larger or smaller gaps. The "Bee space" section merely gives some unmotivated dimensions, accompanied by a meta-discussion of who did which and with what and to whom, with little application to a modern Langstroth hive. If you have any ideas on how to proceed, please share them. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]