Talk:Oriental cockroach

Don't know anything about insects, but it might be useful to point out that scientists suggested that this cockroach should be added to the Red Book of Endangered Species. Here're my sources: http://www.newsru.com/russia/21apr2008/tarakany.html + http://weekend.rbcdaily.ru/2008/04/18/crazy/337651 Minorfixaccount (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies

This article contradicts itself, regarding dimensions.
This article also shows inconsistencies with the two other species-articles mentioned in the table, viz. German and American cockroaches.

A through review would seem to be necessary here.

I am not the expert who can do that / sorry / I have neither the specific knowledge nor access to the referenced articles.
jw (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No thorough review; just copying and pasting so all three pages show the same table. Someone had edited them so they were no longer in alignment. Dyanega (talk)

Thank you! I guess I could have done that but I don't have the articles in order to be certain of which measurements to quote ...
Another potential issue might be the use of equivalent measurements in hundredths of an inch - what say you? jw (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalency algorithm is a built-in feature in Wikipedia. You either accept its existing functionality, or you type in the conversions by hand. Most people are okay with the automated conversion. Dyanega (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you and I (?but do we represent 'most people'?) may understand and may even convert automatically while reading, I feel it is misleading for many users of a good encyclopedia to receive such pretence of accuracy.

It's painful but we might convert with fractions {{convert|1.9|cm|in|frac=4}} 1.9 centimetres (3⁄4 in) or with significant figures {{convert|1.9|cm|in|2}} 1.9 centimetres (0.75 in). jw (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements, rationalisation

I have been bold and made changes to the order of facts in this article, also removing some repetitions of words, statements, and references.
I hope these changes meet with approval! jw (talk)
References to commercial websites containing banal and common knowledge are in my opinion irrelevant to the stated facts in the article (cf. geographical range as a pest, insecticides getting washed away). I also note that they are self-contradictory and in contradiction with other referenced information in this same article.
I feel we should removed these commercial references entirely from this article .. what say you? jw (talk)
In 'Relationship with humans' section there are WP-article-links to Europe, Israel, Australia, and South America.
I feel we should unlink these. jw (talk)
In 'Habitat' section I do not understand the intended meaning of the word travel: is it locomotion, or migration, or range-extension? jw (talk)

jw (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]