Talk:Scolopendra cataracta

A fact from Scolopendra cataracta appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 July 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Scolopendra cataracta (pictured), the world's only known amphibious centipede, was discovered by an entomologist on his honeymoon?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scolopendra cataracta.

Wikipedia

Venom

Complainer removed the section on venom, and I reverted in line with WP:BRD. The section is factual and cited about the venom properties of centipedes, and as a predator species that hunts by envenomation the idea of a single non-venomous example is beyond unlikely. The section does not assert that S. cataracta venom includes these compounds, only that they are typical of centipede venoms. @Megaloblatta: Any thoughts as the discoverer? EdChem (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted requesting comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods#Venom of Scolopendra cataracta. EdChem (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could add a caveat that there is nothing published about the specific venom of this species? EdChem (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point is being missed, here. Nobody is saying that the paragraph is not properly sourced in in itself. The problem is that (as EdChem points out), there is no literature whatsoever about the specific chemical nature of the venom of S. cataracta (which is potentially very different from that of the other members of the genus because of its aquatic habits, but this is beyond the point). If the par is just there to talk about some common feature of the genus, it should be on Scolopendra (there are 87 species and counting: are you going to paste this on each one of them?) instead; if it is there because venom is exciting and interesting, or because some editor particularly cares about it, this is a WP:COAT. In either case, it is clutter, and it has to go. complainer (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Complainer, complaining about a lack of literature on a species where the discovery was announced about a month ago is fairly silly. Suggesting there is an realistic possibility of a non-venomous centipede species which is a carnivore and hunter is beyond unlikely. AS for a description of venom properties of the genus from which the new species comes as a WP:COATRACK, that is a reading of policy that I cannot agree with. Will a reader expect to see something on venom for a centipede species? Yes. IS everything here sourced and supported? Yes. Does it claim to be based on this specific species? No. I don't WP:OWN the article, no one does, and I won't edit war - but I register here that I consider your position ridiculous and your removal of the section to decrease the quality of the article. By the way, on the 87 species, only 11 have articles and I have not added a similar section to others. The discoverer (an entomologist) specifically mentions the bite in RS and a venom section here is appropriate and describing it as clutter is unreasonable. AS for silence = consent, a more likely interpretation is that I was waiting for input from others and no one chose to comment (possibly as no one noticed) but it is not an endorsement of your position. I could have argued as easily that no one objected after my restoration proving consensus is with me, except that I try to avoid claims which I know to be unsupported and / or unreasonable. EdChem (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your point is understood, but we don't dabble in possibilities, realistic or not. If there is no literature about the venom, talking about the venom is speculation, likely as it may be. I am not complaining, in spite of my nick, about the lack of literature. I am simply pointing it out; and, as this article is not set in stone by my edits, if and when such literature turns up, nothing prevents you from modifying the article accordingly; in fact, were I to become aware of such material, I would presently do so myself. The argument that the sources do not claim to be specific is self-defeating: if a reliable source claimed to be specific, then there would be no ground to remove the material; it is removed because they do not claim to be, and we believe them. As for the readers' expectations, we don't dabble in those, either. Most readers have not the faintest about arthropod physiology and, were they to read this article out of the blue (i.e., because it is linked from the main page) they would expect to read where the brain and air vents of a centipede are. This effectively means that every article about Scolopendra sp. would contain all the content of Scolopendra, which in turn would contain all of Myriapoda, which would contain most of Arthropoda, which is unmanageable. We have taxoboxes with wikilinks for that. As for the quality of the article, there is a clear distinction between that and its entertainment value: you would be right if this were a blog post or a magazine article; but it is an entry in a system where all non-specific information is one click away, and which exists to inform, not to glamourise. complainer (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

This article has been partially sub-edited for grammar and tone, but it remains highly coloured, and the heavy emphasis on "Discovery" and the person of the discoverer is far from the required encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia articles. This is not a news site, and while we can record the date and person involved in a discovery, it should not be stressed; and it should certainly not form over two thirds of the article. I'll have a go at reshaping it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]