Talk:Tomostethus multicinctus

A fact from Tomostethus multicinctus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 May 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a heavy infestation of brownheaded ash sawfly larvae can defoliate a tree in a week?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomostethus multicinctus.

Wikipedia

Insects: Hymenoptera Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Hymenoptera task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Sawflies

@SL93: Sawflies are not wasps. Both are members of the order Hymenoptera but sawflies are members of the suborder Symphyta while wasps are members of the suborder Apocrita. Nor is this species parasitic, being in fact herbivorous, see the article for Tenthredinidae, the family to which it belongs. So your opening lead sentence which currently states "Tomostethus multicinctus, common name brownheaded ash sawfly, is a species of parasitic wasp." is wrong on two counts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sure doesn't help that sources in the article refer to them as that. SL93 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth I think I fixed the article. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Field observations

Why include that information? Since 1933 has any other person seen that happen? Is this typical of the species? Is this a drought variation? Is it notable information? You've given the information serious weight by including it without including a lot more common information about the species. Why? Have you sourced it to something besides a book in a library? That's the problem with primary sources. You haven't used it for good reason. You personally decided it was important information about the species and deserved a couple of lines in a small article, while other more common information, according to you, isn't as important. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:5D (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll start with a simple statement. I have zero problem with more common information being added. Nothing prevents the expansion of this article. Indeed, I almost universally support expanding an article except where it becomes a genuine burden to read. At this point, this is a relatively small article, so I'm all for bringing in more sources and adding more info. Your question regarding this 1933 sourcing is a fair one. It's quite old and unless this is a more common trend then I don't think the way two vireos decided to eat the larvae in necessarily representative of anything but those two vireos. It's also difficult to make a statement about any birds being natural predators of the sawfly without more information – repeated observations. If we can find better material, than I'm all for replacement. I don't think just removing it actually benefits the article in itself though. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing fluff does benefit the article, particularly in this case where the fluff comes from the field footnotes to a relatively old single primary source. This information will be copied in hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors and gain prominence online. It's irresponsible for that reason, and not useful or beneficial for the readers for the same reason. "A researcher once observed something." So, having once observed something, does it now apply to the species? So what? --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no of course it doesn't now apply to the species because of one observation. There is a difference between the article saying something like "Vireo's are a predatory species to the Brown-headed ashfly. This predatory species bashes the larvae against twigs up to eighteen times before consuming them silently." as compared to what is written into the article (in crude paraphrase); two vireo's were once witnessed making a meal out the larvae after bashing them up first. Other bird species have also been observed eating the larvae of the sawfly as well. Implicitly what the article says with this is 'make of that [information] what you will'. The question being, I suppose, whether we think the reader will now take it as an absolute fact that vireo's (and other birds) are a predatory species to the sawfly, or, whether they'll take it as an observation that may or may not be an indicator of a more generally applicable rule to the species. I.e. that vireo's (and other birds) might prey on the larvae regularly or it may just be chance that these two (and others) did. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that observation notable enough to include in Wikipedia? You can't find any other scientist or researcher who considered that notable enough of an observation to explore, question, or even mention. Even the source, whatever that is, didn't consider it worthy enough of including in an article, just some notes. But you have decided it's worthy of inclusion from primary field notes straight to an encyclopedia. Why?

You've added, "Someone once saw something and wrote about it somewhere, but no one else ever commented upon it" to this article. Why? --2601:648:8503:4467:BD8D:A6B0:350B:3F11 (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at WT:DYK. Now that it has made the main page, and you've successfully met the length requirements to get your awards by padding the article with non-notable crap, can the unsourced info be removed? --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]