Wikipedia

Talk:Bed bug/Archive 3

< Talk:Bed bug
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Otr500 in topic External links
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Another ref

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3255965/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Bernardeschi, C (2013 Jan 22). "Bed bug infestation". BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 346: f138. PMID 23341545. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Looks like there are now enough refs for a GA push. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bean leaf

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are than any secondary medical sources that discuss it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources to add to the article

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Don't have time right now. Should do later.

Baiting

Temp/humidity survival

  • Yee-Fatt How, Chow-Yang Lee (2010). "Effects of temperature and humidity on the survival and water loss of Cimex hemipterus (Hemiptera: Cimicidae)". Journal of Medical Entomology. 47 (6): 987-995. doi:10.1603/ME10018. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • C. G. Johnson (1940). "The longevity of the fasting bed-bug (C. lectularius L.) under experimental conditions and particularly in relation to the saturation deficiency law of water-loss". Parasitology. 32 (03): 239–270. doi:10.1017/S0031182000015742. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

-- Wesha (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Behavior Section

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added a behavior section as part of Behavioral Ecology at Washington University in St. Louis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaijones5245 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Kaijones5245 (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)kaijones5245

I edited this page minorly, with a couple word changes. I also have a suggestion in that I think you should provide more references throughout the Sperm Protection, egg Production and Alarm Pheromones sections. ~~Jeremy Davis~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSDavis2 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit suggestions Sept 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it would be beneficial to add that the spermalege is a product of coadaptive evolution. It also might be beneficial to explain that bed bug females have fully functional genitals and birthing canal. Info about the evolution of traumatic insemination should be added explaining how it was a behavior meant to decrease sperm competition. The reproduction subsection of behavior should be consolidated with the reproduction subsection of physical description. Sperm and seminal fluid allocation and egg production subsections should be consolidated with the reproduction section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudas 91 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Peer Review, Round 2

I think the information in the behavior section is detailed and concise, but it would be nice if the subtitles within the section were available in the contents at the top of the page. I noticed only "Reproduction" was visible there but I think the smaller headings should be added as well. I am not sure if you have come across a discussion of the evolution of these behaviors in the literature, but if you have it would be good to add a little bit about that.

Amruthapk (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I went through and added more links. There were also a few minor spelling errors I fixed. All and all, though, I think that this article is good and is potentially ready to be nominated for a good article. Rosemaryshanley (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bed bug/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 06:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Too many missing citations, please fix this before renominating. FunkMonk (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes agree, still a fair bit of work to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Reproduction

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reproduction is two separate bullet things??? Why? 76.14.24.117 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed EvergreenFir (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible refs

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The EL section is not a place for possible refs. Thus moving

  • Stephen Doggett. Bed Bugs: Clinical Relevance and Control Options. Clinical Microbiological Reviews, 25(1):164–192.
  • Stephen Doggett. A Bed Bug Management Policy for Accommodation Providers. First ed, ICPMR, Sydney Australia, Sep 2011.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This article has a pessimistic view of treatments

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There's no mention of permethrin and many other insecticides which can be used.

The article gives the impression it's pointless trying to eradicate the things. It isn't.Fletcherbrian (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to go over the treatments section and give it a revamp, so I'll keep outlook in mind. The problem is that pessimism isn't entirely unfounded. Do-it-yourself type treatments practically never work, and those of us entomologist who work in extension pretty much always recommend getting a professional to do it. Then think about how if you're dealing with an apartment or hotel, it's extremely hard to eradicate the bugs from the building and keep them out. It's not an easy task, so the content will reflect that to some degree. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. But the difficulty with eradication lies in part at least with the bugs hiding themselves so well which non-professionals can't handle.Fletcherbrian (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hunger bubbles

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A picture caption says "A bed bug with hunger bubbles visible in its gut". There is no Wikipedia article hunger bubble and a Google search for "hunger bubbles" (with quotes) suggests that the term is not widely used and few if any of the existing Internet uses of the term relate to bubbles in the stomachs of any insect, or even any arthropod, or even any animal. I suggest that the caption be modified to avoid using this nonstandard term. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen the term used either in entomology before, although it looks like there are a few very old sources that may have used the term a bit. I almost would have guessed it was vandalism/some kid making the term up. Either way it appears it would be undue weight on a relatively unused term, and WP:JARGON to boot. That being said, do we even need the picture? It's not the greatest quality, and it's not really showing much we can comment on anyways it seems. Maybe just delete the image all together? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dubious: Effectiveness of boric acid

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the "management" section, the article says "Boric acid, occasionally applied as a safe indoor insecticide, is not effective against bed bugs because they do not groom." Source cited is Miller, Dini (2008). "Bed bugs (hemiptera: cimicidae: Cimex spp.)". In Capinera, John L. Encyclopedia of Entomology (Second ed.). Springer. p. 414. ISBN 978-1-4020-6242-1.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contradicts this at http://www2.epa.gov/bedbugs/pesticides-control-bed-bugs, which says:

Desiccants work by destroying the waxy, protective outer coating on a bed bug. Once this coating is destroyed, the bed bugs will slowly dehydrate and die. Desiccants are a valuable tool in bed bug control. Because desiccants work through a physical mode of action, the bed bugs cannot become resistant to desiccants as they can to pesticides with other modes of action. In addition, they have a long-lasting effect and don't disturb normal bed bug activities.

Examples of desiccants include:

  • Diatomaceous earth.
  • Boric acid.

When using desiccants to control bed bugs it is critical to use those that are registered by EPA and labeled for bed bug control. Desiccants that are intended for other uses, such as food-grade or for use in swimming pools, pose an increased inhalation risk to people. Use of desiccants is limited to cracks and crevices use only to reduce inhalation risk.

I think the EPA source is more authoritative in this case, but I'll leave it for someone more knowledgeable in these matters to make the call.

Pixeldawg (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that the efficacy of some treatments are overstated relative to the publisled literature, including this one. I've been meaning to review the treatment section and tighten it up, but I haven't had time yet. The EPA would be a more reliable source here, so feel free to shape content to reflect that in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bed bug. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Challenges to organizing content

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Here is the current situation -

  • Bed bug presents information about an insect and its interaction with humans
  • Bed bug infestation presents mostly health information about the consequences of bed bugs to humans
  • Bed bug control techniques presents human responses to bed bugs
  • Epidemiology of bed bugs talks about "bed bugs" as a communicable infection. It is epidemiology, so it is not talking about the range of an animal's habitat so much as where public health offices note a medical condition
  • Cimex lectularius is for the most discussed bed beg species itself, and this is a stub article
  • Cimicidae is for the family
  • Cimex hemipterus does not exist as an article, but this is probably the #2 most important bed bug species

Previously at Talk:Bed_bug/Archive_1#Move_to_Cimicidae there was a proposal to move some of the content from bed bug to Cimicidae.

Here are some problems with the current organization:

  1. "Bed bug" currently contains a lot of information about "Cimex lectularius", and that information probably should go in the species article rather than this social article
  2. "Bed bug" content is currently written in a way that suggests there are multiple bed bug species which are well studied and known, when actually, almost all of the content cited either does seem to be aware of differences or refers to C. lectularius.
  3. None of these articles are well organized among each other. Discussion about main topics should be in one article, and if the topic is raised elsewhere then subtopic discussion should be brief and link to that main article for more information. Instead, this and other topics are WP:FORKed.

I am thinking about how this should be organized. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Article traffic

Here is a traffic report for some bedbug articles in 2016.

  1. Bed bug 1,756,264
  2. Bed bug infestation 172,314
  3. Bed bug control techniques 77,100
  4. Cimicidae 32,118
  5. Mattress protector 31,510
  6. Epidemiology of bed bugs 10,578
  7. Cimex lectularius 4,673

For context, any article which got more than 1,300,000 views in 2016 was among Wikipedia's top 5000 articles (top 0.1%) by traffic for that year. To me, that means that "bed bug" is of broad interest and needs to meet the demands of a general audience. Wikipedia's top 10% of articles in 2016 got at least 20,000 pageviews, so I think all of these getting 30k+ are in demand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reform of bed bug

I wanted to share a plan for reforming this article.

I checked the current weight of the content in this article. If the current article were printed on paper, it would be 11 pages excluding citations.

  • 1 page is lead
  • 1 is infestation
  • 5 is about the insect
  • 1 is pest control
  • 1 is epidemiology
  • 1.5 is history
  • 0.5 is society and culture

The current lead of the article is four paragraphs, with 2 about the insect, 1 about infestation, and one about social topics.

Based on the traffic above, I think that readers are expecting to find information about infestation and control here, and are less interested in the insect itself because of the weight of clicks to sub topics. Here is how I think this article should be cleaned up.

  1. Write good leads for Bed bug infestation, Bed bug control techniques, Epidemiology of bed bugs, and Cimicidae
  2. The improved leads of those articles should be the basis for subheadings in this article, with links back to those main articles
  3. Merge much of the insect content to an insect specific article
  4. Re-write the lead to this article with a focus on the human/insect interaction. In a four paragraph lead, have a paragraph each to present the insect, infestation, control, and a combination of social topics.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes on changes

I removed the etymology section . Some Wikipedia articles have these but when they exist, they should go beyond what a dictionary reports. Since this seemed like dictionary information I moved it to Wiktionary at wikt:bedbug. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bed bug. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bed bug. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Any studies on bed bug saliva and historic records of interaction ?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see a lack of information regarding composition and effects of bed bug saliva (and its neurological effects and maybe epigenetic human responses to the interaction). There is also a lack on how humans have historically dealt with infestations, it should be believed that some techniques for eradications/suppression may be lost/missing, especially those before the rise of modern chemicals use by humans. Its not conceivable that relocation of habitation by humans was an catch all at least from the late 17 century on. 109.49.141.100 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Celcius or Fahrenheit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section on management seems to have different temperature scales in different sentences, but it is sometimes unclear which is which. " An hour at a temperature of 45 °C (113 °F) or over, or two hours at less than −17 °C (1 °F) kills them.[57] This may include a domestic clothes drier for fabric or a commercial steamer. Bed bugs and their eggs will die on contact when exposed to surface temperatures above 180 degrees and a steamer can reach well above 230 degrees.[60][16]"

This may need to be cleared up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.35.231.162 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"Bed bugs are not known to transmit any pathogens as disease vectors. "

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This part of the article needs correction or specification, as some species have been proven to transmit Chagas disease.

reference:

https://blogs.agu.org/sciencecommunication/2018/07/16/good-morning-bed-bugs-left-you-chagas-disease/

"Research has shown that bed bugs are carriers of Trypanosoma cruzi (also known as T.cruzi). "

which references research like this primary article:

Rhttps://www.ajtmh.org/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.14-0483

please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:440C:1082:2600:3953:780C:1E73:A5E7 (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Transfer of disease to mice not humans. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago25 comments12 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Reverted to status quo ante, procedural close. See my comment below. No such user (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


Bed bug (insect) → Bed bug – Undiscussed move from a long-standing name, no other article with the same title, WP:COMMONNAME applies Brandmeistertalk 22:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Sam Sailor 22:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose The term Bed bug is used equally to refer to bed bug infestations and the bed bug (insect). So a disambig makes sense. Stipulation that the article about the insect is about the insect will keep that article from filling full of none insect related stuff. If one looks at a google search for the term nearly all pages are mainly about the infestation with these bugs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose agree w/ Doc James comment search for the term nearly all pages are mainly about the infestation--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support reversion of this recent undiscussed move per WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC [1]. A bed bug is an insect. A bed bug infestation is an infestation of those insects. A bed bug infestation is not a bed bug and the article about it would not be titled "bed bug". If anything, the bed bug article could be viewed as a broad concept article, since it has a section "Infestation" with a "main article" link to bed bug infestation. Sending anyone searching for "bed bug" to a dab page is not helpful. (And as a matter of procedure, as a contested undiscussed move, this should have been automatically returned its stable title before this proposal was opened.) Station1 (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, this isn't how disambiguation is supposed to work. Considering that this article title was stable for 14 years then I don't see the need for an RM, just revert it. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The disambig is redundant since the infestation is a daughter article of the original bed bug page.
That being said, I would prefer to see the two pages merged someday since infestation pages have a tendency to have major redundancies that can usually be handled fine under one article. Not to mention that the human relation aspect is what usually drives significant content for most larger insect articles, so of course searches are going to talk about infestations primarily. That's for down the road though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Comment I reverted the undiscussed move before seeing that this RM was open. Nonetheless, I think that the move overstepped being WP:BOLD far into "reckless" territory, leaving hundreds of incoming links to dab page for other people to sort out. Now that I saw that the RM is headed in the same direction, I'm inclined to procedurally close it and leave the onus of changing status quo to its challengers. I tend to agree with DABCONCEPT point that the infestation is a sub-article of the bug page, and the links that are meant for the infestation should be retargeted there, rather than inventing a dab page where there's nothing ambiguous. No such user (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Having reverted to status quo ante, I think that Doc James has a point that anyone searching for, or linking to, Bed bug, has in mind more epidemiological aspects of bed bug infestations rather than learning about lifecycle and biology of the bed bug itself. As a matter of fact, most of our articles about parasitic and infectious diseases are structured so that the primary topic is about the illness, and near the top they link to an article about the causing organism itself (e.g. Toxoplasmosis is a parasitic disease caused by Toxoplasma gondii...). This one is a counterexample by necessity, because the "common name" "bed bug" relates to the organism rather than the infection/infestation.
I'm thinking about reshuffling the contents (mostly swapping the two pages) so that we have:

I'm just thinking aloud, but I think we all should come to the best setup in an informal discussion rather than through a RM or similar process. Thoughts welcome. No such user (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Just merge them. Not like a disease where symptoms are known ages before the organism is determined. A bed bug infestation is just bed bugs in numbers. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The catch is, the merged article would be somewhat overlong. If anything, the lengthy Bed bug#Description section is somewhat too technical entomology for an overview article and would be better placed into Cimex (now redirects here) or Cimex lectularius (the common bed bug). Once we get rid of that, I think they could be safely merged. No such user (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Just discovered /Archive 2#Challenges to organizing content written by Blue Rasberry back in 2017 so pinging him as well. You don't seem to have implemented much of your proposal from the time, did you? No such user (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User:No such user and User:Hyperbolick agree those are excellent suggestions. The information about this genus can go at Cimex. The disease can go at bed bug.
We already have an article about the family which is Cimicidae
So basically it would be a merge of bed bug infestation into bed bug with a split off of much of the description into a new article on the genus Cimex. Happy to carry this out if their are not objections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Good. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Let us wait for a week or so, shall we, to iron out the details? There is no deadline. For example, in the meanwhile I learned that most of the content of Bed bug#Description actually pertains to Cimex lectularius, as the genus Cimex contains several bug species affecting bats and birds, and only two affecting humans. Cimex should thus only be either a short taxonomic article, or perhaps a redirect to Cimicidae. Let us not rush to implementation like you did the last time... :) No such user (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Been working on this article for more than 8 years. Waiting another week is no big deal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Took an initial attempt at it. We could bring back more material from Cimex but agree it is fairly technical. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I would argue at the very least that the infobox should contain a picture of an adult specimen rather than bites. IAMGOOMBA (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yah the first image was a little blurry anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I restored some of material from Cimex, summarizing the key aspects of bug description and behavior without entering into too much detail. No opinion about the best infobox picture. No such user (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Keeping the first sentence simple IMO is very important. Thus

  • "Bed bugs are a type of insect that feed on human blood, usually at night."

is better than

  • "Bed bugs are insects from the genus Cimex that feed on human blood, usually at night."

The genus can go later in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The goal is not to fill the first sentence with none common words. The term "genus" is not well known and not really needed in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Option #2, "...are insects from the genus Cimex..." is what I prefer. I don't think it complicates things. Yilloslime (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Option #2. Neither the MOS nor general practice require keeping the first sentence that simple, and I was arguing #1 is downright dumb. Species and genera are basic biological terms and, as far as I remember, they are introduced around 8th grade of the basic school; thousands of our articles about plants and animals start off in manner similar to #2. Per MOS:OVERLINK the following are not usually linked... Everyday words understood by most readers in context, and both "insect" and "blood" qualify. Instead, we should immediately provide links to the most relevant article, and it is certainly the one about the lifecycle of bed bugs themselves, i.e. Cimex. No such user (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Bed bug (insect) redirects to Cimex. Only two of the Cimex species are known as bed bugs, according to the article Cimex. But the article Cimex is about the whole genus. So please redirect from Bed bug (insect) to the article about the two species known as bed bugs, which is this article here, Bed bug. @Doc James: --Distelfinck (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The insects known as bed bugs are discussed at Cimex so no issue with it directed there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The insects known as bed bugs are also discussed at Bed bug, as they are the only topic of the article bed bug. Bed bug is the more specific article as the Cimex article also discusses species not called bed bugs. What you are getting at I think is that maybe the Cimex article has more information. But then that information should be moved over to the Bed bug article --Distelfinck (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, Bed bug and the redirect Bed bug (insect) have the exact same topic, but you think it's better to redirect from Bed bug (insect) to the supertopic Cimex in this case. Wouldn't it then follow that Bed bug should also redirect to the supertopic? --Distelfinck (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Bed bug also discusses a lot of information not specifically about the insect such as the bits and health consequences.
Cimex is a subtopic about the organism itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The word "insect" doesn't indicate that it's only about the organism itself. You could make a redirect Bed bug (organism) and redirect it to Cimex. But Bed bug (insect) belongs to the topic of Bed bug and therefore should redirect there --Distelfinck (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, wait a minute. If as you say the article Bed bug includes information that is not fit for an article about the insect, that would mean we should remove that information. Or rename the article to indicate it's not only about the insect --Distelfinck (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wording

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Plantdrew, you reverted an edit I made in the first sentence of the article. It seems you prefer "Bed bugs are a type of insect..." over "Bed bugs are insects...." Your rationale, as far as I can tell, for the former, is, "not all bloodfeeding insects are bedbugs" The sentence ""Bed bugs are insects that feed on human blood" does not in any way suggest that bed bugs are the only insects that feed on blood. I disagree that it is preferable, in terms of style or accuracy, to say "Bed bugs are a type of insect..." because bed bugs are not a type of insect. The term, as the article says, refers to two species of the genus Cimex.

I agree "exclusively" should be changed. It was intended to convey obligate hematophagy, but if bed bugs do feed on other species, this could be read as inaccurate.Michaplot (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I changed it back to the original Bed bugs are insects from the genus Cimex that feed on human blood, usually at night. that was supported 2:1 in the informal RfC above, and is completely defining and grammatical. I still don't see what's wrong with that form, except that some feel it is not simple enough, something I strongly disagree with. No such user (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Diatomaceous earth

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello @Andrew.schalk: About [2] - it does sound that way, however there are no spam links in there so maybe not. I don't care enough to bother but this may be appropriate to instead integrate into the sentences that are already here about DE. (There are already 3 sentences about DE. Definitely not just this person's crazy idea.) If you feel like it you could do so. Then again this added text provides no refs... Invasive Spices (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Bedbugs have been eliminated with diatamaceous earth for many years. Bed bugs can not tolerate contact with diatamaceous earth, it destroys the waxy cuticle covering their skin, so even if they don't rip themselves apart crawling through it, they become dehydrated and then die. This is a traditional, natural, science based remedy that is non-toxic. It's not cited in a text anymore than pouring salt on a slug to kill would be cited in texts. Leaving the description as is is inaccurate, and probably actually harmful, because it doesnt take many treatments and pesticides to cure bedbugs. When I had an infestation Wikipedia was worthless in explaining how to get rid of them, and guess what? People don't look up bedbugs on Wikipedia because they're interesting,they are looking up ways to kill them. Fortunately,I went to Home Depot, and a clerk told me that diatamaceous earth is very a commonly used , told me how to apply it. The first night, I got one bite from one that apparently survived the initial diatamaceous earth contact, the second night-no bites, and there have been no more bites in 5 years. Exterminator told me it would take several treatments over a period of months,and estimated $1500. The diatamaceous earth cost $8. In fact,I only used a small portion of the bag.

So the reason I'm making the effort here is because it really sucks having an infestation,and most people can't afford the.exterminator revolving-door dangerous pesticide treatments. So please actually do a little due diligence before pulling my info, I obviously know alot more about this small portion of the article than you do. Unless your day job is an exterminator, and you don't want me taking your favorite "gravy money"scam. 24.154.37.209 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Also, some of the article supporting this are companies selling products, but there's plenty of reliable sources to back this up, it's a time-tested method. Some articles give false information: it's dangerous to spread diatamaceous earth all over your bed,for example. Bedbugs can't jump, and they usually live in cracks in your wall, especially textured ceilings. So every night, the bed bugs crawl from the walls, floor, any bedding or curtains they can climb on to get to the host.Move the bed from the wall and curtains,and only treat the places theyll have to crawl through to feed. In my case, I bought 4 toddler's sippy cups, set each bedleg in the sippy cups which are then filled with diatamaceous earth.The bugs were forced to contact the diatamaceous earth, I didn't use any more,anywhere else. To a bedbug diatamaceous earth is exactly the same effect as a human crawling through one of those caves with the giant, razor sharp salt crystals the size of buses. 24.154.37.209 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes I'm sure DE works but it still needs a real cite. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Interceptor traps

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello 71.78.112.194 and @MrOllie: I think this is a good addition now, with the EPA source. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with it with the new source. - MrOllie (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

External links

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
There were eight entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
  • WP:ELCITE: access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
How did you decide this?
are large government sources while
have smaller scope
had smaller scope and is now dead. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Invasive Spices: So sorry for the long delay. Multiple health issues, including one that has literally been "a torn in my side" (kidney stones), giving some hindrance to keeping up.
On how I decide, to be honest, there are several procedures, but "sometimes" I just pick some. Most of the time I start with an intended talk page discussion, but that has proven ineffective at best. Sometimes I try to dig in with some research but that is rare as I am working with a backlog of multiple hundreds of articles. Sometimes I just delete some to get to three or four and local editors seem to make any corrections. I have been doing maintenance in "External links" for a fairly long time, actually in the appendices area as a whole, and added B-class articles in with it. I haven't looked but if you see any that could be exchanged I will offer no objections.
I recently created Haematosiphon inodorus (terrible at this point needing lots of work) and hope to branch out as host switching on bed bug relatives has had little coverage. I was amazed that the range of hosts was that varied and that the species actually causes a lot of bird health issues. Thanks for the message, -- Otr500 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I suggest we retain
Invasive Spices (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
You would need more information on the third choice. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bed_bug/Archive_3&oldid=1222224009"