Talk:Geolycosa pikei

Qbugbot

This article was created by the bot Qbugbot. For more information, see User:Qbugbot/info. For questions and comments, leave a message at User:Qbugbot/talk.—Preceding undated comment added an unspecified datestamp.

Irrelevant

In a 1919 account from The Nature-study Review, Volume 15, a black wasp hunted the spider to feed its young. The wasp quickly paralyzed the spider with its sting and then dragged the spider away, even though the wasp weighed less than the spider. Once the wasp located its burrow, it pulled the spider in quickly by dragging it down with its jaws.

• User:SL93, what is the point of this paragraph? zzz (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • To give an example of the spider being hunted. My question to you is - what is this paragraph hurting and how does it violate WP:UNDUE? SL93 (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but why? Any small arthropod could be hunted in exactly the same way. zzz (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's common for species articles to mention predation as well as what the animal eats if the information is available no matter how common or uncommon. SL93 (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

...In other words, it has nothing to do with Geolycosa pikei. By thw way, it is customary to explain your edits on the article talk page, not the edit warring page. zzz (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It does though because the source is referring to the species. You edit warred as well. SL93 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if that is how you edit, I guess there is nothing I could add to change your mind. zzz (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't even know what you mean by how I edit. I'm just stating what I've noticed in many species articles that are start class or above after editing here for around 10 years. SL93 (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean that merely because a sour ce mentions the subject of the article does not mean necessarily that it should be summarised in said article, which is apparently how you edit, according to your own statement immediately above. I don't know why no one ever mentioned this to you before. zzz (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If you think that's how I edit, you are obviously ignoring everything that I said and it's no use discussing anything with you. SL93 (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

My first edit summary is relevant as well because it went through the entire DYK process and was on the main page for hundreds of people to view and not one person complained about it, until you came along with the idea that your opinion is all that matters. SL93 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess you can start by removing information from articles about animals being hunted with guns, because any animal can be hunted exactly the same way. SL93 (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If you had an entire paragraph about one occasion when the animal was hunted by one particular hunter, then yes, you should remove that. zzz (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just changing your issue with the three sentences. I would appreciate any consensus that one example can't be added. SL93 (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You failed to understand my last statement apparently. I was responding to your comment. zzz (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I responded to - "If you had an entire paragraph about one occasion when the animal was hunted by one particular hunter, then yes, you should remove that. ". SL93 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)