Talk:Notonectidae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

I think it's obvious the two articles should be merged, but I think Back swimmer should be the target. Are people really going to search for the scientific name? Is there a precedent for using scientific names as the title? NickelShoe 05:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree[edit]

No, they shouldn't be merged. 13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

NickelShoe, I don't know what your talking about, i searched for backswimmer and notonectidae came up DrakeKobra (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph[edit]

And here is why we teachers never let anyone cite Wikipedia as a credible source. How long has this article on a major type of insect contained the juvenile sentence that they can "fly wherever they want"? I move to strike it and the preceding sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermoir (talkcontribs) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia always welcomes editors but the correct reason for excluding Wikipedia as a citation is that it is, in theory and practice, a secondary source of information. Dger (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your second question, it's been there since December 24, 2014. When most people were busy with the holidays. The full edit added two sentences which are true enough: "Backswimmers can swim but they can also fly as well. Backswimmers can fly wherever they want." This seems to indicate that it was a well-meaning, if naive, edit (i.e. it is not vandalism), hence why the bots didn't catch it as well.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 00:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]