Talk:Centipede

Proposed merge of Orders of centipedes into Centipede
Unnecessary content split. Material on Orders of centipedes was previously covered easily in Centipede. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It was split out because the material wasn't appropriate here - why should an article on a class go into detail on lower-level taxa - obviously not its job. Each order is certainly notable, and it would be desirable to have an article on each one; until then, the list gives them a decent home, and perhaps also an incentive for the articles to be created and filled out with the detail they certainly deserve. That detail obviously wouldn't be appropriate here, any more than having them here was. I'll note in passing, pace WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that Millipede is very sensibly served by List of millipede families, so there is certainly precedent within the Myriapoda for organising taxonomic information decently. As for having the material here in this article, it's at best a poorly-structured (and poorly-cited) list, somewhat off-topic; at worst, a total distraction from the article's purpose, coverage of the group as a whole. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It makes sense to have content on the orders, either in separate articles or collected on one page such as Orders of centipedes, separate from the Centipede article. I would personally favour separate articles for each order, but still prefer a seperate Orders of centipedes article over having the information mashed in to the Centipede article.
 * Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - heavy taxonomy related content is regularly split out of general overview articles.-- Kev min  § 21:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: while there are taxonomic lists articles like List of millipede families, List of birds, and List of arthropod orders and devoted taxonomy articles like Dinosaur classification and Mammal classification that cover various competing schemes or hypotheses, Orders of centipedes seems like an outlier on Wikipedia. It's not a list article, there are only 5 centipede orders (all five are currently redirects, e.g. Lithobiomorpha), and there are no conflicting/parallel classification schemes (at least at the ordinal level) in modern usage. Wouldn't it make more sense to succinctly summarize the five orders at Centipede, and defer more detailed ordinal content to stand-alone articles for each order? --Animalparty! (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do we all agree that individual articles for each order are desirable? —Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there is ample precedence for treating major taxonomic units discretely. I certainly don't think every clade or taxonomic node warrants its own article (the stub Pleurostigmomorpha is extraneous and probably could be better discussed in a parent article, similar to how Dignatha and Progoneata are treated at Myriapoda). Combined articles make more sense when there is a dearth of content for each subsidiary taxa, such that Wikipedia doesn't slide further into a mass of permanent stubs saying no more than "X is a species of Y described by Johnson in 1850." All 3 species of Floridobolus for example are treated under the same article, since only 1 species has significant literature beyond initial description. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Er, they don't belong. You would think it very odd, aka ridiculous, if the article on the class Birds for no obvious reason contained a list if sections detailing the attributes of the individual Orders of Hawks, Seagulls, Owls, Passerines, Cuckoos, etc. Subtopics, each for their separate articles, or perhaps, um, a list. This list of Centipede Orders, by the way, already has substantial content, and could plainly be expanded with drawings and photographs and accounts of their distinct anatomies, habitats, distributions and so on. They don't belong in the Centipede article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per reasons listed above.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What to do with Pleurostigmomorpha
Two months ago, realized that Pleurostigmomorpha (Pleurostigmophora?), which I created, was little more than an unhelpful stub providing primarily the morphological differences between the two subclasses (to wit, Pleurostigmomorpha and Notostigmomorpha, the latter of which comprises exclusively the Scutigeromorpha). I moved this content into Centipede. reverted this edit, saying. I disagree. The merger discussion regarded content regarding the orders, this is the morphological differences between the two subclasses. Regardless, this content needs to be kept somewhere. I see three potential options: For reference, here is the orphaned information (currently kept nowhere except in page history):
 * Move it to Orders of centipedes
 * Move it to Centipede
 * Keep it at Pleurostigmomorpha (currently a redirect)

Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah, my mistake. Put it in Centipede. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I loved reading this article and getting to know more about the centipede! I had done a bit of research and found that beetles tend to be one of the prey for centipedes, here is an article on the Phengodes Laticollis to show that predators-prey relationship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phengodes_laticollis (E.kidest) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.kidest (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)