Talk:Hermetia illucens

Untitled
i found this page informative .. http://extension.oregonstate.edu/news/story.php?S_No=802&storyType=garden

not sure how to include it. maybe footnote?

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Natural Occurrence?
There should be a mentioning of the natural habitat, ecologically and geographically speaking. Just to make clear that the species isnt naturally occurring all over the world, although it is sold and shipped to every corner. Invasive species and so on... User:Some dude 0:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Objectivity?
I came to this article expecting an entomological overview of the species and found that much of the article reads like an ad for suppliers of these flies. Is someone promoting something here? Cognita (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, because no commercial vendors are specifically mentioned, for one thing. The tag applied to this article is inappropriate. Since this is the encyclopedia we all are working on, Cognita's entomological overview is awaited. --Wetman (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hermetia illucens Black soldier fly edit1.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Hermetia illucens Black soldier fly edit1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 16, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-09-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 16:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving Original Research to another wiki
I'm soon to delete "advertisements" and move any Original Research to grub composting. I'll link to the new article and describe the link, in this article. After it is well developed we might mirror it to other interested mediawikis such as Appropedia and Wikia Green, so it will still be noticed and by people who are likely to have an interest in composting and producing animal feed.

Wikiversity is another wiki of the Wikimedia Foundation and I will show you how you can log into all Wikimedia wikis at one time. Wikipedia editors can create an account at Wikiversity automatically by simply clicking this link Special:MergeAccount. Next log in at Wikiversity with the same name and password you use at Wikipedia. (At this time you might also want to log in to Wiktionary which is useful when you want to link to a definition rather than an article.) After that you may have to click Special:MergeAccount again.

From Wikipedia you can link to Wikiversity articles by typing " article name goes here ". An example would look like this "City dumpster content recycling". To link without "wikiversity:" appearing, type it like this " City dumpster content recycling " to make "City dumpster content recycling". That works vice versa for any Wikimedia wiki so to link to Wiktionary you would use " here you type the word to define " like this "wiktionary:exuvium" (hey that's not a word!).

Rudork (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unified accounts isn't working for me now and new accounts are supposed to be automatically unified anyway. Rudork (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Tradmark claims
I'm removing the trademark claims because they have been disputed and they lack a reference footnote to a reliable source. It is not clear who would have the right to use an unregistered trade mark. According to that Wikipedia article "multiple parties may simultaneously use a mark throughout the country or even state". In any case we would need a reliable source to establish who the owners are. Rudork (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Trademark symbols
From Trademarks, "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." Is it necessary in this case to distinguish between homemade and brand named "BioPods"? Maybe it will be after I add some homemade "Biopod" designs. Yet we have not established who the trademark owners are according to reliable sources, so I'm removing them for now. Rudork (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How does one "trademark" an unregistered trademark?
I'm going to change the statement, "ESR International, LLC trademarked and marketed the first BioPod™ in the USA" to "ESR International, LLC, was formed to market and manufacture this device, dubbing it the BioPod." What does "trademarked" mean if this is an unregistered trade mark? Rudork (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone had previously written racist content about them being "slaves" and belonging to the human species.
I fixed it, but I'm not very knowledgable about the subject, but tried my best to make it work Maxasher (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could add a section about the native geography of these flies. I don't know them in Australia. Are they only found in Europe or the Americas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.46.179 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am very disappointed with this article. It has gone backwards since I looked at it a year ago. Is not 'Phoenix Worm' a commercially contrived name used by a US larvae supplier, rather than a common name? The 'Benefits' section is poorly written and hardly makes sense but, bad as it is, it is better and more relevant than the following 'Establishing and building larvae colonies' section. What is the relevance of discussion of BSFL/Redworm wars? This stuff is for blog sites, not Wikipedia. I could go on. Bring on the entomological overview. Gingin Boy, 21 Jan 15.

Unsuitable reference to Dutch website?
The reference that an anonymous user added here seems not reliable to me, but possibly more like advertising: "The harvested pupae and prepupae are eaten by poultry, fish, pigs, turtles; even dogs. " Had deleted it but the anonymous user put it back in without explanation (I have also flagged this on that person's talk page). What do others think? EvMsmile (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The user provided this answer on his/her talk page: "I did not add the link as advertisement. My dog is now being fed this food and I think this is a great step towards a more green world, so I just wanted to show my gratitude towards this new product. More people should know about this eco friendly new product and that is why I added this link." - I still think this reference is not good enough; better would be an article e.g. comparing products of several manufacturers - rather than singling out one particular manufacturer? EvMsmile (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

clean up
the article has many references to forum posts and information that contradicts peer reviewed research. this is unneccessary and quoting forum posts is bad referencing practice unless you were discussing the discussion of a topic. I'm in the process of adding academic references to correct information and will begin deleting lines that are just quotes of forum posts or otherwise trying to replace them with relevant academic sources and information. BSF are commercial reared and there exists decades of published work on the topic so it's not unreasonable to request users to please refrain from posting qualitative hobbyist research material with an absence of methodological rigour if better sources are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.67.211 (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, forum posts should not be used as references. Please go ahead and tidy up. EMsmile (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is still more clean up to be done especially the "Human relevance and use" section could be entirely reorganized or even converted into a new article. AJF222 (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)