Talk:Meat ant

Plagiarism
This article is a rearrange plagarist take of the article on the page linked at the bottom. 64.140.179.102 10:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. Wikipedia allows what can be considered plagiarism in academic circles, as long as it's not a copyright violation. Please see Copyrights: "It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia."  howcheng  {chat} 16:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through making improvements, this will largely be without references until I dig these out and add them (soon). user:anc001 Jan 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

File:Ants eating cicada, jjron 22.11.2009.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Ants eating cicada, jjron 22.11.2009.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 19, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-19. 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} 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Working towards GA
With the banded sugar ant article completed and almost ready for GA nomination, I am going to expand this article and nominate it once it is complete. Over 100 references have been found that I will use for this article, so it will be a reasonably large one. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Intended layout

 * Taxonomy
 * Forms
 * Etymology and common names
 * Description
 * Distribution
 * Nests
 * Behaviour and ecology
 * Foraging
 * Diet
 * Predators
 * Life cycle and reproduction
 * Ritualised fighting
 * Relationship with other organisms and humans
 * See also
 * Notes
 * References
 * Cited literature
 * External links

Burklemore1 (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarify tags
You've done a stellar job on this article. I'm getting through the copy-edit slowly but steadily, and should be done in a couple of days. The article is mostly fine, but I've dropped in a couple of "clarify" tags; if any of those is unclear in intent, feel free to ask me. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind comment, this has been in the works for almost a year. I must say I was surprised at how much information was out there, so I think it definitely meets the comprehensibility critera. There are a few clarification tags I may need to discuss, but I'll wait until you have finished copyediting. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Burklemore1, here I am. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , first off the cited material discussing C. horni cannot be expanded because the content I added was all that was available, so I will most likely have to remove that tag. Second, I'm not sure how I should address the clarification tag in "distribution and habitat". Is it more simple to say they only thrive in warmer climates and such? Burklemore1 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also having problems with the clarification tag before discussing C. horni. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The second tag in that paragraph can be removed, if no further information is available. You would agree, I think, that it would be useful. The issue with the first tag is that of chronology, I think. We have these three taxa in those sentences; but "Iridomyrmex purpureus sanguineus, I. purpureus viridiaeneus and I. detectus castrae were classified as three subspecies of the meat ant, but I. purpureus sanguineus and I. purpureus viridiaeneus were found to be two separate species whereas I. detectus castrae was synonymised." is really not very clear. When were they classified as sub-species? When were they found to be two separate species? when were they synonymised? And what were these decisions based on (I'm guessing gene sequences)? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate and I definitely do agree with you. Hopefully some future revision of the genus can be carried out that may further discuss this, but I doubt it. To answer your question, I. purpureus sanguineus and I. purpureus viridiaeneus were classified as subspecies in 1974 (previously being two full species prior) and I. detectus castrae was described as a variant of the meat ant in 1925 (I. detectus var. castrae) until it reclassified as a subspecies in 1985. I only just found that out. The two I first mentioned were elevated back to species level in 1993 while I. detectus castrae was synonymized. I think it was based on thorough morphological examinations of available specimen material. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This detail is good; you should mention all of it, in my opinion. It is wordier, but far clearer than the current version. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I shall add it in shortly to solve the issue. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meat ant. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160126061629/https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/20824/1/09phh188.pdf to https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/20824/1/09phh188.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation bot
Hello why did the bot remove these? The first was incorrect/misplaced of course but the others…why does it think that? Invasive Spices (talk) 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"left"/" right" pictures
This kind of description does not work; not only (not) in 'mobile view', but not even in 'desktop view' (on a phone or depending on how wide or narrow the screen or window on/in which the article is displayed, is).

So here with the differently coloured ants people may GUESS that more probably the *upper* photo is meant by "left" and the *lower* by "right", but there's no guarantee for that being so, is there? -> Could someone please make a more clear description of which is which? (best would be to just include the name IN the picture/ under each single picture)

((And could Wikipedia discussion forums, faqs, member talks, guidelines, etc. please advise on this?)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3033:212:1F5A:6515:A1D9:D452:B11F (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)