Talk:Psyllid

Taxonomic limits of article
I am not sure what taxon this article is supposed to cover. The text begins with "psyllids", which would mean Psyllidae, but the taxobox lists Psylloidea as the topic of the article, with Psyllidae being a subdivision thereof. To confuse matters further, Psyllidae redirects back to this article, despite the presence of other families in the superfamily. Can someone please confirm whether the text is specific to Psyllidae, or whether it does indeed cover the whole superfamily Psylloidea? If it's a mixture, then the article will need to be split. --Stemonitis 07:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm actually a little more concerned that "Psyllidae" redirects to "jumping plant louse" rather than vice versa. I mean, really? Common name should NOT have priority over the scientific name for the critter group. Aderksen (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This article definitely needs to be split. Most of the text is about the Psylloidea. The need has become even more pressing since the families in Psylloidea have been significantly revised. See --Bejnar (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad that someone seems to have done the split already. Now if only we could get a taxonomist in here to sift out the psylloids from the psyllids. Aderksen (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Gah. This article spends a lot of time speaking specifically to Diaphorina citri, and not to Psyllidae in general. I'm happy with a brief discussion of citrus greening here, but rely on a wikilink to the main article. At the very least, the "pest" section should mention Bactericera cockerelli, as that critter is happily spreading zebra chip across the potato industry. Aderksen (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that this is the English language wikipedia rather than the American one, the title and content are highly parochial. "Jumping plant louse" is a local vernacular name and shouldn't be the main title for an article about widely distributed animals. Joe Fogey (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed
This article needs citations in so many places that it would be cumbersome to go through it and would lead to an ugly looking article. It reads like a science article or paper. For an encyclopedia, it isn't sufficient to list all the sources the writer used and put the onus on the reader to find which of the several listed sources backs up an assertion. An encyclopedia article must be written for an audience that has no specialized knowledge. Also, given that the Talk section above indicates that substantial rewriting is needed, it doesn't make sense to go through the current text. At best, a few examples might serve the writer/editor to understand the policy/philosophy of Wikipedia, but I have a doctor's appointment.. Ileanadu (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the best thing to do is to point to what appears to be an article with better, though not perfect citations on a similar subject.


 * For an article on a family, see Muridae
 * For an article on a species, see Common brushtail possum

Ileanadu (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Unlinked references
There are seven items in the References list that are not actually referenced in the text. They all appear to relate to the last paragraph. I can fix this, but if there is a total rewrite in preparation, as requested in the previous section, I don't want to spend time fixing this version. Thoughts? IAmNitpicking (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)