Talk:Stabilimentum

Untitled comments
This article has a lot of very specific information, yet no sources. Come on! -b 02:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Male Attraction? The last paragraph is based on an unpublished study. Whilst it is an interesting theory, it has no support in the scientific literature and thus probably does not deserve such prominence in a short article. Messymatt 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Function paragraph. I didn't realize that spiders were capable of aesthetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.44.86 (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Argiope sp.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Argiope sp.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 17, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-17. 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} 23:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Function
I always thought the "function" of these balls of web in the center of webs was obvious: It's last night's web, collected into a pile. The pile itself serves no purpose. But where else was the spider going to put all that web? Just throw it on the ground, to waste? I've seen spiders make these things; They take their existing web, and pull it inwards towards the center of the web, effectively destroying it to make way for a new, stickier web. The pattern at which they destroy their old web leads to the pattern of the "web decoration" in the center. But often it is just an ugly white mass. The decoration gets larger and larger every time they take down an old web. I do not think they are using this decoration for any purpose, i think it is the product of making a new web every night. moeburn (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I read long ago that they eat and recycle the old silk. The decoration is too tidily structured. Close observation will show the stabilimentum being added as the last step of construction. No ? [citations needed]--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Subject/Grammatical Person
Two paragraphs above "adaptation" the subject of the paragraph suddenly changes to first-person-plural ("we"). This reads as if it were copy-and-pasted directly from a study, or at the very least seems inconsistent with style guidelines. Changing it will not be as simple as simply removing and replacing all instances; of course the entire grammar structure needs to be fixed. With that in mind, I didn't want to make any edits until I was certain there wasn't some strange reason behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.183.18 (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's a copypaste from the abstract. 72.152.229.225 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://jeb.biologists.org/content/213/5/759.abstract http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/799.full. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 20:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The remainder of the text was removed presumptively. MER-C 20:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Title
I think the title is ambiguous. The stabilimentum is not only a "decoration" as shown in the article. I suggest to move the page at "Stabilimentum" as in other wiki appears, instead of being it a redirect. --Lorenzo Longo (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can someone please move it to the right title? Thanks. --Lorenzo Longo (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Web decoration → Stabilimentum – The title is ambiguous. See reasons in the talk. As "Stabilimentum is a redirect" i need a mover. Lorenzo Longo (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support: Ngrams seems to suggest that Stabilimentum is the more common name. retain 'web decoration' as a redirect, of course. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. This seems uncontroversial to me, so I've made the move. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)