Talk:Glowworm

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Beetles Mid‑importance

	Insects portal Glowworm is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Graffiti

I'm not an editor, so I'm leaving it alone to reduce the risk of screwing up the code on the page, but this page needs clean-up after some relatively obvious vandalism. 75.176.108.7 (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck yeah! RobloxEventIzBezt (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey article

As a suggestion, I think the term "glowworm" is used often enough and loosely enough that this article could usefully be a page and half survey of general information on the types of glowworms (3 families and 2 mechanisms for glowing, or whatever it is) instead of just a disambig. Something not too technical hopefully, since no doubt anyone technical would go straight for the scientific names. -- Kevin Ryde 00:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

picture

Does someone out there have good pictures of glowworms? If not, I will go out and take some. I am sure I can come up with some lampyrid larvae. -- WormRunner 02:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florida

Are there any Gloworms in Florida? If so, what times of year can they be found?

Just on winter vacations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luciola

I've changed the phrase to read Additionally, in British English a Firefly commonly refers to members of the Luciola family common throughout Europe, in which both the males and the flightless females glow.. Another editor is reverting with a sentence referring to a non-existant species and implying that Luciola is found in the British Isles. Other opinions on this are welcome. --HighKing (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I've amended your version slightly so as to restore a geographical referent - the other listed variants have one. ðarkun coll 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are dealing with a language variant on a term, it is appropriate to identify the language variant (British English) and not the geographical region. I've amended the sentence to remove any particular classification. If you insist, perhaps we should just remove the offending sentence entirely. It doesn't add much anyway, and is uncited and unreferenced. --HighKing (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, precisely, is your objection? I've restored it. ðarkun coll 11:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Firefly" commonly refers to members of the Luciola family, as well as the more common insect arachnocampa. You are asserting that this alternative usage is limited to the British Isles - but you have to date been unable to provide a reference. I have changed the text so that the alternative use is mentioned, but the scope of alternative usage is widened to be as inclusive as possible. --HighKing (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you stated the real reason why you are attempting to remove British Isles from Wikipedia, people might have a little more respect for your opinions. ðarkun coll 12:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a reason or a reference, you resort to attacking the editor. Your first reversions were inaccurate, and your most recent states that the term British Isles should be used because arachnocampa occurs in the Isle of Man. Well it also occurs throughout Europe, but you deleted that suggested sentence. Give a reason for including the term "British Isles" in this sentence - it's inaccurate and goes against all the guidelines suggested during the recent taskforce discussions at WP:BISLES. --HighKing (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing it goes against is your personal agenda. I say leave it alone. LemonMonday (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be glow-worm, not one word

I believe this article should be renamed glow-worm to agree with the British spelling. A note could be added that Americans accept the spelling "glowworm." DBlomgren (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glowworm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081014115046/http://www.teara.govt.nz/TheBush/InsectsAndOtherInvertebrates/Glowworms/en to http://www.teara.govt.nz/TheBush/InsectsAndOtherInvertebrates/Glowworms/en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glowworm. 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/20111211084223/http://springbrook.info/glow_worms/about_worms.htm to http://springbrook.info/glow_worms/about_worms.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]