Talk:Centipede
Talk:Centipede
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Centipede article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Centipede has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging in the past. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Proposed merge of Orders of centipedes into Centipede
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was no consensus (1 in favour, 3 against). Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessary content split. Material on Orders of centipedes was previously covered easily in Centipede. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: It was split out because the material wasn't appropriate here - why should an article on a class go into detail on lower-level taxa - obviously not its job. Each order is certainly notable, and it would be desirable to have an article on each one; until then, the list gives them a decent home, and perhaps also an incentive for the articles to be created and filled out with the detail they certainly deserve. That detail obviously wouldn't be appropriate here, any more than having them here was. I'll note in passing, pace WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that Millipede is very sensibly served by List of millipede families, so there is certainly precedent within the Myriapoda for organising taxonomic information decently. As for having the material here in this article, it's at best a poorly-structured (and poorly-cited) list, somewhat off-topic; at worst, a total distraction from the article's purpose, coverage of the group as a whole. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: It makes sense to have content on the orders, either in separate articles or collected on one page such as Orders of centipedes, separate from the Centipede article. I would personally favour separate articles for each order, but still prefer a seperate Orders of centipedes article over having the information mashed in to the Centipede article.
- Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - heavy taxonomy related content is regularly split out of general overview articles.--Kevmin § 21:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: while there are taxonomic lists articles like List of millipede families, List of birds, and List of arthropod orders and devoted taxonomy articles like Dinosaur classification and Mammal classification that cover various competing schemes or hypotheses, Orders of centipedes seems like an outlier on Wikipedia. It's not a list article, there are only 5 centipede orders (all five are currently redirects, e.g. Lithobiomorpha), and there are no conflicting/parallel classification schemes (at least at the ordinal level) in modern usage. Wouldn't it make more sense to succinctly summarize the five orders at Centipede, and defer more detailed ordinal content to stand-alone articles for each order? --Animalparty! (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Do we all agree that individual articles for each order are desirable? —Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think there is ample precedence for treating major taxonomic units discretely. I certainly don't think every clade or taxonomic node warrants its own article (the stub Pleurostigmomorpha is extraneous and probably could be better discussed in a parent article, similar to how Dignatha and Progoneata are treated at Myriapoda). Combined articles make more sense when there is a dearth of content for each subsidiary taxa, such that Wikipedia doesn't slide further into a mass of permanent stubs saying no more than "X is a species of Y described by Johnson in 1850." All 3 species of Floridobolus for example are treated under the same article, since only 1 species has significant literature beyond initial description. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Er, they don't belong. You would think it very odd, aka ridiculous, if the article on the class Birds for no obvious reason contained a list if sections detailing the attributes of the individual Orders of Hawks, Seagulls, Owls, Passerines, Cuckoos, etc. Subtopics, each for their separate articles, or perhaps, um, a list. This list of Centipede Orders, by the way, already has substantial content, and could plainly be expanded with drawings and photographs and accounts of their distinct anatomies, habitats, distributions and so on. They don't belong in the Centipede article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, per reasons listed above.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
What to do with Pleurostigmomorpha
Two months ago, realized that Pleurostigmomorpha (Pleurostigmophora?), which I created, was little more than an unhelpful stub providing primarily the morphological differences between the two subclasses (to wit, Pleurostigmomorpha and Notostigmomorpha, the latter of which comprises exclusively the Scutigeromorpha). I moved this content into Centipede#Internal phylogeny. @Chiswick Chap reverted this edit, saying no thanks! Not having this here was exactly the reason, discussed at length on the talk page, for having the Order articles or list separately from here
. I disagree. The merger discussion regarded content regarding the orders, this is the morphological differences between the two subclasses. Regardless, this content needs to be kept somewhere. I see three potential options:
- Move it to Orders of centipedes
- Move it to Centipede#Internal phylogeny
- Keep it at Pleurostigmomorpha (currently a redirect)
For reference, here is the orphaned information (currently kept nowhere except in page history):
The following physical and developmental traits can be used to separate members of the Pleurostigmomorpha from Notostigmomorpha:[1][2]
- The spiracles are located on the sides of the centipede (in Notostigmomorphs, they are located dorsally).
- The spiracles are deep, more complex, and always present in pairs.
- The head is somewhat flatter.
- The centipedes can develop through either anamorphosis or epimorphosis.
Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake. Put it in Centipede. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Svetnik, Ilja (2019). "Red List and DNA barcoding of Carinthian and Styrian centipedes (Chilopoda)".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Shelley, Rowland M. (March 1999). "Centipedes and Millipedes with Emphasis on North America Fauna". Kansas School Naturalist. 45 (3). Emporia State University. ISSN 0022-877X. Archived from the original on 12 Nov 2016.
Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I loved reading this article and getting to know more about the centipede! I had done a bit of research and found that beetles tend to be one of the prey for centipedes, here is an article on the Phengodes Laticollis to show that predators-prey relationship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phengodes_laticollis (E.kidest) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.kidest (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Centipedes in culture
I've linked a few sources to journal articles about centipedes in culture. I got them from Geophilus flavus, where they were pretty clearly off-topic, but figured it could be interesting for the main article if someone wants to take a look at them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The redirect List of centipede common names has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 16 § List of centipede common names until a consensus is reached. consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.