m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Animals}}, {{WikiProject Marine life}}. |
→Overview plagarism: Reply Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
The proposer of this merge is {{re|jlwoodwa}}, and they may provide the reasons for this merge. — [[User:CrafterNova|<span style="color:#008A00;font-variant:small-caps">'''CrafterNova'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CrafterNova|<span style="color:#3366CC">'''[ TALK ]'''</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/CrafterNova|'''[ CONT ]''']]</sup> 11:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
The proposer of this merge is {{re|jlwoodwa}}, and they may provide the reasons for this merge. — [[User:CrafterNova|<span style="color:#008A00;font-variant:small-caps">'''CrafterNova'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CrafterNova|<span style="color:#3366CC">'''[ TALK ]'''</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/CrafterNova|'''[ CONT ]''']]</sup> 11:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Overview plagarism == |
|||
The overview section copies directly from the introduction of a cited source without any quotes or attribution. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6820529) [[User:Yubbo|Yubbo]] ([[User talk:Yubbo|talk]]) 15:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:From my understanding, using the exact words of the article, then adding an attrubution at the end still counts as plagarism. |
|||
:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources |
|||
:states, "As a general rule, do not copy text from other sources. Doing so usually constitutes both a copyright violation and plagiarism." [[User:Yubbo|Yubbo]] ([[User talk:Yubbo|talk]]) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:40, 6 January 2024
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Treatment of stings
I swam into a Portuguese Man O'War in 1976, in South Carolina. The hospital advised me to wash my wounds with vinegar, and apply a topical application of a paste of a common meat tenderizer. This contained Papin which may be related to Bromelain. They also told me to take an antihistamine. Any thoughts about the reasons that Papin/Bromelian would be efficacious for stings? At any rate, for a few decades, I had some interesting tattoo-like scars! Thanks...Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
"Sting no more" commercial?
The mention of the sting-no-more study, conveniently sponsored by sting-no-more seems like an advertorial. Also conflicting info wrt vinager being yes or no effective? Suggest: remove the last lines related to treatment. remove mention of suspicious study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:982:50E7:1:3C8A:D20C:78E:A292 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Only species, or not?
The "Man o' war" disambiguation page lists "Portuguese man o' war" (this article), and also "Physalia utriculus" ("Indo-Pacific Portuguese man o' war, a similar species found in the Indo-Pacific") -- which also redirects to this page.
The sidebar ("speciesbox") says this page is about "Physalia physalis".
This article currently says: "The Portuguese man o' war is the only species in the genus Physalia, which in turn is the only genus in the family Physaliidae."
The reference on that sentence points to https://australian.museum/learn/animals/jellyfish/bluebottle/ which says it's about "Physalia utriculus", instead, and contains the sentence "The only other species, Physalia physalis, the Portugese man-o-war is found in the Atlantic ocean."
So I don't know what's going on with this article, but it looks wrong. How can we improve this? It looks like the genus has two species, and this article is (maybe?) about the entire genus. But I'm not a biologist and this is a bit confusing.
- The genus is monotypic as Physalia utriculus is no longer recognised. Reference now updated/replaced in text. Loopy30 (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- In the beginning of the article it still refers to Physalia utriculus as the other species in the genus. Later on in the article (second to last paragraph in overview) bluebottle is used as a name, which is quite confusing to me, since the beginning of the article states that this is a different species. Some clarification from someone with understanding would be appreciated! 83.252.193.197 (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
In the article on the genus Physalia, it states: "The species Physalia utriculus is given the common name Pacific man o' war to distinguish it from the more widely distributed and larger Physalia physalis, the Portuguese man o' war."
But this article claims: "[Physalia physalis] is considered to be the same species as the Pacific man o' war, which is found mainly in the Pacific Ocean."
So which is it? Are they separate species or the same species? These two excerpts contradict each other. One needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.36.8 (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Merged Physalia utriculus into this article, and updated lede. I'm not sure what happened here - when we had the merger discussion some time ago, there was consensus for merging, which then ran into unclear issues and seems to have just petered out without implementation. As far as I can see, the status of P. utriculus as a synonymous name has not been challenged, and this remains the accepted form.[1][2][3] Accordingly I have merged and redirected the other article. Ping: @Jts1882, Loopy30, Pvmoutside, Cygnis insignis, AshLin, and NessieVL: --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- The merge discussion did not peter out, but was in fact implemented in March, 2019. From the edit history of the Physalia utriculus page, this update was reverted in January 2022 - producing the discrepancies that led to the current question by the IP above and the need to once more complete the merge. Loopy30 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oy. I had not realized that the revert happened ony this January, without any discussion - thought that was something that had taken place in 2019. That explains some of the oddities. Well, in either case I can't see a good reason for it, nor consensus? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- The merge discussion did not peter out, but was in fact implemented in March, 2019. From the edit history of the Physalia utriculus page, this update was reverted in January 2022 - producing the discrepancies that led to the current question by the IP above and the need to once more complete the merge. Loopy30 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Why they are called Portuguese man of war
Give me answer 2400:ADC5:165:FB00:8558:1D06:4654:3FF9 (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- RTFA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_man_o%27_war#Etymology Theturbolemming (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
"Coloniality"
The confusing nature of the "coloniality" claim is touched on in other topics of this page. The article currently has this in the eponymous section:
All zooids in a man o' war develop from the same single fertilized egg and are therefore genetically identical; they remain physiologically connected throughout life, and essentially function as organs in a shared body. Hence, a Portuguese man o' war constitutes a single individual from an ecological perspective, but is made up of many individuals from an embryological perspective.
It's not clear how this colony creature is any different any multicellular organism and how zooids are different from cells. There needs to be more explanation of zooids are "many individuals from an embryological perspective". What exactly does that mean?
The first part of the paragraph/section might be supposed to function as an explanation, but the text is pretty opaque:
The man o' war is described as a colonial organism because the individual zooids in a colony are evolutionarily derived from either polyps or medusae, i.e. the two basic body plans of cnidarians. Both of these body plans comprise entire individuals in non-colonial cnidarians (for example, a jellyfish is a medusa; a sea anemone is a polyp).
Reading very carefully, it sounds like there's a similarity between the body plans of different zooids in the PMoW and that of polyps and medusae, which are separate individual creatures. Weak sauce. It sounds like saying, "Well, some of your cells look like this animal, and others of your cells looks like this other animal, so that means you're really a collection of individuals." Resemblance of cells to complete organisms is not really what most people would expect when hearing something is a colony of individuals. The science here can't be that bogus, can it? What's missing from the article?
JKeck (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Siphonophore = jellyfish?
Siphonophores are cnidarians with a medusa phase, so it is inaccurate to describe them as an entirely separate thing to jellyfish. They may not be true jellyfish, but neither are box jellies and those are clearly jellyfish. What do you all think? Siphonophore-enthusiast (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Certainly it's an unclear term. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Physalia into Portuguese man o' war
The proposer of this merge is @Jlwoodwa:, and they may provide the reasons for this merge. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 11:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Overview plagarism
The overview section copies directly from the introduction of a cited source without any quotes or attribution. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6820529) Yubbo (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- From my understanding, using the exact words of the article, then adding an attrubution at the end still counts as plagarism.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources
- states, "As a general rule, do not copy text from other sources. Doing so usually constitutes both a copyright violation and plagiarism." Yubbo (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)