Talk:Bombyliidae

Insects Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Distribution

Someone like to add something on it. Tsinfandel (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found a couple in England

2 in the front garden in a small town called Crewe 2.96.57.115 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Beewhal" citation needed

The sentence, "In parts of East Anglia, locals refer to them as beewhals, thanks to their tusk-like appendages." seemed a little suspicious to me. Although the term does seem to get occasional use, I don't see anything offhand online predating its addition to this article on 2013-01-08, and so I wonder if it was coined or first recorded as a protologism right here. Ardric47 (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was evidently coined here, so it gets deleted now, unless someone can find an actual citation that pre-dates 2013. Dyanega (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone just tried to post "sources" for the name, I'll note again that sources created AFTER January of 2013 appear to be taking the putative name from Wikipedia. I will further note that the person who originally added it here was a repeat vandal, who was blocked from editing Wikipedia shortly after posting it, and who never provided a source for the claim. That the claim sat uncited in Wikipedia for over 10 years is an embarrassment. Dyanega (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Principles of Biology 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2025 and 9 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JimmyMcGill22 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dancer0806, Octopus233.

— Assignment last updated by Pinktulip13 (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture reference being removed because it is "unsourced" and "irrelevant".

Check it out in the history section of this page. Basically, it had a pop culture page that talked about Cutiefly from Pokémon being based on the bee fly, but somebody removed it because it was irrelevant and unsourced. I believe this shouldn't have been done. It is relevant, at the most, Cutiefly is quite literally referred to as the "Bee Fly Pokémon" and has a striking resemblance to them so I don't see why this is irrelevant. For sources, we can use the official Pokémon website and other relevant sources, but I'm not the best with sources. So, what do you guys think? I will be bringing up that section in the meantime. Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 18:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture sections are generally frowned upon as they have very little to do with the subject of the article and more to do with other things. Unsourced material may be removed at any point. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks either way.

Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 00:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]