Talk:Katipō
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Katipō 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 |
| Katipō is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | ||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Pictures of the Katipo
I found these on flikr http://www.flickr.com/photos/27388205@N00/
Go for it bro'
GA Review
The Good Article review can be found here. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Katipo causing myocarditis
A recent case of myocarditis following a katipo spider bite was reported in the NZJM (http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/abstract.php?id=4105). This is significant because it's the first known case of the toxin affecting the heart of a human. Should it be added to the article? Wocky (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Katipo. 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/20110417090807/http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/122-1290/3494/ to http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/122-1290/3494/
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) 07:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Katipo. 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/20081018060723/http://ento.org.nz/nzentomologist/free_issues/NZEnto06_2_1976/Volume%206-2-204.pdf to http://www.ento.org.nz/nzentomologist/free_issues/NZEnto06_2_1976/Volume%206-2-204.pdf
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) 08:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The first in situ study of an NZ spider
"The first in situ scientific study on New Zealand spiders was published in 1857". https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/AkEEJ2FinYFp57Di8Mfa/full
I feel this should be included in the article, but am unsure how to stuff it in there in a smooth way. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxonsArachnida (talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 21 April 2020
- 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: Moved buidhe 23:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Katipo → katipō – Modern usage in well-edited sources with the technical capabilities increasingly and now almost always use katipō rather than katipo. See for example
- https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/topic/9431
- https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/creatura-blog/2018/04/new-zealands-sole-venomous-spider-is-the-stuff-of-legends/
- https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/conditions-and-treatments/accidents-and-injuries/bites-and-stings/spider-bites
- https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/12721/katipo-spiders
- https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/370-poisonous-animals-in-new-zealand
- https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/galleries/katip-spiders-discovered-in-uplifted-kaik-ura-sand-dune etc.
See also the recent discussion to update Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand) (which admittedly focuses more on geographical names, which are more politicised than taxonomic names). Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks sensible to me. Radio NZ, Te Papa, Australian Geographic are all reliable sources. This is a usage change that's only happened in the last few years, so recent sources are the relevant ones – there's no source in the article itself more recent than 2012. See also:
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03014223.2016.1227343
- https://natlib.govt.nz/schools/topics/57f6bf6ffb002c5a1e002df7
- https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12018760
- https://stamps.nzpost.co.nz/new-zealand/1997/creepy-crawlies —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Update: Vink, C.J. (2015). Spiders of New Zealand. New Holland: Auckland. pp 36–37 also uses a macron, and is the closest thing to a current field guide. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- long overdue rename. Katipo, without the macron this is a different word, and incorrect. Macron use is now standard in NZ English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanifa (talk • contribs) 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose, The online dictionaries I checked (MW, Oxford, Collins) have "katipo". I can understand that it may become the common spelling in New Zealand, but per MOS:COMMONALITY if other English variants manage without it, so should we. (That might be overridden by it having strong national ties to NZ.) 62.165.198.73 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Question could you please outline how to think MW, Oxford and Collins dictionaries are relevant here? As per MOS:TIES this article is in New Zealand English and none of them cover New Zealand English. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Because English Wikipedia doesn't cater solely for a New Zealand readership, but English-language readers worldwide. We have to balance the commonality against the obvious ties to New Zealand. Since New Zealand sources also use the word without the macron, I'll fall in favour of not using the macron, but it's a close call: I've weakened my opposition. 62.165.198.73 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm always in favour of using scientific names for articles about organisms, particularly when there's any dispute about what the vernacular name is or what its orthography should be, so I don't have a strong view either way on the choice presented here.
Macron use is now standard in NZ English
– macron use may be standard in New Zealand in Māori words, but macrons are not part of English orthography, so I don't see that they are part of New Zealand English. Indeed, the use of a macron signals that it's being used as a non-English word. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)- Reply As per MOS:TIES this article is in New Zealand English, macrons are undoubtedly part of the orthography of New Zealand English, as per outlined in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. On place names it says only use the Maori spelling if defined as "official" in the New Zealand Gazetteer. The New Zealand Organism Register uses kapito without the macron. Is there an alternative official source for NZ biota that uses the macron? — Jts1882 | talk 10:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- The New Zealand Organism Register at http://www.nzor.org.nz/names/6fbd2ac0-cf2b-44ce-a053-d5b9e4fa8910 uses katipo based on a 1999 source and contains no more-recent source for that record. In short, it's out of date. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- We must follow sources, not our opinions on whether the information is out of date. If its still the official name there would be no need to change the source as it would remain valid. The precedent with place names suggests we should follow official sources for the names. Which is why I asked if there was alternative source with the Maori spelling. — Jts1882 | talk 11:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- That doesn't appear to be policy compliant, as WP:AGE MATTERS says "Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." Due to the Māori renaissance New Zealand language, politics and culture are changing substantially. BTW: do you have a source for NZOR being 'official'? I'm seeing very little recent coverage of it. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Update "Since deployment in July 2012 NZOR remains in a transition period, from a proof of concept to full operation." http://www.nzor.org.nz/history-and-future NZOR hasn't been maintained since 2012. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- There's no "official" list of common names of spiders as there is for (for example) birds. The closest to a standard text is Vink (2015) Spiders of New Zealand, New Holland: Auckland, which uses "katipō". —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Contrary to what Stuartyeates wrote above, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand) is clear that macrons are used in Māori words that are used in New Zealand sources. So the relevant question is whether the vernacular name for the spider is the Māori katipō or the English katipo. If there's doubt, then the solution is to move to the scientific name. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- We must follow sources, not our opinions on whether the information is out of date. If its still the official name there would be no need to change the source as it would remain valid. The precedent with place names suggests we should follow official sources for the names. Which is why I asked if there was alternative source with the Maori spelling. — Jts1882 | talk 11:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- And FYI, here is a reference that describes the NZOR as "the official body which lists names of species occurring in New Zealand". It's hard to argue that it's not a reliable source. Rangatira80 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- I discovered that earlier and was wondering about what that meant, so I asked Te Papa and they said it was official because "it receives input from government-funded crown-research institutes" which doesn't actually sound very official to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- The NZOR was meant to be a list of taxonomic names, not common names, as a quick glance at its home page will reveal. And since it's incomplete and full of mistakes, having had no funding since 2012, it's not considered a reliable source in most WikiProjects even for that purpose. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- The New Zealand Organism Register at http://www.nzor.org.nz/names/6fbd2ac0-cf2b-44ce-a053-d5b9e4fa8910 uses katipo based on a 1999 source and contains no more-recent source for that record. In short, it's out of date. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. On place names it says only use the Maori spelling if defined as "official" in the New Zealand Gazetteer. The New Zealand Organism Register uses kapito without the macron. Is there an alternative official source for NZ biota that uses the macron? — Jts1882 | talk 10:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Reply As per MOS:TIES this article is in New Zealand English, macrons are undoubtedly part of the orthography of New Zealand English, as per outlined in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support When I did my macron research for the geographic place naming conventions, I was struck by how sudden the adoption of macrons was. Just three years ago, you would have struggled to find justification. Now it’s a no-brainer. Schwede66 09:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - for now. While there has certainly been more use of "katipō" recently, I'm not seeing this use as now being dominant, and certainly not "standard". (The claim that this is "a no-brainer" is laughable.) As usual, the people who are pushing this are cherry picking evidence. Yes, you can find the macron by looking at 'the usual suspects' (DOC, RNZ, Stuff, and likely some magazines that have recently gone out of business). But one can also 'cherry pick' to find several recent, apparently-reliable sources that don't use it - for example
- as well as other recent, but perhaps less-reliable sources, e.g.
- But rather than continuing to engage in cherry picking (or nit picking about which sources are considered sufficiently 'recent'), I suggest deferring this for a couple of years, at which time a decision will likely become more obvious. Rangatira80 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Reply of your putatively reliable sources:
- This one hasn't been updated since at least 2013
- This one appears to have been reformated but otherwise unedited / updated since at least 2013
- The TVNZ source is infamously unreliable about using macrons. See for example this and this; headlines on adjacent days, one spelling Māori as Māori and one as Maori.
- Both of the other two emphasize the species taxonomic name, (which remains without the macron). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Is it really necessary to refer to people with differing points of view as "racists"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.204.77 (talk) 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- And both iNaturalist and T.E.R.R:A.I.N take their content from Wikipedia, so using them to justify the status quo is circular reasoning. Dismissing all recent books, newspapers, magazines, government websites, and educational institutions as "the usual suspects" is not actually an argument. Use of these sources to establish macron usage in NZ English was overwhelmingly supported in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand). —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Reply of your putatively reliable sources:
- Thanks, I updated the default vernacular name on iNaturalist to include the macron. It's a community curated resource, so can't really be used as a reliable reference. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Rather than making an argument based on common usage, I want to suggest that all Māori words in New Zealand English Wikipedia use Māori orthography, following the guidelines of Te Taura Whiri o te Reo Māori. Te Taura Whiri are the New Zealand crown entity with primary responsibility for Māori language. In particular, Te Taura Whiri "recommends He Pātaka Kupu as the primary reference when checking the spelling of Māori words" (This dictionary is only in Te Reo Māori, a recent comprehensive English-Māori dictionary that would be easier for non-Māori speaking editors is the Māori Dictionary). The advantage of a policy like this is that there is an authoritative source which covers most of the Māori language, without needing to fallback on arguments about common usage, which will otherwise be a source of ongoing disagreement. A policy like this aligns with the policies of the major publications that Wikipedia uses for recent source material, such as the New Zealand Herald. Note also that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand) already states that "Māori words, when they appear as the title of articles, are usually written with macrons indicating long vowels, and with a redirect from the unmacronned form", so this policy is consistent with the extant naming conventions. In particular, the current naming conventions do not refer to common usage as an arbiter for the orthography of Māori words. Happy to make this more general argument somewhere more appropriate (and there may be cases where iwi specific orthography is more appropriate, so, as ever, it won't be the end of the debate entirely). As far as the spider goes, both He Pātaka Kupu and the Māori Dictionary refer to it as "katipō" (He Pātaka Kupu, Māori Dictionary). Ready.eddy (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a very good point. According to the current naming conventions, article titles that are Māori loanwords should be spelled with macrons, with a redirect from the unmacronned form, like the article Māori people which has had a macron for years. There's no requirement to demonstrate that this is the dominant usage in sources; it certainly wasn't when Māori people was retitled, although now it is. For arguments about the article text, see the recent debate which refutes some of the arguments raised above (Wikipedia is in some sort of international English, the "English" alphabet doesn't use macrons, etc). —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support Practice regarding Te Reo on WP is increasingly to include macrons, following what is seen as the authoritative sources for NZ English (this is discussed immediately above). I don't see the point in putting up a rearguard action in cases where "common use online" is still dominated by macron-less spelling; we are clearly moving toward general use of macrons in applicable words, and might as well be consistent. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Out of interest, New Zealand pigeon was recently moved to kererū after a similar discussion. This quote is relevant: "Yes, do use the diacritic. For over a decade now, WP has not been dropping diacritics from things that reliable sources tell us belong there, unless the usage in modern, reliable, English-language sources is overwhelmingly against using the diacritic." —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Macrons (¯) are not used in English except when transcribing or transliterating other languages. Academic and academic-influenced sources have a penchant for using native forms of words, but that does not constitute common usage. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's simply untrue. Macrons are standard usage in New Zealand English, which this article is written in. And macrons are already commonly used in English Wikipedia, for articles about New Zealand topics: see Māori people, Taupō, kākāriki, kererū, and South Island takahē — the latter three are directly relevant to this discussion. Please check Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand) —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are confusing "used in New Zealand" with "used in New Zealand English". Maori words are, naturally, used in writing about New Zealand, particularly place names, just as Welsh words are, naturally, used in writing about Wales, particularly place names. We should always write non-English words correctly, with diacritics as appropriate. But when a word in another languages is sufficiently adopted in English it will be treated as an English word, and written accordingly. If the name of the bird is to be "katipō" then it's the Maori name – used in English, but a non-English word – and in text should be placed in a lang template for the benefit of those who have to use screen readers. As far as I can tell, "katipo" has been accepted as an English name. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that is incorrect. Māori: katipō is a word in Te Reo. It is also a Māori loanword, long used in New Zealand English and appearing in dictionaries of NZ English. For a long time the orthography of Māori loanwords in NZE was to not use the macrons that are essential to indicate long vowels and thus meaning, mostly because of typographic difficulties. In the last few years those same words, in New Zealand English, are now being spelled with macrons in most reliable sources. This is a typographical change to better distinguish long and short vowels. There has been two years of debate about this on Wikipedia, with some people taking the view you're espousing (that words with macrons are "Māori" and those without are "English" because "English doesn't have macrons"), but that is not something that linguists who work on NZE would agree with. I know, because I interviewed one for the great macron debate linked above, and as she put it "the conventions surrounding using Māori loanwords in New Zealand English is changing to take recognition of Māori grammar and spelling". Loanwords adopted into English do not automatically lose their diacritics, and there are numerous examples. The position you're taking was also strongly rejected at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand), and I suggest you acquaint yourself with the context and long, detailed explanations there. And might I, once again, point out the use of macrons in NZ English articles, is explicitly allowed under Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand) and has been for quite some time. Trying to resurrect debates from way back in 2007 about whether macrons belong in "English" articles is missing the point of this requested move. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are confusing "used in New Zealand" with "used in New Zealand English". Maori words are, naturally, used in writing about New Zealand, particularly place names, just as Welsh words are, naturally, used in writing about Wales, particularly place names. We should always write non-English words correctly, with diacritics as appropriate. But when a word in another languages is sufficiently adopted in English it will be treated as an English word, and written accordingly. If the name of the bird is to be "katipō" then it's the Maori name – used in English, but a non-English word – and in text should be placed in a lang template for the benefit of those who have to use screen readers. As far as I can tell, "katipo" has been accepted as an English name. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's simply untrue. Macrons are standard usage in New Zealand English, which this article is written in. And macrons are already commonly used in English Wikipedia, for articles about New Zealand topics: see Māori people, Taupō, kākāriki, kererū, and South Island takahē — the latter three are directly relevant to this discussion. Please check Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand) —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support This is the common name of the bird, and is spelled this way in New Zealand English. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- psst... spider... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. The fact that two recent contributors to this discussion seem unaware of what a katipo actually is suggests that perhaps some sort of astroturfing campaign might be underway here. Certainly, bold, blanket statements like "this is the common name of the bird, and is spelled this way in New Zealand English" should be viewed with suspicion (especially as "katipo" continues to dominate in use on the Internet, and in several recent reliable sources). (The phrase "common name" does not mean what many people apparently wish it does.) Rangatira80 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, easy there with the accusations. You can't accuse this editor of either lack of editing chops or not being knowledgable about NZ natural history. I'm pretty sure yon above's a slip of the keyboard. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. The fact that two recent contributors to this discussion seem unaware of what a katipo actually is suggests that perhaps some sort of astroturfing campaign might be underway here. Certainly, bold, blanket statements like "this is the common name of the bird, and is spelled this way in New Zealand English" should be viewed with suspicion (especially as "katipo" continues to dominate in use on the Internet, and in several recent reliable sources). (The phrase "common name" does not mean what many people apparently wish it does.) Rangatira80 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- psst... spider... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:58, 7 May 2020 (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.
Suggestions from a Behavioral Ecology Student
Hello I am a college student in a Behavioral Ecology course taking part in the WikiSpiders project. This article's information is really detailed and informative, but with some easy tweaks, it can be more consistent with the general WikiSpiders Outline. Currently the behavior section of the article talks about prey capture techniques and construction of the web. Using the WikiSpiders guidelines, these can both fall under the subcategory of Webs to make a more targeted, delineated page. Both of these pieces of information are quite complex and can be elaborated on in these sections. Similarly, under the reproduction heading there’s a really good paragraph on spider oviposition. To avoid confusion on the classification of this behavior, it should go under a parental care heading. Lastly, the article has a very good breakdown on spider’s bite and its toxicity, but it’s under a toxicology section. Using the WikiSpiders outline, this information should fall under a bite to humans and animals section. Also in this section, authors can elaborate on how these spider bites affect animals. Akwan826 (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The entry did a good job of explaining the origin of the name “katipo”, which refers to the belief that these spiders bite more at night. Even the variation in the appearance based on sex and developmental stages was well explained in terms of colors, size, and patterns. I thought it was pretty surprising that this spider is well known in New Zealand despite it being rarely seen. It was also interesting that though this spider is highly venomous, causing latrodectism like black widow spiders, it rarely bites and has not caused deaths since 1901. I wonder if this is related mainly to the serious decline in the number of organisms, or because of its less aggressive behavior. Some headings that I feel should be added for a greater understanding about this species are social behaviors which is barely touched on, enemies (predators, parasites, diseases), and also any special aspects about the species’ physiology and senses. Since it is mentioned that the only known predator is a wasp from the family Ichneumonidae, I would find it useful if there was some detailed information about this predator and its eating behaviors. In addition to that, because this is an endangered species, more behavioral information about Steatoda capensis, the species which is displacing the Katipos would be beneficial. Prernask (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Peer review
Katipō
| This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this ready for Featured Article review. The article is about the Katipō, a species of spider endemic to New Zealand. It is also New Zealand's only endemic spider that has a medically significant bite.
Thanks, AxonsArachnida (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
Comments from Traumnovelle
- Distribution should use locations as opposed to coordinates, as most people are not familiar with coordinates but will more likely recognise locations. In addition directions should be given from north to south, so 'from North Cape to Wellington' instead of 'Wellington to North Cape'.
- Done.
- I'd review all the wikilinks to ensure they comply with the MOS:LINK:Manual of Style's guidelines for links. Storm and driftwood seem like common terms to that shouldn't be linked in this article for example.
- Removed excessive links
- 'Antivenom is available in some hospitals to treat bites'. I don't see this in the source.
- Forgot to cite that. Added.
- Make sure you follow WP:MEDRS for medical claims.
- I'm pretty out of my normal operating area in the toxicology section. Do you have specific suggestions? As far as I can tell, all sources for the medical side of things (ie symptoms/treatment) use suitable sources. One of the other things I wanted to address is that the symptoms/treatment section is focused on latrodectism symptoms as described from redback bites, rather than katipo. I'm pretty unhappy with it being done that way, but I don't really see an alternative. Also did you need access to "Studies in preventive hygiene from the Otago Medical School: the katipo spider"? I have a scan.
- I haven't specifically looked at the sources yet so I'm not sure there necessarily is an issue, just that it should be followed in the parts that relate to biomedical information. The main caveat of MEDRS is for secondary sources, as in reviews and meta-analysis, to be used for medical claims, as well as avoiding predatory/poor quality journals.
- I'm pretty out of my normal operating area in the toxicology section. Do you have specific suggestions? As far as I can tell, all sources for the medical side of things (ie symptoms/treatment) use suitable sources. One of the other things I wanted to address is that the symptoms/treatment section is focused on latrodectism symptoms as described from redback bites, rather than katipo. I'm pretty unhappy with it being done that way, but I don't really see an alternative. Also did you need access to "Studies in preventive hygiene from the Otago Medical School: the katipo spider"? I have a scan.
- Researchgate often hosts copyrighted material, do not link to it unless you are certain the material hosted is not a copyright violation.
- Noted.
- It has been reported that only the female is capable of biting humans. Is there an explanation as to why this is the case? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- Nope. I'm pretty sure the male actually can bite, it's just not been documented before.
@Traumnovelle Thanks for your comments. I've left a follow up comment to the medical claims stuff. AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've responded to the MEDRS part. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- @TraumnovelleAwesome thanks. I've gone over the medical claims stuff and it seems to be compliant. It seems like there's nothing else to do? AxonsArachnida (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- References 38 and and 42 for the claim 'However, there is some evidence that tentatively suggests that the antivenom has limited effectiveness in treating latrodectism' are both primary and need to be supported by a secondary source. A clinician's guide to Australian venomous bites and stings is 5 years newer than the last study cited and does not mention the claim for example, suggesting that this claim may not have been replicated/reproduced by other studies. You might be able to access more recent medical sources via the Wikipedia Library. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle I was unable to find a more recent source supporting that claim, so I've gone ahead and removed it from the article. AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- References 38 and and 42 for the claim 'However, there is some evidence that tentatively suggests that the antivenom has limited effectiveness in treating latrodectism' are both primary and need to be supported by a secondary source. A clinician's guide to Australian venomous bites and stings is 5 years newer than the last study cited and does not mention the claim for example, suggesting that this claim may not have been replicated/reproduced by other studies. You might be able to access more recent medical sources via the Wikipedia Library. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- @TraumnovelleAwesome thanks. I've gone over the medical claims stuff and it seems to be compliant. It seems like there's nothing else to do? AxonsArachnida (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- 'and no deaths have been reported since 1923' I don't see this in the body.
- Weird. I don't know where that came from. I've removed it.
- 'While there were reports of severe katipō bites in 19th or early 20th century records, no other fatalities from spider bites have since been reported in New Zealand.[34]: 73 The exception to this is a bite that occurred in 1901, as reported in the Evening Post on 25 September of that year, which was fatal.[32]' These two sentences appears to contradict each other (although severe bites does not necessarily mean fatality). Is the 1901 death the last recorded death from a bite? In which case the sentence should probably state something closer to 'No fatalities have been reported since the 19th century with the exception of one in 1901'. O'Donell (1983) seems to either overlook the 1901 report or consider it unreliable.
- I've cut out the evening post stuff. I've also reworded it to avoid stating a definitive "most recent death" since some of these deaths seem murky at best.
- 'They are found throughout most of coastal New Zealand except the far south and west' should this say West Coast instead?
- Yep. Fixed.
- Stopping here for now but I'll take a further look later. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle Thanks. I've answered the ones you've posted so far.
- This can wait for the FA review because different editors have different beliefs/opinions on this but I am of the opinion that pronouns should be avoided for species and that if one should be used 'it' is most appropriate.
- Shouldn't katipo be singular (is instead of are) because it is a single species being referred to? E.g. we write 'hypothyroidism is rare in the cat' when referring to the species in veterinary medicine.
- 'Their common name is from Māori for "night stinger" which is derived from the words kakati (to sting) and pō (the night)'. There should be a comma before 'which', also would 'the common name' be better here?
- 'by other exotic spiders' is 'other' necessary here? The katipo spider is native so 'exotic' would exclude it already.
- 'Later,' commas are time-based adverbs are discouraged in British English.
- 'In 1933,' same as above.
- 'They are also members of the Theridiidae, which are commonly known as cobweb spiders or comb-footed spiders' Taxonomy isn't my area of expertise but the 'also' here weakly implies that Theridiidae is the same category as Latrodectus, perhaps something along the lines of 'They are members of the family Theridiidae' might be better?
- 'The common name katipō (singular and plural), often spelt "katipo", is from Māori for "night stinger", derived from the words kakati (to sting) and pō (the night)' Is there a better source for this? 1872 is a long time ago, is this etymology still held to be valid/correct today?
- It's still widely used today, but most research papers only make a quick mention of it. I've added the 2012 "Latrodectism: case report of a katipo spider (Latrodectus katipo) bite and review of the literature" paper as an extra reference for this.
- 11.24-13.85°C. Make sure you are using the correct dash (en dash instead of hyphen for these)
- 'In contrast, black katipō were found', comma is probably unnecessary in British English.
- 'Eventually, when she becomes docile and allows him to approach, the male will then approach the female as she hangs quietly upside down in the web.' having both 'when' and 'then' in this sentence is redundant/unnecessary, only one of these words are necessary, as to which one I don't think it is of too much importance.
- Stopping here for now. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- 'with one specimen reported to have the DNA of redbacks in its maternal lineage' Would 'redback DNA' be better here?
- 'It has been proposed that surfactants may also pose a risk to katipō, so it needs to be applied with caution when used in katipō habitat.' last sentence isn't needed, as we are not instructing readers but rather informing them about information.
- 'Much of the katipō habitat is also occupied by the exotic spider Steatoda capensis' it is linked prior but I think a second wikilink in this section would be helpful and doesn't go against the guidance at MOS:DUPLINK.
- 'commonly known as "false katipō"', should specify in New Zealand as the spider is known by a different common name outside of NZ.
- 'In 2010 the katipō was one of a dozen species of previously unprotected invertebrate given full protection under the 1953 Wildlife Act' is there any independent coverage/analysis of the act here? It would be good to have a source that describes the importance (or perhaps lack of importance) of this decision, if one exists.
- There's a few news websites that wrote simple articles about it, I'm not sure how useful they'd be to add. I also don't think anyone has ever actually been convicted for killing Katipo yet.
- There is nothing mentioned in the conservation status about efforts to protect the katipo. Some information on such methods and programmes would help fulfill the complete criteria for FA, assuming that there are sources for this.
- There's the odd news article mentioning councils restoring dunes, but I can't find anything more tangible published. There's plenty of groups restoring the dune habitat they live in, but there's not any decent publications stating it's for Katipo specifically. I've just added that habitat restoration is the main way that the species is conserved.
- I've finished reading through the article for now. With the above parts addressed I'd be willing to support it at FA. Good job on the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle Many thanks for your comments, they have been very helpful and I am finished going through them. I left a few replies to your comments here and there. If I haven't replied to a comment (which is most of them), that just means I made the change and have nothing to say about it. AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle I just wanted to follow up on this. No worries if you're busy with other stuff though. AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't have any concerns/feedback after this. If you wanted to go ahead with FA I'd be happy to do an image and partial (perhaps full if no one else does it) source review. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle I just wanted to follow up on this. No worries if you're busy with other stuff though. AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle Many thanks for your comments, they have been very helpful and I am finished going through them. I left a few replies to your comments here and there. If I haven't replied to a comment (which is most of them), that just means I made the change and have nothing to say about it. AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)