Talk:Firefly/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Firefly. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The following facts have been added:

• "Unlike a light bulb, all of a firefly's light is used as light, none as heat.A light bulb is only 50% light and 50% heat."

This is done via a chemical reaction, but it will still generate some heat, I think.

• ",and 136 of them can light up. "

Again, just need a source. I suspect more than 136 can light up.

Thanks. Wikibofh 15:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

there are more then one kind of lightning bug, Photinus pyralis is the one I am more familiar with. Perhaps the thing on the side should be removed and have it's own page

Also: in the Biology section: "A few days after mating, the male firefly explodes." - really?

I think this page should be moved to Firefly (insect) and that the Firefly (disambiguation) page should be just Firefly. Seeing as how the Firefly tv show has gained in popularity, most people searching for Firefly are actually looking for the tv show, not the insect... -Xornok 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The show, awesome as it was, was named after the insect, not the other way around. —Keenan Pepper 04:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

well duh. but still, more people are searching for the show then the insect... and why should they have to go here, then go to the disambiguation page then the series page... when you type in a generic term like Firefly you should first go to the disambiguation page then go the page you want... -Xornok 04:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm with Keenan. The insect is far more common and more well known than the show or the 22 other items on the disambiguation page. Wikibofh_(talk) 05:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

but you have no way for certain to know that when people look up firefly, that they want the insect. it would be easier to just switch the pages around... -Xornok 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO this is a case that falls under the Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic guideline - the family of beetles is by far the most generally recognized and prominent thing called "firefly", with the rest being relatively minor subjects by comparison. And I, too, am a fan of the series so this isn't personal bias speaking. Bryan 23:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• We don't have to be certain, we make an educated guess, and so far everyone (except Xornok) agrees that the beetle is the more likely case. Take the example given in Bryan's link. Should Rome not point to the city because people interested in the popular TV show might have to click two extra links? Wikibofh_(talk) 03:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• I know it seems like we're beating this to death, but shows like Scrubs and Entourage immediately go to disambiguation even though the nouns are more generally recognized. The insect may be more well known in a general sense, but more people are looking for information on the show when they come to the site. Firefly has a massive fan base (millions) and I would not consider this "relatively minor". The reason people keep bringing it up is because they don't think Wikibofh realistically understands the popularity of the show. The fanbase of the show Rome is extremely small when compared to Firefly, and the town of Rome is also much more popular than the firefly insect. Oz is much more popular as the fictional town in the Wizard of Oz than a TV show, but even it goes to disambiguation first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.107.105 (talk • contribs)

• I'm a massive fan of the TV show, but I agree that though there's a significant fanbase for it, especially as represented on Wikipedia, it's not enough to reverse the two. I'm going to add the TV show to the dab link at the top of the article page (it's only been 2 days, but there doesn't seem to be dissent or reason for it, as it's only a small phrase), so it's the same thing in the eyes of someone looking for Joss Whedon's show as if Firefly was a dab page only. (Edit: Ah, looks like you beat me to it. :) TransUtopian 10:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This article was mentioned in the Wednesday 26th July 2006 edition of The Onion.

Actually, judging by the fact that they italicized the word "Firefly" in the article, I suspect they were referring to the Firefly (TV series) article. Alethiareg 03:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the life span of a firefly ranging from? In novels/movies (Chinese/Asian), it has been depicted that Fireflies have really short life spans and would usually die soon after "glowing" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoDeGenero (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Would For the TV show, see Firefly. For other uses, see Firefly (disambiguation). be acceptable? I think there's sufficient people looking for the TV show where saving a click wouldn't be bad, as long as y'all don't mind. TransUtopian 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I have an opinion either way yet, but I do have a comment. The TV show had about 3 to 4 million viewers. See for instance [1]. The movie only broke even on its budget, about $40 million (worldwide). That's about 5 or 6 million in ticket sales? Repeat views by diehard fans would bring that number down. On the other hand, there's half a billion English speakers worldwide, right? Certainly, though, Firefly fans are over-represented among Wikipedia users. Lunch 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that last sentence is key. :) Yeah, I'm not claiming it's as popular as Doctor Who or X-Files at its height, but a significant number searching here are looking for the TV show. TransUtopian 00:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't have a problem with that dab wording and linking. Wikibofh_(talk) 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I typed in "firefly" looking for the TV show, and expected to get a page on the insect with a dab link to a disambiguation page. I was actually surprised to see two the dab links. I came here to the Talk page to suggest removing the additional link. After reading the comments here I feel like being accepting of it, but when I think about the likely fact that in a few years there will be another cultural phenomenon known as "firefly", I believe that wise counsel advises having only the one dab link, lest we esablish a norm of sub-primary topics for disambiguation and the inevitable attending debates about selecting one. ENeville 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Opps, I made a revert not seeing this debate, but it seems the consensus backs me up. Per above, both are acceptable. -b 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was on the verge of removing the second disambig too, but seeing as it has been discussed I think I'll just leave well enough alone. I will add a comment for future editors to see Talk before changing, though. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 09:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the second dab-link because there is enough of other users who feel it is inapropriate, and it is breaking with the MoS. Just look at the dab-page for firefly to see all the things that are named so. I absolutely love the show, and infact I came to the article looking for it (expecting to have to go to a dab-page), but on wikipedia we have to put or own personal preferences below what is right for the encyclopedia. Oskar 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It had been readded, and I just removed it again. It's inappropriate to have a link to another article and then to the disambig page, when the article is already on the disambig page. Readers searching for the show will find it easily enough; if anyone thinks the show should be considered the primary use of "firefly" and therefore moved here, it should be taken up at requested moves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this page should go to disambgation due to items such as the TV show Firefly.

• Agree Fosnez 08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree Gceomer 01:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC) I think you are underestimating the number of people looking for Firefly the show. There is no reason why this should not immediately go to disambigation.

• We already have the DAB link at the top, and I think this is the most common usage. I'd prefer to keep it the way it is. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree Scarlet 14:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC) That's silly, the TV show was named after the creature, thus it has a lesser claim to the name. I'm a fan and have seen every episode more than once, but it was hardly a huge force in human development. After all, it lasted only a season because so few people watched it. It was a hit for a short amount of time for a narrow audience. This creature has existed for millions of years, has been watched at some point by almost every human on earth and is beatiful enough to have everything on the disambiguation list named after it, you just can't compare them.
• Disagree Per above two. --Planetary 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree and I typed in "firefly" looking for the show - see "dab" below. ENeville 01:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree Per much the same arguments made by Scarlet.--Auger Martel 09:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree What Scarlet said makes total sense. Jhml 16:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree I'm a huge fan of the show, but we do not base disambiguation off of popularity, but rather off of encyclopedic merit. While I would personally prefer this to direct to a disambiguation page, it makes more sense encyclopedically for it to direct here instead. -  Ennuified  talk   12:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know there are no fireflies in warm dry areas (like on the west coast of the united states). Is this because fireflies prefer more humid climates or is temperature a factor?

Yes, exactly. They need humid climates. They can be found for example during the summer months in New York but not in dry areas like the San Francisco Bay Area. -- Jtpaladin 01:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know the common names? I've heard that the Southern US says lightning bugs, and Northern US says fire flies. Any one heard something similar?

Zidel333 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I grew up in the south and always heard "lightning bug" except from a few people - all of them adults who had moved in from the north.

Plus, the common name "firefly" doesn't allow for Twain's famous line about the almost right word to work. teucer 20:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Very clever -- we now know what common name reigns supreme. :)

Zidel333 06:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Yankee from New Jersey (i.e. the North), but I've always called them lightning bugs like you guys. Though I admit, I do hear both terms from other ppl on a 50/50 basis.

I'm from Pennsylvania, and I use both, though firefly probably more frequently than lightning bug. --SodiumBenzoate 07:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How in god's name do fireflies (tiny) eat slugs and snails (large)?? Are they like parasites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If somebody would like to remove the television show from the "other uses" template at the top, I would expect them to explain their rationale when reverted instead of violating the consensus building process and edit warring. And no, "a show that didn't even last a season does not merit a note here" is not a reasonable rationale (nor is it a reasonable assessment of the show's notability - not that WP:N has anything to do with disambiguation links). --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no justifiable exemption for a television show for having a rationale that it be included. I would like the actual rationale for why the exemption is included based on WP:N. There are not *that* many who are searching for the television show, and this is what disambiguation pages are for. Please observe WP:NPOV and not add your personal entertainment preferences to articles without consensus. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, WP:N is not the relevant policy. Regardless, the television show is highly notable, and you deleted perfectly good content without establishing a consensus to do so. I will not engage in your edit war, however I will seek to resolve this appropriately. Also, keep in mind that this edit summary is patently incorrect. Administrators are not granted special privilege to ask you to watch the 3RR - any user can ask that you respect our policies. Furthermore, don't take this as an opportunity to discuss me, instead of the content at hand - that is the definition of a personal attack. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You misread the edit summary, and misportray it on the releveant discussion elsewhere. Additionally, you perpetually gloss over why this is "highly notable" in comparison with other derrivates of Firefly. We can take it case by case if you'd like on the disambiguation page. Reaching a reasonable conclusion, that only you are defending including of the other uses for this particular subject, seems to indicate your preference to the subject at hand.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The television show is highly notable. Until you build a consensus otherwise, you'll have to leave the article as is. Please, and this is the last time I'm going to refer you to this policy, read WP:BRD. You made an edit, and you were reverted. Build a consensus or don't, but you shouldn't be browbeating your almost trivial changes to an article on grounds that, for example, this is my favorite show so my opinion is nonNPOV (that is a gross abuse of WP:NPOV, a policy that has no bearing here). --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to review this discussion you created elsewhere. At that page, Administrator ERCheck states: "I agree that Netkinetic's user of {{otheruses}} is the most appropriate hatnote use. From WP:Disambiguation: "When there are several articles associated with the same ambiguous term, include a link to a separate disambiguation page. If there is a disambiguation page for the topic and its name consists of the generic topic name with " (disambiguation)" added to it, use the {{Otheruses}} template."

It would seem that a gross abuse is ignoring WP:Disambiguation. And you perpetually refer to a consensus of 1...please provide evidence of the consensus beyond simply yourself. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with User:Netkinetic here. With a word as heavily loaded as firefly, WP:Disambiguation (and not to mention WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE) preclude choosing one article over the dozens of others to use in an {{two other uses}} template. The popularity or perceived notability of Firefly (TV series) should not be a deciding factor one way or the other. The most important firefly is the bug with the luminous derrière, the others have to share second billing together. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  I'm curious - you believe that Firefly (TV series) is as notable/relevant as Tiny (Rob Zombie) or Firefly (novel)? Could you also explain why the clearly relevant secondary article cannot be linked to? Are you asserting that this use of the {{two other uses template is never possible? Why then does the template work this way? This template is designed specifically for a case like this. --Cheeser1 (talk)

  I believe that any Wikipedia article that fulfills the requirements is clearly relevant. My argument isn't that Firefly (TV series) isn't relevant, rather I'm asserting that the TV series is no more relevant then the other 35 blue links on Firefly (disambiguation). As others have stated here and on the ANI thread, notability isn't mentioned in the hatnote guidelines, but that doesn't mean we go the other way and open the door to using WP:GOOGLE and WP:ILIKEIT to elevate one legitimate article over another. {{two other uses}} is still a useful template, and is used very effectively in many places, such as Chernobyl, but in that case you'll note that there are only 6 links on the disambiguation page, and all of them relate to the town of Chernobyl in some way. In this case, we have 35 bluelinks in the Firefly (disambiguation) article, spanning many different topics, so its a matter of personal opinion which one deserves top billing. True, many people would probably say that Firefly (TV series) has special relevance, but tell that to Faith Hill fans that kept Fireflies (Faith Hill album) on the country chart for 100 weeks, or veterans that used the Sherman Firefly in combat in World War II. My point is - there isn't any fair or reasonable way to choose one of these 35 articles to spotlight, so common sense dictates that we not spotlight any of them. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 14:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  But you've taken the primacy of Firefly (bug) and used that to disregard the otherwise primacy of other articles. Why not have Firefly go straight to disambig? Because it was determined that the bug was more relevant/primary than the TV show. And yet now the TV show is automatically "the same" as every other one? I don't appreciate you conjuring up examples of WP:ILIKEIT in some attempt to assert that I am making such an argument (that or WP:GOOGLE). A google test is perfectly fine to demonstrate, perhaps not WP:V-conclusively, that the show is popular. It is critically acclaimed, won many awards, has tremendous and remarkable DVD sales, a large cult following, and spawned a film. That's not ILIKEIT, that's INDEPENDENTRELIABLETHIRDPARTIESLIKEIT. On the other hand, Bob Smith who loves Faith Hill and used a Sherman Firefly in combat clearly has a personal attachment to the album and the gun, one not supported by independent, reliable third parties that could assert the primacy of the Sherman Firefly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: There is a parallel discussion on-going at WP:ANI#Edit warring at Firefly. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking, Cheeser1, that your "consensus" never truly existed among established Wikipedians. As mentioned above, WP:NPOV clearly applies whether a persistent editor is willing to accept that or not. Regards. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The article, in its status quo state, is supported by a de facto consensus. The fact that you refuse to follow the consensus building process is not validated by mixed opinions that come up after the fact when I start a discussion about it. Furthermore, I am going to ask that you do not insinuate things about my status as a Wikipedian by making statements regarding "established Wikipedians," "persistent editor[s]," and my "willing[ness] to accept" something. Your behavior has been inappropriate, not mine. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the history, there never was a "status quo" wherein "other uses" is concerned. Check the box above, it shows more than a casual interest on your part as to the TV show. Check the consensus here and now, it concurs that other uses should only point to the disambiguation page. Check the name of this page: "Talk: Firefly". Not talk editor conduct. Shifting the discussion of topic won't shift opinion back to your version of "other uses". Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I just asked you not to make comments regarding contributors instead of comments regarding content. How am I the one "shifting the discussion of [sic] topic"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• When there are numerous other uses, we have a disambiguation page. We do that because (a) it keeps the hatnotes form sprawling to fill up the entire page and (b) it prevents ridiculous arguments over how likely it is that someone coming to the main topic will be looking for this, that or the other of its multiple other meanings. That is what disambiguation pages are for. I note that the TV series fans have the TV series first in the list on the dab page, I say leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  Please keep in mind that you should not be assuming that "TV fans" have some agenda here. If there is a primary meaning and a preeminent secondary meaning, then such use of the two other meanings template is correct. The question is whether or not a highly notable, critically acclaimed, award winning television show has preeminence over other topics like Sherman Firefly and My Little Pony (pilot episode). To be frank, that should be obvious. The point of disambiguation pages and hatenotes is to get readers where they need to go. The only thing "ridiculous" about these discussions is that people refuse to acknowledge that in terms of primacy, the bug may come first, but that doesn't preclude an obvious second. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  It's hardly "obvious" to those outside the TV show's fanbase that a short-lived TV show deserves preeminence over a World War II tank or a Uriah Heep album or a Malaysian airline or a subcompact car. FCYTravis (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  I would once again that these baseless accusations of "you're a fan, what would you know" stop. I'm casually familiar with the show. I like it. So do millions of other people. That's not a conflict of interest. I've explained how this show (despite being short-lived) has been the subject of a great deal of critical acclaim, media attention, etc. If a Malaysian airline wins awards for "best airline" and garners other indicators of high notability, then maybe they measure up. If you want to engage in a good faith discussion as to how the television series is or is not preeminent, be my guest, but don't start off on the wrong foot by hurling out accusations of who's a "fan," implying some sort of bias or agenda. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  Non sequitur. Whether or not something has won "awards" is irrelevant. You have not established that from a worldwide and encyclopedic perspective, the TV show is so predominant in the use of the name as to deserve special mention. You have not even attempted to argue that it is - you simply said "it should be obvious" that the show is preeminent. Well, to be frank, no, it's not obvious. FCYTravis (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  Non-paying-attenion editor. I made my case only a few paragraphs above this comment. Please read the entire discussion. Furthermore "it's not obvious" does not lead one to conclue "Cheeser1 is a fanboy who's got a pro-Firefly agenda," or even that my conclusions are incorrect. Are you interested in addressing my points, or would you rather argue over my use of the term "obvious"? Oh and, uh, last time I checked, awards, critical acclaim, and media coverage were exactly how we establish things like notability, preeminence, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  Also note that preeminance is related not just to "notability" (and not in the WP:N sense), but in use and navigation. Hatnotes are here to redirect users to the appropriate place as smoothly as possible. If there is a secondary article (second to the bug) that gets alot of traffic, is highly notable (compared to many, if not all, other members of the dab page), long (not to mention well written) as opposed to a stub or short, and can be reasonably argued as preeminant in notability, usage, and wiki-traffic, why oppose it on the grounds of "You are a fan" or "WP:ILIKEIT means I'm going to delete the hatnote because you like it" - ILIKEIT of course being an argument to avoid in AfDs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would also expect more from an administrator than reverting a revert when this issue is clearly under discussion and the status quo version should remain until a firm consensus is reached. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Which is functionally equivalent to "how dare an administrator of all people disagree with me!" - admins are just editors with extra tools, and are as entitled to their opinions as you are. Additionally, most admins I would say are rather less enthusiastic about the TV show than you are, so may be better placed to judge the policy and guideline basis for an edit. So we come back to the standard Wikipedia answer: the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to justify and achieve consensus for its inclusion. Your arguments thus far amount to a reversal of this, demanding that others justify removal. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You need to demonstrate, in some tangible and unequivocal way, that your TV show is uniquely likely to be the target of searches, over and above all other possible alternative uses of the term. As noted above, you haven't even atempted to do that so far. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, and I'll thank you not to rephrase my comments to suit you. What I said is functionally equivalent to: "Gosh, I'm surprised that an administrator doesn't understand the basics of the consensus building process, since he certainly ought to." Leave things the way they were until the issue is settled. That's what it tells us. I know what an administrator is, you don't have to explain it to me. I'm dismayed that you would actually assert that you are an admin, and admins don't like the show as much as I do (apparently), and therefore they are more qualified to contribute to this discussion. Can you people please stop rehashing the inappropriate argument "you like the show, so pipe down and do what we say" please? Since you refuse to even consider the fact that I've made a good faith effort to participate in this discussion and make valid points (and have apparently made up your mind decided what the consensus here is), I'm just going to be the bigger man and let you have it your way. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Finished digging yet, or can I offer you a bigger spade? Your failure to convince people is nobody's fault but your own. You could have made a difference by actually justifying your edit, as I said, rather than simply challenging all comers to a fight but you have made no effort at all yet to show why this one out of the dozens of uses of the word deserves special mention. You are the major cause of what little edit war exists here, and you are the one failing to follow standard Wikipedia practice. The onus is firmly on you to justify inclusion, and you have not even tried, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  Guy, I conceded the point since I'll obviously never be able to convince you of anything, since you refuse to even consider that I was ever willing to discuss this in good faith (despite the fact that I was and Netkinetic wasn't). With all due respect, I've run into you three places on WP today and each time you've basically spat in my face, refusing to assume an iota of good faith, so why don't you just leave it alone after I've conceded the issue? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you saying you've been forum-shopping? I hope not. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I like the TV show but it does not deserve special prominence. The WW2 tank is at least as important in my experience. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, I knew about that from boyhood. Actually "firefly" was a colloquial name for the 17pdr itself. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the sheer quantity of "What links here" into the Firefly (TV series) page (just over 1000) compared to any other firefly related pages (300 for this one, 100-150 for several others, most around 2-6) might be used as one possible justification for the {{Two other uses}} tag on this page. It is by far the most commonly linked firefly page on Wikipedia, and its inclusion as a second hatnote on this article will not slow down anyone who might be looking for the article about the tank, or any of the other disambiguated articles. (Disclosure: Not recently involved, but I readded the second hatnote to this article in Sept '06) --Onorem♠Dil 12:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• So all I need to do to get my favourite article at the top of another article is spam it everywhere? Has anyone reviewed those links to see how appropriate they are? And anyway, they link to the correct article so have no real impact here. It's people coming here to look for firefly that is the issue, and how many of those are likely to be looking for a short-lived TV series versus a tank or anything else. No figures advanced thus far. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a perfect justification. I was just pointing it out for another perspective. Go ahead and spam whatever you'd like. It's my opinion that a good percentage of the people that type in Firefly are hoping to get to the article about the series. That those articles currently link to the correct page is not the issue. The fact that you don't like it, might as well ignore AGF in both directions, doesn't mean that the majority of people that end up here aren't looking for info about the show. Unless we can somehow embed counters to see which articles people most frequently click through to out of a disambiguation page, I'm not sure how figures can be provided on exactly how many of those are likely to be looking for a short-lived TV series versus a tank or anything else, so I guess I'll never be able to come up with an answer that satisfies you. Good enough for me. I don't care enough about the issue to fight over it. I'm not going to add it back myself. I just think it's a net negative to the average reader to have to click through twice to get to where they wanted to be in the first place. --Onorem♠Dil 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps useful to this conversation:

Out of first twenty web pages on Google for "firefly":

60% television series

15% restaurant

10% media bridge

5% mobile phone

5% insect

5% game studios

Out of the first twenty images on Google for "firefly":

55% television series

35% insect

10% squid

Neitherday (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We've had this discussion so many times, and everytime a consensus is met: we think it's better to have a Firefly (TV show) link at the top of this article. -b (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not synonomous with Google, they operate under different criteria. The question is notability here. Second, this discussion on other uses including Firefly (TV show) has been discussed "many times"? Really? Please refer to those previous discussions and where a "consensus" was reached supporting it? Because even Cheeser1 never referred to a consensus beyond "status quo". I'm thinking all 5 people who loved the show are trying to resurrect it here since the show had an abbreviate existence and its movie was a box office failure.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, our article on Firefly was visited 30955 times in 2007[2]. Our article on Firefly_(TV_series) was visited 91075 times in the same period[3]. Hiding T 20:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the statistics, Steve Block. That said, it still doesn't solidify notability and a consensus here agree that adding [[Firefly {TV series)]] to other uses would not conform with Wikipedia policies mentioned above. Also, your statement "our article on Firefly" smacks of WP:OWN. Hope that isn't the case. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 19:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Our article" because it's in Wikipedia, not Britannica. Learn to WP:AGF please. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be proper to include a direct link to to Firefly (TV series) at the top of the article? This is an issue that is not going away anytime soon, and as such, can we PLEASE keep it clean The two options are:

I believe that the template should be reverted to include the link: a template exists to suit this need, Firefly (TV series) appears first on Google, it does no harm to the existing Firefly article and would merely act to streamline the user experience. -b (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the template should be left as directing only to the Firefly disambiguation, as this adequately serves the needs for all concerned and there is no notable reason that the TV series should have special exemption from this excepted standard. The majority of individuals on this page and elsewhere have formed a consensus that this is acceptable at this time. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 06:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

False. There is no such consensus. Furthermore, WP:N has no bearing here whatsoever. Hatnotes are to aid navigation. Primacy is the issue, and there are clear indicators that in terms of navigation, most of the traffic for the search term "Firefly" goes to the TV show (even more than this page, which even gets double-counts due to it being the most primary term). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with above. The template for two other uses obviously exists for this reason. -b (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. The hit counts provided by Hiding above show that users are having no difficulty in reaching the article for the TV series - this article is not a detour for most of them. The proposed hatnote would distract from the main content of this article and give undue promotional prominence to a commercial enterprise. See also WP:RECENT. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  Your logic is flawed. Many people arrive at the page through properly piped wiki-links. Others come by way of Google, which gives Firefly (TV series) as the first link, as opposed to the bug which doesn't even show up. Another substantial number of them arrive via Firefly, and are thus double counted, but saying that they should all be double counted in order to justify a more detailed/robust/helpful hatnote is a gross oversimplification of how people arrive at Firefly (TV series). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I say go with keeping the general dab statement. To single out the TV series expresses POV that it's more notable than the many other items on the dab list. In addition, there is also a second article related to the TV series listed on the dab page. Best to just send people to the dab. If there's any worry about someone getting lost, the TV series is the first thing listed. The fact the TV series at the present time is the most popular search topic is irrelevent. I can't quote chapter and verse, but I'm pretty certain somewhere in WP:NOT is some variant of "Wikipedia is not a popularity contest". 23skidoo (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  Once again, hatnotes are not about declaring some unfair or unimportant statement about "notability" or "popularity." They're about navigation/disambiguation. If 70%+ of our traffic for the search term "Firefly" is for the TV series, and if there is clear evidence that the majority of Wiki-traffic intending to find something "Firefly" is looking for that article, then you can call it "popular" or an "express[ion of a] POV that it's more notable" but that's not the point at all. Hatnotes are not declarations of supreme importance or grand notability. They are traffic signs. When I'm driving through Texas, I get a traffic sign that says "Dallas 200 miles" but where is my "Smalltown 175 miles" sign? It's not that Smalltown is unimportant, unencyclopedic, or "unpopular" - it's that many/most people who get onto DallasHighway are going to Dallas, not Smalltown. But of course, if I get on TinyHighway 82, there are signs telling me when to exit to Smalltown, as well as Tinyville and Minuteton. None of these small towns are being judged to be "unimportant" or otherwise devalued. NPOV is about the content of our encyclopedia being neutral and verifiable - it does not bar us from directing people where they want to go as efficiently and effectively as possible. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• General disambiguation is fine. That is what dab links are for. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  So because it works, we should use it? This is about what's best, not about what's "fine." All dab links are for this purpose, we're discussing which is more appropriate/helpful in disambiguating the search term "Firefly." Your point does not address the issue at hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that a general dab is the best practice. It's quite extraordinary the effort that has been expended on this issue. Eusebeus (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• On no account should a disambiguation notice point to a particular meaning (TV series), given that there are so many meanings of this term, and they are concisely summarised in the appropriate disambiguation page (Firefly (disambiguation)). The dab notice on top should point to that, and to nothing else. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• It appears that objective editors have spoken. We appreciate the fans' expressions and sympathize, however what is best at Wikipedia is of prime importance, per the above. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please stop attributing every opposing viewpoint to fandom. It's not accurate or appropriate. WP:AGF. --Onorem♠Dil 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Continuing to presume that you automatically win because you're automatically right, due to some self-righteous "neutrality" or "objectivity" will not help this discussion. Wikipedia works on consensus, not on "I'm right because you're a fanboy." Continuing to make false claims of consensus or doing "what is best [for] Wikipedia" is highly inappropriate, and if you don't stop, it may lead people to conclude that you are not willing to participate in good faith in this discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, using softball arguments such as "This is about what's best, not about what's 'fine'" is presumptuous in and of itself. Several principles have been noted and each one you state "do not apply". Which priniciple does apply to your argument, specifically. Please avoid weasel word and introduce a sound argument. Then we can have a solid discussion.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    What is the purpose of a hatnote? Tell me. I'd love to hear your opinion. WP:WEASEL has nothing to do with hatnotes or talk pages. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    • So since you continue to hang your hat on hatnotes (pun intended), from Wikipedia:Hatnotes: "This style guideline is intended to make this process more efficient by giving article pages a consistent look, and avoiding distracting information (such as extraneous links)". The "other uses" for a trivial article amidst the various Firefly derivates would be distracting. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think it's distracting, it's minor, inline, and does not take away from the existing article. The television show, short lived as it was, developed a large following. As stated before, I believe it's fair to say that Firefly fans are over represented on Wikipedia, and amongst Wikipedia readers. It makes sense, it really does. Saying it doesn't for the sake of uniformity only detracts from the usability of Wikipedia. -b (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly why uniform text (called "templates") are used to direct users to primary and common meanings for any search term. Since the TV show is second only to the bug (if not first) in terms of the search term "Firefly," we avoid extraneous links (e.g. Grandpa Hugo), while presenting the reader with a hatnote directing him/her to what is most likely his/her destination article. The exact purpose of a hatnote. Furthermore, you continue to make yourself look foolish not only by insisting that it is "fandom" or somesuch that motivates this hatnote, but now that Firefly (TV serires) is trivial. Are you serious? Honestly? --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Either the first option using Template:Otheruses4, or this article should be moved to Firefly (insect) and Firefly should be the dab page. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 00:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I vote the TV series stays linked from the disambiguation page but not directly from this article. Links should be arranged in the most logical fashion not the most convenient. Making an exception is an issue of consistency and would harm a new users understanding of Wikipedia's interface and general navigation ever so slightly, as disambiguation pages are widely used and accepted. It remains the task of the search engine to prioritise matches according to relevance or popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.17.174 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No one has commented on this in several days. Not that this is a vote, but opinion is more or less split: I count 7 in favor of keeping the second link (to the TV series) and 9 in favor of removing it (although I'm trying to count all opinions expressed here - in this RfC section and the discussion above, I may have miscounted). There has been no resolution of this matter, although the reversion (putting the second link back in) has itself been reverted (despite the consensus building process), and so the hatnote continues to sit with only a single link. I am going to revert these changes, once again, because no one has cited specific precedents, policies, or guidelines that explicitly disallow such hatnotes (only that they believe such precedents, policies, or guidelines do so, without any provision to that effect - something that has been countered by similar beliefs to the contrary). I would strongly suggest that we continue to discuss this matter or leave it as it was before this discussion started. Enough edit-warring has gone on, and we've had some discussion but haven't come to any conclusion yet - maybe we will, maybe we won't, but we should leave it as-is. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that the most recent revert-a-revert here refers to an ANI report that actually does not address the issue at hand - only referring to the tangential problems involving edit warring etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I will now note that the edit warring and revert-a-revert has once again resumed, despite the consensus building process, and the ongoing RfC (in which one of the revert-a-revert-ers has not even participated). No good faith effort has been made on their parts to resolve this, and I have come to believe that no such effort will be made due to their staunch refusal to follow the consensus building process. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wrong Cheeser. Absent strong consensus to deviate from our standard dab practice, there are no grounds for the changes you wish to implement. If you wish to continue this discussion, feel free, but as it stands there is no ground for using anything beyond our standard link to the dab page. And the AN/I did provide incidental confirmation of this dab practice, which you know well since you participated in it. If you wish, take this to arbitration. Eusebeus (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  Lordy, "take it to arbitration [if you disagree with me]" sounds like some staunch refusal to participate in consensus-building if I ever heard it. You keep saying "the changes [I] wish to implement" but the status-quo version of the article had the double-link hatnote and you (and others) are the ones making changes. Furthermore, there is no confirmation of your opinion in DAB policy, nor at the ANI, despite your opinion that there is. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  Your definition of consensus building seems to be incessant badgering and braying until others give up or simply grow tired. However, FYCTravis & Guy made an unimpeachable argument above and that frankly should be the end of the matter. There has been no demonstration that an obscure tv show with an apparently hyper-zealous fan base deserves pride of place over tanks, airlines or other uses. You asked for comment and you got it. Your actions and your appeal to consensus is, in fact, a disruptive gaming of the system. And please, spare us the usual self-righteous links to AGF and Civil. They are as unhelpful as your continued obstreperousness in this matter. Eusebeus (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  I could say the same of yours, only I'd be accurate. Personal jabs and attacks aside, your only substantive point here (and no, calling other users "hyper-zealous fan[s]" is not a valid point) was a reference to prior arguments that have been challenged. Once again, hatnotes and disambiguation pages are to help users get where they want to go. They do not make any judgment of importance or notability. On the other hand, those asking that the article be left as-is, besides having status quo in this undecided matter, have presented substantial evidence that in terms of navigation (which is the issue at hand), the TV series has substantial primacy, regardless of whether there are other definitions. This claim has not (indeed cannot) be refuted, and rather than discuss compromises or alternatives, you have stooped to edit warring and personal attacks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I will also point out that the statistics provided by User:Hiding ([4][5]) not only show that one article has navigational primacy over the other, but a quick check of some of the available data reveals that there is a correlation between visits to this page and visits to the TV series (r=.81) - people looking for the TV series are more numerous, and thus contribute to the traffic here overwhelmingly enough to establish a correlation. Furthermore, regardless of which hatnote we use, there is a similar correlation between the disambiguation page and the TV series article (r=.79 with the bypass link, even stronger r=.89 without it - when users are forced to go through the DAB to get to the TV show). An unrelated item, Firefly (comics), is not correlated to the TV show (r=.32) nor to the disambig (r=.24). Most obvious is this: [6]. Notice the sharp jump in traffic on the disambig page once the direct link was removed from the hatnote. It has been clearly established (and in no way challenged or refuted) that the TV series has primacy in terms of navigation/traffic, which is exactly the domain of things like hatnotes. The case could not be clearer, barring the retraction of counterarguments based on opposers' interpretations of unspecific (WP:MOS), unclear (WP:HAT), or altogether irrelevant (WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL) policies/guidelines. The secondary link in the hatnote to the TV series is warranted, and there are no policies or guidelines that specifically or explicitly exclude it. Certain users seem to vehemently disagree with this, perhaps because their interpretation of the WP:MOS, WP:DAB, etc. may not allow such hatnotes (that or the dislike of "hyper-zealous fan[s]"), but I find no such provision anywhere (and find the existence of the template we've been using up until this challenge/removal to be quite telling). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• A number of outside and uninvolved parties have weighed in and agree that a general dab link is the best practice here. If you continue to disagree based on your apparent fan-driven enthusiasm for this obscure TV show, RfA should be you next step. But there is clearly no consensus for your motivated dab hatnote. Eusebeus (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  Now that you have refused to participate in this discussion in good faith, the least you could do is not assume bad faith on the part of others. The "OMG UR JUST A FAN" offense is inappropriate and worn out. There have been opinions in both directions, and you continue to assume some moral high-ground on the basis that you don't like the show (although you show up in enough debates about the show that it's a wonder no one has pointed the finger at you as a "motivated" anti-Firefly editor). A decision of "no consensus" is not the moment for you to declare yourself objective, victorious, and above reproach. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1, your perpetual refusal to at the very least make concessions in your opposition's arguments clearly highlights your refusal towards "consensus building". To build consensus, you need to acknowledge other points of view and make some concessions. This "all or nothing" stance on the DAB without leaving some latitude for the reasoned lines of thought above (such as making DABs on other usage that are more historically significant) speaks volumes at a blatant lack of "consensus building". Acknowledge these points contrary to your POV and you will gain good faith in this discussion. Barring that, I agree that arbitration may be your next step (albeit one I believe you know full well will not lead to a desirable conclusion for your POV). Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All or nothing? I'm not the one saying "I am right, MOSDAB, game over fanboy" like you and those on your side. Those proposing that we should keep both links have provided substantial explanation and cited accurately the fact that the style guidelines in question do not forbid such links, despite your interpretations ot the contrary. And please, don't lecture me on good faith, you are in no position to do so. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough personal attacks, please. The argument on other derivations of Firefly is "substantial" and "accurately" explains why a second DAB is unnecessary. At this point, however, it would seem arbitration may be your best option. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Take it to arbcom if you don't like the changes we want to make on the article" is highly inappropriate. And nothing in my comment was a personal attack (except the one I've pseudo-quoted from others). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that ArbCom would take the case. This is a silly content dispute with some borderline uncivil behavior on both sides. In the end, this is an extremely minor issue and several editors need to take a break from this issue. Ursasapien (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we've been stuck on "take it to arbcom" for a while, would any of the people who refuse to see past their "you must just be rabid fans" paradigm care to comment on the fact that statistics clearly indicate that (in terms of navigation) the TV series has clear primacy? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been commented on, and is one of several factors to consider. Another that you continue to avoid addressing is the other derrivations of the term which are far more historically notable, i.e. the tank, etc. If I may ask, what is your dog in this fight? There are several examples of culturally popular articles that might support statistics that are derrivations on a main usage, and they do not employ this "other uses" template. Why is this particular article of greater merit than, say, Cavaliers, or a like article. Why not take your cause for other uses to other legitimate articles as well...as you are clearly *not* a fan of this show and have *no* interest in it whatsoever except as an objective viewer? I'm WP:AGF here, please note.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 15:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

UI have to agree with Metkinetic here. Time to move on - this discussion is generating more heat than light. Ursapiens links to LEW and I have to say he is - unusually - right about that. Eusebeus (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see.. browbeat your changes onto the article without consensus, demand that if anyone disagrees they go to arbcom, fail to address the matter in a manner that establishes a consensus, and then when the discussion goes stale, you decide "gosh, this is silly, this discussion should have ended long ago" - a convenient way of saying "we got our way because we won the edit war, now shut up and go away" perhaps? --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this may have been missed. What of other historically relevant derrivations?Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hatnotes are to direct traffic, not signify historical relevance, notability, importance, or anything of the sort. I've said that a few times now. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I submit this: In cases where the disambiguation page lists a wide array of articles that the term 'Firefly' could be referring to, then the notice at the top should not specifically mention the TV series
• Exception: if there is a case where there is an term with two very common meanings, it would be okay to provide a link to the other meaning (example: Titanic, and Titanic (film). I do not believe the Firefly (TV series) qualifies for this exception

Rfwoolf (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the previous discussion and take note of the fact that the majority of "Firefly" search-term traffic goes to the TV series? If anything, it's has far more primacy than Titanic (film) does for the search term "Titanic." --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Firefly the TV series has more "primacy" compared to Titanic the Movie?!? Based on what quantitative research? Please reference this incredulous (insert: unbelievable) statement through WP:RS. And please, enough with the emphasis on key words as this is not as important as referenced statements. With that I say regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the traffic for the search term "Firefly" is for the TV series, whereas the same could not be said for the search term "Titanic" and the film, since the boat itself garners a significantly larger portion of the traffic. I believe you misread my statement, as if I were comparing the film Titanic to the series Firefly (as opposed to a comparison of their relative search-term-based traffic). Please read carefully. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And also, this is a discussion, not an article. WP:RS does not apply to discussions... obviously. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Netkinetic, considering the fact that your last comment demonstrates that you don't even understand the "keep things as they were" opinions in this matter, can you stop removing the RfC template? Repeatedly doing so is highly inappropriate and probably the most tendentious thing you could do. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to add a short bibliography of fiction about fireflies? Two stories come to mind, "The Lightning Bug Wars" by Gary W. Shockley (F&SF, April 2003) and "Luciferase" by Bruce Sterling (SCI FICTION, December 2004). --Jim Henry (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have heard counter evolutionarry calims regarding these creatures. Such as :

• their ligh being a way to attract predator ,even when hey are not toxic.
• A wasste of energy.
• They do not need it for sight or communication(coudl've used chemicals that are less fleshy and more conservative in energy)

Can any one help me debunk these calims?--Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a new research paper came out recently (2007-8) showing the firefly is only about 45% efficient. Everyone used to think it was 90%. Can't remember the journal but I think it was in either science or nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.223.189 (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

One user wrote the firefly light producing mechanism is 90% efficient, and this was tagged as needing a reference. There are seemingly very few articles which discuss the efficiency of bioluminescence for any organism. I did come up with one reference which states an efficiency of 96% for fireflies, but I am skeptical of this. Could others try to locate a number from a more reputable source? Tevonic (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph. The tag has been here for a year and I can't find anything myself. The paragraph is the sort of thing that can get quoted around without much consideration. I'm not sure what we're even looking for, but someone reading it might assume that 90% of the energy of a sugar molecule is converted to visible light, which seems unlikely. The LED comparison, on the other hand, is for white light, which includes wavelengths to which our eyes are less sensitive.Bennetto (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But where do they live? We Live 30klm south of Coffs Harbour, NSW Eastern Australia. 2 klm from the beach in Dry Sclerophyl Forest. We are described as Temperate/Sub Tropical. The Full moon was 2 weeks ago and we have had no rain this spring. Seemingly, the best conditions in the last 15 years for OUR fireflys As rain seems to affect their numbers markedly. I didnt know That Fireflys existed in Australia until we moved here. There are currently hundreds/thousands? As stated, we have just had a full moon (does that affect them?) and no rain. I know very little about them and have no idea of the species? We are happy to offer more information on our little pocket of these creatures.116.250.16.250 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC) In addition to this, their "Lightshow" (here in Aus) will finish this week116.250.16.250 (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if this article would include more specific information about the natural, geographic range of the various firefly species (presumably grouped together as a single unit, for the purposes of this article), ideally in the form of a map. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It would help tremendously if this article indicated:

• Where in the world these bugs appear
• During what period of time they appear
• What conditions accelerate or hinder their appearance (e.g. rain, cold, moonlight, etc.)

Anyone care to take a crack at it? Lexlex (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

4/15/06 Tonight I watched fireflies in my back yard do something I have never seen before. I don't know for sure how many fireflies were in the yard, but I have never seen them flash like this before. They were flashing in a very accelerated fashion. Usually they flash in a sedated manner, but these were going crazy. Has anyone seen something like this before? I also don't remember them being out at this time of year before. Email me at jdwjr54@yahoo.com

do they reside in all 50 states??--65.185.185.51 00:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I know that in the part of Florida I grew up in (Panhandle, Pensacola to be specific) as well as Gainesville, FL (northern part of the penninsula), there were no fireflies, but I don't know if they lived elsewhere in the state Nik42 05:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I grew up in California and lived in Southern and Northern CA, as well as 18 years in the deserts of AZ. No fireflies. Just seen my first ones in NJ.

No fireflies in Western Oregon :( I suggest importation! 198.6.46.11 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"The chemical in fireflies(known in some places as lightning bugs)which causes the glow that gives them their name is a known cure for cancer. However, it is not commonly used because some modern scientists believe it can increase the risk of lime disease."

Are you kidding me? A "known" cure for cancer? As opposed to an unknown cure for cancer?

"Modern" scientists? So I guess antibellum scientists don't share the belief that it causes "lime" disease? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.52.74 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoever IDed the picture, are you SURE that's the real species? If you search for "Lampyris noctiluca" in google images, you get black glow worms that don't look all that much like the one on the picture. Are they in different instars or something? I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there. --TheAlphaWolf 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I made this photo just in front of my house in Maxdorf, Germany. It is quite sure that the identification is correct, for there are only three species of Lampyridae in Germany. The other two species are smaller, moreover the female of Lamprohiza splendidula has small wings and Phosphaenus hemipterus does rarely glow. The color might be partial an artifact of the photographic technique: I used a long exposure time (10 sec.) with brightening the scene by waving a torch for a few seconds. The yellow light might have caused a color cast, as you can see in comparison with a daylight picture like this. --89.56.221.135 21:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (de:User:Wofl)

The picture is of a larva, not an adult, right? Lunch 04:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely an adult female Lampyris noctiluca. Actually, I think it would be better to have a photo of a true firefly here, that is, one that glows while flying. L.noctiluca males do not glow significantly, so are more usually referred to as glowworms. Robin Scagell 11:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I haven't seen any lightening bugs all summer? I am in Dundulk, Balto. County. Paula —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.145.53 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Came across this fascinating cc-by-sa lightning bug picture today. Don't know how to upload pics, but perhaps someone else will be interested in doing it. Don't know Japanese, but using Google translate it seems that this image should be attributed to Mr. Don Sho (User link in the upper-left corner.)

http://photozou.jp/photo/photo_only/560175/85251834?size=1024

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.17.63 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The page Aesculapian Snake has a section titled history which in turn has a link to Cucullo in central Italy. This link is for some reason redirected to the Firefly page. This is incorrect IMHO. Whether this is a problem with the Aesculapian Snake page, the Firefly page or the Cucullo page is not clear. It may be a problem with any or all of these pages. It is left to someone more expert in Wikipedia to investigate and correct these problems. Update: this may simply be a spelling error on the Aesculapian Snake page - Cucullo to read Cocullo. Second update: correction to spelling of Cocullo appears to have solved the problem, so please ignore this entry on the Firefly page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.36.76 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd explain some changes I made in the External Links section, to avoid any confusion. I deleted "Facts about Lampyridae" because it contained no information that the Wikipedia article didn't already have, and it contributed no further references, etc. Second, I removed "Nitric oxide and firefly flashing" because it probably fits better in the luciferase article, as the editor who contributed it in this article suggested. I will be adding that link to the luciferase article in a bit here. Finally, I renamed the "Lighning bugs" link to "Bioluminescence in insects," which I think better describes the link. Thanks all, --Jhml 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The External Links need to be editet. The first few links don't have any description why to follow them. Also i would like to add a link to my own site (http://www.flowinguniverse.com/alife_fireflystudio_e/), but i do not know if it is welcome. It would be Wikipedia-exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.87.125 (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why is the the firefly robot from china in the links section? Is there ANY relevance to this? My sable hats (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have found somewhere how female fireflies can use a steroid called lucibufagin to help them fight off jumping spiders. Still not quite sure if this is entirely true, but I have found a review article on this subject. Tell me if this could be useful enough in the chemical section of this article. http://www.pnas.org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/content/94/18/9723.full Turnbull.41 (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Turnbull.41

I've been travelling aournd the world for years and I have never seen a firefly in my life. How rare are they? 194.46.232.25 20:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends where and when you look. The adults of all the species are seasonal, of course, so you may just be in the right place at the wrong time. When in the right place and the right time, there may be fireflies there and you wouldn't even know - some are diurnal and completely lack the ability to light up. The most common firefly in my home area is Ellychnia corrusca, one of those that flies during the day and lacks light organs; most people here don't even know we have fireflies because of that! The time of night you're looking for them during makes a difference too. Some species only flash at dusk, some later, and some flash in shadows during the day! Short answer: I think they're more common that what people might initially think. Jhml 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Philadelphia-area, they're extremely common during the summer. It would be rare to not see them at dusk/early night in July. --SodiumBenzoate 07:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In Milford, Pennsylvania, they were everywhere on summer nights when I was growing up (call it the middle of the 1960's.) Today, there isn't a single one to be seen even if you sit outside all evening. There are certainly none in Montana where I live today, but it is dry here, and if they need humidity, that'd be the end of that. I do miss them; they're a beautiful and interesting sight. Once, as a child, I was trying to get out of having to go to our barn for something, and my mother asked me why I didn't want to go, I (according to her) told her that I "might be struck by lightning bugs." --fyngyrz

I grew up in the 1980's in the upstate of South Carolina, and fireflies were very plentiful in the summer evenings. Today, however, I feel fortunate to see even one or two in the same area; many evenings I see none at all. The area has seen very little environment-changing development or increased light pollution, so I have no idea what has caused the decline. --65.6.122.26 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall hearing that pesticides used to control mosquitoes and other pests have had an adverse effect on the firefly population. I can't say I've seen one in over 20 years. --The_Iconoclast (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Firefly/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

think this article just makes A class. Has a good amount of info but would be better if it was ordered into more subsections with small rewrites for clarity. Would benefit from a small section on the molecular biology of light production. Otherwise good though. Goldfinger820 22:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

How can insects include snails and worms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:376D:9730:78EF:E6F6:2ECE:1EAC (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

More accurately, crepuscular

Well, I'll have you know that here in Taiwan at elevation 777 meters, they are most active in the evening after all twilight is gone, which makes sense because the darker it is, the better they can see each other, so your crepuscular is wrong. By midnight the dating scene has pretty much cooled down and stays that way until the next evening. Jidanni (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Now it says

bioluminescence during twilight

well I'll have you know that they even glow when twilight is over with too. Jidanni (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Should there be some mention of lightning bug v. firefly as the common name for these insects, based on regional influences?

- Not a bad idea. I feel there should be. Moreover, I'm questioning the article's preference of firefly over lightning bug. Even though "bug" doesn't sound as official, I did a comparison of species distribution(source) vs. dialect preference within the United States, and there's an overwhelming trend of "lightning bug" being used where the insects exist, and "firefly" being popular only where there are no such things. --Comrade Tiki (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What is their ecology? it is only indirectly and very partially discernible from the text. 31.132.83.110 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there a citation for the note about diurnal fireflies in shadowy areas producing light? KristinDunn (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 24 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KristinDunn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The cladogram in the article cites Martin et al 2019. This is a molecular phylogenetic study of Lampyridae and its subfamilies. The phylogeny is not based on morphology. The higher order relationships were not studied. The cladogram shows Lampyridae as sister to the superfamily Byrrhoidea - what is the evidence for this? The cladogram shows the clade containing Lampyridae and Byrrhoidea as sister to "superfamilies inc. Elateroidea" - but Martin et al (and the taxobox) assume that Lampyridae is a member of the superfamily Elateroidea. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Martin et al 2019 include a number of outgroup taxa. I don't know how dense the sampling was - and know nothing about beetles and their phylogeny - but if you include the outgroup taxa you obtain:

-Aa77zz (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm fairly diffident about going far into the outgroups, which are only selected because they lie outside the study group. However the two other bioluminescent families are clearly of interest. Authorities have (constantly) differed on which groups are sister to what. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Surprised to see that we have the Italian for Firefly redirecting here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor should there be foreign words here unless they have been assimilated into English, for which there seems to be no evidence. I suggest that the redirect should be made into a disambiguation page, and the new hatnote removed from here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)