Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 1 and Talk:Yellowjacket: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Sardanaphalus (talk | contribs)
updating link, possibly some formatting/rephrasings, using AWB
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ArthropodTalk|B|Mid}}
{{talkarchive}}
==More on behavior needed==
Here in NW North America yellow jackets are ubiquitous. They seem to live for the most part unnoticed until late summer or fall. Life experience seems to show that they become agressive during the last warm days of the year. I would like to see an explanation of this behavior in the article. Also autoritative extermination techniques. [[Special:Contributions/68.118.53.205|68.118.53.205]] ([[User talk:68.118.53.205|talk]]) 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


==Problems of POV articles==
Many (most) of the articles on law show a strong US leaning. Now that is OK since most of the contributors have been US lawyers etc. I am happy to add English/UK material as necessary.


==Deaths in North America==
However, in some cases this is difficult or impossible since the articles are completely POV. They are (or may be) specific to the US and are quite wrong for the UK and possibly other or many other jurisdictions. I cannot edit them and say: in the US X is true while in the UK Y is true since I don't know US law very well (or at all).
"These wasps are responsible for at least three deaths in North America, when a man named Earl Wells fell from his ladder into their underground nest, when a man named Albert Wellner disturbed a swarm with his lawnmower, and when a small boy named Harrison Johnson found a swarm in the backyard." Anyone have a source for this? Thanx [[User:68.39.174.150|68.39.174.150]] 12:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


: I'm watching a National Geographic show called "Bug Attack" that tells this story, including an interview with relatives of Mr. Wellner. I'm wondering about the statement in the article about "at least 3 deaths..." This number seems very low to me. That number may be people who were literally stung to death, but I'm seeing quotes of about 40 deaths per year in the US due to allergic reactions to individual stings. [[User:Joy Stovall|Joyous ]] [[User_talk:Joy Stovall|(talk)]] 02:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion, and I admit it is contraversial and a big job, is this: all articles are written in general terms as NPOV as possible with either sections, or better still a consistent set of side articles, on the situation in particular jurisdictions.


== Can we get a disambiguation ==
For example the article on [[Third party beneficiary]] would be rewritten to explain (1) what a third party beneficiary would be (if one existed); (2) that there was no recognised concept of a third party beneficiary in common law; (3) that (I am guessing here) in the US such a concept was developed; and (4) that in England the idea was rejected and had to be introduced by statute. The substance of the article (which is US POV) could then go to [[Third party beneficiary (united states)]] or whatever.


Yellowjacket/Yellow jacket is also the common name of numerous Euclayptus species, yet the term directs straight to this page. Can someone knowledgable adress this problem? [[User:Ethel Aardvark|Ethel Aardvark]]
If we do it *that* way, we could end up with some very neat articles that look very generally at important ideas in the common law, but that point to the sometimes very different development in later jurisdictions. At the moment the articles are mostly US POV with footnotes that "things aren't always the same elsewhere".


== Scientific classification consistency ==
I think that might be easier for a general reader{{ndash}} since they can understand what the general problem of (say) privity of contract is, but then go on to read about the jurisdiction they want. Articles within a jurisdiction can point to each other consistently.
The scientific classification charts on [[wasp]], [[hornet]], and [[yellowjacket]] are not consistent, making it impossible to compare how closely related these insects are. I am not familiar enough with them to make the correction. --[[User:Zandperl|zandperl]] 04:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


To do this properly will need a lot of active cooperation between people from different parts of the common law world. I am willing to give a lot of help on English law and also the ancient history of the common law (which is an area of expertise I have).


== Nomenclature ==
It is worth pointing out that some of the problems are created by lawyers who are no longer aware of the history of the doctrines they are writing about. For example the article on [[Leasehold estate]] conflates (in its history section) the notion of tenure with that of landlord and tenant. Historically they were quite different, but in the US where (I assume) there is no longer any tenure (and probably hasn't been any of interest for some time) the distinction is not so apparrent.
In the UK the term yellowjackets is never used for wasps. I have often wondered what "yellowjackets" were. And now, thanks to Wiki, I know. [[User:82.135.71.116|82.135.71.116]] 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC) DRSHOK


:Personally I don't think this article should be under "Yellowjacket", which is the North American name for insects that originated in Europe, and is not well-known outside North America. I think it would be better placed under "European wasps" or a scientific name. [[User:Grant65|Grant]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to getting this project going. Any other takers? [[User:Francis Davey|Francis Davey]] 1 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)
*I am absolutely willing to work to make the articles less U.S.-centric, as I am aware of my limitations, having only learned the U.S. take on the various doctrine. For an article such as [[third party beneficiary]], I think the article can remain under its current title if the history of the U.S./UK division is explained up front, then common elements are discussed, and particular differences are noted at the end. (We should also look for differences in Australian law, and in other sizable common law systems). I'd like to see each topic organized like a good law-course outline, starting, for example, with a broad article on contracts that generally describes the area, which points to more detailed articles on "Contract formation", "Contract terms", "Excuses for nonperformance of a contract", etc., each of which in turn points to articles on specific doctrines, e.g., "[[Offer]]", "[[Parol evidence]]", "[[Frustration of purpose]]". I do think contract law is the best place to start! Cheers! --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 1, 2005 12:51 (UTC)
*It sounds like we are all of the same mind here. There is a clear problem in distinguishing between general legal doctrine and country-specific variations of law. It tends to be that either an article will treat a single countries' POV as the general rule to all common law or else an article will wrongly intermix conflicting rules from different countries resulting in something that is not very easy to understand (see [[Estoppel]] for example). This is forgivable since none of us are experts on all jurisdictions of common law. The approach suggested by Francis Davey makes sense: Start with the most country-neutral (or maybe just the most popular) meaning of the doctrine and then explain in separate sections (or separate articles) the subleties and case law that each country has. I think what might prove to be tricky will be creating a country-neutral taxonomy of law. Each country has an (often strict) ordering of categories that will sometimes confict with the others. Contracts is as good a place to start as any. I think the ordering suggested by DBAbramson sounds reasonable. All the best. [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 1 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
*I agree that Contract is a good place to start - provided its understood that we call it the "law of contract" 8-). There seems to be a strange plural v singular contrast between US and England, for example we have a law of tort (not torts); a court of appeal (not appeals). Maybe its because the US has lots of states and feels its plurality more keenly.


::I agree with Grant65; I have never heard the term Yellowjacket before and would agree with putting it under "European wasp". Also, with reference to the first paragraph, I have never heard them referred to as Bees. They are certainly easy to distinguish from any species of bee I am familiar with.--[[User:160.9.41.52|160.9.41.52]] 12:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
More seriously, what would help me is to be clear what is US material, then I can abstract the bits I know are more general, and mark US and England+Wales specific differences.


:::I also agree this page should be "European wasp", until I was looking for a good picture of a wasp I had not heard of yellowjackets here in the UK. As for being referred as bees: The reason I was looking for a web site with a picture of a wasp is that I am webmaster for a small beekeepers association and we quite often get calls and emails from the public that cannot tell a wasp from a bee (bumble or honey) [[User:Iccaldwell|Iccaldwell]] 20:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it will hurt if we assume a common law background for most of the articles, since strictly speaking related concepts in (say) [[French law]] are quite different and the terminology is different. Things like privity, consideration, frustration and so on are really common law ideas, even though they represent common questions in how to deal with contract law which have been solved in other places in different ways. There could be a very general article on the law of contract that crosses all jurisdictions and gives a birds eye view of the subject, but we can start by writing what we know about common law.


::::Totally agree. I found what appears to be a hornet in the bath and this article confused me greatly. Other countries get their own versions of Wikipedia but the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. have to share with the USA and English ought not to take second place to American.{{unsigned|212.56.114.243|June 13, 2007}}
I'll try rewriting the 3rd party article as an example if I get some time later today (distracted by live8) and see where that takes us. [[User:Francis Davey|Francis Davey]] 2 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
**How about calling them "contract law", "tort law", "property law", etc? I think those will be understood in every jurisdiction. I'm also very keen to see broad linking structures, particularly sidebar templates for each area of law such as those found in [[Islam]], [[Judaism]], and [[Christianity]]. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 2, 2005 15:36 (UTC)
***Those titles sound fine so long as the naming remains consistent. E.g. "<blank> law" rather than "law of <blank(s)>". However there may be some exceptions with the odd areas of law such as "Law of the Sea" which I don't think is ever called "Sea law" anywhere. update: I just read the [[Admiralty law]] article, maybe that wasn't the best example [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 2 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)
****I started gathering article titles for templates a while ago - I'll progress on them after the bar! --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 2, 2005 20:03 (UTC)
*****What do you think about areas such as [[Constitutional law]] or [[Administrative law]]? These might be considered core common law areas as well{{ndash}} Good luck on the bar. [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 4 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
******Definitely important areas of law, and definitely in need of a consistency overhaul, but not really part of the common law as they do not derive from the ancient court-made law of England. There is a family of U.S. law that is dependant on the specific language of the U.S. Constitution, as supplemented by federal statutes - including administrative law, civil rights law, criminal procedure, tax law, and antitrust law. Our first priority should be to clean up the ancient disciplines of the common law, as they are both more widespread and more fundamental. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 4, 2005 23:34 (UTC)
******I quite agree. Constitutional law has developed so differently in England and the U.S. that there's not much common ground. Australia has closer links (as do many other former [[Commonwealth]] countries) and some of the jurisprudence in the Commonwealth has been cited as having persuasive force here on constitutional matters. Administrative law *might* be a better candidate, and its not quite so detached, but its been developed so much here that there isn't likely to be much that can sensibly be said. I am aware that the U.S. has something called "certiorari" but its probably nothing like the [[quashing order]], though I may be wrong. [[User:Francis Davey|Francis Davey]] 5 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)


:::::Totally disagree. The vast majority of people looking up the term "yellow jacket" are here in the American Northeast, where yellow jackets are called....yellow jackets, not "European wasps". Also, since the U.S. has more native english speakers than all other countries combined (67.2% of all native english speakers live in the U.S.), it only follows that American english should take precedence here.{{unsigned|Westypeter|July 22, 2007}}
== Art Laws ==
I probably did a poor job on [[Visual Artists Rights Act]]. Anyone care to fix it up. I'm an artist, not a lawyer. :)


::::::Also disagree, came looking for this exact page and found it, perhaps some sort of linking together a few cover pages to one main page would be better. As far as terms go, I hear people call them yellowjackets and wasps, occasionally hornets. So it's people in general that call them by many names, not just each side of the ocean. {{unsigned|68.74.74.156|August 3, 2007}}
This might be a good place to mention what other laws previously and now apply to artists. Perhaps link to similar laws in other countries. There's a lot of confusion on the web where images now pass freely. --[[User:Sketchee|Sketchee]] July 2, 2005 15:45 (UTC)
*Strictly speaking, there is no field of law called "art law" - rather, the area is a mix of [[intellectual property]], [[freedom of expression]] ([[First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution|First Amendment]] in the U.S.), and [[contracts]]. I shall have a look at your article after the long weekend, tho. Cheers! --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 2, 2005 15:49 (UTC)


For those interested, this has been been discussed at length below and resolved, see [[Talk:Yellowjacket#Page_name_change]]. [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah, I know there was no legal term as "art laws" that was just the topic for the header. The wordy text of "laws previously and now apply to artist" should definitely have been the header instead. =) --[[User:Sketchee|Sketchee]] July 2, 2005 18:46 (UTC)


== Getting rid of yellowjackets ==
===Fan fiction===
Hello! I've been working a lot lately on the [[fan fiction]] article. Unfortunately, it still suffers from a lack of sources and cites. While I will probably (when I finally get enough time free to do a proper search) be able to find sources for theories on the origins/exact definition of the term/genre, terminolgoy, etc., I honestly think that I ''suck'' at the kind of stuff necessary to writer a proper Legal Issues section.


I found an easy and efficient way to destroy a nest of yellowjackets (living in the ground) in an Audibon insect field guide. The nest normally has one tunnel/door, and blocking it will only cause them to dig a new tunnel. Instead, cover their doorway with a large clear bowl and seal the edges with mud. Since they can get out of their doorway, they will not dig a new one, and within about a week they will starve to death.
Frequent mention is usually made to the Berne Convention, for instance, amongst fan fiction readers and writers but nobody ever seems to explain how the heck it connects to fan fiction very well, even in this article and I do not know enough about it or law in general to explain it myself; many times vague references are made to U.S., European or Asian copyright conflicts, but many times, especially with non-U.S. cases, these are barely even a reference, and almost always have no citation whatsoever.
Install the bowl at night for safety, and NEVER wear a "headlight" (forehead mounted flashlight). If awakened, the wasps will go right for any light source. (from one who knows!) -Andy


It's far easier to go out at night and spend 15 seconds spraying the entrance with bug spray. Voila, next morning they are all dead. If you don't know where the nest is you can bait them as described here: [http://www.inta.gov.ar/bariloche/ssd/nqn/ecologiadeinsectos/pdfs/Sackmann%20et%20al%202001.pdf Successful Removal of German Yellowjackets by Toxic Baiting]. Note: Fipronil is the active ingredient in Frontline flea and tick pet treatment. [[User:Cloudswrest|Cloudswrest]] ([[User talk:Cloudswrest|talk]]) 00:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
In short, since "[[fan fiction]]" usually refers to unauthorized dervitive works, what we need are lawyers knowledgeable in copyright law, preferably international as well as U.S. law, to go in there, beat the section into submission, force it to behave and add a few of the conspicously absent citations.


== Yellowjacket nests ==
Pretty please? [[User:Runa27|Runa27]] 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Yellowjacket nests are usually underground or in logs or such places, not aerial! -Ben
== Statutory enactments of the United States ==
:Aerial nests are not uncommon. There are several species, and they each have their preferences. They are also opportunists, taking what cavities they can find, or occasionally, simply nesting in a dense bush.[[User:Pollinator|Pollinator]] 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


=== evading their stings===
It would be nice to have a standardized, templated set of articles on named acts of Congress: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Clean Water Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Sarbanes-Oxley Act, etc. A few of these exist already as stubs but could use some standardization and expansion. Thoughts? --[[User:Saucy Intruder|Saucy Intruder]] 5 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
they must be smarter than you think! Further research is needed based on my recent experience. I stumbled upon a nest and a couple of dozen chased me for 100 yards and somehow they knew to stay to my backside when I stopped and tried to swat them away. They must be able to know an aggressors's front and back side. this is my conclusion; or else, they are really shy. I do not know how to confirm this theory , but it was most convincing after two run-ins that resulted in numerous bites. I do not want to destroy their nest until further research can be done.
*Do we have a list of important acts of Congress somewhere? --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 5, 2005 23:11 (UTC)
**Ah, never mind - it's here at [[List of United States federal legislation]]. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 5, 2005 23:45 (UTC)
**Also see [[:Category:United States federal legislation]]. --[[User:RussBlau|Russ Blau]] [[User_talk:RussBlau|(talk)]] 18:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


== Separate history articles? ==
=== they know you ===
I was stung on Saturday, I stepped on a nest while weed whacking, I have had allergic reactions to them in the past but was lucky to have already taken an antihistamine for ragweed in the morning. I was stung twice and had to kill two that followed me into the house. For the next two days everytime I left the back door and went to any part of my back yard (not near the nest at all) I was "found" by one or two who would start diving at me at which point I would return to the house and watch out the window at many gathered near the spot I had been standing. (no, I'm not a paranoid nut- in fact I pride myself on remaining calm so as not to get stung as I love to garden and had managed not to get stung for 10 years.) I wondered if the sting left me emitting a scent, and that was confirmed by the Harvard Page mentioned in this article. I am wondering how long this lasts- two days later and two showers later it was still in effect. Does anyone know the answer to this?
I have hopefully killed the nest- by spraying it at night. Killing the nest is the right thing to do, while I love the diversity of my organic yard and garden they are the one species that is totally without any sense of humor - and is so aggressive that there is no alternative.
[[User:Court2000|Court2000]] 12:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)court2000[[User:Court2000|Court2000]] 12:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


:Showers will not remove chemicals left in your clothing; since you stepped in the nest, I would suspect your shoes. [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Should we have separate articles on the history of these areas of law? E.g. [[Contract law]] and [[History of contract law]]? --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 5, 2005 23:11 (UTC)
::Studies have shown that bees (yes, I know these aren't bees) fly by landmarks. If Yellow jackets are similair, It's possible that they identified you as a menace by your general shape and color. Speculation anyway --[[User:Lendorien|Lendorien]] 16:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:I think history articles would be great. Probably the most interesting angle to cover would be the evolution of the interpretive regimes. For example in contract law in the UK, there is the evolution from a regime of "strict construction" to the later incorporation of issues of "business efficacy" like in ''[[The Moorcock]]'' (which might be similar to ''Wood v. Lucy Lady Duff Gordon'' in the US), not to mention the many "consumer protection" cases - where the court looks out of the little guy - like in ''Carlill v. Carbolic'' and so many of the Lord Denning cases. I think it would only be a matter of doing the leg work to get the facts right. - [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 5 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)


===Kill them. Kill them All!===
== Template work begun ==
I have been a forester and land surveyor in the southeastern United States for over thirty years. I have encountered more than my share of yellow-jackets. This "set a glass bowl over the entrance" crap just doesn't cut it. To get rid of them, stand aside and watch them closely and quietly. You will soon locate the entrance hole. Prepare your gasoline container by opening the spout and venting it so it will pour quickly and unhindered. Wait until a lull in the entrance "activity," then step up quickly, stick the spout in the hole and pour gasoline in. This is exceptionally effective. Do NOT set the gasoline on fire. The vapors will do what you want.
===Contract===
I made a template for [[contract law]] - [[:Template:ContractLaw]] - which I've put in the articles named on it. It needs much work. I like the color scheme, but it clearly needs much expansion and refinement in terms of content. Any opinions? --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 6, 2005 22:52 (UTC)
*Nice work. I like the way it's turning out. My main comments would be to suggest to add [[Mistake]] and [[Misrepresentation]] to the '''excuses for non-performance''' section (I might just add it myself if no-one minds). Those are both major areas worth putting on the template. As well, I'd suggest removing [[mirror image rule]] since I suspect that it's only an american doctrine. I've heard *of* it but it has never been a component in contract law that I've studied. I was checked out ''Chitty on Contracts'' and ''Cheshire and Fifoot on Contracts'' (both major english contract texts) and there was no mention of this rule. There may also be an issue with [[Third party beneficiaries]], this seems to be essentially the same as [[privity of contract]]. As an aside, I noticed many texts have large sections on "Intention to form legal relations", "Capacity", "Unconscionability", "Public Policy", "Quasi-Contract'', and "Contractual terms". They are not always consistent so they may or may not be worth adding. [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 8 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
**The mirror-image rule is really just a way of saying that there must be an offer, and an acceptance of the offer (agreeing to all terms, as a variation in terms would be a counter-offer) - but in the U.S., under the [[Uniform Commercial Code]], contracts between merchants can be made where the offer and acceptance do ''not'' match. There is, instead, a complicated formula to determine which set of terms actually comprise the contract. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 15:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
**Oh, on your second point, it does seem that there is a lot of overlap between [[Third party beneficiaries]] and [[privity of contract]]. I think the rule, as I've laid it out in the "Third party beneficiaries" article, is probably simply the American rule as to privity. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 16:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


For those of you who don't want to use gasoline, you can mix up a strong insecticide (diazinon was effective) in a garden sprayer, pump it up tight and set the spray on coarse. Stick the nozzle at the end of wand into the entrance and let'em have it.
===Tort===
*I've begun one for [[Torts]] as well - [[:Template:TortLaw]]. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 7, 2005 03:22 (UTC)
**Only thing missing that I can see at the moment are [[Detinue]] and Defences to negligence ([[contributory negligence]] etc). [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 8 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
***Agreed - I added [[contributory negligence]], [[assumption of risk]], and [[intervening cause]] there - <s>the last one needs an article written now!</s> --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 8, 2005 03:39 (UTC)


Now, those of you tree-hugging wussies who don't want to use gasoline or insecticide, just shut up! You dorks don't have a clue. You have never had an entire survey crew disrupted, stung and members sent to the hospital. Getting rid of the nest is necessary when you have to retrace your path multiple times.
===Property===
*'''POV problems''' I've just read [[Easement]] and the description of an easement is a very long way from the kind of easements that I am used to and deal with. I suspect the article is straight US law and nothing else. Can someone help me sort it out. I've put something on the discussion page. In particular are we (in England) unusual in having no public easements (public rights of way being quite different) or is it a US development? Are there easements other than easements of way in the US (eg of fencing)? [[User:Francis Davey|Francis Davey]] 20:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
*[[Property]] is begun: [[:Template:PropertyLaw]]. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 7, 2005 14:36 (UTC)
**Property definitely needs [[bailment]] and [[licence]]. Maybe [[Nemo dat]]. I think "convenants running with the land" might be a bit an awkward title. I think it might work better as a component of a larger "[[convenant]]" (or [[Restrictive covenant]]?) article. Afterall the name of the game is usually to figure out whether your convenant "runs" or not. Also, what are you're thoughts on "Intellectual property" or "personality property"? Lastly, isn't "waste" just a subcategory of [[leasehold]]s? [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 8 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
***I agree, there is lots to be plugged into property. My concern about [[Restrictive covenant]]s is that if they ''don't'' run with the land, then they're nothing more than contracts, and don't belong with property at all (but if the restrictive covenant article has a strong focus on the "running with the land" element, that's okay with me. [[Waste (law)|Waste]], however is definitely a concept all its own (like [[fixtures]]) because it applies to both leasehold estates and life estates. Besides, it's a broad enough topic to merit its own article - I've just covered what I know of it, without even citing any cases, or attempting to broach non-U.S. law! Cheers! --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 8, 2005 03:21 (UTC)
***Yeah, I do see your point regarding convenants, I'm not sure which fits best. It would be good to get some other input on it. [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 8 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)
***Several points. First, in English law at least, the benefit of positive as well as negative covenants can run with the land. There is thus a species of covenant peculiar to land, that is not merely a restrictive covenant. An article on [[land obligations]] might be a little too abstract though. Second point: restrictive covenants (and that exact phrase is used) are a part of employment law. Disambiguation at the very least. A larger article [[covenant]] is probably too general to say something useful. [[User:Francis Davey|Francis Davey]] 9 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
****[[Covenants running with the land]] should be fine for this - it just needs expansion. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 9, 2005 16:42 (UTC)
** I think [[Torrens title]] and [[Mortgage]] should likely be added to the template, but I wanted to get some input on what heading they should be under. [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 20:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
***We need a new heading on conveyencing - and an article on recording statutes! --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 22:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


Spare me the tree-huggers sympathies. Just kill them!
===Criminal Law===
*Next up: [[:Template:CrimLaw]]. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 8, 2005 13:28 (UTC)
**Does american criminal law distinguish criminal defences as excuses or justifications? Also, what is the criteria for the types of offences that should be included on the list? I could imagine that the list could get quite big. [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 02:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
***I think there is a distinction between excuse and justification in American law, but it's rather a formality, and does not affect the time or manner of presentation of the defense. As to what crimes should be included, I have no qualms about the list growing lengthy (see [[Islam]] for a massive sidebar, by comparison) - but I'd like to hold it to the classic, big common law crimes that are already there. If anything major is missing (e.g. [[kidnapping]], as I've just noticed) it should be added. I'm also concerned with how we should categorize things that rightly belong on more than one sidebar (and which sidebar should go on the page) - for example, [[self defense]] is both a defense to tort and a defense to crime, and it's listed on both, but it looks bad to have both sidebars on the self defense page (I tried it - not good). I'm actually thinking of doing a seperate template for common defenses to torts and crimes. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 16:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
****Added "crimes against justice" - [[bribery]], [[perjury]], [[obstruction of justice]]. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 19:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
*****Socks was right about the list getting big - so much so that we now have ''four'' templates relating to the subject - [[:Template:CrimDef]], [[:Template:CrimPro]], [[:Template:CrimLaw]], and [[:Template:English criminal law]]. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 13:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
: I noticed [[Police caution]] was not yet in any category, so I was looking for something related to Criminal Law, and Law Enforcement. If I figure it out, I will fix the article. [[User:AlMac]]|[[User talk:AlMac|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 11:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
: Never mind, I figured out how to work Search for Category, and put in the best I could find. [[User:AlMac]]|[[User talk:AlMac|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


[[User:66.157.73.188|66.157.73.188]] 14:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)C.J. Saunders[[User:66.157.73.188|66.157.73.188]]
===Evidence===
*[[:Template:EvidenceLaw]] - needs ''much'' work. Must add a section on witnesses ([[competence]], [[direct examination]], [[cross-examination]], [[witness impeachment]], [[privileges]]); and add more hearsay rules. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 9, 2005 05:02 (UTC)
*Well, I added some... <s>but [[impeachment]] is about the ''other'' kind of impeachment. Need to write on that.</s> Cheers! --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] July 9, 2005 05:09 (UTC)


== Giant nests ==
===Wills & Trusts===
*[[:Template:Wills&Trusts]]. Articles need to be written to fill the gaps, and I'm sure this is woefully incomplete with respect to trust doctrines, but it's a start. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 15:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:*Just to throw something into the mix, I am not sure 'Wills and Trusts' could or should be considered to be a fundamental top level area of law in its own right, certainly not in England & Wales. I would consider them to be subdivisions of a more general area, namely Equity. That raises a question as to whether Equity is a subdivision of Common Law or not (historically it is not, but for reference purposes it is a doctrine of laws follwed in the main by Common Law jurisdictions), but I would argue the category should be Equity, which would have sub-catgerories of Wills, Trusts (which in England & Wales is a large body of law much of which has nothing to do with wills), Estoppel, Fiduciary Duty and Remedies. --[[User:Necessaryx|Necessaryx]] 12:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
**I'm not sure how TnE (Trust & Estates) is equitable, seems pretty much straight up "law". I would definitely not consider the Statute of Wills--I do believe that that's an import from across the pond--a doctrine in Equity (seems to be the converse). It's also definitely a separate and distinct area of law with its own doctrines and, sometimes, its own language. By the way, there is an [[Equity]] article and an [[:Category:Equity|Equity category]]. <span style="color:#996">mmm</span><span style="color:#963">beer</span><sup>[[User_Talk:Mmmbeer|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Mmmbeer|C]] / [[User:Mmmbeer|?]]</sup> 13:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:::The entire concept of trusts and wills arose from the courts of equity. The Common Law eventually grew to become very ''form based'' - indeed arguably it still is - and that caused problems. For example, Mr B is getting elderley and assigns his property to Mr D, on promise that Mr B can remain in the property and once he has died, Mr D agrees to give the property to Mr F. Unfortunately, Mr D fails to re-convey the property after Mr B's death. The courts of common law refused to recognise the instrument as being one giving Mr F standing to bring a claim. The courts of equity did. They considered that Mr D, although the ''legal'' owner, was not the ''beneficial'' owner. Mr D was a 'trustee' and Mr F the 'beneficiary'. This is the origin of wills, trusts and the other related doctrines. Again you are absolutely right that subsequent to the development of the concept, various statutes have ammended things, such as in England and Wales the Wills Act 1837. As a result wills has changed considerably, which is why i would consider it a sub-set of the general law of equity, from which it is derived.


If any one cares.
::: I appreciate that the pages are on there, but i was making a suggestion as to how the information could be rationalised and ordered as part of this project. [[User:Necessaryx|Necessaryx]] 15:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060717/NEWS02/607170317/1009
::::This may be U.S.-centric (really I don't know) but Wills & Trusts constitutes a discreet doctrine here - and there's certainly enough to fill the template as it stands. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 15:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Zerath13|Zerath13]]
:I saw a nest of this size many years ago, so I don't think the finding represents an invasive species. Most likely it's a chance event, where colonies survive winter and have multiple queens. [[User:Pollinator|Pollinator]] 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


== Stung September 9 2006 ==
===Family law===
*[[:Template:FamilyLaw]]. Not so much of a common-law subject, so I didn't put the "common law" line in it, but worth having. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 03:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


I have stumbled on 2 nest on our property. I as I was moving hay and you guessed it I was stung but only once. They had built their net in the bales of hay. It was amazing. Yesterday I was leveling a mound where a tree had fallen and uprooted. I was stung 6 times as I ran for the pool (up hill and 50 ft instead of the pond that was 10 ft away. My husband and I walked down last evening and found the nest. We sprayed wasp and hornet killer in the hole it did not seem to bother them. They just came flying out. Hindsite - instead of spraying we should have closed it off. I thought if there is a front door then there is a backdoor too. Unknown to me (and him) my husband had actually found the nest last week when mowing. They chased him, he jumped off the mower, they attacked the mower and several stole his beer (they just fell in they didn't actually carry it off. He nor I ever thought about them being underground.
===Civil Procedure===
*[[:Template:CivilProcedure]]. Like [[Family Law]], this isn't so much a [[Common law]] template, but there are a number of [[Civil procedure]] related articles that ought to be tied together. I haven't applied this anywhere, in part, because it's very incomplete. Though, we need something. [[User:Mmmbeer|Mmmbeer]] 00:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
: That's nice work. I would suggest, however, to either make the template country-specific by calling it something like "US Civil Procedure" or else generalize it to accomodate civil procedure for other countries. I not sure which would be the best option. Any thoughts? --[[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 23:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:: I made a [[:Template:US fed civ pro|U.S. federal civil procedure template]] some time ago, but it is limited to federal court doctrines. They should fit together well, tho. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 23:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


:: I tried, somewhat, to make it cover simply the larger civpro topics. I relegated the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] to a sublink and the other topics the chronological order. [[User:Mmmbeer|Mmmbeer]] 00:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


One of the stings (on my bicep) is not giving me any problem although it is quite alarming to have a large red ring around each sting. One stung me on one of knuckles through my leather glove it is not as bad but itches like crazy. One stung me on my forearm, it it bruised, swollen, painful and itches. The last 3 stings were on my back. No swelling but is painfull and itches.
===Other templates===
Please list below other templates (existing or newly-created) that could be of use in this project. I'll point to two to start us off:
* [[Template:UnitedStatesCode]] for citing USC sections
* [[Template:UnitedStatesCodeSec]] for a second or subsequent citation to the same title
For example:
:<code><nowiki>Part of the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]] is codified at {{UnitedStatesCode|47|251}} through {{UnitedStatesCodeSec|47|260}}.</nowiki></code>
produces:
:Part of the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]] is codified at {{UnitedStatesCode|47|251}} through {{UnitedStatesCodeSec|47|260}}.


I am sure it was comical to see me run, scream, swat and dive fully clothed into the pool. I am thankful the pool was there. (My husband asked me why I didn't jump into the pond Yea right.) For several minutes, I could barely get my breath, I couldn't speak. I am not sure if that was reactions from the sting or scared to almost death. [[User:Cla10544|Cla10544]] 12:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Cathy A. Salem, AL
--[[User:RussBlau|Russ Blau]] [[User_talk:RussBlau|(talk)]] 18:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


:My experience with wasp and hornet killer is that it often doesn't. It just sets off the alarms, and make stings more likely. Ground nesters can easily and safely be eliminated with a bucket of soapy water. But in most cases they are only a problem for a short time, and 99.9% of the colonies die out with the first good freeze. [[User:Pollinator|Pollinator]] 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
====U.S. Patent template====
You can link to the USPTO's US patent listing by using: [[Template:US patent]] as follows for patent number 5123456:


I have encountered yellowjacket nests and in cases where they are underground have always been able to destroy the nest with running water. Just stuck a hose in the entrance hole and turned it on for an hour. Maybe less would do. Obviously this will not work when you're out in the woods or the nest is in an area that can't tolerate flooding. Pesticides are necessary sometimes, but I hate to sicken/kill/risk cancer to not only other insects, birds, etc, but people or children, pets that chance exposure at a later time. [[User:Spudtu|Spudtu]] 12:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
<code><nowiki>{{US patent|5123456}}</nowiki></code>
--[[User:Mmmbeer|Mmmbeer]] 00:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
*That, my friend, is very, very cool. Can we do one for trademark registrations as well? --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;''BD2412''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 01:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


== Gallery ==
====US. Code of Federal Regulations====
This probably exists somewhere, but I created a [[Template:CodeFederalRegulations|CFR]] template to link directly to the current US Regulations by title and section (section is actually in part.section format). It works like this:
<code><nowiki>{{CodeFederalRegulations|20|404.1}}</nowiki></code>


Maybe I'm missing something, but why does the gallery on Yellowjacket page show the nest of a paper wasp? [[User:Carl|Carl]] 21:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
And returns the following: {{CodeFederalRegulations|20|404.1}}


== Making traps ==
There's probably a way to link directly to the GPO Access website... like if we did Title|Part|Section but that might be a bit more tedious. [[User:Mmmbeer|Mmmbeer]] 23:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


I'm a truck driver in south-eastern Australia. I have seen yellowjackets (commonly referred to as European Wasps down under) along the entire east and south coast. They are not native to Australia from what I understand, however they are a major pest in the warmer months and they have not been affected by colder winters (although you don't really notice them during these times). If nests are found on public land (this rarely happens) it is the responsibility of the local council or shire (probably what you call county in the US) to destroy them however this rarely happens due to various reasons.
* The latter could be done using this link: http://squid.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=20&PART=404&SECTION=110&TYPE=TEXT [[User:Mmmbeer|Mmmbeer]] 23:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
These wasps are a part of everyday life for every long distance/interstate truck driver in Australia. They consistently swarm around the front of the rig when you have stopped feeding on mainly moths and larger insects which have been squashed on the front and baked on by the sun. In warm sunny conditions you usually find anywhere betweeen 5-10 wasps swarming on the front of the wehicle. Walking around the rig you are constantly followed by them particularly if you are wearing high visibilty work clothing. I know of several cases where drivers have been stung just by accidently touching or even brushing up against one, fortunately none were serious cases. Often they become trapped in the cab if you start driving again and get quite aggresive if they are unable to get out.
I spent a short amount of time in the pest control industry before becoming a truck driver and am looking to make traps to place on the front of the truck when stopped for lengthy periods. Wasps, like bees, cannot fly straight up and a simple trap can be made from a a soft drink container (can also be bought from hardware stores) however something must be placed in the trap to attract the wasp. Am hoping anyone could help me with this. Have had limited success in the past however am unable to find anything the wasps are strongly attracted to. (previously have caught many flies and other insects however no wasps). Some have suggested putting the remains of other insects in the trap however this would be very difficult and there are many risks (disease) involved. Information on Wikipedia says the wasps feed on nectar am unsure where to find this readily availabe and in what forms so that I could put it into a trap


Any help would be greatly appreciated[[User:TannerNT|TannerNT]] 11:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
====General Law & Legal Systems template====


I don't know if your "yellowjackets" are the same or similar to ours in NW N. America. Yellowjackets here have an alternate name of "meat bees" and it sounds like that's what yours are eating. Here we bait traps with chicken meat but also you can buy commercaly prepared attractant. We make our traps out of disposable plastic bottles that we cut apart and tape back together. I've seen trap designs posted online, but I bet a local design is probably your best bet. Hope this helps. [[Special:Contributions/68.118.53.205|68.118.53.205]] ([[User talk:68.118.53.205|talk]]) 22:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have started a general [[:Template:Law|Law and Legal Systems]] template. It could use revision, especially the addition of non-U.S. law. (I have added this to the main page - hope that's ok!)[[User:Chart123|Chart123]] 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


== Monophyletic? ==
====U.S. Constitutional Law template====


Is the yellowjacket group monophyletic? Are all species within ''Vespula'' and ''Dolichovespula'' considered Yellowjackets? —[[User talk:Pengo|Pengo]] 22:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I have started a [[:Template:USConlaw|U.S. Constitutional Law]] template. It could use revision, especially the addition of "famous cases." (I have added this to the main page - hope that's ok!) [[User:Chart123|Chart123]] 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
:No. "Yellowjacket" isn't a taxanomic group, but a common name for a lot of species of wasps with a strong resemblance. It includes all of one genus and most of another. There is a good reason for that resemblance, they are [[mimicry#Müllerian|Müllerian mimics]]. The scheme works on people as well as on birds or other preditors, and we quickly group them as one. Several of the Dolichovespula are black and white. In actual common usage nobody is going to call them yellowjackets. North Americans will usually use the name "hornet". Maybe that can be worked into the article now that we have separate genus articles. [[User:Meggar|Meggar]] 21:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


== Diet? ==
:It was pointed out to me that there's already an extensive [[US Constitution]] template. This fits like a big box on the bottom of a page, rather than as a small side box.
Do yellowjackets eat only nectar as adults like most other wasps? The reason I ask is because "common wisdom" around parts of NY state is that they are carnivores, especially since they seem to hang around places like supermarket dumpsters where rotting meat is.


:My question is which one is preferable. I very much like the idea of a general "Law" template to link major legal topics up and create a web of law pages. So adding the already extensive template to the bottom of con law pages would make the whole thing a little unwieldy. Then again, the template is quite good and comprehensive. Thoughts? [[User:Chart123|Chart123]] 21:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


== Page name change ==
====Legal Theory template?====


A major name change such as has been made should have been discussed on the talk page first. It is an improper move. Not all yellow jackets are European, so the new name is certainly not appropriate either. Unless there is a convincing argument here in the next couple days, I am going to revert the page back to the former page name. [[User:Pollinator|Pollinator]] 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I will attempt work on this, and would appreciate suggestions. [[User:Chart123|Chart123]] 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


:I just found a mention of this on the talk page, but was not in the appropriate place. Talk additions should always be made at the bottom of the page, so that they are chronologically in order. [[User:Pollinator|Pollinator]] 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
== Cleanup submission? ==
::I'm sorry but the discussion was under the heading "Nomenclature", which is an appropriate place. There were three posts in that section over the space of a month. Obviously, if you had the page on your watch list, the discussion would have shown up as
::*(diff) (hist) . . [[Talk:Yellowjacket]]‎; 05:06 . . (+420) . . [[User:Grant65|Grant]] ([[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] | contribs) ''(Nomenclature)''
:: I took the lack of comment as an indication that no-one was really bothered about the name.[[User:Grant65|Grant]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 03:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


:::Not convincing. In fact your comment above is erroneous. Sorry, but the group did not originate in Europe. There are a number of native American species, as well as European. European is not an appropriate name for the entire group. [[User:Pollinator|Pollinator]] 04:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be considered useful by yon members of WikiProject Law for me(and others who may happen by) to list law-related articles needing work with you all? Just to start off, [[Legal research]] is a very nice essay, but seriously needs tone cleanup (like moving the inline external links to the end). Would having such articles listed here be useful to you? Thanks for all the work you do. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 07:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
*It certainly does need it - I think it would help to have articles needing cleanup listed, but I hope to fix up the substantive articles (e.g. [[Tort law]], [[Will (law)|Wills]]) before reaching peripheral matters such as legal research. We will undoubtedly get to this one at some point, though. Cheers! --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 13:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


::::Well, the page says "European yellow jackets (the German wasp, Vespula germanica and the common wasp, Vespula vulgaris) were originally native to Europe, but are now established in North America, southern Africa, New Zealand, and eastern Australia." It doesn't specifically mention species native to areas other than Europe and such names are often imprecise (e.g. German wasps are native to the whole of Europe and Asia).


::::Anyway, my main point is theat the terms "Yellowjacket" is unknown outside North America. I propose a move to [[Vespinae]], which redirects to here at present. [[User:Grant65|Grant]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
==Wikiportal==
Did anyone notice that there was a [[Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Law|law wikiportal]]? Not me, until now. Any thoughts on how this project can play a role in it? (Unsigned by [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] ;)


:::::Yellowjacket is simply a description, which is the basis of many common names. But Vespinae would be more precise. [[User:Pollinator|Pollinator]] 17:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:Hmm, maybe te first port of call is to invite them to play and discuss it together. The portal is quote recent (25 June), so maybe [[User:SirJimmy|SirJimmy]], its creator, doesn't realise we exist? [[User:AnnaAniston|An An]] 23:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
::I'm very excited that such a thing exists! --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 20:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


::::Also, while you may think that something &mdash; I'm not sure what &mdash; in what I've said above is "Not convincing", I assure that it is true. I also take the opportunity to remind you to [[WP:GF|assume good faith]]. [[User:Grant65|Grant]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I've copied this from the Category:Law discussion page, it doesn't sound like that bad an idea:
:I have seen the main categories and I think that the result of their "merging" with their respective Wikiportals is excellent. Since there is a Law Wikiportal, don't you think that it would be good to put it here? --Bill the Greek 12:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
-- [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 20:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


:::::So you won't mind if I list it at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]]? It can't be moved to Vespinae by an ordinary editor. [[User:Grant65|Grant]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 02:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
==Improvement drive==
[[Subsidy]] is currently nominated to be improved by [[Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive]]. If you are interested in contributing, you can vote for it.--[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 13:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


::::::Not at all, although it wouldn't be necessary; I can move it. But why not wait a few days to see if there's consensus. I'd like to see comment from a pro (or two), like [[User:Dyanega]] [[User:Pollinator|Pollinator]] 03:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
== U.S. federal legislation infobox ==
::You can move it, but the history will be lost. Administrators can apparently move it to non-empty pages so that the edit history is not lost. [[User:Shyamal|Shyamal]] 16:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


:Okay, everyone - take a deep breath. Vespinae includes many species and genera that are not yellowjackets. Therefore, this suggested move is inappropriate. The present state of having Vespinae redirected here should only be temporary (in fact, I'm tempted to fix that immediately). This page, referring as it does to TWO genera, is a hybrid page, and it CANNOT be made compatible with pages that are following the taxonomic hierarchy. In fact, it is likely that some day this page will be split, but that's not on my timetable right now. That being said, the name "European wasp", if you do a Google search, is primarily used in Australia, to refer to the single species ''[[Vespula germanica]]''. Therefore, [[European wasp]] should redirect there, and not here. The fact that various other sources use the name to refer to other species, INCLUDING references to ''[[Polistes dominulus]]'' a member of a different subfamily (Polistinae, not Vespinae). Finally, as far as I can determine, there is no collective name used for these two genera outside of North America; all the common names I can find seem to refer to SINGLE species. So, regardless of whether the name "yellowjacket" is familiar to non-US readers, there are entries for all the common names such readers ARE familiar with. For example, if a European reader looks up "[[common wasp]]" they are taken to ''Vespula vulgaris'', as is appropriate. [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] 18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I created an infobox template for U.S. federal legislation, at [[Template:Infobox_U.S._legislation]]. For an example of how this looks in practice, see [[User:Saucy_Intruder/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act]]. Any comments? --[[User:Saucy Intruder|Saucy Intruder]] 20:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
*Wow. I like it. I take it all the info needed to fill the box is available through [http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html Thomas]? Also, how about throwing in an image at the top (maybe the [[:Image:Uscongress.gif|Congressional seal]], or an image of a pen signing a bill, if we have one). --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 21:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
**Thomas is the major source, but the parent/child links - i.e. acts that the subject act amends and acts that amend the subject act - require some additional research. (For example, in the DMCA illustration, the [[Copyright Act of 1976]] is listed as a predecessor. The Copyright Act infobox would reciprocate in the "Major amendments" section.) As far as the image goes, it takes two to tango... branches of government, that is. (And probably three; I'd want to eventually add links to major SCOTUS or circuit court cases interpreting the act). So I'm at a loss for a good image. --[[User:Saucy Intruder|Saucy Intruder]] 21:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
***I was just looking at the images we have of bill signings, but none of them would look good that small. How about just the [[:Image:Great Seal of the US.png|U.S. Seal]]? --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 21:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
****Done. --[[User:Saucy Intruder|Saucy Intruder]] 21:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
*****Nice! --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 21:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


::But in the UK (and I suspect most of the world) yellowjacket is a unknown name for a common set of insects. In the UK the common name for these is just wasp. Most 'educated' people know that wasps are a much larger set of insects but the ones that might sting you are just wasps. If a European reader looks up "[[wasp]]" there is no simple navigation to 'wasp' they are looking for without out going through yellowjacket a word unknown to them. I don't have a simple solution but I done like this page being called yellowjacket [[User:Iccaldwell|Iccaldwell]] 10:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
== WikiProject Law's Own version of an Improvement Drive ==


:::That lack of a way to link from [[wasp]] to [[common wasp]] can be solved by editing the wasp disambiguation page; UK readers can thereby bypass the word "yellowjacket" entirely. [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] 21:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been busy creating a whole bunch of entries for missing legal articles, but as I've been snooping around, there are a number of really ''bad''--and I mean really ''bad''--or poorly written existing articles. Some perhaps have never even received a cursory look by a contributor with legal skills.


::::Unfortunately the wasp disambiguation page sends the reader to "Wasp" where it says "A narrower but popular definition of the term wasp is any member of the Aculeate family Vespidae, which includes (among others) '''the well known yellowjackets''' (Vespula, Dolichovespula spp.) and hornets (Vespa spp.)." As has already been said often, "Yellowjackets" is '''not''' a well-known term except in North America. Clearly if one is relying on the disambiguation page or simply going straight to the Wasp page, then the latter needs editing to take account of normal international English usage.
I mention this because of my ongoing work on [[Jury nullification]]. The article was somewhere between POV and a mess. It was (and somewhat still is as I haven't touched history or case law) sloppy, disorganized, and heavily influenced by pro-nullification advocacy groups. So I started a top-down rewrite.


:::::I've made the necessary edit. The problem is that in the UK there is NO collective common name for the different species of ''Vespula''. In other words, there is no alternative title you can offer for the Wikipedia page for [[yellowjacket]]. It's one of those messy asymmetries between languages, like the fact that in Brazilian Portuguese, there is only one word that collectively refers to fingers and toes, but there are two separate words for umbrellas, depending on whether they are black or some other color (''any'' other color). A Brazilian would object, therefore, to separate WP entries for fingers and toes, and object to the lumping together of ''sombrinhas'' and ''guarda-chuvas''. You can't make everyone happy, so it's done as objectively as possible. [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] 03:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I realize there aren't many of us in this group, but we could improve the quality of important, existing articles by all focusing each week, or every other week, on one, in addition to other things that we're contributing. It can be informal, like by simply by adding an article to a list.


:::::: In the UK, there is a common name for for the different species of ''Vespula'' it's wasp! [[User:Iccaldwell|Iccaldwell]] 08:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
We can also use it to draw attention to law articles in real need of attention by someone with legal experience.
[[User:Mmmbeer|Mmmbeer]] 13:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*We can start by tracking down legal articles and listing those that are really bad on the project page, then collectively knocking them out one at a time. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;BD2412</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 13:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


:::::::Even in the UK, the word "wasp" is used to collectively refer to ALL wasps, not limited to just ''Vespula'' - that would be like claiming that the common name for the [[bulldog]] is "dog", and accordingly claiming that the WP entry for [[dog]] should ONLY refer to the bulldog, or have a disambiguation link that specifically takes readers to the bulldog article in preference to any other type of dog. While it is effectively true, since a lot of people DO simply refer to bulldogs as dogs, it also completely obscures the fact that all other breeds of dog are also referred to as "dog". [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] 18:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If you have not already done so, I suggest
* [[:Category:Law articles in need of cleanup]]
* [[:Category:Law articles in serious need of cleanup]]
* etc. and then as they get tagged, you have a list on the Category page, of what has been reccommended for this cleanup, and somewhat prioritizing. [[User:AlMac]]|[[User talk:AlMac|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 14:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


:::::::: If, in the UK, you ask what do you mean by "wasp" almost all people would describe what in the USA is called a Yellowjacket. For "dog" they would not describe an individual breed. [[User:Iccaldwell|Iccaldwell]] 11:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls| Science pearls]]==
I accept that my move was careless. It was, in part an expression of frustration with the ''status quo''. I think the redirect of "European wasp" to "German wasp" is correct. However, IMO, the above discussion shows why this article should be split ASAP along genus lines, with [[Yellowjacket]] becoming a dab page. It's unsatisfactory to have material about two genuses here, when neither of them(!) is known by that name outside North America. (By the way, there are more than two kinds of English, which is what phrases like "in the UK" imply to me.) [[User:Grant65|Grant]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


:Such a split is not suitable given the article content; it would result in two articles with effectively identical text, since there are no distinctive genus-level aspects to their biology or behavior. The two genera are, unfortunately, the same in all but one minor anatomical detail, and treating them both in a single article is far more efficient (especially given that no one but an expert can tell the two genera apart). The two genera were not even recognized separately until the middle of the 1900's, and the distinction is pretty much arbitrary (there is more space above the mandibular base in ''Dolichovespula'', making the face appear longer). Together they are a single evolutionary lineage, and could just as easily be treated as subgenera in a single genus. Certainly, it would technically be fine to treat them in separate articles, but it would be needlessly confusing for non-scientist readers, as well as redundant. [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] 18:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
::What about the confusion caused to non-North American readers, confronted by a name they have never heard of? [[User:Grant65|Grant]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 01:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please notice this project.
:::I'm not sure I understand how having ''two'' pages with totally unfamiliar names (''Vespula'' and ''Dolichovespula'') is going to be any LESS confusing to these same non-North American readers. These non-North American readers do not POSSESS any unique common name for either of these genera (the name "wasp" is not used ''uniquely'' for either genus, by anyone). People in the U.S. call them "wasps", as well (heck, some people even call them "bees") - but there is ''also'' a name used to distinguish them from all the OTHER types of wasps, and that name happens to be "yellowjackets" - a name which has no parallel in the vernacular elsewhere, for some unknowable cultural reason. Consider one more point: all the entomologists in all the English-speaking countries in the world know what the name "yellowjacket" means and use it when talking about these insects - just because members of the public are not familiar with it does not mean it is not universally recognized. [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] 09:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope that a new [[List of publications in law]] will be created and adopted by the lawproject.
::::But this an international ''encylopedia'' &mdash; we are writing for a lay readers all over the world, not for entomologists, and not for North Americans alone. We need to use terms, including article names, which can be understood in all English speaking countries. A common name which is a common name in only two countries is useless as a title.
Thanks,[[User:APH|APH]] 06:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
*Interesting proposal... I suppose such a list would be mostly treatises and textbooks, since so much of the law develops through cases. --[[User:BD2412|<font style="background: lightgreen">&nbsp;''BD2412''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 13:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
: My definition to "publication" is very liberal ;-). I think that your definition to publication is the suitable one for law. [[User:APH|APH]] 14:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


::::I'll take your word that the two genuses are practically identical. If that is the case, then I suggest that the information in this article belongs at, and should be merged into, [[Wasp]], which is not a long article and would not be an exceptionally long article if it were incorporated. [[User:Grant65|Grant]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
== Category:Civil Law ==


:::::That would be completely unacceptable; there are several hundred thousand species of wasps, and even people in the UK call them all wasps. It would be inappropriate to rewrite the article and limit it to two genera (not "genuses"). That is almost exactly the converse of the way Wikipedia articles are titled and organized. [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] 01:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've made a request to the [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Civil_law_to_Category:Civil_law_.28private_law.29|CFD]] to change the name of the category "civil law" into something that better deliniates the type of "civil law" being referred to (eg. "civil law (private law)" or "civil law (common law)"). I don't think it's fair to treat the common law-type of "civil law" as having any sort of precedence - hence no disambiguating bracket - over the civilian system, which is far more prevailent in the rest of the world. Whether you'll agree or not, I hope that you'll make some comments on the CFD page. Thanks --[[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 19:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
::::::That's not what I'm suggesting; what I propose is that this article becomes a separate section in [[Wasp]], and Yellowjacket becomes a redirect to wasp. By the way, genuses is an acceptable plural.[http://www.bartleby.com/68/51/2751.html] [[User:Grant65|Grant]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:Sadly, the request has been revoked. I am little disappointed, actually. Especially, as the "no" voters either to gave no reason or they showed signs of a lack of understanding of the topic. One mentioned that "civil law" meant "non-criminal law", and another seemed to not even be aware of the existence, let alone vast prevailance, of the civil law system. Rather than challenge it again, I think it will be necessary to rewrite the [[civil law]] article in order to better reflect the distinction between the two types of "civil law", so that it may be easier to convince non-law people sometime in the future.{{ndash}} [[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 03:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Giving each wasp genus its own section in the [[Wasp]] article would result in over 50,000 sections. That's precisely why the taxonomic hierarchy is used to organize WP articles, to prevent that sort of thing. As for what an international encyclopedia should contain, if you accept the Encyclopedia Britannica as a standard, then they use the term "wasp" exactly as is presently done in WP. While it is no longer published in the UK, it is considered the most universal and most scholarly English-language encyclopedia. Encarta has the same entry, as well. I also rather suspect that should you examine any encyclopedia which ''is'' published in the UK, you will find the same entry for wasp. Finally, while I'm not here to argue semantics, just because a word has two ''legal'' plurals does not mean they are both in use. I've been a taxonomist for nearly 30 years now, and have never once seen a person or publication (dating back to the 1700's) use the word "genuses". [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] 02:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::Good idea, I think. It might also be worth dropping a note to legally-minded Wikipedians next time around, so we can vote and inform the ignorant. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 14:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Whatever. Britannica has long been famously US-centric, in spite of its name. So is Encarta. There is a lot of the same tendency within Wikipedia too, unfortunately. It often manifests as an insistence on using North American names/terms.
::Yes, I should have. I thought it would be a no-brainer, so I didn't make much of an effort to argue my case or try to find support. The mistake was mine. --[[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 22:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You dont want this material merged into [[Wasp]] and think we should use "taxonomic hierarchy", but also think we should combine two genera in one article? You cant have it both ways. And in fact, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life]] says: "If there is no common name, the article should generally go under the scientific name that is most often used when discussing the group, or under the scientific name of lowest rank if there is no clear preference." Which is also logically the case if there is ''no internationally-recognised common name''. Since [[WP:PAPER|Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia]], there is no reason why we can't have practically identical articles on each genus, with Yellowjacket as a dab page. [[User:Grant65|Grant]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, you ''can'' have it both ways, and in WP this has been done on numerous occasions. Look at the entries for [[army ant]], [[sweat bee]], and [[mud dauber]] for just a few out of many examples. These are articles which are titled using common names that refer to multiple different insects, which sometimes ALSO have separate articles. The [[yellowjacket]] article should not be deleted, or turned into a dab page, any more than the [[army ant]] page, because it is more useful to have a page which synthesizes the information on the various involved taxa, than to try to divide the content up when (1) this would confuse all of the readers who are familiar with the common names, and (2) so much of it would be redundant. You may go ahead and create separate independent pages for ''Vespula'' and ''Dolichovespula'' if you wish, but the yellowjacket page should remain in place, as is; I suspect that if so, that other editors will come along and ask that the new articles be merged back into the yellowjacket page, or THEMSELVES made into dab links that redirect to [[yellowjacket]] (which is close to the status quo). [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] 09:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::Done. Apart from the objections raised above, as we have articles on species which are members of ''Vespula'' and ''Dolichovespula'', it seems absurd not to have articles on the genera. Yes, I know there are minimal differences and North Americans call both of them Yellowjackets, but lay people from other countries aren't going to understand that. [[User:Grant65|Grant]] | [[User talk:Grant65|Talk]] 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here in Alabama, I'm here living peacefully with a nest of yellow jackets. While I knew the nest was somewhere close by, I have been searching for it for months. It ended up being about where the peak of my activity is (under a lawn mower I've been working on). Strangely, it has been several years since I've been stung, though I have stirred up multiple nests. The things I have been doing around them, I figured that one would have surely stung me, but instead, I can tap my foot by a few of them where I want to step, and they will just fly off. One will sometimes land on me to drink my sweat as well. However, I do see their aggressiveness sometimes, as I often will see a wad of yellow jackets swarming and killing other insects to feed their young. They like both sugary items as well as "meat" items. I intend to use my technique for killing yellow-jacket nests--gasoline in the hole during the night. The fumes will kill an entire nest in one shot. I will destroy the nest with the knowledge that if I don't, yellow jackets tend to get very aggressive as temperatures rise, especially nearing autumn. My luck with these bees or wasps (they look and act like bees) may soon run out and that nest will empty on me if I don't do something ASAP, and that will prove to be very painful.

:DON'T use gasoline, as a tiny amount will pollute a LOT of ground water. If the EPA discovers the pollution (and they would if you were my neighbor and I knew about it) you could be assessed for a very expensive cleanup. Hot water with a good shot of dish detergent will do just as well, and will not be any more polluting than a septic system. [[User:24.211.125.15|24.211.125.15]] 03:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

==Dead link==
The clemson.edu link is dead. I'm going to remove it. [[User:72.94.11.71|72.94.11.71]] 22:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

==Citations==

Some of the sections need citations. I have marked them as such. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Spryde|Spryde]] ([[User talk:Spryde|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Spryde|contribs]]){{#if:23:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC)|&#32;23:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:That's a little bit silly, frankly. The entire section on life history, for instance, is largely from a single reference, given in the references section. It would be pretty darn excessive to put a citation to that one reference at the end of ''every single sentence'', or even every paragraph. The purpose of putting those tags is cases when you think that the information there is LIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED. There are literally thousands of articles in WP discussing various animals, and only a very tiny minority have every section containing actual citations. That's because most such facts are not likely to be challenged. All this tagging serves to accomplish is make it look like the article is not based on authoritative sources, when that is not at all the case. [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] 23:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

::I understand. The purpose of citations is also to ensure that we know what it is supposed to be and to verify the information. Without a cite, I can't verify it. I personally know very little about the yellowjacket (other than being stung recently) and did not know the source of some of the information. Also, around here at least, the timeline is much later (emerge in June to July) due to the late thaw we have. I am not a SME on this particular subject so if the sources in the references below already have the info, tag the end of the paragraph and remove the unref tag. I did not mean any disrespect or anything. Just wanted to ensure the article was "bulletproof" Cheers! [[User:Spryde|Spryde]] 11:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

== What do wasps eat? ==

If bees make honey what do wasps make? Mustard? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.243.231.12|89.243.231.12]] ([[User talk:89.243.231.12|talk]]) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Honey bees store food inside the nest, but yellowjackets do not. They don't "make" anything. They're predators, and they feed their larvae chewed-up prey directly, instead of trying to store it. [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] ([[User talk:Dyanega|talk]]) 18:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What eats wasps? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BillDMoose|BillDMoose]] ([[User talk:BillDMoose|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BillDMoose|contribs]]) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Birds, lizards, bears, badgers, raccoons, that sort of thing. Even people do - it's easy to get wasp larvae or pupae in Japan, for instance. [[User:Dyanega|Dyanega]] ([[User talk:Dyanega|talk]]) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

== Awful wording ==

"the venom, like most bee/wasp venoms, is primarily dangerous to those who are allergic, unless a victim receives a large numbers of stings"

Good to know that if an allergic person is stung a large number of times they aren't in danger anymore. I'm pretty sure there needs to be an "only" in there somewhere. ;) Also, no 's' on numbers. I'll go ahead and change that.[[User:Logan1337|Logan1337]] ([[User talk:Logan1337|talk]]) 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

== boy does it hurt ==

while at work I step on a nest and was attack by what it seemed a group but can't really determine. I was stung on several parts of my body on being my earlope.. I ran next to one of my co-works to no availe they seemed to make me their primary target. My co workers said it must be the orange shirt i was wearing. Boy I wish i didn't have that color on that day.....

Revision as of 05:44, 11 October 2008

WikiProject iconArthropods Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More on behavior needed

Here in NW North America yellow jackets are ubiquitous. They seem to live for the most part unnoticed until late summer or fall. Life experience seems to show that they become agressive during the last warm days of the year. I would like to see an explanation of this behavior in the article. Also autoritative extermination techniques. 68.118.53.205 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Deaths in North America

"These wasps are responsible for at least three deaths in North America, when a man named Earl Wells fell from his ladder into their underground nest, when a man named Albert Wellner disturbed a swarm with his lawnmower, and when a small boy named Harrison Johnson found a swarm in the backyard." Anyone have a source for this? Thanx 68.39.174.150 12:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm watching a National Geographic show called "Bug Attack" that tells this story, including an interview with relatives of Mr. Wellner. I'm wondering about the statement in the article about "at least 3 deaths..." This number seems very low to me. That number may be people who were literally stung to death, but I'm seeing quotes of about 40 deaths per year in the US due to allergic reactions to individual stings. Joyous (talk) 02:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Can we get a disambiguation

Yellowjacket/Yellow jacket is also the common name of numerous Euclayptus species, yet the term directs straight to this page. Can someone knowledgable adress this problem? Ethel Aardvark

Scientific classification consistency

The scientific classification charts on wasp, hornet, and yellowjacket are not consistent, making it impossible to compare how closely related these insects are. I am not familiar enough with them to make the correction. --zandperl 04:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


Nomenclature

In the UK the term yellowjackets is never used for wasps. I have often wondered what "yellowjackets" were. And now, thanks to Wiki, I know. 82.135.71.116 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC) DRSHOK

Personally I don't think this article should be under "Yellowjacket", which is the North American name for insects that originated in Europe, and is not well-known outside North America. I think it would be better placed under "European wasps" or a scientific name. Grant | Talk 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Grant65; I have never heard the term Yellowjacket before and would agree with putting it under "European wasp". Also, with reference to the first paragraph, I have never heard them referred to as Bees. They are certainly easy to distinguish from any species of bee I am familiar with.--160.9.41.52 12:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree this page should be "European wasp", until I was looking for a good picture of a wasp I had not heard of yellowjackets here in the UK. As for being referred as bees: The reason I was looking for a web site with a picture of a wasp is that I am webmaster for a small beekeepers association and we quite often get calls and emails from the public that cannot tell a wasp from a bee (bumble or honey) Iccaldwell 20:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree. I found what appears to be a hornet in the bath and this article confused me greatly. Other countries get their own versions of Wikipedia but the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. have to share with the USA and English ought not to take second place to American.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.114.243 (talkcontribs) June 13, 2007 (UTC)
Totally disagree. The vast majority of people looking up the term "yellow jacket" are here in the American Northeast, where yellow jackets are called....yellow jackets, not "European wasps". Also, since the U.S. has more native english speakers than all other countries combined (67.2% of all native english speakers live in the U.S.), it only follows that American english should take precedence here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Westypeter (talkcontribs) July 22, 2007 (UTC)
Also disagree, came looking for this exact page and found it, perhaps some sort of linking together a few cover pages to one main page would be better. As far as terms go, I hear people call them yellowjackets and wasps, occasionally hornets. So it's people in general that call them by many names, not just each side of the ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.74.156 (talkcontribs) August 3, 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, this has been been discussed at length below and resolved, see Talk:Yellowjacket#Page_name_change. Grant | Talk 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of yellowjackets

I found an easy and efficient way to destroy a nest of yellowjackets (living in the ground) in an Audibon insect field guide. The nest normally has one tunnel/door, and blocking it will only cause them to dig a new tunnel. Instead, cover their doorway with a large clear bowl and seal the edges with mud. Since they can get out of their doorway, they will not dig a new one, and within about a week they will starve to death. Install the bowl at night for safety, and NEVER wear a "headlight" (forehead mounted flashlight). If awakened, the wasps will go right for any light source. (from one who knows!) -Andy

It's far easier to go out at night and spend 15 seconds spraying the entrance with bug spray. Voila, next morning they are all dead. If you don't know where the nest is you can bait them as described here: Successful Removal of German Yellowjackets by Toxic Baiting. Note: Fipronil is the active ingredient in Frontline flea and tick pet treatment. Cloudswrest (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yellowjacket nests

Yellowjacket nests are usually underground or in logs or such places, not aerial! -Ben

Aerial nests are not uncommon. There are several species, and they each have their preferences. They are also opportunists, taking what cavities they can find, or occasionally, simply nesting in a dense bush.Pollinator 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

evading their stings

they must be smarter than you think! Further research is needed based on my recent experience. I stumbled upon a nest and a couple of dozen chased me for 100 yards and somehow they knew to stay to my backside when I stopped and tried to swat them away. They must be able to know an aggressors's front and back side. this is my conclusion; or else, they are really shy. I do not know how to confirm this theory , but it was most convincing after two run-ins that resulted in numerous bites. I do not want to destroy their nest until further research can be done.

they know you

I was stung on Saturday, I stepped on a nest while weed whacking, I have had allergic reactions to them in the past but was lucky to have already taken an antihistamine for ragweed in the morning. I was stung twice and had to kill two that followed me into the house. For the next two days everytime I left the back door and went to any part of my back yard (not near the nest at all) I was "found" by one or two who would start diving at me at which point I would return to the house and watch out the window at many gathered near the spot I had been standing. (no, I'm not a paranoid nut- in fact I pride myself on remaining calm so as not to get stung as I love to garden and had managed not to get stung for 10 years.) I wondered if the sting left me emitting a scent, and that was confirmed by the Harvard Page mentioned in this article. I am wondering how long this lasts- two days later and two showers later it was still in effect. Does anyone know the answer to this? I have hopefully killed the nest- by spraying it at night. Killing the nest is the right thing to do, while I love the diversity of my organic yard and garden they are the one species that is totally without any sense of humor - and is so aggressive that there is no alternative. Court2000 12:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)court2000Court2000 12:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Showers will not remove chemicals left in your clothing; since you stepped in the nest, I would suspect your shoes. Dyanega 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Studies have shown that bees (yes, I know these aren't bees) fly by landmarks. If Yellow jackets are similair, It's possible that they identified you as a menace by your general shape and color. Speculation anyway --Lendorien 16:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kill them. Kill them All!

I have been a forester and land surveyor in the southeastern United States for over thirty years. I have encountered more than my share of yellow-jackets. This "set a glass bowl over the entrance" crap just doesn't cut it. To get rid of them, stand aside and watch them closely and quietly. You will soon locate the entrance hole. Prepare your gasoline container by opening the spout and venting it so it will pour quickly and unhindered. Wait until a lull in the entrance "activity," then step up quickly, stick the spout in the hole and pour gasoline in. This is exceptionally effective. Do NOT set the gasoline on fire. The vapors will do what you want.

For those of you who don't want to use gasoline, you can mix up a strong insecticide (diazinon was effective) in a garden sprayer, pump it up tight and set the spray on coarse. Stick the nozzle at the end of wand into the entrance and let'em have it.

Now, those of you tree-hugging wussies who don't want to use gasoline or insecticide, just shut up! You dorks don't have a clue. You have never had an entire survey crew disrupted, stung and members sent to the hospital. Getting rid of the nest is necessary when you have to retrace your path multiple times.

Spare me the tree-huggers sympathies. Just kill them!

66.157.73.188 14:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)C.J. Saunders66.157.73.188

Giant nests

If any one cares. http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060717/NEWS02/607170317/1009 Zerath13

I saw a nest of this size many years ago, so I don't think the finding represents an invasive species. Most likely it's a chance event, where colonies survive winter and have multiple queens. Pollinator 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Stung September 9 2006

I have stumbled on 2 nest on our property. I as I was moving hay and you guessed it I was stung but only once. They had built their net in the bales of hay. It was amazing. Yesterday I was leveling a mound where a tree had fallen and uprooted. I was stung 6 times as I ran for the pool (up hill and 50 ft instead of the pond that was 10 ft away. My husband and I walked down last evening and found the nest. We sprayed wasp and hornet killer in the hole it did not seem to bother them. They just came flying out. Hindsite - instead of spraying we should have closed it off. I thought if there is a front door then there is a backdoor too. Unknown to me (and him) my husband had actually found the nest last week when mowing. They chased him, he jumped off the mower, they attacked the mower and several stole his beer (they just fell in they didn't actually carry it off. He nor I ever thought about them being underground.


One of the stings (on my bicep) is not giving me any problem although it is quite alarming to have a large red ring around each sting. One stung me on one of knuckles through my leather glove it is not as bad but itches like crazy. One stung me on my forearm, it it bruised, swollen, painful and itches. The last 3 stings were on my back. No swelling but is painfull and itches.

I am sure it was comical to see me run, scream, swat and dive fully clothed into the pool. I am thankful the pool was there. (My husband asked me why I didn't jump into the pond Yea right.) For several minutes, I could barely get my breath, I couldn't speak. I am not sure if that was reactions from the sting or scared to almost death. Cla10544 12:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Cathy A. Salem, AL

My experience with wasp and hornet killer is that it often doesn't. It just sets off the alarms, and make stings more likely. Ground nesters can easily and safely be eliminated with a bucket of soapy water. But in most cases they are only a problem for a short time, and 99.9% of the colonies die out with the first good freeze. Pollinator 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have encountered yellowjacket nests and in cases where they are underground have always been able to destroy the nest with running water. Just stuck a hose in the entrance hole and turned it on for an hour. Maybe less would do. Obviously this will not work when you're out in the woods or the nest is in an area that can't tolerate flooding. Pesticides are necessary sometimes, but I hate to sicken/kill/risk cancer to not only other insects, birds, etc, but people or children, pets that chance exposure at a later time. Spudtu 12:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

Maybe I'm missing something, but why does the gallery on Yellowjacket page show the nest of a paper wasp? Carl 21:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Making traps

I'm a truck driver in south-eastern Australia. I have seen yellowjackets (commonly referred to as European Wasps down under) along the entire east and south coast. They are not native to Australia from what I understand, however they are a major pest in the warmer months and they have not been affected by colder winters (although you don't really notice them during these times). If nests are found on public land (this rarely happens) it is the responsibility of the local council or shire (probably what you call county in the US) to destroy them however this rarely happens due to various reasons. These wasps are a part of everyday life for every long distance/interstate truck driver in Australia. They consistently swarm around the front of the rig when you have stopped feeding on mainly moths and larger insects which have been squashed on the front and baked on by the sun. In warm sunny conditions you usually find anywhere betweeen 5-10 wasps swarming on the front of the wehicle. Walking around the rig you are constantly followed by them particularly if you are wearing high visibilty work clothing. I know of several cases where drivers have been stung just by accidently touching or even brushing up against one, fortunately none were serious cases. Often they become trapped in the cab if you start driving again and get quite aggresive if they are unable to get out. I spent a short amount of time in the pest control industry before becoming a truck driver and am looking to make traps to place on the front of the truck when stopped for lengthy periods. Wasps, like bees, cannot fly straight up and a simple trap can be made from a a soft drink container (can also be bought from hardware stores) however something must be placed in the trap to attract the wasp. Am hoping anyone could help me with this. Have had limited success in the past however am unable to find anything the wasps are strongly attracted to. (previously have caught many flies and other insects however no wasps). Some have suggested putting the remains of other insects in the trap however this would be very difficult and there are many risks (disease) involved. Information on Wikipedia says the wasps feed on nectar am unsure where to find this readily availabe and in what forms so that I could put it into a trap

Any help would be greatly appreciatedTannerNT 11:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if your "yellowjackets" are the same or similar to ours in NW N. America. Yellowjackets here have an alternate name of "meat bees" and it sounds like that's what yours are eating. Here we bait traps with chicken meat but also you can buy commercaly prepared attractant. We make our traps out of disposable plastic bottles that we cut apart and tape back together. I've seen trap designs posted online, but I bet a local design is probably your best bet. Hope this helps. 68.118.53.205 (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Monophyletic?

Is the yellowjacket group monophyletic? Are all species within Vespula and Dolichovespula considered Yellowjackets? —Pengo 22:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No. "Yellowjacket" isn't a taxanomic group, but a common name for a lot of species of wasps with a strong resemblance. It includes all of one genus and most of another. There is a good reason for that resemblance, they are Müllerian mimics. The scheme works on people as well as on birds or other preditors, and we quickly group them as one. Several of the Dolichovespula are black and white. In actual common usage nobody is going to call them yellowjackets. North Americans will usually use the name "hornet". Maybe that can be worked into the article now that we have separate genus articles. Meggar 21:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Diet?

Do yellowjackets eat only nectar as adults like most other wasps? The reason I ask is because "common wisdom" around parts of NY state is that they are carnivores, especially since they seem to hang around places like supermarket dumpsters where rotting meat is.


Page name change

A major name change such as has been made should have been discussed on the talk page first. It is an improper move. Not all yellow jackets are European, so the new name is certainly not appropriate either. Unless there is a convincing argument here in the next couple days, I am going to revert the page back to the former page name. Pollinator 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found a mention of this on the talk page, but was not in the appropriate place. Talk additions should always be made at the bottom of the page, so that they are chronologically in order. Pollinator 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the discussion was under the heading "Nomenclature", which is an appropriate place. There were three posts in that section over the space of a month. Obviously, if you had the page on your watch list, the discussion would have shown up as
I took the lack of comment as an indication that no-one was really bothered about the name.Grant | Talk 03:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Not convincing. In fact your comment above is erroneous. Sorry, but the group did not originate in Europe. There are a number of native American species, as well as European. European is not an appropriate name for the entire group. Pollinator 04:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the page says "European yellow jackets (the German wasp, Vespula germanica and the common wasp, Vespula vulgaris) were originally native to Europe, but are now established in North America, southern Africa, New Zealand, and eastern Australia." It doesn't specifically mention species native to areas other than Europe and such names are often imprecise (e.g. German wasps are native to the whole of Europe and Asia).
Anyway, my main point is theat the terms "Yellowjacket" is unknown outside North America. I propose a move to Vespinae, which redirects to here at present. Grant | Talk 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yellowjacket is simply a description, which is the basis of many common names. But Vespinae would be more precise. Pollinator 17:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, while you may think that something — I'm not sure what — in what I've said above is "Not convincing", I assure that it is true. I also take the opportunity to remind you to assume good faith. Grant | Talk 05:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
So you won't mind if I list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves? It can't be moved to Vespinae by an ordinary editor. Grant | Talk 02:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, although it wouldn't be necessary; I can move it. But why not wait a few days to see if there's consensus. I'd like to see comment from a pro (or two), like User:Dyanega Pollinator 03:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You can move it, but the history will be lost. Administrators can apparently move it to non-empty pages so that the edit history is not lost. Shyamal 16:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, everyone - take a deep breath. Vespinae includes many species and genera that are not yellowjackets. Therefore, this suggested move is inappropriate. The present state of having Vespinae redirected here should only be temporary (in fact, I'm tempted to fix that immediately). This page, referring as it does to TWO genera, is a hybrid page, and it CANNOT be made compatible with pages that are following the taxonomic hierarchy. In fact, it is likely that some day this page will be split, but that's not on my timetable right now. That being said, the name "European wasp", if you do a Google search, is primarily used in Australia, to refer to the single species Vespula germanica. Therefore, European wasp should redirect there, and not here. The fact that various other sources use the name to refer to other species, INCLUDING references to Polistes dominulus a member of a different subfamily (Polistinae, not Vespinae). Finally, as far as I can determine, there is no collective name used for these two genera outside of North America; all the common names I can find seem to refer to SINGLE species. So, regardless of whether the name "yellowjacket" is familiar to non-US readers, there are entries for all the common names such readers ARE familiar with. For example, if a European reader looks up "common wasp" they are taken to Vespula vulgaris, as is appropriate. Dyanega 18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
But in the UK (and I suspect most of the world) yellowjacket is a unknown name for a common set of insects. In the UK the common name for these is just wasp. Most 'educated' people know that wasps are a much larger set of insects but the ones that might sting you are just wasps. If a European reader looks up "wasp" there is no simple navigation to 'wasp' they are looking for without out going through yellowjacket a word unknown to them. I don't have a simple solution but I done like this page being called yellowjacket Iccaldwell 10:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That lack of a way to link from wasp to common wasp can be solved by editing the wasp disambiguation page; UK readers can thereby bypass the word "yellowjacket" entirely. Dyanega 21:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the wasp disambiguation page sends the reader to "Wasp" where it says "A narrower but popular definition of the term wasp is any member of the Aculeate family Vespidae, which includes (among others) the well known yellowjackets (Vespula, Dolichovespula spp.) and hornets (Vespa spp.)." As has already been said often, "Yellowjackets" is not a well-known term except in North America. Clearly if one is relying on the disambiguation page or simply going straight to the Wasp page, then the latter needs editing to take account of normal international English usage.
I've made the necessary edit. The problem is that in the UK there is NO collective common name for the different species of Vespula. In other words, there is no alternative title you can offer for the Wikipedia page for yellowjacket. It's one of those messy asymmetries between languages, like the fact that in Brazilian Portuguese, there is only one word that collectively refers to fingers and toes, but there are two separate words for umbrellas, depending on whether they are black or some other color (any other color). A Brazilian would object, therefore, to separate WP entries for fingers and toes, and object to the lumping together of sombrinhas and guarda-chuvas. You can't make everyone happy, so it's done as objectively as possible. Dyanega 03:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
In the UK, there is a common name for for the different species of Vespula it's wasp! Iccaldwell 08:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Even in the UK, the word "wasp" is used to collectively refer to ALL wasps, not limited to just Vespula - that would be like claiming that the common name for the bulldog is "dog", and accordingly claiming that the WP entry for dog should ONLY refer to the bulldog, or have a disambiguation link that specifically takes readers to the bulldog article in preference to any other type of dog. While it is effectively true, since a lot of people DO simply refer to bulldogs as dogs, it also completely obscures the fact that all other breeds of dog are also referred to as "dog". Dyanega 18:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If, in the UK, you ask what do you mean by "wasp" almost all people would describe what in the USA is called a Yellowjacket. For "dog" they would not describe an individual breed. Iccaldwell 11:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept that my move was careless. It was, in part an expression of frustration with the status quo. I think the redirect of "European wasp" to "German wasp" is correct. However, IMO, the above discussion shows why this article should be split ASAP along genus lines, with Yellowjacket becoming a dab page. It's unsatisfactory to have material about two genuses here, when neither of them(!) is known by that name outside North America. (By the way, there are more than two kinds of English, which is what phrases like "in the UK" imply to me.) Grant | Talk 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a split is not suitable given the article content; it would result in two articles with effectively identical text, since there are no distinctive genus-level aspects to their biology or behavior. The two genera are, unfortunately, the same in all but one minor anatomical detail, and treating them both in a single article is far more efficient (especially given that no one but an expert can tell the two genera apart). The two genera were not even recognized separately until the middle of the 1900's, and the distinction is pretty much arbitrary (there is more space above the mandibular base in Dolichovespula, making the face appear longer). Together they are a single evolutionary lineage, and could just as easily be treated as subgenera in a single genus. Certainly, it would technically be fine to treat them in separate articles, but it would be needlessly confusing for non-scientist readers, as well as redundant. Dyanega 18:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
What about the confusion caused to non-North American readers, confronted by a name they have never heard of? Grant | Talk 01:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand how having two pages with totally unfamiliar names (Vespula and Dolichovespula) is going to be any LESS confusing to these same non-North American readers. These non-North American readers do not POSSESS any unique common name for either of these genera (the name "wasp" is not used uniquely for either genus, by anyone). People in the U.S. call them "wasps", as well (heck, some people even call them "bees") - but there is also a name used to distinguish them from all the OTHER types of wasps, and that name happens to be "yellowjackets" - a name which has no parallel in the vernacular elsewhere, for some unknowable cultural reason. Consider one more point: all the entomologists in all the English-speaking countries in the world know what the name "yellowjacket" means and use it when talking about these insects - just because members of the public are not familiar with it does not mean it is not universally recognized. Dyanega 09:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
But this an international encylopedia — we are writing for a lay readers all over the world, not for entomologists, and not for North Americans alone. We need to use terms, including article names, which can be understood in all English speaking countries. A common name which is a common name in only two countries is useless as a title.
I'll take your word that the two genuses are practically identical. If that is the case, then I suggest that the information in this article belongs at, and should be merged into, Wasp, which is not a long article and would not be an exceptionally long article if it were incorporated. Grant | Talk 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be completely unacceptable; there are several hundred thousand species of wasps, and even people in the UK call them all wasps. It would be inappropriate to rewrite the article and limit it to two genera (not "genuses"). That is almost exactly the converse of the way Wikipedia articles are titled and organized. Dyanega 01:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I'm suggesting; what I propose is that this article becomes a separate section in Wasp, and Yellowjacket becomes a redirect to wasp. By the way, genuses is an acceptable plural.[1] Grant | Talk 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Giving each wasp genus its own section in the Wasp article would result in over 50,000 sections. That's precisely why the taxonomic hierarchy is used to organize WP articles, to prevent that sort of thing. As for what an international encyclopedia should contain, if you accept the Encyclopedia Britannica as a standard, then they use the term "wasp" exactly as is presently done in WP. While it is no longer published in the UK, it is considered the most universal and most scholarly English-language encyclopedia. Encarta has the same entry, as well. I also rather suspect that should you examine any encyclopedia which is published in the UK, you will find the same entry for wasp. Finally, while I'm not here to argue semantics, just because a word has two legal plurals does not mean they are both in use. I've been a taxonomist for nearly 30 years now, and have never once seen a person or publication (dating back to the 1700's) use the word "genuses". Dyanega 02:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Britannica has long been famously US-centric, in spite of its name. So is Encarta. There is a lot of the same tendency within Wikipedia too, unfortunately. It often manifests as an insistence on using North American names/terms.

You dont want this material merged into Wasp and think we should use "taxonomic hierarchy", but also think we should combine two genera in one article? You cant have it both ways. And in fact, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life says: "If there is no common name, the article should generally go under the scientific name that is most often used when discussing the group, or under the scientific name of lowest rank if there is no clear preference." Which is also logically the case if there is no internationally-recognised common name. Since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no reason why we can't have practically identical articles on each genus, with Yellowjacket as a dab page. Grant | Talk 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can have it both ways, and in WP this has been done on numerous occasions. Look at the entries for army ant, sweat bee, and mud dauber for just a few out of many examples. These are articles which are titled using common names that refer to multiple different insects, which sometimes ALSO have separate articles. The yellowjacket article should not be deleted, or turned into a dab page, any more than the army ant page, because it is more useful to have a page which synthesizes the information on the various involved taxa, than to try to divide the content up when (1) this would confuse all of the readers who are familiar with the common names, and (2) so much of it would be redundant. You may go ahead and create separate independent pages for Vespula and Dolichovespula if you wish, but the yellowjacket page should remain in place, as is; I suspect that if so, that other editors will come along and ask that the new articles be merged back into the yellowjacket page, or THEMSELVES made into dab links that redirect to yellowjacket (which is close to the status quo). Dyanega 09:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Apart from the objections raised above, as we have articles on species which are members of Vespula and Dolichovespula, it seems absurd not to have articles on the genera. Yes, I know there are minimal differences and North Americans call both of them Yellowjackets, but lay people from other countries aren't going to understand that. Grant | Talk 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here in Alabama, I'm here living peacefully with a nest of yellow jackets. While I knew the nest was somewhere close by, I have been searching for it for months. It ended up being about where the peak of my activity is (under a lawn mower I've been working on). Strangely, it has been several years since I've been stung, though I have stirred up multiple nests. The things I have been doing around them, I figured that one would have surely stung me, but instead, I can tap my foot by a few of them where I want to step, and they will just fly off. One will sometimes land on me to drink my sweat as well. However, I do see their aggressiveness sometimes, as I often will see a wad of yellow jackets swarming and killing other insects to feed their young. They like both sugary items as well as "meat" items. I intend to use my technique for killing yellow-jacket nests--gasoline in the hole during the night. The fumes will kill an entire nest in one shot. I will destroy the nest with the knowledge that if I don't, yellow jackets tend to get very aggressive as temperatures rise, especially nearing autumn. My luck with these bees or wasps (they look and act like bees) may soon run out and that nest will empty on me if I don't do something ASAP, and that will prove to be very painful.

DON'T use gasoline, as a tiny amount will pollute a LOT of ground water. If the EPA discovers the pollution (and they would if you were my neighbor and I knew about it) you could be assessed for a very expensive cleanup. Hot water with a good shot of dish detergent will do just as well, and will not be any more polluting than a septic system. 24.211.125.15 03:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

The clemson.edu link is dead. I'm going to remove it. 72.94.11.71 22:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Some of the sections need citations. I have marked them as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spryde (talkcontribs) 23:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

That's a little bit silly, frankly. The entire section on life history, for instance, is largely from a single reference, given in the references section. It would be pretty darn excessive to put a citation to that one reference at the end of every single sentence, or even every paragraph. The purpose of putting those tags is cases when you think that the information there is LIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED. There are literally thousands of articles in WP discussing various animals, and only a very tiny minority have every section containing actual citations. That's because most such facts are not likely to be challenged. All this tagging serves to accomplish is make it look like the article is not based on authoritative sources, when that is not at all the case. Dyanega 23:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand. The purpose of citations is also to ensure that we know what it is supposed to be and to verify the information. Without a cite, I can't verify it. I personally know very little about the yellowjacket (other than being stung recently) and did not know the source of some of the information. Also, around here at least, the timeline is much later (emerge in June to July) due to the late thaw we have. I am not a SME on this particular subject so if the sources in the references below already have the info, tag the end of the paragraph and remove the unref tag. I did not mean any disrespect or anything. Just wanted to ensure the article was "bulletproof" Cheers! Spryde 11:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What do wasps eat?

If bees make honey what do wasps make? Mustard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.231.12 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Honey bees store food inside the nest, but yellowjackets do not. They don't "make" anything. They're predators, and they feed their larvae chewed-up prey directly, instead of trying to store it. Dyanega (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What eats wasps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillDMoose (talkcontribs) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Birds, lizards, bears, badgers, raccoons, that sort of thing. Even people do - it's easy to get wasp larvae or pupae in Japan, for instance. Dyanega (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Awful wording

"the venom, like most bee/wasp venoms, is primarily dangerous to those who are allergic, unless a victim receives a large numbers of stings"

Good to know that if an allergic person is stung a large number of times they aren't in danger anymore. I'm pretty sure there needs to be an "only" in there somewhere. ;) Also, no 's' on numbers. I'll go ahead and change that.Logan1337 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

boy does it hurt

while at work I step on a nest and was attack by what it seemed a group but can't really determine. I was stung on several parts of my body on being my earlope.. I ran next to one of my co-works to no availe they seemed to make me their primary target. My co workers said it must be the orange shirt i was wearing. Boy I wish i didn't have that color on that day.....