Talk:Louse

Untitled

According to Wikipedia policy, shouldn't this be at Louse? RickK 01:58 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it, seeing as how the page for mice is "Mouse" instead of "Mice". --ɛvɪs 21:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Someone want to consider putting the information for the life cycle of the louse on here? Here's a good link for information on the subject: http://ohioline.osu.edu/b893/b893_3.html

--BleachInjected 01:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there another kind of louse that commonly resides on bed mattresses and pillows, or on a wooden table inside small crevices...etc. It is quite common in the region where I live - Kerala, India. Someday I'd like to see how to get rid of such kinds of louse.User:Deostroll--Arun T 18:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those are the same as body lice. --Mr. Jenkins 00:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Jenkins, I believe you are painting with a very broad brush. Deosteroll gives us limited information to identify the organisism found in furniture crevices in India. Everywhere I have spent in North America, Ontario, Michigan and California, I have seen black beetles of 4-5cm length which appear to have a proboscis, but I have never observed them sucking anything. I frequently encounter the book louse, (which curiously has no Wiki page, YET). They are pin-head sized and completely colorless so one would question the belief that they ever sucked blood from a higher order. I have seen the bedbug, (Cimex lectularius), head louse, (Pediculus capitus), body louse, (Pediculus corpora), and pubic louse, (Phtyrus pubis. You are correct in the belief that the body louse and book louse is found on furniture, but I believe that Deosteroll is describing some other species.--W8IMP 13:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey I noticed this sentence: "] Ischnoceran lice may reduce the thermoregulation effect of the plumage, thus heavily infected birds loss more heat than other ones." can someone with permisson to edit, clean up the awkward wording there? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.47.243 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The link from "wingless insects" to "Apterygota" should be removed since lice don't belong to Apterygota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.110.211 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I removed the following section for plagiarism. It was cut and pasted from a newspaper article:

David Reed, of the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida, said it was unlikely that the louse spread from gorillas to human ancestors through cross-species sexual transmission.

He and his colleagues, reporting their findings in the journal BMC Biology, said: “Evidence suggests that the Phirus pubis has been associated with humans for several million years and likely arrived on humans via a host switch from gorillas.

“Despite the fact that human pubic lice are primarily transmitted via sexual contact, such contact is not required to explain the host switch.

“Parasites often switch from a given species to a predator of that species, and are sometimes found to switch to unrelated hosts in communally used areas, such as roosting or nesting sites.”

Dr Reed added: “It certainly wouldn’t have to be what many people are going to immediately assume it might have been, and that is sexual intercourse occurring between humans and gorillas."

You can't copy things word for word without permission, and even if you could newspaper article style is not encyclopedic, you'd have to change it to an encyclopedic style anyway. Brentt 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bible Reference

in the description there is the phrase "They were also the third Biblical plague out of ten." that seems out of place, shouldn't it be something like they were common / reported for thousands of year/ considered so bad they were part of a bad series of events called "plagues" in the bible , my wording is no good but hopefully you get my drift —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.210.200 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See also

Is the mother-in-law crack really necessary? Monkey Bounce (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC) they mite piss you off but they can be removed some things you can use to get ride of them it nix its the best stuf out there

well i use mayonaise and tea tree oil to name a few and lice were one plague that god sent they mate and reproduce quickly from what ive saw and they go for clean untreated

hair but if you use alot of products that make you hair greasy and dirty your not likely to get lice but sometimes you still do so be aware take notes of whos scratching you would probably want to keep a distance take notice and youll life wount be so hard because lic are hard to get rid of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.105.119 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrections: Lice infect some of the species which article explicitly denies

Pzoot (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC) I think the claim that bats do not have lice is likely to be incorrect, and would need a citation anyway. For example [[1]] from the Illinois department of public health says lice can infest bats.

Also, Wikipedia itself seems to suggest that lice infest whales, despite this article explicitly excluding them. Shanoman (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Whale lice" are not lice (and neither are "wood lice"). 86.149.137.32 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've heard that chinchilla are the only mammal that doesn't have ectoparasites, because their fur is so thick. Don't have any reliable sources though. It would be interesting to know how true this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushmushmushmush (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

1. No chewing lice are known to infect bats. 2. No chewing lice are known to infect wales. 3. Chinchillas are infected by two species of chewing lice: Philandesia chincillae (Werneck, 1935) and Philandesia mazzai (Werneck, 1933). Source: Price, Hellenthal, palma, Johnson, Clayton (2003): The Chewing lice - World checklist and biological overview. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 24. This book does not contain sucking lice, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grijndvar (talk • contribs) 15:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Chats

At Chat you can read

Chat may refer to:

• Chats, the way British soldiers referred to delousing in WW1

Is that true? --Abe Lincoln (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

what does "sexual rivalry" mean in this article?

what do you guys mean by the statement: Lice infestation is a disadvantage in the context of sexual rivalry? just doesnt sound right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebestofall007 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Msmusiclaw, 22 September 2011

There are several typos, not major but should be corrected.Msmusiclaw (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Msmusiclaw (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Lice is actually very, very small, and some times,you can not see it, but if you put a comb through your hair, it will pop up. I think the best brand to get rid of lice is the brand called Nix. By Musiclover

The first sentence uses a semicolon when a comma should be used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.214.238 (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Technically black people can not get lice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckenzi2020 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Divergence date for pubic lice from gorillas to humans

I don't understand why the divergence date in the article says 2,000,000 years ago when the Reed et al. paper [2] clearly estimates 3-4 million years ago:

The two species of Pthirus (Pthirus gorillae and Pthirus pubis) last shared a common ancestor ca. 3–4 million years ago, which is considerably younger than the divergence between their hosts (gorillas and humans, respectively), of approximately 7 million years ago.

[...]

The divergence date estimates for the gorilla and human pubic lice (Pthirus gorillae and Pthirus pubis, respectively) averaged 3.32 MYA and are noticeably more recent than the split between the two Pediculus species.

[...]

It is important to note that this happened after the divergence of chimpanzees and humans and that these data suggest humans acquired their pubic louse from gorillas not recently, but rather 3–4 million years ago.

I'll change the article to say 3-4 MYA. --Saforrest (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC) I will change humans to human ancestors or hominids. Humans exist since only 300.000 years. Older species are not humans (homo sapiens), but hominids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.32.89 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lice in humans & Human lice and DNA discoveries

These two sections seem to be lacking a lot of vital information and could use some restructuring. The three different species of lice that have coevolved with their human hosts have been used to uncover a lot of information about human evolution in recent years.

I propose the following changes:

Change the Subsection title from "Human lice and DNA discoveries" to something like: "Coevolution with Humans" or "Evolution of Lice and Humans." This will open up the section for contributions about the coevolution of human lice and humans as oppose to limiting the discussion to "DNA discoveries" alone. More details can be filled in at a later time regarding specific content.

Include phylogenetic tree of species of human lice (with closest lice relatives).

Include description of their origins with dates. The Reed et al. article cited in this section posits three potential phylogenetic trees (A, B, and C) and concludes that C is the most likely tree given molecular dating of species divergence. Of the three species of human lice, two are related to chimpanzees (genera Pediculus) and one is related to gorillas (genera Pthirus). Pediculus and Pthirus genera likely split around 7 million years ago. The Pediculus humanus capitis (human head lice) and Pediculus humanus corporis (human body lice) likely diverged from a chimps 6 million years ago. Interestingly, pubic lice (Pthirus Pubis) only dates back 3-4 million years. Reed et al. interpret this to mean that a host species switch occurred when the louse species "jumped" to hominid hosts.

Correct the following sentence which is incorrect as it stands:

Additionally, the DNA differences between head lice and body lice provide corroborating evidence that humans started losing body hair about 2 million years ago.[18)

The Travis news article listed as the source as well as the original publication (Kittler et al.) clearly state that divergence between head lice (Pediculus humanus capitis) and body lice (Pediculus humanus corporis) occured 72,000 years ago /- 42,000 years. The authors argue this is a potential explanation for the origin of clothing not the loss of body hair 2 million years ago.

The sentence can be edited to read as follows: Mitochondrial analysis of Head lice (Pediculus humanus capitis) and body lice (Pediculus humanus corporis) diverged approximately 72,000 years ago /- 42,000 years. This divergence date may coincide with the origins of clothing use in humans as clothing would have created two distinct ecological zones for speciation to occur on the human body.Kittler, Ralf; Kayser, Manfred; Stoneking, Mark (19 Aug 2003). "Molecular Evolution of Pediculus humanus and the Origin of Clothing". Current Biology 13: 1414-1417.</ref>

--Block.101 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Block.101 9/30/14

References

Different Picture?

If you're at a different page with a link to Louse and you put your cursor over the term, you get a photo of a lice comb. I have no idea how to do this but could someone who does know how, please redirect to the drawing of "Phthiraptera" at the top of the page? Thank you. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Louse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 20:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Dunkleosteus77

• Is this written in British English? If so, place the template {{British English}} to the article's talk page  Done

Yes, it seems that was how it was started. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Put the Classification section at the top, before the Description section  Done
• Try merging the Examples section with the Classification section  Done
• Put the two sections on humans under one section (called Interaction with humans, Humans and lice...) and change the title of Lice and humans to Prehistory, and change Lice in humans society to Modern history  Done
• Merge the In history section with the Interaction with humans section (since they both regard humans)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

General comments

• In the lead, change "nearly 5,000 species of insect" to "...insects"

If this is British then "...insect" is correct.

• In the lead, change "...which include every order of birds, and all the orders of mammals except for..." to "which includes every species of bird and mammal, except for...  Done
• In the lead, change "Lice are the vectors of diseases..." to "Lice are vectors of diseases..."  Done
• In the lead, change "pierce their host's skin" to "pierce the host's skin" (this is optional)  Done
• In the lead, change "has the smallest genome known for an insect" to "...smallest genome of any known insect"  Done
• In the lead, change "cementing their eggs to hairs or feathers where they are known as 'nits'" to "cementing their eggs, which are known as nits, to hairs or feathers"  Done
• In the lead, change "They appear in folktales, songs such as The Kilkenny Louse House, and novels such as Finnegans Wake" to "...song, such as... and novels, such as..." (optional)

Not sure that's an improvement.

• In the Description section, change "are retractable into their heads" to "are retractable into their head"; also, do they have multiple mouth parts?  Done

All insects have multiple mouth parts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• In the Description section, wikilink "Ischnocera" and "Amblycera"  Done
• In the Biology section, change "Lice are divided into two groups, sucking lice..." to "Lice are divided into two groups: sucking lice..."  Done
• In the Biology section, change "...and chewing lice, scavengers..." to "...and chewing lice, which are scavengers...  Done
• In the Biology section, change "...within a month of hatching" to "...within a month after hatching"  Done
• In the Ecology section, change "...that dive under the water surface..." to "...that dive under the water..."  Done
• In the Taxonomy section, do not wikilink "sucking"  Done
• In the Taxonomy section, wikilink "Austrogonoides" and "Nesiotinus"  Done
• In the Lice and humans section, wikilink "chimpanzee-hominid divergence" (optional); the article I'm referring to is called "Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor"  Done
• In the In literature and folklore section, why is " 'very popular' " in quotes?

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

References

• Add access dates to all refs

I don't think these are needed when the source is a book or journal article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• ref no. 9 specifies page number as "pp. 83–". Please finish

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• ref no. 21 specifies journal title as being "Parasitol"; change to "Parasitology"

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• ref no. 29, italicize "Pediculus humanus" in the title

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• ref no. 29, 30, and 31 currently do not use the template {{cite journal}} (and they should).

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• ref no. 41 specifies page number as "180.18-28"; I'm confused what this is supposed to mean

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It passes

• Thank you Dunkleosteus77. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ectoparasite and endoparasite

If "mouth parts, which are retractable into their head, are adapted for piercing", why is it not considered as an endoparasite? Some lice (species?) can penetrate the skin and hide within the Human body. Some reference to entomological research should be added, or are lice not being scientifically researched like flies are (forensic entomology)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.56.204 (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Phylogeny

"Order Phthiraptera is polyphyletic within order Psocoptera, so they are moved under order Psocodea." (A comment from David Nicolson - ITIS Data Development Coordinator, 2013-11-04 14:32:03.). Apparently, the order Phthiraptera is now invalid and the families were moved under Psocodea.Bob Webster (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess, and all the articles on Psocodea ancestors and descendants need updating. I've tidied up a bit and added a cladogram, which is still poorly resolved. At least it makes the mess a bit clearer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. A solid (but not overwhelming) consensus is that singular "louse" is not as obscure as other examples from WP:PLURAL and thus does not qualify to be an exception from WP:SINGULAR. No such user (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Louse → Lice – Per WP:PLURAL: "With irregular plurals whose usage far exceeds the usage of the singular, we prefer the common and unastonishing title: bacteria, algae, and data, rather than bacterium, etc." Lice seems to fit this exception, as it is an irregular plural that is far more common than its singular form. Many people don't even know the singular form. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, the animal is a louse. One function of an encyclopedia is, after all, to educate as well as to inform. The plural is already a redirect, so nobody will have the slightest difficulty finding the article; we are not obliged to dumb down to the lowest possible level. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: - while I agree with Chiswick Chap's view of the role an encyclopedia has, current consensus following WP:PLURAL is indeed as User:Rreagan007 says. They also give the example of bacteria which is a similar situation as this. "Lice" is indeed an irregular plural and its usage even in the article itself far exceeding the singular usage (115 vs 45). I was going to support this but then I continued with my search and found that Wikipedia has mixed usage: Head louse, Body louse, Crab louse, Sea louse, Whale louse, Woodlouse, Stone louse, Head lice infestation (with plural usage in articles exceeding singular). --Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • That doesn't look like mixed use to me. The only one of those louse/lice titles that isn't singular is the one about an infestation, not about an insect. If there is only one louse, that's not really an infestation (at least not yet). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does house mouse appear under house mice? Does goose appear as geese? Where would it end? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• The difference is that "goose" and "mouse" are commonly used, whereas "louse" is very uncommonly used, which is why the article title should be at the plural per WP:PLURAL. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Where is the evidence that "Louse" is not in common use? It's a completely different situation from "bacteria" and "algae". The singular appears 45 times in the article - that's not "very uncommonly used". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Louse" gets 6 million google search hits and "lice" gets 66 million. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• I believe the search for "lice" includes "louse" by default. "Louse -lice" gets 6 million, and "Lice -louse" gets 60 million. Certainly, lice are more commonly encountered in the plural, but they do not seem as improbable in the singular as "scissor" or "trouser" (or "alga"). I suppose there are local variations in familiarity – I've heard "louse" many, many times, but I don't recall every encountering "alga" before. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Bacterium" is at least as common as "louse", and probably more so, yet the article is at Bacteria per WP:PLURAL. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Bacterium" is at least as common as "louse", and probably more so... With all due respect, this is utter rubbish. It may be pretty common in scientific circles; it is not in common usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It appears that this article was originally located at "Lice" but was moved in 2005 without any discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. If PLURAL doesn't do it, WP:COMMONNAME should. There is no good reason why bacteria and louse should co-exist. Red Slash 03:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think all articles should appear under their singular form. I think Bacterium should replace Bacteria, just as is the current case with Virus. All the singular titles would have redirects from the plural words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Well, okay but that's not the current article naming policy. Under the current policy, this article should be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed that is not current policy, but no way does current policy dictate that the article should be moved. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Under current article naming policy at WP:COMMONNAME and current article naming guidelines at WP:PLURAL it should be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• So you say. But saying it again doesn't make it any less wrong. As far as I can see, under those guidelines it should remain at Louse. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. A louse is a specific creature and very often seen in the singular. Bacterium is not. Not comparative at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Bacterium" gets about twice as many Google search results as "louse". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• The ratio is what matters. Also the context of usage differs. Not too hard to figure out. —innotata 02:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per sound reasoning and interpretation of PLURAL in nom, plus a dash of COMMONNAME sense from Red Slash, and a dearth of any sound refutation in Opposition above. What usage of singular "louse" there is, much of it is the slang insult meaning "lousy person", not the literal animal that in plural is the subject of this article. --В²C ☎ 18:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I cannot let that pass. This is an article about a zoological entity called a louse, just like the articles Mouse, Goose, Bird, etc., all of which cover a number of species that are grouped under the name of a higher taxon. The fact that the word is also used as an insult is irrelevant. Would you move Bird to Birds because "bird" is (or used to be) a slang word for a female human? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• • There is in fact considerable use of the singular louse to refer to the creature described in this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Necrothesp. Unlike with 'bacterium', 'louse' is quite frequently seen in common usage. —innotata 02:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page should be moved

Frankly, the arguments in the last requested move were nonsensical...and contradictory. I would add that, "louse" most often used as slang than for any other purpose ("you dirty louse!"; plus the classic adjective "lousy", which I would also vote for bolding on the lede). Also - in addition to everything else that these fine wikilawyers totally ignored: when is there ever ONE goddamn louse?!?! ffs

If anyone is inclined, it would be a good time you request a move again...(I can't be bothered to learn how to request moves - there's too many steps involved. but some other users are good at it and do it all the time) Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Whales?...

From the article:

"Lice are obligate parasites, living externally on warm-blooded hosts which include every species of bird and mammal, except for monotremes, pangolins, and bats."

This suggests that whales get lice, which I find to be a rather extraordinary claim, given that whales have very little hair to speak of....Wikipedia does have an article on "whale lice," but these aren't actually lice (i.e. insects of the order phthiraptera), but rather crustaceans. So, unless there's any evidence that true lice actually infest whales (and dolphins) then I suggest that this part of the article be edited. -2003:CA:870C:A8A:25BC:C719:23B9:6D7B (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

According to the British Royal Entomological Society whales do not have lice. See: https://www.royensoc.co.uk/understanding-insects/classification-of-insects/phthiraptera/ 2001:4BC9:A45:E9C1:3D31:65BC:1C99:7A39 (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2021

Misspelling in first sentence: "wingess" should be corrected to "wingless" 100.17.20.245 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. As with previous RM, consensus the singular is common enough to keep as it is. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Louse → Lice – Per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:PLURAL, which states: "With irregular plurals whose usage far exceeds the usage of the singular, we prefer the common and unastonishing title: bacteria, algae, and data, rather than bacterium, etc." Lice fits this exception, as it is an irregular plural that is far more common than its singular form, as demonstrated in the Google Ngrams Rreagan007 (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support as per nom. Kpddg ^(talk) 08:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. --The Tips of Apmh 14:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom—blindlynx 16:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Britannica uses "louse" and the term can still be in the singular unlike Handcuffs even though they normally occur in the plural. Bacteria, algae, and data are as the guideline mentions arguably mass nouns anyway while you can easily refer to a single louse. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Changing to full oppose. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Like the Flea and the Ant, the louse may be encountered in the plural more often than singularly, but it is certainly possible to see and identify a single louse and to count lice and to discuss the anatomical features of a single louse, such as its head, thorax and abdomen. This is not like the idea of a single scissor or trouser or handcuff, which are difficult to even imagine as a practical possibility. The picture at the top of the article shows a single louse. In fact, three out of the four pictures in the article that show lice are each showing just a single louse (and the other one is showing only two, to illustrate sexual dimorphism). I am not aware of any other articles about insects or other arthropods that use plural names, and again I point to Flea as a similar analogous case. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that "flea" and "ant" don't have irregular plurals, as well as their singular forms being relatively more common, so your analogy doesn't work at all. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It is possible that "louse" is more familiar to the ears of some people than others, but it seems quite ordinary to me – much more straightforward and familiar than "alga" and "bacterium" – perhaps because an individual louse can be seen without a microscope. Algae are only directly experienced as a collective mass. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that this is the same proposal discussed before at #Requested move 8 September 2018, by the same proposing editor, and some of the comments seem similar. There may also be other comments made in that discussion that are worth reviewing for this one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm an entomologist, use "louse" quite often, and likewise see the comparison to "alga" and "bacterium" as spurious. I would also suggest that "it ain't broke" in this case. If you change it, then a lot of existing links WILL be broken, and need fixing; the number of links that are presently redirects via "lice" versus direct links (that would need to be turned into redirects) are fairly equivalent, and if the asymmetry was much more pronounced, I might agree that the move does little harm. Under the circumstances, though, it seems like a lot of work that doesn't accomplish anything meaningful. Dyanega (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It's nice that you use "louse" quite often, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. I use "bacterium" quite often, but again, that's irrelevant to this discussion. And exactly what part of the comparison is spurious? Does this topic not have an irregular plural? Or is the plural form not more common that the singular? And let's keep the discussion focused where it should be, on our article title policies, and not on possibly needing to fix links after a page is moved. Most links don't need fixing after a move anyway, as there would be a redirect from the old page to the new one. If we were worried about possibly having to fix links after an article move, then we would never move pages at all. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

But isn't bacteria more or less a mass noun as PLURAL mentions? I've never heard the term "a bacterium" so it does seem like that fits in with the "irregular plurals" rule and Britannica uses "bacteria" while as I mentioned above it uses "louse" for this article. Similarly you do have "a pair of scissors" while you don't have "a lice" but do have "a louse". Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"Bacteria" is no more or less a "mass noun" than "lice". Rreagan007 (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dyanega: Can you explain how it would "break" any links? --The Tips of Apmh 18:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Based on "With irregular plurals whose usage far exceeds the usage of the singular, the common and unastonishing plural titles Bacteria, Algae, and Data are preferred ...", I guess it should be Lice as it is more common to far more common.

Counts

	Wikipedia	Google	Google Books	Google Scholar
"louse"	1,577	8,780,000	2,430,000	120,000
"lice"	3,065	60,200,000	6,040,000	534,000

But, I can't think of any insect name we have that's in plural form. I think the rule above is wrong in this case.

Do we have any other insect listed by its plural form? SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Among animals, the only species I can think of that we list in its plural form is cattle, because we have no singular word for both cows and bulls. Do we have any other animal listed in its plural form? SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: I'm not sure why that is relevant. Most animals don't have an irregular plural, and also have an irregular plural that is significantly more common than the singular form. Can you name another animal with an irregular plural that is more common than the singular form? There are certainly other animals with an irregular plural, like mouse and mice or goose and geese, but the singular form is just as common as the plural, so the rule at WP:PLURAL doesn't apply in those cases. And there are the animals that have plurals that are the same as the singular, such as deer, sheep, etc., so I guess you can say that those articles are located at both the singular and plural form if you want to. Though the sheep article starts out "Sheep are..." and the deer article begins "Deer or true deer are...", so technically those articles appear to be titled as plural, since the article text is written as plural. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"Deer" and "sheep" are both the singular and plural, see English plurals#Nouns with identical singular and plural, there has been suggestions to have the singular of sheep as "shoop" but that isn't the case now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Did I not say that? Rreagan007 (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you did, I missed that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The plural usage is indeed commoner in colloqial English ("he's got lice"), but this article is more about the specific creature, not the general term. For that, the singular is a better fit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. WP:PLURAL provides clear guidance for handling irregular plurals, and many English speakers are not aware that "louse" is the singular form of "lice". Rublov (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sure most native speakers are. Many non-native speakers are probably not aware of many of the nuances of English, but we don't and shouldn't cater for that (that's why we have Simple English Wikipedia). And in any case, encyclopaedias exist to educate. WP:PLURAL certainly does not mandate using a plural just because it is irregular. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

    Nor does WP:PLURAL mandate using a singular. It states: With irregular plurals whose usage far exceeds the usage of the singular, the common and unastonishing plural titles [...] are preferred. The question at issue is whether the usage of 'lice' far exceeds the usage of 'louse'. The evidence presented in this discussion leads me to conclude that it does. Rublov (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

    I don't think it does, it exceeds the singular but doesn't far exceed it like the other examples which anyway seem to have become mass nouns. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is about the creature (commonly singular), not the phenomenon of infestation (which is what the plural is meant to refer to). "Louse" is well-known enough to lend itself as a common slur and to other slang applications. Walrasiad (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as per SchreiberBike. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. There is no reason to abandon our style guideline to use the singular in this instance.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: The Microbiology of College Life

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 6 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sl2663 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sl2663 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)