Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
A fact from Insect flight appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 August2021(check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that unlike most other insects, dragonflies have direct flight, the muscles being attached directly to the wing bases (pictured)?
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It says "Other than the two orders with direct flight muscles,...". This seems unclear. First of all, many insects have direct flight muscles, but they aren't the responsible for generating lift during flight but rather making fine modulations to the flight apparatus. Secondly, even if we only considered those orders which solely rely on direct flight, then it's only Odonata, which is one order. Can someone verify? Nikolaih☎️📖13:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has removed the discussion of how indirect flight works mechanically on the thorax, and largely elided the clear separation of the Odonata's direct flight, for no apparent reason. This seems like needless damage, and it looks as if sources have gone too: not ideal. Either a straight reversion or a revert-and-merge with anything useful from the new text might be best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
