# Talk:Beetle

After months of contemplating, I have finally decided to work on this article and bring it to GA status, four (nearly five) years after its failed nomination. A project on this scale with an important group of insects has already happened once, so I can happily do it again. Mosquito and Sawfly are still on my to-do list. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Burklemore1:. Are you still on with this? The article is looking good to my mind, can't be far away from GA. Happy to help. Zakhx150 (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello @Zakhx150:, this is still on my list of articles to improve. Just haven't had the time to do so because of other smaller projects, but perhaps I can work on this soon. You're more than welcome to help. I'll outline my plans for this soon. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I did some work on the 'humans' section, I see it needs a bit more and am happy to help there and elsewhere (cladogram, ...). I've struck Sawfly, we completed that one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for comments @Burklemore1:@Chiswick Chap: There are some straightfoward general improvements we'd need to make. Section expansions to Eusociality and most of the section on 'Relationsip to Humans' jump out at me at needing extras. Also there are 16 citation tags to deal with . Perhaps a gallery/diagram in 'Taxonomy' to show the differences between the suborders? I'll probably jump in on the 'Humans' bit for now as well Chiswick. Tally ho! Zakhx150 (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of cladograms, there is one available on the Russian corresponding article, but unfortunately I do not know what source is originates from. It's also a featured article there and contains lots of details we could provide here. Just to start off somewhere. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
It may be best to start from a reliable source... Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware about that, just saying it could assist us using the sources provided there. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Finally got rid of all those pesky citation tags. Life goal achieved. Zakhx150 (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Very helpful, thanks. Now we're ready to begin thinking about how to improve the article! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The floor is open... Zakhx150 (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I think the key is to find a way to suggest the enormous diversity of the order. I don't think this can just be taxonomic; we ought to indicate how versatile the beetle body plan has been, how it has been adapted in so many different ways. Maybe photos and (maybe new) diagrams will help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That is a tricky question. I feel it could be presented quite visually, with images of collections in the vein of 'as many beetles in a diagram/image as we can get' and perhaps some additional metrics on the sheer numbers of families/genera/species etc. Its probably a fairly implicit way of presenting variance, but even some very broad info on largest and smallest extant and/or in the fossil record, most common genus/species. Additional thought - the http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/b/Beetle.htm Schools-Wikipedia] entry for beetle includes a section on collectors and collecting which is notably absent from ours. The practice and notable groups rather than for pure taxonomic interest might add in nicely to the Human Interaction section.Zakhx150 (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, I've added a section, with a plate from Wallace's book (I should know, I wrote that article). It adds incrementally to the feeling of diversity - I think we need more small steps to give more of an impression of that. For example, we can add text and photos to show the longest, the heaviest, and the smallest species (ok, at least an example of a v. small one); we could have the highest-altitude species, the furthest north, ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Cool, so Biggest/Smallest, Highest/Lowest, Most Long Lived/Least Short Lived, Most Common (Rarest might be hard, unless there is something obvious in the IUCN critera for something with a few left in the wild?), and other *Insert interesting metric facts* here things, whatever can be found out. I probs can;t touch this for a few days yet, but thanks for the recent edits @Chiswick Chap:
I've drawn a cladogram, at least based on DNA evidence and forming a proper tree. If anyone has the energy to add tiny images of beetle groups to each leaf of the tree ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Seriously good work on the clado. Looks good.Zakhx150 (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, it's a bit of a graunch finding images and sometimes cropping, rotating and removing backgrounds too. Hope it's not getting too large. Are we fast approaching submission to GAN? Or are there things you think need doing? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm still adding some of the useful metric facts to show range and diversity on an adhoc basis and I think the new Temperature regulation section needs a couple of sentences about internal biology - e.g. use of 'antifreeze' compounds. That being said, we're certainly much closer than we were 2 weeks ago. Maybe give it a week and review? Zakhx150 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. I think we may need to go over the lead once we've settled the rest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thought - in 'Relationship to humans' section do we need a 'Beetles in pop Culture' sub section. i.e. 1) Volkswagon Beetle, 2) Allusion to the Beatles, 3)Beetles in 'Giant bug movies'? Also, second thought - see Entomological warfare for use of Colorado potato beetle as a weapon to attack food supplies. Must be worth a reference if not its own sub section here? Zakhx150 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Added in the warfare ref already. Drafted a 'pop culture' section in bullet points on my sandbox User:Zakhx150/sandbox. @Chiswick Chap: Think its needed or useful? Or is the disambiguation page sufficient? Zakhx150 (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. The disambiguation page is already sufficient, and we certainly don't want to add pop culture bullet points, not least because they aren't about Coleoptera at all. The "Humans" section is probably quite long enough already anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, thought it was worth asking. I defer. Thanks. Zakhx150 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Zakhx150: OK, well, I think we're about done now. There's a slight overlap between the start of Evolution and phylogeny, and the Distribution and diversity section, which might reasonably go first; and the Evolution and Fossil record sections also overlap a little. Do you think they need adjusting, and if so how? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Zakhx150: I've slept on it, and decided to rearrange the material, a small merge. There's a small gallery for the heaviest-longest-smallest, seems to work well, and the Evolution is now organised visibly by geological period, easy and logical. So the repetition is gone. I'm ready to nominate unless you want to fix anything? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap  Hadn't even had time to review that before your'd resolved, so speedy work there. I've had a skim of the whole thing again and made a few minor format edits which sprung up, but otherwise I'm happy to stop messing with it. Go right ahead.Zakhx150 (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
GA achieved! Huzzah. Sterling work Chiswick Chap.Zakhx150 (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zakhx150 and Beetle team, the lead in this article is cluttered with rubbish, recreated below for clarity.
This article is about the insect. For the car, see Volkswagen Beetle. For other uses, see Beetle (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with The Beatles. 
"Coleoptera" redirects here. For the genus of moths, see Coeloptera.
"Chafer" redirects here. For the heated dish used for keeping food warm, see Chafing dish.
None of this is needed and does not entice the new user/reader into the article.
Line 1 re VW can be covered by other uses, which does not need to state "(disambiguation)" to make it further clean .
Line 2 The Beatles is rubbish and will never be confused.
Line 3 was added late 2019 by an ip user who got redirected here and then added a redirect notice.
Line 4 similar to above.
Line 3 and 4 would be covered by breadcrumbs
I have edited to make the top of this article cleaner and remove the unneeded rubbish and registered users have undone the same with no thought of the implications and how it looks to the average reader.
Ping User:CambridgeBayWeather
121.99.108.78 (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

How's that then? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

We have one red link Paelaphidae. It is probably a synonym, but with which family?--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I see no such red link, and it's a typo for "Pselaphidae", which is not a family. See Pselaphinae. Dyanega (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Reference for the caption: 
"...the size and shape  of  the  male  antennae  suggest that these antennae may be involved in detecting trace quantities of odorant  molecules  associated  with  female  conspecifics."
And also this: "We use “associated with” rather than “produced by” to allow for
the possibility that any pheromone produced by female Rhipicera beetles may be associated with other volatile chemicals, e.g. from
plants.."  \

Xyxyzyz (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

As the purpose of antennae as chemoreceptors is not unique to beetles, but fairly universal in all insect groups, why do you feel its needed for this article?--Kevmin § 23:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

cf. special:diff/1285061591. Adding :

Groombridge, B., Global biodiversity: status of the Earth's living resources. (1992) : "If we should conclude, reasonably enough in view of what is known of tropical canopy insects, that beetles are typically less than 40% of canopy arthropod species, let us say 25% (see Stork, 1987), the estimate for tropical arthropods rises again to approaching 200 million.", p. 34
I'm not sure where the confusion originated, but it seems to have shaped the general understanding of the topic (cf. 40 percent of the known insect species, It includes 40% of all insects. I bet it's 'Wikipedia shaped'.
I also suggest better annotation of references. For instance, McHugh and Liebherr (2009) state "Beetles comprise 25% of all described animals and plants" (p. 183); therefore, this source cannot support the claim that beetles constitute "40% of described insects," which is incorrect given Stork and citations of Stork. LD (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The Animal Biodiversity estimates for Arthropods has 1242k arthropod species, 1020k insect species and 387k beetle species. The introductory article has 1,659k animal species. So beetles at 40% of insects or 25% of animals couldn be sourced to these articles. According to  World Flora Online there are 380k accepted land plant species. However, accepted species and estimate species are different things. There are arguments that Hymenoptera species would outnumber beetles.  —  Jts1882  | talk  13:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Someone should rewrite the text on heaviest beetles, as the provided link (#23) gives very different details than the text (larval weight versus imago weight of Goliathus beetles). The link is also not a primary source but rather cites other, unnamed, sources. ~2025-34712-33 (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Made some adjustments - is that a bit better? Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)