Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beetles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Beetles (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconWikiProject Beetles is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

New pages about Mastax[edit]

Hey guys, User:Jackson Cordeiro Brilhador has been creating a lot of new pages about beetles. Could one of you take a look at them, see if they check out? They could also use a bit of fleshing out as a whole. Thanks! --Hawks Discuss edits 17:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


Local news article in Arizona announced the extinction of a Beetle: [[1]]. I thought this was a significant fact that should be added somewhere, but the mostly likely place to put it is in Elmidae which is just a list of the family. There are no details about anything there. I'm guessing that the extinct beetle identified as "Stephan’s riffle beetle" in the news article is in fact Pseudancyronyx. Is it OK to start adding prose into the article? Or is there a better way to handle this? MB 04:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes start adding prose! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC).

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Beetles Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings & DYK[edit]

Howdy all. Just officially put my name down for this Wikiproject despite having already worked on bits of it. So Hi.

Thought I'd flag a WP:BEETLES DYK I just put up for nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Meloe variegatus as a welcome gift. Zakhx150 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Also, I'll hopefully be working on the Tansy Beetle article - for anyone unfamiliar its a UK Nationally rare species. There is a lot of work being done on the conservation in York, UK, where I'm based and I'm familiar with some of the people involved in it. Going to ask for some additional resources/papers to build it up a bit. I've just updated and upgraded the WP class to 'Start'(Talk:Tansy beetle).Zakhx150 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Genera required[edit]

Having been tagging hundreds of Chrysomelidae stubs as orphans using AWB, there appears to be a large number of article at species level which have no geneus to link to. Most of those I've come across in this overview relate to African species and all articles use a single list-based source 1. They are created by a single user with autopatrolled status; so the metadata/orphan flags hadn't been picked up as part of the New Page Patrol review. For future convenience, here is the (Link to Articles Created page of user in question). Any assistance gratefully received, but I'll plough on eventually anyway.Zakhx150 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Being a pest[edit]


Partly because it's something I've been thinking about and partly as a way to gauge the level of current interest in the WP, I'm opening the floor to suggest an update of the WP userbox template. Please Assume good faith with this message, but I've been doing some updates to the project page . The one suggested below includes a logo of a Coccinellid rather than the line drawing of the current userbox, reasoning that ladybirds are one of the most recognisable beetles in the world. Colour, text size, other changes are available from all good high street stores.

Pinging the other five listed members of the WP who aren't actually blocked: @Daniel Mietchen: @Gug01: @Hectonichus: @Wilhelmina Will:@Mothman27:

Donacia-transparent.pngThis user is a member of WikiProject Beetles.
Coccinelle.svgThis user is a member of WikiProject Beetles.
  • For posterity - I'm taking it upon myself to make the change mentioned above. New userbox ahoy.Zakhx150 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Success[edit]

An important milestone has just been achieved - the article Beetle has just been promoted to Good Article Class! Huzzah. Thanks to any and all who had worked on it over its development, and to Shyamal for reviewing it. Zakhx150 (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes[edit]

Members of WP Beetles, we are having a discussion over at WP Insects about whether we should recommend switching from taxoboxes to automatic taxoboxes to increase the maintainability of our large number of pages. We'd appreciate your input! M. A. Broussard (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beetles/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Beetles.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Beetles, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on categorizing by year of formal description[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes[edit]

There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comments: Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread.

WikiProject Beetles is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 33.5% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Change from Anobiidae to Ptinidae?[edit]

I think the beetle family Anobiidae should be replaced by Ptinidae according to Bouchard (2011). This is effectively a name change, because all the subfamilies will remain the same. I'll be happy to do this, but I thought I should check first to see if there are any objections. Bob Webster (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It's done now. Bob Webster (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

100 C-class articles achieved[edit]

Dear WP:Beetles participants,

Just a friendly note to say that we have just passed a new achievement: 100 C-Class article-rated articles. Huzzah. We are few and our work is massive, so achievements should all be acknowledged. I thought this was a good moment to also thank you all for for any and all edits you each have made to the benefit of this WikiProject.

(FYI: @Daniel Mietchen:@Gug01:@Hectonichus:@Wilhelmina Will:@Mothman27:@IExistToHelp:@Ds2320: @Million Moments:@Fourdots2:@Barbara (WVS):)

Thanks and best wishes.Zakhx150 (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Zakhx150, and onwards! -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful to hear! :) We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

thanks Fourdots2 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That's fabulous! I've been off Wikipedia for quite some time and watching the project that I helped revive take off so much is extremely gratifying. Keep up the good work! Gug01 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Naupactini review[edit]

Hi WP:Beetles participants, I added some information on, but as I am new on editing pages, not sure if it was correctly done. So, if someone can take a look, I will continue improving that page. Regards! (LeónHormiga (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC))

Great article, and much more in-depth than most beetle articles. The only thing I would caution is that the vocabulary should be understood by an 8th grade beetle enthusiast per Wikipedia guidelines, and some of the vocabulary used is somewhat complicated and could be substituted for simple language. Good job though. Gug01 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Cerambycid genera[edit]

Articles for species in polytypic genera need to be debolded.Ypna (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Oxysternon conspicillatum[edit]

A saw a wonderful photo on Wikimedia Commons so I came to Wikipedia to read more about this beetle. Unfortunately we didn't have an article at all, so I created it. Please expand the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter![edit]

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects#Descendant Wikiprojects, WikiProject Beetles is "semi-active," but I do not see it labeled as semi-active on Wikipedia:WikiProject Beetles. At least one of the pages should be changed. Is this project active, semi-active, inactive, or defunct? --Nessie (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  • In a formal sense it's probably semi-active based on the general activity coming in bursts.Zakhx150 (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest[edit]

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Synetini or Synetinae?[edit]

Is the taxon Synetini a tribe of the leaf beetle subfamily Eumolpinae, or is it in fact a separate leaf beetle subfamily known as Synetinae? A number of articles in the last decade or so seem to prefer Synetinae as far as I'm aware, though ITIS and, of course, we on the English Wikipedia have decided to call it a tribe (at least, since March 2007). I'm leaning towards renaming the Synetini article back to Synetinae as it was pre-2007, but I don't want to make any rash decisions here just in case this is a bad idea. Especially since the rank of this taxon seems to be controversial even in the literature anyway. I've made attempts to try to clarify this controversy in text as a temporary "fix" since I started editing the Eumolpinae-related pages, but it just eats away at my head nevertheless!

As far as I've been able to piece together, the recent history of the rank of this taxon is as follows (some of which I already referenced on the Synetini article over the last year or two):

  • pre-1995: The taxon is known as the subfamily "Synetinae", at least since Edwards (1953).
  • 1995: C.A.M. Reid places it as a tribe of Eumolpinae, giving it the name "Synetini".
  • 2002: American Beetles, Volume II: Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculionoidea lists it as Synetini.
  • 2008: In Jolivet & Verma's Eumolpinae – a widely distributed and much diversified subfamily of leaf beetles (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae), they criticise Reid's placement and prefer to keep it as a subfamily.
  • 2010: The Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera volume 6 lists it as Synetinae, and even states it does not include Synetinae in Eumolpinae.
  • 2011: Bouchard et al.'s "Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta)" article in ZooKeys lists it as the subfamily Synetinae.
  • After this, the trail goes cold and nobody seems to really touch the subject, except in phylogenetic studies such as this one from last year implying that it's not part of Eumolpinae or something?

This would also be good to clear up because sister project Wikispecies has a page for both ranks of the taxon for some reason. Wikispecies only needs to have one of them, but because of my confusion here I'm not sure which one to keep.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on the timeline you've presented, and a greater number of sources in the taxonbar for Synetinae, I'm inclined to go with subfamily. Of the taxonbar sources for Synetini, the ITIS record was last updated in 2006, and while I'm getting an error from EOL, EOL does scrape Wikipedia and can't be trusted as an independent taxonomic source. But this is a pretty superficial analysis on my part; I'm not considering the taxonomic merits of either circumscription. Plantdrew (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
EOL probably needs its own discussion somewhere more general at some point I think, since none of the existing EOL links for taxonbars seem to work anymore. I think this is because they completely changed the site recently? Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe I'm wrong about the above, I jumped to conclusions. EOL links *do* work for some taxon pages, but not for others like Synetini/Synetinae. ...weird then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
My philosophy - for what it's worth - is to designate some recent source as the latest "state of play" ("trusted source" i.e. overrides earlier statements) unless either you have a reason to disagree, or something more recent emerges that you prefer. In this case I (personally) would follow Bouchard et al. unless you have a reason not to then you can say that the WS entry is compliant with the Bouchard et al. treatment at least (for now; nothing is immutable). Just my 2 cents' worth of course. Regards Tony Rees, IRMNG. Tony 1212 (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I have since learned that Handbook of Zoology Arthropoda: Insecta: Coleoptera: Volume 3 from 2014 also calls it a subfamily, based on morphological data or so. So yeah, it's looking pretty conclusive to me we should be using "Synetinae", at least for now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

...Oh bother, I was actually just about to make the move from Synetini to Synetinae myself just now (assuming it is current classification after all), but it appears I cannot for technical reasons and I'd need to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves to do so... or can anyone here do the switch for me maybe? Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

...No response? Oh well, Requested moves it is then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)