Talk:Dermestidae

Wikispecies

Hey guys! I just wanted to let you all know about the Wikispecies project [[1]]. Your article fits in with their project, so look into it. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A good and informative article. I got a little lost among the different species, but was glad to know all the different ones were there. A little more history and forensic importance could be useful. Good job.--165.91.80.115 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great article, one question... can forensic entomologists use dermestidae for PMI estimation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCJones04 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Discovery

Hey guys, great article! The only suggestion is that I saw in the introduction you have Dermestidae as being discovered by De Geer in 1774 as well as a link to a page. I see that in the taxonomy box you have Latreille 1804. Which one of these men discovered Dermestidae? Aside from this, everything looks good. I like the external links at the bottom. Kt babe8 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)kt_babe8

Thanks for letting us know about the mistake. We're currently researching who named the species first. Thanks again.--Angelina5288 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

peer review

Great job on the article! I have a few suggestions that would make your article better. The introduction is informative, however there are a few grammar mistakes. Since Dermestidae is a family, it's a singular word, so your first sentence should read: "Dermestidae is a family of Coleoptera..."

• When you list the common names, they should either all be plural (i.e. use the word "beetles" in all of the common names), or all be singular (i.e. use the word "beetle" in all of the common names).
• In your introduction, please give an example of a business losing millions, or give some sort of statistic other than "millions"
• Under your Larder Beetles section, I think there is a misspelling - did you mean to say "They also have two spin like appendages on the posterior end..."? Or did you mean to say "spine-like"?

I only posted some edits as to leave room for someone else to add in comments! Weilingz (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Great input--

• Actually, "Dermestidae" is plural, like all the taxa in the info box from "Animalia" on down. ("Smiths are a family of people...")
• All plural or all singular is something I can't get worked up about. If the text flows well, is readable and accurate, that's enough for me in that respect.
• Yes, we need a reference for "Some species cause millions of dollars in damage to natural fibers and can cost businesses millions when populations get out of control." (I doubt the cost of bow rehairs needed on account of bow bugs amounts to millions...) Anyone?
• "Spine-like..." fixed.

Thanks! __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is great. It is easy to read and understand. Most of my suggestions are about the pictures you did and didn’t provide in the article.

• The gallery at the bottom of the page is nice, but it’s just stuck at the bottom. I think it would be more affective if ya’ll place the pictures within the article.
• Is there any way ya’ll can get pictures of each of the species ya’ll discussed? I think it would make the article better by helping out people who learn better with pictures.

Overall, I liked the article. Good job!!

--Sadiezapalac (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We're working on it. Some of the images were already on the existing Dermestidae page, and the 'D. maculatus' images were taken because they were recovered from a raccoon carcass. We're still trying to get the other species, but it's a little harder than we had originally thought. Noromaru (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for you. I am part of the Home Stored Product Entomology group. Our entire page is composed of how insects effect stored products. Would you like to add a link in your Stored Product section that goes to our page here on Wikipedia. I think that it would be a nice internal link that would match up well with your section. You don't seem to have covered much in that section, and it would be beneficial for people to utilize the link that would go to our page if they were interested in reading more about stored product pests. What do you think?! (Lamanda14 (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the suggestion. The internal link to your page is now in place.--Angelina5288 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well done. I found the medicolegal section very interesting in that this species of beetle is very useful in determining post mortem intervals. I also think that the picture gallery was a great idea. Every group should be required to have one because this is what people are naturally drawn too. The only issue I saw was that there were a few words that were linked that had no pages created for them. Other than that, great job. cawinkler —Preceding comment was added at 02:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, don't get me wrong; I'm really glad you all showed up. The more critical eyes there are on this wikipedia thingy, the better it gets. Now here is the kicker-- the wikipedia is not at all about congratulating ourselves (or each other) on the talk pages. It ain't myspace here, it's an encyclopedia. The point is to improve the articles, not chat about them, and the talk pages are for hashing out the iffy bits, the issues where consensus may not come easily. A central principle of wikipedia is BE BOLD, which basically says, "If you think there's an improvement to be made, go ahead and make it yourself."

Rest assured that if your contribution stands the test of time, it is a worthy one. Other people will have their own take on things, and the process will continue to sort itself out. Like I said, I'm glad you all showed up, and thanks! So if you think there's something worth fixing in the article, take the bull by a horn or two and fix it. Pay no attention to the grumpy old men such as myself who may question your fixings and adjust them, or turn them around; we all mean well here, because, you see, another central dealy of wikipedia is ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Carry on; if you've got a difference to make, just go ahead and make it, and see what happens. __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I really wish I could say this article is perfect, but after rereading it several times, I keep coming to the same conclusion, for something that has so much information, there really is not a whole lot here. It is almost as if your article is a "jack of all trades, but a master of none." I can't complain too much, you are covering a HUGE topic. What I hope is that each of your species gets expanded upon throughout the life of the article. In the long run, I guess that is what this topic really needs. Bmb4516 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading your article. I liked how you had a lot of information on each of the different kinds of dermestidae. I think others that come to your page looking for specific information will appreciate the time that you took to list the different details about all of them, especially if they are working on an assignment were they need to know about this family. overall good job. Jared Jcdvipertx2000 (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great article I love seeing pictures on these pages I am a visual learner as many people are and you can help out a lot with just a few pictures here and there. Good info on PMI and how the insect helps determining this. (Rbmoeller (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Classification authority-- de Geer, or Latreille?

Quick search found two references that call out Latreille: Look for "Explanation of Names" in this one and this one has him right at the top.

I suspect that de Geer may have described the beetles earlier, but did not go along with the Linnaean taxonomy. His wikipedia article says the was a contemporary of, and friendly with, Linnaeus. Anybody care to shed further light on this? __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

hmmm. Looking in the same reference the article cites for de Geer, I see Linnaeus classifying Dermestes in 1758... this needs the attention of someone who actually knows the real story. __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen de Geer on almost all peer-reviewed references to D. maculatus. As far as who first named the family, I would agree that someone with more knowledge on the subject needs to weigh in. Noromaru (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

By the way, if you're wondering why all these editors suddenly showed up and posted, it's probably because they were required to as part of class. BuddingJournalist 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course; there's a banner near the top of this page that says so. I'd like extra credit to go to the ones that actually do something to the article, instead of saying something like, "great job, and could you dot this i, cross that t, and spread out the pix more..." on the "peer" review section of the talk page.

I'll say it again: the more critical eyes we gots, the better it gets. Carry on... __Just plain Bill (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

There is an apparent edit war and COI from user Kingofaces43 at this page. Mind if somebody will show up? Can I talk with @Seraphimblade: on this?--Mishae (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dermestidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518034937/http://www.padil.gov.au/viewPest.aspx?id=443 to http://www.padil.gov.au/viewPest.aspx?id=443
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518075923/http://www.pestsolutionsplus.com/beetles.html to http://www.pestsolutionsplus.com/beetles.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518010748/http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/prints/larderbeetleprint.html to http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/prints/larderbeetleprint.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2104.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2103.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222135123/http://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/bimg154.html to http://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/bimg154.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514090107/http://www.bugpeople.org/taxa/Coleoptera/Dermestidae/FamilyDermestidaePage.htm to http://www.bugpeople.org/taxa/Coleoptera/Dermestidae/FamilyDermestidaePage.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205070306/http://www.nearctica.com/nomina/beetle/cold.htm to http://www.nearctica.com/nomina/beetle/cold.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606091054/http://digital.library.unt.edu/permalink/meta-dc-1563%3A1 to http://digital.library.unt.edu/permalink/meta-dc-1563%3A1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/library/entml2/ep119.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)