Talk:Scarabaeidae

Insects High‑importance

	Insects portal 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beetles High‑importance

	Insects portal Scarabaeidae 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.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge?

Should Scarab be merged into this article? –Hajor 21:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. A very long beetle article might justify a separate article on the mythology, but we're nowhere close to that yet. Stan 00:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, will give it a shot. –Hajor 04:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heart

Since the heart was the only organ not removed in mummification - egyptians believed it was the home of the soul. I've changed the sentence in the article and a reference to support it. Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

separate articles

"Dung beetle" should not be merged (or redirected) into the "Scarab beetle". the cultural significance of the dung beetle alone calls for an independent entry. if no one here objects, i will venture to separate the dung beetle part from the current article. btw, the article is rather messy now. :( --K.C. Tang 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was there talk of merging the two? Maybe I haven't followed the discussion closely enough, but I agree that they should be and stay separate. dewet|™ 08:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery/Taxobox display

Am I the only one seeing the Taxonomy box merging with the Gallery? Is this just my browser? Jasonaltenburg (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falsignambia

How should one access Falsignambia from this article? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Far) Too Many External Links: a Proposal

Why should there be ext. links to pages on individual types of beetle in an article on a group? I suggest we remove all such links (they can go on individual genus/species pages if useful). Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Chafer Beetle?

A search for 'chafer beetle' redirects to this page, rather than to the page for the European chafer beetle. This makes the reader think there is no specific information about chafer beetles. Can someone fix the redirect? (I don't know how.)Rosieredfield (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do all Scarabs fly?

Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can address the issue of flying wrt Scarabs. Can they all fly? Why is this issue not addressed in the article? Gouveia2 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the overwhelming majority can fly, the insignificant fraction that do NOT fly will only be mentioned in the appropriate articles for those flightless lineages. For an example, see Rain beetle. Dyanega (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Euchiridae as a synonym?

IRMNG says that Euchiridae Hope, 1840 is a synonym of this family. Could anyone solve this red link?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should redirect to Euchirinae. Dyanega (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]