Jump to content

Talk:Coccinellidae/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

I've removed a load of trivia from this section in line with wp:trivia as it was just a collection of unrelated "facts" that adds nothing to the article, and a lot of it wasn't even about the subject anyway. For intance, there was a TV programme about women called "Ladybirds" and group of female singers that called themselves "Ladybirds". What has that got to do with Coccinellidae? Also the fact that there was a ladybird character in a cartoon and one in a computer game is completely irrelevant and frankly, uninteresting. I'm not sure that any of the stuff about logos is really of much interest either - but at least some of it is referenced. Richerman (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. Is the cartoon or game itself notable by Wikipedia's criteria? Then standard practice would indicate a brief mention (a single-line like "a character in X was named after", etc. would suffice) is fine when confined to the "In popular culture" section. However, one would want to confirm that it has actually anything to do with the insect - as in, it's an actual one (like the Ladybug in A Bug's Life), or directly named after the insect. For instance, while the protagonist of the American animated series King of the Hill owns a dog named "Ladybird", I've never seen evidence it was named after the insect and given the character is Texan, if it were, it would have been called "Ladybug" since that's the common American usage, so that reference would not make sense. So a King of the Hill reference would be inappropriate, but the mentions of the ladybird/ladybug characters in James and the Giant Peach, A Bug's Life, etc., are fine.
Remember - just because you personally find it "uninteresting", doesn't mean it should be excluded. It just needs to be from something that meets WP:Notability. Pokemon is certainly notable (regardless of whether you want it to be) by WP standards, as is A Bug's Life, so those references are perfectly appropriate in this case. There are plenty of subjects I find "uninteresting" that are nonetheless worth, sometimes, a whole article. Being bored with something isn't a good reason to censor it. ;) If it were, Wikipedia would have almost no content at all! 68.202.85.105 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What about the Eric Carle book about the grouchy ladybug? It's a story about a ladybug. But if you're looking for tenuous references, how about the Buggalo in Futurama, which resemble very large spotted beatles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.62 (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please rename this article

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

i want this article renamed to ladybug —Preceding unsigned comment added by WindowsSeven (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Hopefully a user with administrative access will see the good comment. Speling12345 (talk) 7:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Disagree with you that the comment is good or that the sentiment is tenable. Ladybug would be a very bad name for an article on Coccinellidae.
* There already is an article on Ladybug (try entering it and see; it is as quick as you like and even tells you how you got there!)
* The insects in question are not bugs
* No one calls them ladybugs except for some Americans. Other Americans call them other things and peoples call them yet other things. The only name common to all nations is Coccinellidae, and as many people who feel that the common name that they and half a dozen of their personal friends and family call them would be the right way to look them up, are welcome to create redirs to their hearts' content.
* Demanding that an article be renamed from Coccinellidae (the definitive name) to ladybug because someone happens tp prefer it, is like asking
* Using redirs not only works just as well, but when you arrive you know exactly what you have found. Entering any other name an winding up with say, "ladybirds" might leave you wondering whether these ladybirds are the same ladybirds you knew, or whether it includes the Cleridae or Chrysomelidae that someone else called ladybirds.
* The principle is not symmetrical; calling the main article "Ladybug" or "Ladybugs" justifies anyone who called some unrelated species ladybugs in including whatever Hemiptera or Melyridae he used to call Ladybugs into a totally incoherent mess. Calling it Coccinellidae demands that such confusion can be dealt with by disambiguation.
I urge you to do some looking up on some weary past discussions on the subject of common names. This is no new idea, but a hardy perennial. JonRichfield (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


Accuracy of etymology

The etymology section of the article states: "Mary (Our Lady) was often depicted wearing a red cloak in early paintings and the spots of the seven spot ladybird (the most common in Europe) were said to symbolise her seven joys and seven sorrows.[5][8]"

Neither of the two references cited in support contains a statement that ladybugs were named after Mary because of her supposed association ("in early paintings" or otherwise) with the color red. Indeed, in traditional iconography, Mary is more frequently associated with the color blue, while Joseph is often associated with the color red. One sees recent images of Mary wearing a red outer garment; however, those images always seem to come from conservative evangelical sources, and I have always assumed that the use of red rather than blue was ideologically motivated (not in the political red-blue sense, but otherwise).

Prior to seeing this article, the only explanation I had heard for the use of the term "lady" in the name ladybug came from "Lady Day" (a.k.a., the Feast of the Annunciation), the traditional March 25 first day of spring in Medieval and Rennaisance times, when ladybugs would begin to be seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.28.220 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The first citation was going to the wrong website as two references had been given the same name. I've fixed it now so it goes to the right one. As for the red cloak see the fourth post in this discussion and the images here, here and here Richerman (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tree Fu Tom (a Cbeebies show) features ladybirds as like cows being ranched by a southern-belle cowgirl spider and hungrily feeding on nectar - fictionalisation okay; but it sort of really annoys me! Tree Fu Tom also has a character voiced by David Tennant (previous Doctor Who and also starred in a Harry Potter film amongst many other credits) so is likely to be doubly significant/interesting - to British women especially! I think the Tree Fu Tom article should contain note of the fictionalised aspects even though it will be minor point (I have a precedent for this in The Very Hungry Caterpillar article); but perhaps reference here too is worthwhile?Kathybramley (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Cannibalism

Just yesterday, I witnessed one Harlequein Ladybird larva (==Harmonia axyridis==) kill and eat another whilst the other was starting to pupate, and I have photographic evidence.

I am unsure as to whether or not this is common behavior, or a one off, and if it is not a one off, whether or not it is worth including in the article??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohdear15 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, this cannibalistic behaviour is not uncommon, and there is a line in the article which refers to it ("larvae and eggs of their own species can also be important resources when alternative prey are scarce"). I have also personally witnessed this behaviour, though I didn't get any photographic evidence. If your images are reasonably clear you could upload them onto Commons, so readers can access them, and editors could put one in the article if it seems appropriate. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
PCW is quite right. Both intra- and interspecific "cannibalism" of these types is quite common, and if you can get reasonably informative pictures, they would be valuable in supplementing our material. Incidentally, quite a lot of other carnivorous and omnivorous insects do much the same, including mealworms and lacewings. JonRichfield (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have one of the images here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohdear15 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonably sharp image, though the average reader might find it a bit difficult to discern exactly what's happening (without being told) because the camera angle results in the jaws of the attacking larva being obscured by its own body (and/or lost against the black body of its victim). Do any of the other images show the jaws more clearly? (P.S. I've reduced the size of the image to a more standard Wikipedia format) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Again I agree, but if there is none better, that photo will be worth posting. It does no harm to put the explanation in the caption and there is no basis for doubting the interpretation. JonRichfield (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree - I don't want to give the impression that I think the image isn't worthy of inclusion, I was just asking for more... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Failed reference

Ref. #24 resolves into an unrelated article. o0drogue0o 07:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

Romanian word for ladybird

The Romanian word for ladybird is "buburuză". The name "vaca-Domnului" mentioned in the article is used for another bug, pyrrhochoris apterus. http://blogulmeucupoze.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/vaca-domnului.html?m=1 92.234.25.249 (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

English variety

An editor recently altered this article to US English, with the claim that the earliest version used US English. The oldest version I can find is 6 July 2002, which uses the spelling "immortalised". That would make this British English or similar. Is there perhaps an earlier version that normal users like myself cannot see? Or is there some other reason to believe the 2002 edit is US English? Mark Marathon (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Common name in taxobox

I can't find a single other taxon article that uses two versions of the commmon name. For example, the Moose afticle uses only moose, not Elk/Moose. The Papaya article uses only Papaya, not Papaya/Paw Paw and so forth. It seems like the drive to use two different versions in this article springs from the fact that it doesn't use the US common name. I'm not sure what the official policy is here, but it seems like using multiple common names is unworkable. If we include US and British English names we will then need to include Indian English, South African English and so forth, producing taxoboxes with dozens or hundreds of common names. Mark Marathon (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

in russian too

it's ("she's" she has feminine gender in russian :3) called божья коровка - god's little cow in russian too just like in the polish 94.154.66.240 (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Coccinellidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Coccinellidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:jargon: Target audience is lay readers, not PhDs.

Kingofaces43,
Regarding true bugs, or regarding "true bugs", entomologists know that "true bugs" (w/o quotes) is an order of course. The jargon serves them well -- when communicating with other entomologists.
But, Wikipedia's audience is laity, not entomologists. Jargon is unencyclopedic. Writing "true bugs" (w/o quotes) is interpreted by laity as "bugs that are more truly bugs than other bugs", which is ambiguous and silly because of the multiple meanings of "bug". Entomologists read it correctly as their jargon, but WP:jargon is generally disallowed in WP.
It should be made clear that "true bug" (w/out quotes) is not a just a colloquial description of some bugs, but rather is referring to the order. Linking does not achieve that. Linking makes vague innuendo that there's something else to be learned here. But, that's insufficient to clearly convey that "true bug" (w/out quotes) doesn't mean "bugs that are more truly bugs than other bugs". Actual punctuation is one way to do that. Another way is to add words clarifying that "true bug" (w/out quotes) is referring to an order. Do you have any other ideas?

50.169.37.57 (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the content to before the series of edits occurred on this. WP:CONSENSUS is needed for a change at this point. I entirely understand that insect common names cause headaches for people sometimes, but please keep in mind that avoiding jargon and remaining encyclopedic is exactly why we use the common name true bugs (a non-jargon term) here and wikilink it instead of referring to hemipterans, orders, etc. Wikilinking is exactly what is called for when the use of a term may not be apparent to an initial reader. That more than clarifies any confusion a reader should have. We also don't go putting quotes around basic terms or using variations of "Scientists say. . ." every time a common name is at odds. It creates WP:NPOV issues with such attribution and by considering it just jargon. Generally, outreach material for the general public uses this same language too.[1]
In short, the lede already says they are beetles, and that these insects are not true bugs. That's concisely stated in an encyclopedic manner while letting the description of what true bugs are fall to the Hemiptera article. If a reader is unfamiliar with the encyclopedic use of the term bug in your above example, then the wikilink brings them to the core article on the subject to correct that interpretation if needed. That's generally something taught to the general public much much below the PhD level, so there doesn't appear to be a particular jargon issue at hand here. For a similar example, check out Pseudoscorpion#Characteristics Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


I italicized that first time in hopes of appeasing (a la WP:STATUSQUO) even though I thought it was inferior to quotes as a way to achieve the needed clarity. Although, your arguments have convinced me that italics or bold would be better (or something else yet to be thought of).

The complaint is that the link-only is insufficient to make it clear that "true bugs" refers to the order and not an odd description of a type of bug. Links may not be used as references and aren't considered to be part of the article. The way you want to do it just isn't standard. If you can find a standard that says otherwise, it would be good to know! Links imitate bold because they render as blue, but it isn't a typeface. The blueness of a link doesn't encapsulate the two words as one thing the way quotes or italics or bold (or whatever else) does.

WP:STATUSQUO states that in such cases as this, instead of reverting, one should try to address the complaints and rewrite a bit. I see you tried to do that, which is good. We've both followed that rule, and that's good. Thanks for pointing out WP:STATUSQUO, I think it's good advice.

However, "true bugs" (without quotes or italics or bold)) still appears to a lay reader as unclear. A lay reader doesn't know that true bugs is an order. Because of that, a lay reader cannot be expected to infer it as "(the order)(called) true bugs" as one would expect from a PhD'd entomologist like yourself. Since you are so closely tied to the language of your passion and your profession, can you even place yourself in the mind of a lay reader in this matter? Maybe, maybe not, it's just a thought. But since you aren't a lay reader, maybe you should recuse yourself from matters where the lay reader is the expert is determining how a lay reader would read a particular passage.

How about italics or bold then? Is that okay with you? If you can invent some way to make it clear to a lay reader that "true bugs" is not the odd "bugs that are more 'truly' bugs than other bugs", that'd be great. Do it, man.

As it stands now it's bad English. Something has to be done to fix it. I'm fine with italicizing or bolding "true bugs". I'll do that after a few days, unless you want to do it.

50.169.37.57 (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an entomologist but I think the sentence as it now stands (ie not classified as true bugs) is is perfectly clear. Adding other punctuation, bolding or italics would be wrong and would make it less clear. The wikilink makes it obvious that there is something you need to check if you don't understand what's being said. Richerman (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


Links are for additional information, not for the basic information the sentence means to convey. Innuendo is unencylopedic. It's innuendo to hope a reader infers the intended meaning from the mere presence of an unclicked link.

A link isn't English. So it's clear to you and me after clicking, so what? Clarity needs to be apparent right there on the page without the need to click a link. The phrase needs to be clear on the page that it doesn't mean "bugs that are more truly bugs than other bugs", i.e that "true" isn't an adjective for "bugs". This is achieved by creating a sense that "true bugs" is a single entity (as it is, it's the order called true bugs). Mere blueness doesn't achieve that because blueness is ambiguous.

Text appearing in a continuous stream of blue doesn't always all link to the same place. It doesn't imply at all that the blue text is all one entity. One might infer that, but blue doesn't imply that. We need to be clear that true bugs is one entity, at least at first (in the lede), via quote/italic/bold/whatever.

So, what harm? Any particular person might feel that the oneness of the text is evident merely by blueness of it. Blue doesn't mean oneness, but even if it kinda did, what would be the actual harm in introducing more clarity for people who aren't as discerning?

If anyone can find a standard that says link-blue has any other meaning than "click on this for a link", then please find it for us. Heck, if blue meant anything else other than "click here", then we could use a self-pointing link or broken link to make text a pretty blue or pretty red as a new form of bolding/italics/etc. Do you know why we can't get away with that? Because link-blue doesn't mean anything other than "click here"! :-)

Without that standard in evidence, and until it can be found, I'll bold the text in a few days unless someone wants to figure out a better way.

50.169.37.57 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Bolding wouldn't be a correct usage in this instance either, and this is a pretty standard use of wikilinks per our manual of style. There's been a relative WP:CONSENSUS now that the text is appropriate as is, so you really need to gain consensus for your edits before implementing them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coccinellidae. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Twenty-two spotted (gallery section)

I'm counting no less than 25 spots on that bird. Am I counting wrong?Edaham (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"Special features: Each wing case features 11 evenly spaced black spots. The pronotum, or section between the head and the abdomen, also features 5 black spots, so it probably should have been called the 27 spot ladybird." Source:http://www.uksafari.com/ladybird22s.htm --Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that very quick response. I can see now that we should still call it the 22 spotted ladybird since that is how it's named formally. No change to the article is required :) Edaham (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Invasive species

I accidentally reverted the correction "Alien species" which was rightly corrected to "invasive species", Due to some confusion in the edit summary. To be clear. "Invasive species" is definitely the correct terminology. Edaham (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

American or British English

Recently, repeated attempts have been made to change the language and spelling of this article from British to American English. Discussion here. Edaham (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I doubt you will find these recent editors to be interested in discussion; at a minimum, anyone who does want to discuss it should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policy statements on how to address the issue of British vs. American spellings, here. One very explicit point to be made is that coccinellids occur worldwide, so no one cultural group can claim a predominance here, unlike (for example) "yellowjacket", an insect name used almost exclusively in American English, and whose WP entry therefore reflects American English spelling. Dyanega (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
you are probably right, but the attempts to modify the article have been heavy handed, only partially administered and created more issues than they solved. At present It's written in UK English, with which I'm fine - any attempt to modify it after said reversion should be a result of a consensus, so it seems within policy to open a thread here. Edaham (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This has now become an issue with the article title. WP:TITLE seems quite clear. The preferred name of an article is the name most frequently used to refer the the subject in reliable sources. All national varieties are acceptable, per the same policy. A Google news search returns 700 results for "lady beetle", 150 for "ladybeetle" and 30, 000 for "ladybird". Similar trends for a simple Google search. I realise google democracy isn't a clincher argument, but I think it does provide a good starting point for deciding what term is most commonly used in natural language. Anyone wanting to challenge this should present some other evidence to the contrary. As a result, so long as the article remains British English, as it has been since 2002, I believe the title should be the word most commonly used to refer to these creatures in British English: ladybird.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Support: there's no convincing reason to change the title or the language. Editors are of course welcome as always to suggest changes or edit the article, but are not welcome to make half hearted attempts to pepper the article with different English spellings or change the colloquial terminology without following WP:BRD, as has occasionally been the case. Edaham (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, google searches aren't really relevant here (this is also one of the cases where insect common names are a mess). In your case, you should have been searching ladybug (72,100,000 results ) vs. ladybird (20,100,000 results) for the two vernacular (though not preferred) common names. Those two are almost always going to have usage than preferred or more accurate common names lady beetle (8,030,000 results ) or ladybird beetle (1,060,000 results) because those are generally used by more knowledgeable sources (i.e., a smaller subset).
For articles, we go by accepted common names though. Generally, scientific naming related to common names overrides any WP:ENGVAR questions in taxonomic articles (see maize and its talk page as an example of first-used name not being the policy-based argument, but rather scientific preference). The article lede already mentions that lady beetle or ladybird beetle are common names preferred by scientists over ladybug or ladybird alone. MOS:COMMONALITY also applies here where lady beetle is synonymous with ladybird beetle in the UK, but the inverse is not necessarily the case in other countries. Keep in mind that the official common names used for the family by the ESA are lady beetle when the "lady" term is included. As far as I'm aware, the UK does not have any such official naming organization, so the bird variation is less ubiquitous and hasn't been designated as an official common name as far as I can find. If anything has sufficient weight as this point, it would be lady beetle, followed up by ladybird beetle with a bit weaker of a standing at best. Ladybird, ladybug, etc. should not be included except as mentioned in the lede currently.
The other option that I'm more prone to if some beetle variant isn't included is to just to put Coccinellids in the taxobox name field instead. This is pretty common for articles like Harmonia axyridis where the common names are all over the place and one cannot be easily chosen. On that note, I have been keeping an eye out for a source that directly discusses ladybug vs. ladybird common usage and the more preferred beetle variants of the name by scientists. I seem to recall this very subject being covered in an entire American Entomologist article awhile back, but I haven't been able to dig anything up yet. Definitely would be worth a paragraph in the etymology section though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Just an additional point I noticed, but the etymology section also includes lady beetle as a name in the British context in addition to ladybird. That seems to solidify that that lady beetle fits MOS:COMMONALITY the best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Lady beetle - edit revert

Again accidentally, due to viewing a partial edit summary on my mobile, have reverted an edit which I shouldn't have. Oops sorry Edaham (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I've actually done the same in the past. Depending on your browser (I know iOS has it), you can request the desktop version of the site on your phone. It's ironically a bit less cumbersome for editing on mobile than the mobile version of the website itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This section is woefully under-sourced and contains several undue pieces of trivial information. Each entry requires sourcing. I will source a couple of them now and delete the ones I feel don't belong there. Editors wishing to put back the deletions should follow WP:RS and WP:N when considering re-adding entries to this list. Edaham (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladybug or Ladybird

The article states, “[e]ntomologists widely prefer the names ladybird beetles or lady beetles as these insects are not classified as true bugs.” The logic of this statement is flawed. Ladybugs are obviously much more like bugs than they are like birds. By the logic of the statement ladybird should be considered the least attributable term with ladybug being second to lady beetle. The ridiculousness of the statements logic shows favoritism towards UK English which has affected the objectivity of this statement. Furthermore, the term ladybird may currently or in the future be used as a common name for an actual bird species which would cause ambiguity whereas ladybug is much more specific and can obviously only be attributed to bug-like insects. Until some official body of entomology makes a statement on the issue, it would be wise to remove the claim that “[e]ntomologists widely prefer the names ladybird beetles.” This statement only seems to be locked into the article so that the American English term ladybug takes a secondary or tertiary place in the common name hierarchy. EdgeworthDB (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing this long-running controversy, which has however reached something approaching consensus: to name the article Coccinellidae which is non-partisan on the transatlantic naming issue. On your quotation, note that it is reliably cited to an American source. On your next point, we can at least be quite definitive: the Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) are not "true bugs", which is a name given to the Hemiptera. On the possible future use of ladybird for a bird, that isn't a concern today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, as we are coming up with silly arguments, the term ladybug already causes ambiguity as it could be thought to mean a female bug. Also, the term ladybug was derived from the earlier form ladybird. [2]Richerman (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

blue ladybug?

A student came back from New Zealand with a photo of a blue ladybug? Anyone else?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Could be any number of species, but if any photos were going to be added to articles, it would probably be better to use ones from sources that already identify it to species for us. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What they're not

The article says: "Coccinellids are known as ladybugs in North America, and ladybirds in Britain... Entomologists widely prefer the names ladybird beetles or lady beetles as these insects are not classified as true bugs."

True, and they're also not classified as true birds!

It's okay, I'll show myself out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.42.46 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I had the same thoughts. I was curious as to why these entomologists didn't consider using "ladybug beetle", but thought "ladybird beetle" was acceptable. Very strange. - BilCat (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The bird part is tied more to its naming in the UK rather than saying it's like a bird per se unlike something like beefly that's more aptly named because it's a fly mimic that's a bee. Ladybird not really at the top of the list of preferred common names though, but it's at least better than common names ending in bug implying it's actually a bug, so that's where you get names like lady beetle often followed by ladybird beetle for our occasionally oddball UK folks out there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

Entomologists prefer the names ladybird beetles or lady beetles as these insects are not classified as true bugs.[5]" should read: 

Entomologists prefer the names ladybird beetles or lady beetles as these insects are not classified as true bugs nor as birds.[5]

In the United states, a 'bug' or to 'bug' as in 'Don't bug me!' more broadly refers to the nuisance many small, primarily terrestrial invertebrates, such as any insects generally cause. Streykatt (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You have a good idea, but it needs a reliable source. I found this on a quick search, but websites are not preferred sources. Do you have any sources in mind? BiologicalMe (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
That source appears to be written by reputable entomologists and published by a university, so it would be WP:RS. Also pretty much a case of WP:BLUE, might be too obvious for us to mention. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 Not done The sentence would not make sense. I'm reducing the serntence to show why: "Entomologists prefer the name[] ladybird beetles... as these insects are not classified... as birds." Sometimes overstating the obvious can distract from the important facts. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021

The “Käfer” in the German “Marienkäfer” translates to “beetle”, not “bird” as it is in the Northern Germanic/Scandinavian languages. The grammar in the sentence implies this translation to “bird” is correct for all the listed names including “Marienkäfer”, when this translation is only accurate for the other languages. The article should be edited to reflect the German translation is “Our Lady’s Beetle” 107.127.32.41 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I changed the wording to "share associations" to avoid the implication of absolute parallelism. Without a source to support "Our Lady's Beetle", I am not going to repeat a the "Our Lady" already discussed previously in the paragraph. The purpose is to understand the English word in the context of other languages, not provide a detailed German etymology. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Rutabaga!

Absolutely terribly written. If I knew the meaning of half of those words, I would not be on Wikipedia. Pretentious and ego driven. I understood some parts but am not going to 40 different pages to find out what your babbling on about half the time. We get it your smart you don't have to cause confusion to prove it. 68.146.120.94 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Verification requested

Please provide a quote from the cited source for the following statement from the article: "Entomologists prefer the names ladybird beetles or lady beetles as these insects are not classified as true bugs.[1]" Thank you. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:25D7:83BA:434:F008 (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  • And regardless of what that source actually does say, a reliable source for what "entymologists prefer" that isn't nearly 40 years old would be preferable. That was an entire generation of entymologists ago, preferences and viewpoints can swing radically from one generation to the next. (Not saying that they have, just that they may have; also, I understand that ladybugs are still not "true" bugs, but even entymologists are intelligent enough to understand that they didn't invent the word "bug", that y the word existed long before they decided it meant Hemiptera exclusively, and that they have no licence to declare that an already existing meaning of a word is "wrong".) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:25D7:83BA:434:F008 (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no "quote". There are no texts written by entomologists which use "ladybug"; they all use "lady beetle" or "ladybird beetle", of which the field guide cited is a good example, as it is the premier beetle field guide in North America (if any source was going to use "ladybug", it would be that one), and it cites both variants in the text while "ladybug" only appears in the index, with an entry that reads "see Lady Beetle". In other words, the cited source is an EXAMPLE of an entomology text from the US, demonstrating that entomologists do not use the term "ladybug"; it's not the source of a quote. As for having a "licence", there actually is an official list of insect common names ([3]), and the term "ladybug" is not used for any of the species in that list; there are 16 coccinellid species on the list, and all of them are called "lady beetle". Entomologists actually CAN make official decisions like this, and they have decided not use use the word "ladybug". Bear in mind, as well, that Wikipedia is international in scope, and terms used only in North America (like "ladybug") do not have any special status when there are different terms with the exact same meaning used by English speakers in other countries, as in this case. That's why there is not and never will be a "ladybug" page in Wikipedia - because that's a name variant used only in one country. This is not the same situation as - for a good example - the name "yellowjacket", which is likewise unique to North America, but which does not have an exact equivalent in other countries (i.e., there is no collective common name in the UK that distinguishes yellowjackets as a group from all other wasps). Dyanega (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Add videos

Hi there. I would like these two videos added to the page. I created the video content.

Attacking aphids: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO2urKuldS3wc0PPV0BGIMUIf0LaxMldCqb1h-1sop0eBadeg8M2FLlC9p4s3vrKw?key=WnFjTF84UkJaM3g5VEJiZEtRZ0V0eTl3eUtFTDBB

Mating: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipN06BWBd7C1dPNyUMfIc3toWdOJocLMqgm_j72WEd3jvY5iUkSo_BlTUBsxCP7xpA?key=a1BMTTNobWdUZ0ZIWElHLUlmaUVvUDFBOXVQUmpn

Thank you, Chris Ckhatton (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"Cuschow lady" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cuschow lady and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 26#Cuschow lady until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible detail to be added?

Where I grew up it was a common children's belief that the number of spots a ladybeetle had indicated its age. It's not true, of course, but did anyone else hear of this? 2001:56A:FA36:9C00:94C0:FB51:1D68:9EEF (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Käfer

The “Käfer” in “Marienkäfer” translates to “beetle”, not “bird” like it does in the Northern Germanic languages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.127.32.41 (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

State insects

Chiswick Chap, you recently removed content here claiming it was unsourced. The NPS source was very explicit those states are included when added it . That source was also to address the inline comment about needing sources for each state if someone was going to add another to preempt that issue, which is also why I tentatively removed that comment hoping it's not needed anymore. It's a lot better to have sources that summarize it rather than listing a source for each state.

Especially since we're under GA review, please undo that reversion as I don't want to see it scuttled with an appearance of edit warring if I restore it. KoA (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You have me utterly mystified as it was your edit (and edit comment) that created the issue. I'll do as you ask for the sake of harmony but we need to see citations quickly now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I already linked to the new source from the US National Park Service above that states Ladybugs are the official state insect of Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, and Tennessee. Thanks for restoring that content, though the the cleanup you did on the delcode.delaware.gov reference prior was perfectly fine if you want to re-restore that. No issue there. KoA (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Towards FA

Chiswick Chap, I'll get started this weekend. How much of the current article is left over from before you worked on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

A substantial amount. I did a fair amount of the usual work to get it to GA. I suggest you do a diff or just look at before and after to see what has been done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll do some expansions; can you look over the cites that you can access and make sure the text accurately represents them? LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
OK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Lady beetle naming

Looks like some longstanding text has been removed from the lead in this edit Entomologists prefer the names ladybird beetles or lady beetles as these insects are not classified as true bugs. That has typically been in the lead in part because it has some of the major common names, but also because it's a common source of confusion with people thinking lady bugs are lady beetles and vice versa. Is there some improvement in mind to the original that would include the bold text for the common names? It's definitely not undue to say the least.

Some of that text was also moved to the body (where it also should be), but changed to The names ladybird beetles or lady beetles have been proposed to avoid confusion with true bugs. which changes the meaning a bit making it see like it's a recent "proposal" rather than a norm. In wiki-sense, it's a rough parallel to how maize is the preferred scientific term over corn. The original version above seems more straightforward and concrete at least, so it seems better to stick with that. I can go gather more sources on that when I get back to it since you'll see commentary on beetle vs. bug fairly often (don't have that version of White though). KoA (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Well, longstanding in Wiki terms can't mean more than a decade or two, and it's purely accidental. I think the text you quote is conflating two separate ideas, namely that folks should recall that these are beetles, and what folks have actually come up with as common names. I believe that the hybrid name "ladybird beetle" was decreed by the Entomological Society of America, which gives it an odd status, neither a systematic name like Coccinellidae, nor a genuine folk name like ladybird or ladybug. If we're going to mention it at all, we should make clear that it has that origin. If this is correct, then putting it in the lead is frankly WP:UNDUE, and what's more we really should not be wasting much time or space on it, as there is much else of more significance that needs improving in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any sourcing on the ESA doing that, including that linked source where the statement doesn't seem to be sourced to anything in the chapter, but ESA uses lady beetle specifically, not lady bird, so there seems to be some contradiction. I'm a bit wary of WP:OR there. Either way, it's not hard to find science publications or even the ESA common names list going back to the 1950s regularly using ladybird beetle / lady beetle, so we're not talking about a recent change or anything.
Since it has been long-standing sourced content, I've re-added the text as it was before, but also added another source on the statement about entomologist preference. We'd need really focused sourcing to delve into the history of how the addition of beetle and the end is preferred (usually more confined to textbooks and entomology courses) like you mention, but for now just sticking to statements of what the preferred or more accurate naming is will be good stopping point given the current sourcing. Major common names do belong in the lead though, so we can't really be calling them undue, especially when there is a confusion aspect at play. A re-addition of the bolded name + scientist statement doesn't go into the weeds here for the lead either. KoA (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I don't agree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Just giving a little more explanation since I just realized you nominated this for GA just earlier (and good work on all the edits).
We need to go with sources, and no sources really disagree with lady/bird beetle being major common names or that they aren't the preferred name among scientists. We had the original White source for at least 10 years in the article, and the new one I added is pretty explicit that entomologists prefer the terms with no WP:SOME qualifiers, so that addition of "some"[4] should go. Had some qualifier been added such as nearly all, most, etc. then that wouldn't be appropriate given the sources. I can't say I've ever seen a source try to say that's under dispute, but the norm in most university websites is some iteration of Lady beetles, also commonly called “ladybugs” or “ladybird beetles”[5] switching up whichever is introduced first sometimes based on locality. Some international sites just flat out say the preferred name is lady beetle too though.[6]
The short of it is that this shouldn't be anything controversial on-wiki, it's just one of the quirks that comes with this subject and common names like many insects. The main "dispute" is in the use of ladybird * in the UK and lady * in North America where there is a true WP:ENGVAR divide that the article addresses pretty well throughout the naming sections. I was curious for a quick glance though, so I took a look at Google Scholar results:
Ladybird - 45k
Ladybird beetle - 27k
Ladybug - 82.4k
Lady beetle - 55k
I'm not a huge fan of using Google hits, but basically all of them get pretty decent usage, even the lowest ranked ladybird beetle. Mentioning each of those in the lead like we've done for years to follow WP:OTHERNAMES policy is pretty straightforward here, so we should be in pretty good shape right now for checking all the name-related boxes. KoA (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, thanks, I've been telling you the problem was sourcing all along. As I said, I don't agree, and ghits aren't going to convince me or anyone else, including you, apparently, but I shall leave it for now. But by the way, the matter really is North American only, as the ladybugs/bugs confusion doesn't arise this side of the pond, so "some" is in fact essential as it does not include British entomologists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Since there's talk of going to FA, it's probably best to revisit this text on scientists and lady beetles Entomologists prefer the names ladybird beetles or lady beetles as they are not true bugs.. There has been some iteration of scientist prefer ladybeetle/ladybird beetle at Coccinellidae#Etymology or originally in lead for quite awhile now. That's well sourced, and not under any dispute in sources that I can see (the beetle part at least, though regional variations on ladybird in Europe are included).
What's at issue is a recent change that I let be during the GA to avoid that gumming up the process. Originally the entire sentence was removed from the lead[7], and then the main issue at hand now was that the first part of the sentence was changed to Some entomologists prefer. . .[8] The word some was reinserted here a few times without getting consensus for that addition.
The problem there is WP:SOME when it becomes a weasel word to avoid in that guideline in opposition to when sources make clear statements that scientists prefer something. The sources currently make no such qualification and simply say scientists prefer the term without qualifiers that would indicate a split or controversy among scientists. Usually we need sources to add such qualifiers such as some, nearly all, etc., so that is why I've restored the text back to the status quo. If someone would like to add a qualifier, we really do need to get consensus for it at this point. At least in terms of following sources, I think we're good as is for FA on that line at least now, so it should preempt issues at FA unless there are other sources to bring in that might change things. KoA (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
For what’s it worth, here are a few other sources I dug up pulling from Extension (be sure not to conflate university run "blogs" with stereotypical ones), etc. in addition to the already sourced ones:
  1. https://www.thoughtco.com/ladybugs-family-coccinellidae-1968144: “Ladybugs, or ladybirds as they are also called, are neither bugs nor birds. Entomologists prefer the name lady beetle, which accurately places these lovable insects in the order Coleoptera.”
  2. https://gms.ctahr.hawaii.edu/gs/handler/getmedia.ashx?moid=70568&dt=3&g=12: “Although commonly known as ladybugs in America, Entomologists prefer to call insects in the Coccinellids family as ladybird beetles or lady beetles, as these insects are not true bugs.”
  3. https://extension.illinois.edu/blogs/good-growing/2020-06-04-ladybug-ladybug: “Ladybugs, ladybirds, or more appropriately lady beetles (they are beetles, not bugs after all) are common insects in the landscape.”
  4. https://www.nwtspeciesatrisk.ca/sites/enr-species-at-risk/files/lady_beetle_field_guide_pressready_no_crop.pdf: “Ladybirds are not birds, and ladybugs are not bugs. Lady beetles are members of the Coccinellidae”
  5. http://ncurbanpests.blogspot.com/2011/10/insect-of-week-ladybug.html: “Us entomologists refer to ladybugs as ladybird beetles or lady beetles since they are not really bugs.”
In those searches though, I never saw any sources really disputing the general trend of saying entomologists preferring lady beetle or ladybird beetle. That's really what we'd need if we were going to add a qualifier if there really was a dispute or division out there. KoA (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
KoA: No, that's not right. You are asserting that "some" in this context is weaselly; but the word is just the simple truth that even though you have found evidence that entomologists A, B, and C have said so, they constitute a (very small) sample of the world's population of entomologists, i.e. they are "some" of that population. Without the word "some" you are making the far stronger and wholly unjustifiable assertion that ALL entomologists think so, and you have no proof of that, i.e. you are guilty of WP:SYNTH, inferring a whole from a few fragments. Philosophers of science call that casuistry, case-based reasoning: you found a white swan, there's another one over there, so you conclude "all swans are white"... wrongly. Even if you find entomologists A, B, C, ... M who think so, you are ignoring the other 100,000 entomologists who have not said so. Have some few entomologists said so? Yes. Have all of them said so? No. I might add that those scientists seem often to be American, like illinois.edu, hawaii.edu, ncurbanpests.blogspot.com (North Carolina) ... Brits for instance don't worry about ladybirds being confused with birds, and that name certainly doesn't invite confusion with bugs. If you'd like to say "American entomologists often prefer..." that might be ok, at least it's not such a stretch: actually you don't even know that all American entomologists think that, but hey, we can compromise. But basically, this is an unnecessary aside, a regional language issue, which you are blowing up into a false global claim. It's not even about the Coccinellidae, the insects themselves; it's a cultural issue about the use of vernacular names, which are never more than approximate. If we have to have it in the article, it can be in Etymology and naming, or down in Culture; it really isn't a matter for the lead, that's WP:UNDUE and really, wholly misplaced. If "entomologists prefer" any name for the group, it's Coccinellidae, and with good reason. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap, please stop edit warring in unsourced material. If you want to add the word some, you need to gain consensus for that and use sources to support that. Please note that we are currently simply following what sources say. We do not say that all, some, etc. entomologists or any qualifier because the sources do not use such qualifiers, and we cannot engage in such WP:OR.
Again, if you have any sources that would justify a qualifier, please bring them as if such a schism exists among entomologists, it should be sourced. As it stands right now though, no sources are seriously disputing this even after plenty of searching in academic sources regardless of region. If anything, we have a couple sources that are vocal about even using the term ladybird at all and just sticking with lady beetle only, but we don't really get into that. Instead we go with what the preponderance of sources say since we can directly quote multiple sentences essentially saying entomologists prefer lady beetles or ladybird beetles. WP:RS/AC policy gives good guidance that directly attributed sources for such statements like we have rule the roost, not individual opinions of editors, so please bring sources if you have relevant ones to discuss if there is serious dispute. KoA (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
KoA, please stop being disruptive and let us work. We are tring to get this to FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
LittleJerry, please stop edit warring and gain consensus for the addition. You need to undo your most recent revert at least to restore the last status quo[9] for that sentence. It only disrupts the process of trying to get to FA when editors try to edit war in new changes without sourcing or gaining consensus. Using GA/FA to justify edit warring is never ok like this. Despite attempts to salvage the situation, I am increasingly concerned an FA cannot go forward now that we have two editors reinserting disputed content without gaining consensus for it. I'm trying to get both of you to stop the disruptive behavior and use the talk page to gain consensus for your edit so a potential FA can go forward.
Now, do you also have any sources that would justify the inclusion of the word "some"? That is what is needed here. No more trying to reinsert, just bring sources so we can assess a consensus change if one exists.
Also, I noticed that you removed a recent addition clarifying the sentence was about common names as well. I don't see any justification given for that, and Chiswick Chap alluded to that as a potential point of confusion. That can still be retained at the old status quo for now as the rest of the sentence should be, but I am curious why it was removed. KoA (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that by changing the wording we can avoid the edit war. Instead of saying either that "Some entomologists prefer" or "Entomologists prefer", we say instead "Entomologists sometimes use". That allows for entomologists that don't use either term. It can be trivially demonstrated that entomologists do sometimes use these alternative terms, and one or two of the sources provided above in this thread can be linked if people insist. Dyanega (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt Dyanega, but we already had well-sourced and established content on this with no WP:PAG supported reason on this talk page for why it should be changed. This should be a non-issue. I'm trying to do this by the book by staying with the last good version and working forward from there on the talk page without edit warring because we've essentially had a "we're nominating this to FA, so we can skip sources for a new viewpoint" reasoning. I'm open to changes if we have other sources making statements on what entomologists prefer as a common name. However, because the sources we have already make very clear statements, we need to reflect that clearly and dismiss personal editor opinion on it. That is especially because statements that "scientists say X" already have such high WP:WEIGHT that a change in viewpoints needs really strong sourcing.
To address your actual suggestion, we don't have sources saying "sometimes", just what the main two preferences are in terms of accuracy for common names. As an example on "entomologists use", I do sometimes use ladybug depending on audience, but that says nothing on what my professional preference may be, so that wouldn't be close enough paraphrasing. It is important to also specify that relevant experts are the ones saying this, so we do need entomologists in the sentence. There is also a little undercurrent in those sources that recognizes that entomologists may prefer the terms, but there can be disparities between use by relevant scientists and the general public, so it increases the need to specify who prefers beetle in the name. KoA (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

KoA and Chiswick Chap, I changed the wording so we can avoid this mess. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Support: I'm happy with both Dyanega's solution and with LittleJerry's. In fact, I'd be happy with any solution that does not assert "∀x" (all x are ...) when the evidence says "∃x" (there exists an x ...). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Seeing as the edit warring wasn't undone, I have restored the status quo. Again, please bring sources we can work with here instead of pushing ahead with WP:OR that there is a dispute on this. Right now, you are arguing with sourced scientists (that include the British variation of ladybird beetle) with personal unsourced opinion. Statements in sources that scientists hold a particular view hold a high degree of weight, so we're at a point we need really strong sourcing to claim otherwise now.
Right now, the idea that entomologists don't agree with ladybeetle or ladybird beetle as preferred common names amounts to WP:FRINGE or very minority viewpoint in terms of WP:UNDUE without sourcing indicating otherwise. We don't need to give that creedence unless sources indicate otherwise. If they do, I'm absolutely able to work with that, but you need to provide sources those of us who have been curating this page can actually work with. Either provide sources or drop the WP:STICK. KoA (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
KoA, so far THREE experienced editors have made polite, reasoned suggestions for how to resolve this, and you're opposing all of them. I'm afraid the talk of sources is misguided, as they're just examples. Talking about "dropping the stick" might reasonably be reflected on to you at this point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Please read WP:!VOTE. I am bound by policy here while trying to hold disruption back, so don't blame me. I have tried to give you guidance on the simplest reasonable policy-based avenue, and there's no reason to beat around the bush with special exceptions to WP:OR, etc. Just bring sources. Seeing as you and Little Jerry have not done that, it is safe to assume in terms of how WP:CONSENSUS actually works that there is nothing wrong with the longstanding sourced content and that there's no consensus for the recent changes or assertions made before Dyanega made their suggestion above. Your comments just don't "count" at this point without sources, so help me out here so we can craft updated content if such sources do exist.
LittleJerry, keep in mind that with this most recent attempt to edit war in your new content without gaining consensus here, that will disqualify the article from FA. What you are supposed to do is first ideally self-revert (or not reinsert in the first place), but once you know your new edit has been disputed, articles are normally restored to the last good version. Then, you are expected to gain consensus here (in this case that your viewpoint is sourced and not a minority viewpoint) rather than reinsert it. That is how normal consensus-building works and is much easier than edit warring. That's why I haven't been restoring this content you removed. You never gave a reason despite me asking and did something similar here making outlandish claims that Extension is a "subpar" source. This really does not look good in terms of double-standards. KoA (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I removed extension become it's a blog which are are not ideal sources. LittleJerry (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I see you restored it, thanks for that. I won't belabor clarification for others too much, but it was already mentioned above not to confuse it for a stereotypical WP:BLOG. Extension is the educational branch of universities and essentially always a reliable source. If it were a personal blog a scientist created themselves, then it could be questionable, but universities regularly use the blog format to post articles as they would on their website. That's where the similarities end. The name might cause confusion for those focused on Wiki-speak, but those are official articles put out by the given university rather than only the author. KoA (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I had to restore the text yet again when the sentence was altered without any discussion here on what may work. In those most recent changes, the sentence was changed to say typically use instead of prefer, and the term "use" was already discussed above as a different meaning than what the sources do say. Nearly all flat out say entomologists prefer, not just in a use sense, but also in the educational sense of teaching common names to the public rather than limited to just entomologists. KoA (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources disputing entomologist name preferences

The above section is getting long, so starting a sub section for focus. To summarize, Entomologists prefer the names ladybird beetles or lady beetles as these insects are not classified as true bugs. has been in the article for years (idea discussed since 2006). Outlined above, the sentence has academic sources, with more sources recently added (and removed) that directly say entomologists do prefer the terms as required by policy for statements on academic statements of consensus while using both the British variation ladybird beetle or lady beetle elsewhere.

Editors have tried removing these sentences or rewording them over the past few months despite the sources' statements, with those editors claiming that the statement about entomologists isn't true. However, no sources have been provided for this viewpoint, and to assess whether the viewpoint is valid or a significant viewpoint under WP:DUE, sources are needed and have been requested multiple times. This section is for editors to provide such sources per WP:BURDEN and to discuss possible changes to the sentences if provided. KoA (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I added that ladybird beetle is the preferred name by the Entomological Society of America. Its more accurate since "ladybug vs lady beetle" is an American thing. In UK they are known as ladybirds. The sources you are citing are all US.
Capinera states "Then, the Entomological Society of America decreed that the official name in the USA should be 'ladybird beetle'. Elsewhere in English-speaking countries it is still ladybird." LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I've again restored the original version since relevant sources haven't been brought up here to alter WP:CONSENSUS. The bold edit you want has been disputed, and we are at the D part of WP:BRD (and note it is not BRRRRRRRRRdRRRRR). It is a WP:OR violation to dispute what entomologists say they prefer without relevant sources addressing that same topic, not to mention also a WP:POV policy violation at this point to contradict scientists with your personal opinion.
As for the ESA, first do not misrepresent the source. It only lists lady beetles as their official common name you look at the common name database[10], not ladybird beetle. That is no reason to replace the original sentence since we have other sources already saying both regional variants of lady beetle and ladybird beetle are preferred, though ESA could be used a supplemental source to the original sentence for a subset of use. There's also nothing wrong with the sources being from the US because if there was disagreement in other countries, you should have an easy time sourcing it (again, WP:BURDEN), or the very sources used to support the original text would mention it too. If the sources had only said lady beetle, then maybe there could be a slight argument on US usage that still wouldn't shift weight much to change content, but that even isn't the case here. Instead, the sources circumvent needing to even split hairs over a UK vs. others argument because both are included.
For Capinera, what you have quoted though comes from an old version of Frank and Mizell if you google it, but that was already discussed earlier on this page as being a false statement. There's no record of ESA saying that and isn't usable here. To top it off, their latest revision of that publication also removed that error and the rest of what you quoted as well as also using the term lady beetle in addition to ladybird beetle.[11]
Again, it's time to stop altering the original sentence and get consensus for new changes here instead. There's a lot of stuff I know I can work with (and will still try), but the reverting in the new content continuously makes it hard to improve things through discussion here because of all the juggling. If we want to change the sentence itself, we need to construct something here first at this point. Some sources that were added recently I'm fine with, but I'll tweak some of the citation setup on those shortly to improve them. KoA (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Specifying common name

LittleJerry, earlier you reverted a recent change I made to replace the text Entomologists prefer the names ladybird beetles or lady beetles. . . with Entomologists prefer ladybird beetles or lady beetles as common names. . .. That was added because Chiswick Chap mentioned there may be some confusion that we're talking about common names there. You didn't give any reason in your edit summary for the removal, and you didn't respond when I asked you in the main section on this talk either. I've been waiting for a bit in terms of WP:BRD since I added that, but is there a reason that shouldn't be specified? I don't thin anyone here is disputing we're talking about common names rather than scientific ones, and the wikilink does help readers out on the subject if they weren't aware of it. KoA (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do you insist on keeping the wording that way. I changed it to "typically" so we can avoid taking about numbers. We can't declare that all entomologists use those them. There are sources here here here here and here which just call them just ladybirds. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
This is just the section on basically inserting the wikilink for common name into the relevant sentences, the above section is for sources on what entomologists prefer (and none of those sources make any statement that amounts to similar weight of outright saying entomologists prefer lady beetle or ladybird beetle). That you can find individual instances of other words being used isn't really at a WP:RS/AC level of sourcing. You need to stick to what sources directly say about preferred names.
Back to the subject at hand here though, what is the issue with wikilinking common name in the text? I don't think it's absolutely needed, but it is helpful for adding additional clarity if you have a reader not familiar with what common names are. KoA (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

British English vs. North American

Looks like some edit warring has broke out recently related to these edits by SummerKrut. LittleJerry, is there are reason why you consider those edits unhelpful? That edit summaries stating that aren't particularly helpful.

It does seem like a decent attempt at clarification at least. Ladybug is used in North America, but other British-English influenced areas often use ladybird. Specifying both North American and Commonwealth English does seem to give better balance at least. It does at least seem like an improvement over elsewhere in the English-speaking world at least. KoA (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@LittleJerry, please explain yourself. Summer talk 16:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not LittleJerry, but the last time I looked, Canada was part of North America, so there is no reason to complicate the text that way. The original text is correct, as phrased: in North America, they're ladybugs. Dyanega (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes. "....commonly known as ladybugs in North America and ladybirds elsewhere in the English-speaking world" is perfectly accurate and simple. Why is "Commonwealth" more accurate? LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) SummerKrut could maybe explain more of their intent, but what I'm seeing is the focus on basically WP:ENGVAR in the updated text. The main idea I see is really that ladybird is commonly used with the British variant of English, but North America uses lady bug. The new text at least looked to be an attempt to be more accurate as it's really countries with British influence that use ladybird rather than just saying elsewhere in the English-speaking world. The old version really didn't address that.
Here's how I'd tweak the new edits though, They are commonly known as ladybugs in North America and ladybirds in most countries that use British English;. . . No need to mention Canada since it already specifies North America (and the linked article says more), but it adds in the British influence link. A minor change, but it looks like a pretty clear improvement attempt that SummerKrut started that makes a lot of sense when you dig into it. KoA (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we need to get pedantic on the naming of English-speaking countries in an article about a group of insects. "English-speaking world" probably means to UK, US, Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand in most people's minds, particularly since these are the countries where it is the first language. See Anglosphere. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Pedancy is what the text avoids compared to the uncertainty (i.e., "probably") you mention. The point is that "elsewhere" is vague, so why be purposely vague when we can very easily WP:FIXIT. The previous version of that text also called out Britain specifically, which was lost at some point, so the wikilink helps restore that without really adding a bunch of extra text. Britain is really where that name got its start as the article gets into later, so it is a bit of a WP:DUE issue too. KoA (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
LittleJerry, please don't introduce errors as you did here. This has already been addressed, but it's not only American English since Canada uses ladybug, and it's not just the strict-sense British English that uses ladybird, it's instead the larger commonwealth English. Please be more careful with terminology here. KoA (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The sources discuss British and American English. Nothing else. LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
LittleJerry, please realize it's extremely disruptive to introduce clear errors into an FA, and I cautioned about this kind of edit warring prior to the FA nom. I'm in part here because of how I saw the behavior coming up again in your interactions with SummerKrut, and this escalation isn't helping for protecting the article from that kind of thing. Slow down and stop your editing warring in an FA. You were made aware you were introducing errors in that last edit from this talk page discussion, and that needs to be stop. If you're opposed to minor improvements that's one thing, but we can't be making the content even less accurate like in your edits.
Instead, please engage with the material itself. Ladybug is used in North American English (i.e., US and Canada) not just American English (i.e., primarily US). The whole reason for simply saying it is used in North America is because people can often be confused by that as I assume you were. That's why I cautioned about pedantry, especially if using terms incorrectly. The other half is that British English is a multi-use term. It tends to refer to English used in the UK or even smaller regions within, but referring to former colonies or larger use is more accurately as Commonwealth English. That's why British-English was linking there in this context. The article you want linked even addressed that here, which was the whole point of the wikilinks to avoid going into a whole explanation in-article.
If it were as simple as just the US using ladybug and the UK using ladybird, then we could just simply say American vs. British English as you tried, but that's not how the subject matter lies. Australia is another commonwealth country that uses ladybird, though it doesn't use the strict-sense British English. That's why the commonwealth term was used instead. There are other terms that could be attempted like British-English influenced countries, but that doesn't quite work because of Canada. Instead, the commonwealth linked article goes into detail about how Canada tends to differ, and the first sentence at this article already specifies North America (i.e., Canada and the US for this topic) uses ladybug. There's a lot going on behind this little sentence, and we avoid pedantry by dealing with the legitimate issue SummerKrut started in on. Let the linked articles do that lifting for us (and use them correctly). We need to be accurate and deal with this even if the process is called pedantic so readers have both an accurate and concise sentence or two. Right now, there haven't been legitimate issues brought up with SummerKrut's or my proposed versions, especially when weighting alternatives with the above. KoA (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Just a followup note I've restored the text back to the rough original from a few months ago that just simply says North America and Great Britain. Thanks again to SummerKrut for catching that. If someone wants to deal with the larger topic of other English-speaking countries, that is really the base that needs to be worked from. That's as much as I intend to do for now since it's a holiday over here. KoA (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
So we now have an American editor deciding that the English-speaking world is a) North America b) Great Britain. And in an FA!. Sorry Ireland, Nigeria, Jamaica, Uganda, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, South Africa, and many others, you just don't count (I'm surprised now that Great Britain was included, although I note that the rest of the United Kingdom isn't. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, earlier I did caution editors about behavior in FA articles (or during the FA process for this one).
Right now we're back at the status quo language that had been previously agreed on even if not ideal. The two names either have their primary basis in the North American English ladybug or the Commonwealth influenced English with ladybird. What you bring up is why I was concerned about just saying "the rest of the English-speaking world" because it can get into assumptions. At least in the version I was supporting, those countries would have been covered, but we're stuck only mentioning Great Britain or North America now. KoA (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ White, R.E. 1983. A field guide to the beetles of North America. Peterson Field Guide Series #29.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coccinellidae/Archive_2&oldid=1236819302"