Template:Did you know nominations/Dermophis donaldtrumpi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:34, 5 January 2019

Dermophis donaldtrumpi

(

)

... that donaldtrumpi measures about 10 centimeters (4 inches) and looks like a slimy worm with tentacles? Sources: "10cm amphibian" [1]; "slippery ... looks like a large worm ... Other characteristics ... include tentacles" [2]

Created by MarkZusab (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 02:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC).

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Little Catawissa Creek

It's currently at 836 bytes of readable prose and contains a stub tag, so too short in two ways. Can it be expanded? Also, the hook claims need to be in the article, which currently does not include a physical description, so that's an obvious place to start. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, jeesh, next time don't review so fast. We're working on it. EEng 04:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok. I hadn't considered that some people might follow a nominate-first write-later strategy. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't wait to get the hook out there. E Eng 09:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think the article's ready for review. E Eng 00:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

New enough (at least at nomination time), long enough (barely), looks more like start-class than stub-class, is stable now, and properly sourced. The AfD was closed, as a speedy keep. QPQ long since done. Hook is properly sourced and is, properly for the front page, an accurate description of the new species rather than a veiled political statement (to be clear, the choice of name is a political statement, but based on different characteristics than the ones described). There are two things that still remain before this is ready for DYK, though: (1) easy, remove the stub tag, and (2) reword to fix the close paraphrasing between "particularly susceptible to the impacts of global warming and is therefore in danger of becoming extinct" from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/18/blind-amphibian-named-after-trumps-climate-change-stance and the similar phrasing "particularly susceptible to the effects of global warming and are therefore in danger of becoming extinct" from our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Stub tag removed and close paraphrasing fixed; good to go! —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, was just about to comment that here when I got into an edit conflict with your approval. :-)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently Trump will be alone in the White House for New Year's so running this Jan 1 might help cheer him up, but it looks like everything's queued up for that date already. Another thought would be Jan 3. Anyone have other thoughts re what date would best showcase this wonderful honor? E Eng 04:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ERRORS

I am as happy to undermine the masked pumpkin as anyone, but the article is about a proposed species, the name has not yet been formally published, it is not proper form to give the species part of a binomial in isolation, and the features chosen to describe the caecilian are clearly a fail of NPOV. Kevin McE (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The spin given in the reporting of this self promoting purchase of naming rights was the binomial was the full joke, and yes, it is improper to widow the specific epithet or recognise the species before any authority does. Playing up to this media exercise is pretty distasteful to me, but there is an error that needs correcting. cygnis insignis 14:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad this got some traction. I made some changes to article; objective I hope, I don't know anything about caecilians. I strongly recommend Alt1 below, over other options, with a personal preference for Alt1c. cygnis insignis 07:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @EEng:. Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It was certainly an oversight on my part to omit the genus.
We absolutely don't have to wait for formal publication; RSs are abundant on this.
The purpose of a hook is to intrigue the reader into clicking through to the article. For a new species the obvious way to do that is to describe attention-getting physical features.

Adding the genus we now have

... that Dermophis donaldtrumpi measures about 10 centimetres (4 inches) and looks like a slimy worm with tentacles?

Pinging in the reviewer, David Eppstein, for a confirming set of eyes. (At least I assume he has a pair of eyes; if he's got only one eye, or one working eye, I apologize.) E Eng 18:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the full binomial should be given, and I disagree that describing the physical appearance of this species has any NPOV issues. Also I am starting to need reading glasses but otherwise fully sighted. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

All caecilians are limbless, and therefore wormlike, and "all caecilians possess a pair of tentacles located between their eyes and nostrils." So in the world of caecilian study, these are not 'attention getting features' any more that the discovery of Flores Island man would have been announced as it having "a mouth and two arms". Despite protestations that "we are only reporting facts", the selection of these entirely unremarkable facts can have no motivation other than a desire to belittle the namesake, which I share in any other context, but not in an encyclopaedia that proclaims itself as having a neutral point of view. Kevin McE (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Lay readers will naturally assume that Flores Island "man" had a mouth and two arms, but they lack your ready knowledge of caecilians. We could have used blindness or buries-head-in-sand, I suppose -- there's little else to choose from -- but the time for that was back in the nomination discussion. E Eng 19:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The time for errors, including breaches of the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia, is right here. If something should not be in the Main Portal of a major website, no point in time for stopping it is the wrong point. Kevin McE (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't parse that last bit, but it sounds like you'd like to switch to the burying of the head in the sand? E Eng 21:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are asking whether one characteristic intended to take the mickey is better than another, then I do not. If you are asking whether I think WP:NPOV is more important than the placing of a link to this article on the Main Page, then yes, I do. Doesn't everyone who subscribes to the WP:PILLARS? Is there a blurb to be made that is not intended to poke fun? (I have clarified point as point in time if that helps you). Kevin McE (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that the fact that the creature is "slimey", looks like a worm and has tentacles are not neutral? Describing he creature - with citations in the source, seems to be a neutral point of view. That someone outside of Wikipedia decided to name it something is not covered by NPOV, article writers do not represent anyone's specific point of view but just describe the facts. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, I'm going to sue you for stealing all the points I was about to make. E Eng 23:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Does the person who posted "Apparently Trump will be alone in the White House for New Year's so running this Jan 1 might help cheer him up, but it looks like everything's queued up for that date already. Another thought would be Jan 3. Anyone have other thoughts re what date would best showcase this wonderful honor?" on the nomination page really believe (and expect us to believe) that the proposed name of the article's subject and its presence in the "humorous" final slot with unflattering comparison are unrelated? Kevin McE (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. Our president loves to see his name on things, so I thought he would like this. Though I'm not responsible for the choice of last slot -- the "quirky" slot, I believe they call it -- you can see how a species named after a president might be seen as quirky. E Eng 00:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Since the wikipedian is not responsible for the naming you cannot put that on that person, he could not name it that without the presense of reliable sources to support the WP:COMMONNAME after all. What you' are suggesting is POV pushing, that we should not follow the Wikipedia guidelines in this case, that subjects related to Trump should be treated differently is the very definition of NPOV. Artcle and hook is based on cited facts, unlike your attempts to have that be labelled as an "error". Can you please point out what the ERROR is that you're posting on the errors board? Not your POV but guideline related errors. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

In this instance, the "common name" refers to a proposed species that hasn't even been confirmed to exist. What does exist is an external entity's effort to belittle Donald Trump, so it's neutral to state that. Implying that Dermophis donaldtrumpi is a verified species is misleading, while highlighting characteristics remarkable solely because they tie in to the aforementioned belittlement (without including this information in the hook) is non-neutral, despite the factual basis. (See WP:UNDUE.) —David Levy 01:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin McE. My personal opinion of Donald Trump notwithstanding, I find this hook highly problematic. (He's also correct that no deadline for reporting problems with the main page's content exists. It's incumbent on the sections' contributors to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not on others to intervene before their discussions conclude.)

As explained in our article, the characteristics described are noteworthy because of an effort to belittle Donald Trump. Omitting that key detail transfers the belittlement from a third party to Wikipedia. Additionally, implying that the species is verified to exist is misleading and adds additional weight to the non-neutral statment.

I suggest a hook along the lines of the following:

... that Dermophis donaldtrumpi is a proposed new species of caecilian, named to belittle Donald Trump?

This conveys the basic information for which the subject is notable without actively taking part in the disparagement. —David Levy 01:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The approved hook simply describes the organism. Instead you want Wikipedia's main page to highlight belittlement of Trump? E Eng 02:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I want Wikipedia's main page to include a neutral statement of the fact that makes the subject noteworthy (in this case, that someone wants to name a proposed species after Donald Trump to belittle him), not a description of the organism – falsely implied to be a verified species, without even mentioning its order or explaining that all of its members share these characteristics – cherry-picked to evoke negative associations with a living person. —David Levy 02:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A DYK hook isn't supposed to give "the fact that makes the subject noteworthy". It's supposed to be interesting -- in fact it's very much supposed to be "cherry-picked". You may think belittling the president of the United States is interesting. I prefer to focus on a straightforward description which may catch the interest of children, for example, who like "yucky" things. The hook implies nothing about a "verified species", and to my memory most DYKs on organisms don't give their orders and don't comment on their similarity or dissimilarity to other organisms. E Eng 02:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A DYK hook isn't supposed to give "the fact that makes the subject noteworthy".

I don't mean to suggest that this is the section's primary purpose. I'm saying that it's a reasonable alternative to presenting information out of context in a manner intended to evoke unflattering comparisons to a living person.

It's supposed to be interesting -- in fact it's very much supposed to be "cherry-picked".

Indeed, it's supposed to be cherry-picked to be interesting. That isn't the context in which I used the term above.

You may think belittling the president of the United States is interesting.

I think that naming a proposed species after him is interesting, irrespective of the underlying rationale.

I prefer to focus on a straightforward description which may catch the interest of children, for example, who like "yucky" things.

Your claims that the hook is intended to "simply describe the organism" and "focus on a straightforward description which may catch the interest of children" would be easier to take at face value if your user page didn't contain this and this. Is that purely coincidental and unrelated to your magnanimous effort to educate youths?

The hook implies nothing about a "verified species",

A species name presented without qualification strongly implies the existence of an established species.

and to my memory most DYKs on organisms don't give their orders and don't comment on their similarity or dissimilarity to other organisms.

This information becomes relevant when the characteristics mentioned apply to the entire order. Specifying a single member (verified or not) is misleading. —David Levy 03:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

would be easier to take at face value if your user page – I'm afraid you're going to have to convince your fellow editors that there's an ERROR in the hook by reference to the hook itself, not to anything about me. established species – RSs refer to the organism by the name we're using; there's no "official approval" we have to wait for. Specifying a single member (verified or not) is misleading – the hook doesn't say or imply these characteristics are unique. E Eng 04:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to have to convince your fellow editors that there's an ERROR in the hook by reference to the hook itself,

I've outlined my neutrality concerns in great detail.

not to anything about me.

You introduced the topic of your motive behind the wording that you selected. You claim that your intent is to "simply describe the organism" and "focus on a straightforward description which may catch the interest of children", despite posting multiple anti-Trump messages on your user page, referring to the description's trimming as "good news for Donald" in an edit summary, and explicitly stating that your goal was to "best showcase this wonderful honor", preferably on a day when Trump might see the main page. (And yet, your hook doesn't even mention the "honor", instead focusing on characteristics that are entirely mundane outside their unflattering association with Trump).

RSs refer to the organism by the name we're using;

Agreed. At no point have I argued that we shouldn't.

there's no "official approval" we have to wait for.

Agreed. We simply need to avoid misleading readers. Do you oppose identifying the organism as a proposed species in the hook?

the hook doesn't say or imply these characteristics are unique.

The hook doesn't ascribe the characteristics appropriately (i.e., to the order to which Dermophis donaldtrumpi belongs).

To be clear, I'm not advocating such wording. I'm pointing out that the description has been applied to Dermophis donaldtrumpi in particular purely because it evokes an unflattering association with Donald Trump. That's an inappropriate use of DYK. Factuality alone doesn't justify undue prominence of placement. —David Levy 04:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post it was designed to belittle him, do we want Wikipedia to state a WP opinion as an encyclopedic fact? Now granted there are other facts that COULD be used - but this is WP:ERRORS, not WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, so let's deal with the fact that there is no error in the hook. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're under the impression that alleged violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines fall outside this page's purview, you're mistaken. Some are among the most serious errors (assuming that they aren't deliberate) that the main page can contain.

If you regard the belittlement aspect as contested, it can be omitted:

... that Dermophis donaldtrumpi is a proposed new species of caecilian, to be named after Donald Trump?

—David Levy 03:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We get that you'd prefer a different hook, but you didn't answer MPH-DK's fundamental challenge that you identify the ERROR in the approved hook. E Eng 04:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you overlook the first portion of my reply? I'll excerpt a relevant phrase:

alleged violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines

(I've included the word "alleged" to avoid implying that I regard Kevin's assertion – with which I agree – as a matter of fact.)

Hooks inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines constitute errors, provided that the violations aren't deliberate (as I assume is true in this instance). 04:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I get that you have said that. I guess i will rephrase it - Tell me HOW it is against guidelines to put facts cited by reliable third party sources on the Main Page? You guys are the ones suggesting that we put an opinion out there as a fact or give UNDUE weight to the suggestion that it is mocking him. So what exact guideline (chapter and verse) is this breaking? I don't see it but I welcome an opportunity to learn and expand my knowledge. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Tell me HOW it is against guidelines to put facts cited by reliable third party sources on the Main Page?

I've explained the problem in great detail. Again, factuality alone is insufficient. Context matters too. Information – even if verifiable – mustn't be presented in a manner that misleads readers or assigns undue prominence of placement to certain details (especially those that cast a negative light on living persons).

You guys are the ones suggesting that we put an opinion out there as a fact or give UNDUE weight to the suggestion that it is mocking him.

Again, if that aspect is contested, it can be omitted. I took your concern seriously and suggested alternative wording to address it, so why are you still arguing this point?

So what exact guideline (chapter and verse) is this breaking? I don't see it but I welcome an opportunity to learn and expand my knowledge.

I linked to a specific policy section repeatedly. (You just mentioned "UNDUE", which appears to suggest that you're aware of this.) —David Levy 06:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

If someone wants to allege a violation of NPOV, BLP, or some other policy, there are forums that specialise in such issues. It's clear that the discussion here is not making much progress. However, if a less controversial wording is sought, how about:

ALT1a: ~~... that the proposed binomial name for a new species of caecilian, a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles, is Dermophis donaldtrumpi?~~
ALT1b: ~~... that the proposed binomial name for a new species of caecilian (a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles) is Dermophis donaldtrumpi?~~

This makes it clear that the description refers to caecilians in general, so it cannot be taken as WP offering any description of its namesake. It makes it clear that we are talking about binomial names, where there are well-established practices for naming rights and methods. It shows that the name is proposed, with more details being available in the article. It avoids the issue of the motivation of the name proposer, though many will form their own views. It is factual, supported by reliable sources, and sober in tone. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This seems like an elegant solution. I prefer 1b or the use of dashes:

ALT1c: ... that the proposed binomial name for a new species of caecilian – a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles – is Dermophis donaldtrumpi?

—David Levy 06:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

So based on comments what make the hook "Not Neutral" is that it does no point out that the description is not unique to the donaldtrumpi: Voila, several options to address that

ALT2a... that Dermophis donaldtrumpi measures about 10 centimetres (4 inches) and looks like a slimy worm with tentacles like all other members of its family?
ALT2b... that Dermophis donaldtrumpi measures about 10 centimetres (4 inches) and looks like a slimy worm with tentacles, like all limbless, serpentine amphibians?

There we go, the issue that was raised has been resolved - since there is a belief that it mocks The Trump by making it seem like there is only one wormy, tentacle ridden slimeball in the family/genus/whatevs. So it now has 1) genus in the hook 2) is not insinuating that it's a unique feature which seems to be the basis for suggesting the NPOV nature of the facts. So the complaint here, the "Error" people suggest seem to see is that the hook was presenting a fact it like it was "Unique" and thus not is not "neutral", so I addressed that concern, can we slap 2a or 2b and move on now?

Would it be NPOV to the caecilian to use the term "Spineless amphibian"? if not then we may have ALT2c lined up. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You've conflated separate concerns and ignored others in a manner that seems deliberately rude, dismissive and feignedly obtuse. (Your use of the phrase "wormy, tentacle ridden slimeball" served no apparent purpose other than to mock our concerns by flaunting your disdain for Donald Trump and your desire to place it on display on Wikipedia's main page.)

Your suggestions only introduce additional ridicule of Donald Trump and/or his family, which appears to be your intent. —David Levy 07:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You say "Conflated", I say "addressed" - Potato, Patato. So what other concerns did I ignore? The main comment about his not being neutral was that the hook failed to point out the traits were not unique to this specific specimens - I think I addressed that. What other specific concerns did I miss? I don't see any other than others pushing the POV that anything related to Trumps should be treated differently than if it was related to any other human being on earth. Btw. My personal feelings for Mr. Trump have never been publically expressed anywhere, please do not infer any personal beliefs on your part on me, thank you. And I have not actually mentioned the Trumps in the hooks, I mentioned caecilians - the implication that Jr. and the others are caecilians is on you and not me, I did not make such a un-neutral statement . "wormy, tentacle ridden slimeball" referred to the caecilians, note the use of the term "genus" (unless you mean to tell me that the Trump family is their own genus?) My only disdain is for people using the errors page to get on their soapbox about something that is demonstratively not an error. And finally, please do point out what concerns I "rudely" ignored so we can get them addressed, apparently, I missed them in the wall of text above, (and don't worry I will ignore the personal attack). MPJ-DK (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw you alternatives if you want it resolved, they are not addressing the concerns raised. cygnis insignis 07:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

What concerns were not addressed? I re-read the whole thing after Mr. Levy made the comment above, and I don't see any other issues being raised about "neutrality" was that "it makes it look like only this species has those properties". So that was addressed, please be specific in what other guideline based concerns were brought up? I genuinely do not see any. My interest here is to make sure there is neutrality, had it had ANY other name the hook would have run and not have heard a single peep. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, I agree with David about your approach to this, I regard your response and alts as tendentious. Have you considered whether this puerile publicity stunt, that only serves to feed the god-troll himself, is worth digging your heels in over? cygnis insignis 08:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's "2 accusations" and "0 explanations", because I have twice asked what concerns were not addressed? Both of you said I did not address them all, then there was stuff where you guys speculated on my motives for this which I will choose to ignore since neither of you acually know i. You want to know my motives? The suggested hook was only discussed here and implied that it was not neutral/contentious/whatever else I'm sure I'm missing because it has the letters d-o-n-a-l-d-t-r-u-m-p in it, and apparently, we should treat a hook differently - so yes censorship is worth digging my heels in over. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, "guys wanna take my freeze peach" …? cygnis insignis 08:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

To quote my wife on many, many occasions "What are you talking about?" MPJ-DK (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I find it quite remarkable that we somehow managed to construct a "wall of text" comprising "0 explanations" of the concerns discussed therein.

I also find it remarkable that multiple editors whose strong disapproval of Donald Trump is no secret would invent imaginary neutrality issues to "censor" a hook in which a variant of his name appears in an unflattering context. Do you suppose it's possible that we set aside our personal opinions in the interest of maintaining the encyclopedia's integrity? —David Levy 08:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

had it had ANY other name the hook would have run and not have heard a single peep.

Had it had any other name (except, perhaps, one intended to belittle someone else), the hook wouldn't even have been written. —David Levy 08:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You say "Conflated", I say "addressed" - Potato, Patato.

You've conflated the neutrality concerns with a separate concern and deemed the former "addressed".

So what other concerns did I ignore? The main comment about his not being neutral was that the hook failed to point out the traits were not unique to this specific specimens - I think I addressed that.

That isn't about non-neutrality. It's simply misleading. It relates to the hook's non-neutrality tangentially, in the respect that it reflects the lengths to which the hook's author went to word it in a manner deriding Donald Trump – a goal not furthered by the inclusion of details other than the characteristics intended to evoke negative associations.

What other specific concerns did I miss? I don't see any other than others pushing the POV that anything related to Trumps should be treated differently than if it was related to any other human being on earth.

Please quote the message in which someone argued this. (Regardless, thanks for acknowledging that the hook is "related to Trumps".)

Btw. My personal feelings for Mr. Trump have never been publically expressed anywhere, please do not infer any personal beliefs on your part on me, thank you. And I have not actually mentioned the Trumps in the hooks, I mentioned caecilians - the implication that Jr. and the others are caecilians is on you and not me, I did not make such a un-neutral statement .

In one of your suggested hooks, you mentioned the "family" (unlinked), despite the information's applicability to the entire order (caecilians, which you mentioned in a separate hook). Your denial that this was an allusion to Trump's family is beyond the bounds of credibility.

"wormy, tentacle ridden slimeball" referred to the caecilians, note the use of the term "genus" (unless you mean to tell me that the Trump family is their own genus?)

slimeball: (slang, derogatory) A person who is slimy, that is, sneaky or underhanded.

My only disdain is for people using the errors page to get on their soapbox about something that is demonstratively not an error.

Do you assert that a hypothetical violation of Wikipedia's policies does't constitute an "error" in the relevant sense? If not, your opinion that none exists in this instance isn't grounds for shutting down a discussion in which others disagree.

And finally, please do point out what concerns I "rudely" ignored so we can get them addressed, apparently, I missed them in the wall of text above,

The "wall of text" exists because we've been forced to reiterate these points over and over. Doing so again would only increase the wall's size.

(and don't worry I will ignore the personal attack).

Criticism of a user's on-wiki conduct and its interference with productive discourse ≠ a personal attack. —David Levy 08:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

So, another "wall of text", yet no explanation of what concern was not addressed. You go "Hey this applies to all caecilian, it's not neutral to make it look like it's unique to this thing-a-ma-bob". If it frosts your weiner that I used the term "family" over "genus" that can certainly be replaced, that is why it was a suggestion. If you prefer to use the term "caecilian" that I had no clue what was over the description from the caecilian article itself to make it more reader-friendly, you could've just said that, I'm all about collaboration. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

So, another "wall of text", yet no explanation of what concern was not addressed. You go "Hey this applies to all caecilian, it's not neutral to make it look like it's unique to this thing-a-ma-bob"

As noted above, that never happened. You've contradicted something that I explained in the message to which you replied, while simultaneously complaining about my refusal to continue reiterating explanations that you've ignored repeatedly.

I'm all about collaboration.

At this point, it's difficult to read that as anything other than sarcasm. Please disprove this by evaluating EdChem's proposal, on which you've yet to comment (let lone explain why you regard yours as superior). —David Levy 09:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

that never happened - what didn't happen? I did not provide two alts that made it clear that it was not unique to this one proposed species? I believe they are labelled ALT2a and ALT2b for ease of location. EdChem's proposals suffer from the fact that it is trying to slap two unrelated facts together to create a hook, not sure why it reintroduced the discussion on "proposed species" and combined it with the physical description. Common DYK issue I've seen repeatedly and seen that issue pointed out in many hook reviews. And I suggested alternates, I made no indication of superiority - unless you think that me saying "these address the concerns" is me saying "these are superior"? And the sarcastic tone is all in your head, it is a shame you did not take my offer to reword either 2a or 2b slightly. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

what didn't happen? I did not provide two alts that made it clear that it was not unique to this one proposed species?

I was referring to the statement quoted directly above the text in question.

And I suggested alternates, I made no indication of superiority

I inferred that you perceived deficiencies of some sort because you proposed additional alternatives instead of expressing approval of EdChem's hook or suggesting revisions thereto.

Sure enough, you described the deficiencies that you perceived immediately before questioning my assumption.

unless you think that me saying "these address the concerns" is me saying "these are superior"?

I think that it's you feigning obtuseness.

And the sarcastic tone is all in your head,

I await your citation of the scientific meaning of "slimeball" that you used above.

it is a shame you did not take my offer to reword either 2a or 2b slightly.

I've stated unambiguously that I regard them as more problematic than the original hook. I've also endorsed EdChem's proposal. —David Levy 09:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It's simply misleading - yes I agree that was a concern, that is why my suggestions make it clear that it's no unique to that new squiddly thing. QED I did address the misleading part. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

See above. —David Levy 09:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

all other members of its family? (my emphasis) is pretty clearly talking about that thinga-ma-jig. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

allusion: An indirect reference; a hint; a reference to something supposed to be known, but not explicitly mentioned.

—David Levy 09:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Phew wall o text" again. First of "your inference is not my action", quit doing that please. so the "didn't happen" refers to this comment "Hey this applies to all caecilian, it's not neutral to make it look like it's unique to this thing-a-ma-bob"? I jus want to be sure since you repeatedly made comments on "above". If this is the thing that did not happen then our conversation is over, we're obviously speaking different languages. And to be clear - I was paraphrasing, not quoting. How am I being obtuse when the hooks addressed the concerns? Oh and the EdChem alts, if you remove the "proposed" part are virtually identical to mine, slight wording difference but basically the same. Please do explain to me how it's acceptable and neutral to throw in the term "proposed specie" and be all fine? And could you make it better than "See above"? MPJ-DK (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

ALT2c... that Dermophis donaldtrumpi measures about 10 centimetres (4 inches) and looks like a slimy worm with tentacles like all other members of its genus?
ALT2d... that Dermophis donaldtrumpi measures about 10 centimetres (4 inches) and looks like a slimy worm with tentacles, like all caecilian?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that MPJ-DK has now expressed a clear comment on my proposal, regarding two unrelated facts, I can make a further suggestion. The word "proposed" is necessary for the binomial name as it the new species is not yet officially named. Offering a description of the caecilian is not an unrelated fact, it is an explanation that is needed if readers aren't going to click on caecilian to find out what it means.

ALT1d: ... that a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles has the proposed binomial name Dermophis donaldtrumpi?

MPJ-DK, the current hook and your ALTs appear constructed to imply "that Trump is a slimy worm." I make no comment on your intent, or anyone else's, but that is the reason for the concerns here. My ALTs are tweaking this to recognise that the intention of the namer of the species might be to evoke that idea, but that WP is not stating / implying that this is true. I am willing to openly admit that I do not like / admire Donald Trump... but as a Wikipedian, I still am concerned about implying, in WP's voice, that Trump is a slimy / a worm or even making an unflattering comparison on the size of some part of his anatomy. Please, would you explain to me either (a) how the current hook is not going to be read (at least by some) as WP implying that Trump is slimy or worm-like, or (b) why the emphasis of my ALTs is unacceptable to you or not hooky or problematic, or both?

David Levy, FYI, I read MPJ's mention of family as a reference to its meaning within the taxonomic structure – see family (biology) – though I now see that Dermophis is actually the genus and the family is actually Dermophiidae. Also, I think your version ALT1c was preferable to my ALT1a and ALT1b, so I have struck them.

So, may I ask (and I direct this comment / question generally rather that at any individual), can we move the focus of this discussion more to the hook and bring the temperature down? Thank you. EdChem (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

EEng and MPJ-DK seem to be maintaining that their intention is only to provide access to information about an animal species, with no political inference or motivation. I trust that they will see no difficulty in that case with:

ALT3a... that a proposed new species is a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles like all other caecilians?

or

ALT3b... that a proposed new species of caecilian is small, slimy, worm-like, and tentacled?

Kevin McE (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That would not intrigue and attract the reader nearly as well, which is the purpose of a hook. Also, this concern that the reader understand that other caecilians are wormlike and so on is misplaced. If a hook said that the Chapel of St. X was designed by da Vinci we wouldn't rush to graft on the fact that da Vinci designed other chapels. E Eng 10:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

And it breaks the "easter egg" issue that DYK ususally go out of their way to avoid. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

ALT1a-A... that small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles, is Dermophis donaldtrumpi?

EngChem's suggestion (that found some support) bu without the two seperate facs being mushed together in accordances with how DKY hooks are normlly constructed. The "Proposed" comment is not something that has to be in the hook and I simply deleed words and nothing else. I believe I have now moved past the halfway mark to meet you, as I said 'I am all about collaboration". MPJ-DK (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That Alt I can totally support - even if it does not address any concerns in this section, but it seems to be more palpable than my suggestion and thus is a-okay with me. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that my ALT1d and MPJ-DK's ALT1a-A are very similar, but for some grammatical issues. I recognise that some rearrangements are also possible, such as:

ALT1e: ... that a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles has the proposed name Dermophis donaldtrumpi?
ALT1f: ... that the proposed name for a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles is Dermophis donaldtrumpi?
ALT1g: ... that Dermophis donaldtrumpi is the proposed name for a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles?

I don't agree that "proposed name" is superfluous information, but my opinion has no more value than anyone else's. Hopefully a consensus can now emerge from the options that are available here. Thanks to all for moving things forward. :) EdChem (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that "proposed name" is superfluous information - if that's what most people get behind then I'll drop my objection to this part. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Kevin McE David Levy do either of you have any objection o the most recently "non-MPJ" suggested hook "... that a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles has the proposed binomial name Dermophis donaldtrumpi?"

The discussion above is not achieving much, and has gone beyond the purpose of this page which is to correct simple errors. I have pulled the hook and will reopen the nomination, where proper scrutiny of the various hooks can be be undertaken, with reference to relevant noticeboards (e.g. WT:NPOV) as appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Aw! shatched from the hands of victory, I thought that the most recent comments pushed it towards a consensus. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please post at Template:Did you know nominations/Dermophis donaldtrumpi. If consensus does emerge before midnight then we can put it straight back in. But in my opinion it is mainly due to your own earlier contributions on this page that the discussion did not succeed in finding a way forward. It was tendentious and borderline trolling. I am glad to see that you are engaging in a better way now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have reopened this nomination based on the concerns expressed by several editors at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. It is clear that the discussion there was not making progress or reaching any conclusions, so this page is the more appropriate forum. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Several alternatives were proposed by EdChem at the other discussion.

ALT1e: ... that a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles has the proposed name Dermophis donaldtrumpi?
ALT1f: ... that the proposed name for a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles is Dermophis donaldtrumpi?
ALT1g: ... that Dermophis donaldtrumpi is the proposed name for a small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles?

These suggestions may provide a way forward — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

These all essentially say the same thing so I'm fine with any of them, although ALT1g starts with the bold link so that'd be my personal preference. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We are not restricted to only my suggestions. I have posted to user talk:MSGJ about the decision to stop the discussion at ERRORS, which I think was poor. In any event, can we get consensus from MPJ-DK, EEng, David Epstein, Kevin McE, David Levy, Cygnis insignis, Yoninah (I think that is everyone who commented)? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Add ping for David Eppstein, this time spelled correctly – my apologies. Also, a diff for the discussion as it ended. EdChem (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't particularly like them (because I don't think the main portal of an encyclopaedia should be used to draw attention to such a publicity stunt, and because I believe scientific recognition of a species, rather than the marketing of the hope that this will be achieved, should be the threshhold for creating an article), but I wouldn't object to any of these three. I would have a marginal preference for 1f. Kevin McE (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi EdChem. ~~Easy to miss, but I already expressed a preference for Alt1, with grammar tweak (c)~~ These alts are somewhat better, or something from the lead I rewrote, any of them it puts this rest. Thanks for enquiring, but I'm dismayed at this discussion and am focusing on more interesting topics. I've made a similar point to Kevin McE elsewhere, we should not be part of cynical media campaign. cygnis insignis 12:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Strong support for ALT1h, which is easily the best yet. cygnis insignis 15:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Cynical media campaign? Yikes. Who here represents "The Media"? MPJ-DK (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You understand I referring to the purchaser of the name, working hand in glove with the media craving clicks? Or did you think this was all about you, again? cygnis insignis 14:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Any of the three aforementioned hooks is more preferable than the original one which was to be posted, though like Kevin, I have a marginal preference for 1f. Even if there is no deliberately conscious effort to impugn President Trump with the original hook, it is not an unreasonable assumption to see how the phrasing can be viewed as an attack - use of emotionally charged words like "slimy" for example juxtaposed with a politician's name - being endorsed by Wikipedia. The alternative hooks at least mitigate the POV issue somewhat by pointing out that it's the proposed name, acknowledging that there is a POV that isn't necessarily Wikipedia's. The story is quirky enough. We don't need to try to enhance the quirkiness by injecting our own subconscious biases.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Any of the ALT1s would be okay with me, they're pretty much all the same as far as information conveying goes. I still like the original hook the best, but I can understand why some may think it's non-neutral.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not make the point that EnviroBuild is trying to make, without getting into whether we're calling Trump "slimy"? Something like:

ALT1h: ... that the proposed name for a newly discovered worm-like amphibian, Dermophis donaldtrumpi, is meant to reference a purported lack of a strategic vision on climate change by Donald Trump?

(I don't like "purported", but we can't really say that in Wikipedia's voice.) This keeps the interesting point in there while avoiding some of what may be considered editorial opinion on our part. Guettarda (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

So instead of being about a critter the blurb pulls Trump into it instead and uses the front pqge to bash his climate policy? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of ALT1h. If the name were meant as a reference to Donald Trump's alleged lack of strategic vision on climate change policy, it's an extremely obscure reference. Seriously, who would look at a caecilian named D. donaldtrumpi and think "Wow, President Trump clear lacks strategic vision on climate change!"? EdChem (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm just following the text of the article. If it's a misquote, then the article should never have passed review. Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: - according to the article, that's the name of the species bashes his climate policy. Which is why anyone other than maybe herpetologists would be interested in it at all. Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you are not following the text of the article. Choosing a name in order to raise awareness of an issue – in other words, making a choice to bring publicity to the issue – and the name being a reference to a purported lack of vision in climate change policy are not the same thing. I do not think that the article text supports this hook as written, nor do I think the hook is actually true. EdChem (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Support ALT1g Honestly I'd drop the "proposed name for" bit, since as of now Dermophis donaldtrumpi is the WP:COMMONNAME ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)); whether it's been published in a peer-reviewed article or not, it's still the name as of now -- it doesn't not have a name. If others want to pursue that possibility I'm happy to, but otherwise there's no need to fuss it. E Eng 17:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It is the common name for a ~~description~~ [hack's guess] in a ~~reliable source~~ [clickbait interpretation of press release] of a "species" awaiting formal publication. Which is why I demurred from creating the article when I saw the story, it is just more TrumpCruft. cygnis insignis 19:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid hack isn't going to get you very far as descriptions of the Washington Post, NYT, and the Guardian. Since we're not hearing from anyone else I'm wondering if EdChem's earlier ping worked: MPJ-DK, EEng, David Epstein, Kevin McE, David Levy, Cygnis insignis, Yoninah. I'm hoping we can settle on ALT1g and be done with this. E Eng 20:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Now correcting misspelled ping to David Eppstein. E Eng 20:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course, I'm sure they had their best ~~reporters~~ tousled-haired-junior-high-work-experience-guy on to that story when it broke. I'm not allowed to change my !vote in this debate, if I understand my new pal correctly: Is a flip-flop a thong?. cygnis insignis 20:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You're really making a fool of yourself. Here are recent stories by the NYT reporter, Julia Jacobs. [3] E Eng 23:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ping worked, show up, said my piece and now wonder if some people think that double standards are twice as good. Really have nothing else to say, just gonna let the consensus build however it builds. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what's given you the idea that Donald Trump in particular is receiving special treatment. If you believe that a DYK hook constructed with the intent of ridiculing a different living person would be tolerated, you're mistaken. —David Levy 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

ALT1i: ... that a proposed species of worm-like amphibian, Dermophis donaldtrumpi, is so named to raise awareness of Donald Trump's policies on climate change?

This follows our article's text more closely (without inferring "a purported lack of a strategic vision"). It also conveys that the organism's classification as a species (not its name, which reliable sources attest) is what's proposed. —David Levy 20:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I prefer David Levy's hook above all, because it presents the rationale for the name and also avoids cheap shots at Trump. But I would move the bolded link closer to the front, and reduce the overlinking, like this:

ALT1j: ... that Dermophis donaldtrumpi, a proposed species of worm-like amphibian, is so named to raise awareness of Donald Trump's policies on climate change? Yoninah (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Support ALT1j, with or without linking "Donald Trump". Switching to oppose, as explained below. —06:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that shifting the bolded link closer to the beginning improves the hook's flow. —David Levy 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I still prefer 1e, 1f or 1g to anything subsequent, and 1f most among those. Is there any particular reason for 3rd Jan to post this? Kevin McE (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've seen none provided, apart from its proximity to an earlier date on which it was posited that Donald Trump might visit Wikipedia's main page (which obviously isn't an appropriate rationale). —David Levy 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead hook on January 3 marked the birthday of a girl who strikes for climate change, so I put it at the end of that set because this hook also has something to do with climate change. But otherwise, there's no specific date request for this. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

None of the hooks containing the phrase "proposed species" make any sense. It either is, or is not, a species. What has been proposed is the name for the species, assuming that it is in fact recognized to be a species. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is a proposed species in as much that it is argued ('proposed') that the sample animals under study are thought to be different enough from others to constitute a new species, but the relevant authorities have not yet pronounced on the matter. That is why I think the entire notion of raising it here, or even having a Wikipedia article, is premature. Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the organism's recognition as a distinct species is what's currently proposed. To my understanding, the name that it will receive (if and when its recognition as a species occurs) has been determined, so that's merely an element of the overall species proposal, not itself the subject of debate.

"Proposed name" could be taken to mean that the organism has been recognized as a species but not yet given a name, which is essentially the opposite of what's actually occurred. —David Levy 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources call it a new species. And is has a name, whether that name has been published in some special place or not. That's it. E Eng 23:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources call it a new species.

To which sources are you referring? On such matters, scholarly materials (such as peer-reviewed journals) carry greater weight than non-specialist publications (such as newspapers and news broadcasts), which often simplify or omit scientific details and regurgitate press releases.

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. —David Levy 00:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Who in the world do you think you're talking to? With your almost complete lack of experience writing articles, you're lecturing me about evaluation of sourcing? Are you kidding? You might want to review those links yourself: Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. There being no academic sources on this topic, NYT and the Guardian are perfectly acceptable. We don't have to wait for some academic publishing formality. E Eng 00:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Who in the world do you think you're talking to?

I think I'm talking to an editor who expressed a goal of "best [showcasing] this wonderful honor" (preferably on a day when Trump might see the main page), noting that the unflattering description's trimming was "good news for Donald".

But that's beside the point. I'm here to help improve the hook, not to cast blame for its shortcomings.

With your almost complete lack of experience writing articles, you're lecturing me about evaluation of sourcing?

I'm lecturing no one. I'm simply describing Wikipedia's normal treatment of such subjects – including this one – wherein we don't label something a "species" until it's been designated one through peer review and formal publication.

There being no academic sources on this topic, NYT and the Guardian are perfectly acceptable. We don't have to wait for some academic publishing formality.

To have a Wikipedia article? Agreed. I'm at a loss as to why you're advocating that the DYK hook include a claim not contained therein (one that explicitly contradicts our article, in fact). —David Levy 01:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

we don't label something a "species" until it's been designated one through peer review and formal publication – Uh huh. Quote the P&G to that effect.
a claim not contained therein – what are you talking about?

E Eng 02:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Uh huh. Quote the P&G to that effect.

Wikipedia:Consensus:

Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars.

what are you talking about?

Dermophis donaldtrumpi:

Dermophis donaldtrumpi is a proposed species of caecilian...

It was originally discovered in Panama and is yet to be confirmed as a new species...

—David Levy 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing you just posted has any apparent connection to we don't label something a "species" until it's been designated one through peer review and formal publication. Please be more explicit.
Nothing you just posted has any apparent connection to any hook content I've advocated. Please be more explicit.

E Eng 04:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

On the first point, are you requesting the citation of a policy or guideline explicitly stating that "we don't label something a 'species' until it's been designated one through peer review and formal publication" (or words to that effect)?

On the second point, if you aren't asserting that it would be appropriate to state or imply that the organism is a species, I apologize for misunderstanding. —David Levy 04:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

One the first point, yes. Now can you put up or shut up?

On the second point, the hooks I've supported said Dermophis donaldtrumpi is the proposed name for a small, slimy [etc] and that donaldtrumpi measures about 10 cm and looks like a [etc], which neither say nor imply anything about a species. So apology accepted.

E Eng 05:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

On the first point, I doubt that such a thing exists. If Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were to contain explicit documentation of every content issue encountered in the course of editing the encyclopedia and every decision associated therewith – including those applicable to uncommon situations – they would collapse under their own weight.

As noted above, we rely on consensus. That's how the article came to refer to refer to the organism as a "proposed species" that "is yet to be confirmed" – consistent with Wikipedia's conventions in this subject area.

If you're aware of Wikipedia articles to which a different convention has been applied (i.e., articles in which organisms are labeled "species" without qualification, despite a lack of peer review and formal publication), I certainly will reconsider my position on the matter.

On the second point, I'm confused regarding the nature of this argument. What are you contesting? —David Levy 05:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

On the first point, you've offered no evidence at all of Wikipedia's conventions in this subject area other than your saying so.

On the second point, I've contested (successfully) your statement that I've advocating that the DYK hook include a claim not contained in the article.

E Eng 06:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

On the first point, I've explained that you're demanding extraordinary evidence that wouldn't normally exist. That simply isn't how consensus-based editing works. Again, I invite you to point to articles contradicting the convention that I've described.

On the second point, I mean that I'm confused as to the reason behind the argument that began above in the message timestamped 23:48, wherein you stated that "the sources call it a new species." If you weren't citing this as justification to "call it a new species", what were you asserting? —David Levy 06:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

On the first point, the way consensus-based editing works is that if you want to claim there's a consensus, you have to be able to point to something somewhere expressing that consensus. I have no idea about other articles. But I do know we have reliable nonsicientific sources on this species, in this article, and as WP:RS (which you so helpfully injected that into this discussion) says, nonscientific sources are fine.

On the second point, I said that the sources clearly support the statement that this is a species because I got tired of the assertions to the contrary by the taxofanboy official-publication gatekeeper fetishists; but when it comes to discussions of hook content, which is what matters here, I've chosen wording that avoids the question, so I don't have to get into it with said taxofanboy official-publication gatekeeper fetishists.

On a third point, despite being an admin you don't seem know that you can't copy-paste timestamps from page histories into a discussion, because editors see different timestamps in page histories depending on their timezones. This underscores my earlier point about your obvious lack of content experience and, along with linking to P&Gs you apparently don't understand, is the kind of thing one often finds with admins from back in the day when adminship was pretty much anyone's for the asking.

E Eng 23:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

On the first point, the way consensus-based editing works is that if you want to claim there's a consensus, you have to be able to point to something somewhere expressing that consensus.

I'm pointing to Wikipedia's entire body of articles about species and proposed species – including this one. Again, if you're aware of any in which organisms are labeled "species" in the absence of peer review and formal publication, please cite them.

I have no idea about other articles.

So you're blindly contesting my description of a convention applied therein?

But I do know we have reliable nonsicientific sources on this species, in this article,

Agreed. That's why I'm not arguing that the article should be deleted (or even changed).

and as WP:RS (which you so helpfully injected that into this discussion) says, nonscientific sources are fine.

Indeed, they're fine in many contexts. In other contexts, they fall short. The specifics are determined through consensus, which is how the article came to refer to Dermophis donaldtrumpi as a "proposed species".

On the second point, I said that the sources clearly support the statement that this is a species because I got tired of the assertions to the contrary by the taxofanboy official-publication gatekeeper fetishists; but when it comes to discussions of hook content, which is what matters here, I've chosen wording that avoids the question, so I don't have to get into it with said taxofanboy official-publication gatekeeper fetishists.

Name-calling aside, the statement in question was a direct reply to my comment about the hook's wording, so I didn't realize that you were addressing a different matter.

On a third point, despite being an admin you don't seem know that you can't copy-paste timestamps from page histories into a discussion, because editors see different timestamps in page histories depending on their timezones.

I noted the timestamp from your message's signature (hence the wording "above in the message timestamped 23:48"). I didn't even consult the page history, which sometimes varies slightly.

This underscores my earlier point about your obvious lack of content experience and, along with linking to P&Gs you apparently don't understand, is the kind of thing one often finds with admins from back in the day when adminship was pretty much anyone's for the asking.

Heretofore, I've made zero mentions of the fact that I'm an administrator – a point that you've apparently raised for no reason other than to engage in a personal attack. —David Levy 01:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I noted the timestamp from your message's signature – It's almost incredible that you still don't understand that you can't copy timestamps from anywhere, at least not unless you know what you're doing, which you do not -- editors in other timezones see other timestamps. As for the rest, I'll let your comments speak for themselves. <suppresses guffaw> E Eng 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Note the timestamp above: "01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)". Now access your preferences to select a different time zone and reload this page. What timestamp do you see?

The time zone setting affects times appearing within the MediaWiki interface – not users' signatures. —David Levy 03:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is a "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" gadget that can be enabled separately. If that's what you meant, my apologies. But it doesn't impact the actual timestamp that appears in the edit window, which always reflects what was posted. —David Levy 03:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Good, you're catching on. But what's in the edit window is irrelevant, because your fellow editors don't read your posts in the edit window. To put you out of your misery, if you want to copy a timestamp, you need to copy/paste the whole thing (from the edit window) including the (UTC) bit. Then it will be timezone-adjusted and appear in your post the way it does in the post you copied from. Partly because this is such a lot of trouble, it's almost always better simply supply a diff instead. Keep sharpening your knowledge and you'll be ready to be an admin some day! E Eng 04:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand how the gadget functions. I simply wasn't thinking of it at the time. If you believe that this reflects incompetence on my part, that's your prerogative. But there's no need for sarcastic mockery. I welcome constructive criticism, and I'm more than willing to accommodate Wikipedia's myriad gadgets and custom tweaks to the best of my ability. —David Levy 04:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This brings us full-circle to why I brought up the timestamp-copy point in the first place: if you got out and about in the project and did actual content editing, that would be second nature (not something you'd have to "be thinking of at the time"), as would the actual content of P&Gs you link to.

Listen, it's been a gas, but the matter of the hook is settled and I've got other things to do. I won't be responding further. Toodles! E Eng 05:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I focus my limited available time on the areas of the project in which I believe my efforts can go the furthest. I'm sorry that you look down upon these contributions (though I don't see how mindfulness of the time offset gadget's existence correlates with the namespaces in which one's edits are performed).

When I link to policy/guideline pages, it's usually to point to nuanced explanations that are infeasible to summarize in sufficient detail, not to throw down a "THIS IS NOT ALLOWED" hammer. Your apparent impression that I sought to claim that non-scholarly sources are never acceptable in this subject area is mistaken, as I've attempted to convey repeatedly. I linked to a page that doesn't say that because I'm not saying that.

I bid you adieu, in the hope that our next interaction is more collegial and productive. —David Levy 05:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: It is very hard to word this DYK in a sufficiently NPOV manner considering context, and it's not even a published species (or italicized thereof). This is more trouble than its worth and I vote against it.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I have been asked to clarify - ALT1G, but have no problems with any hook that is similar in content. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
There being three editors supporting ALT1g (MPJ-DK, EdChem, me), I'm pinging the reviewer (David Eppstein) back to approve it, with apologies for the continued inconvenience. E Eng 06:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Given the nominator's apparent insistence on using a hook I regard as needlessly vague and misleading (with a stated intent of irritating Donald Trump), I must oppose this nomination in its entirety. Should EEng reconsider and agree to address the relevant concerns, I'll reconsider as well. —David Levy 06:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh God what happened here. What is it about the mere hint of a mention of a certain ex-pro-wrestling-promoter's name that causes everyone to go bugfuck nuts? Yes, ALT1G is fine, more clear about the name being only provisional at this point, even more difficult to read as a double entendre (but some people when primed will look for one anyway; see "Much Ado About Nothing", end of act II scene 3), and still with enough icky creatures to attract the attention of the 3-year-old in us all (which function, may I point out, is exactly what DYK is supposed to be about). So yes, still good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  - David: I assume that you read the full discussion and determined that it points to ALT1G as the consensus-backed hook. Do you have any thoughts regarding the concerns expressed and the alternative options presented in response thereto? —David Levy 07:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    - If you want me to express more of my opinions, how about: there's no censor like a self-censor. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
      - David: Pardon?
        I'm asking you to outline your evaluation of the discussion (including the portion that occurred after ALT1G was proposed, intended to address issues regarding its wording) and the factors that you took into account when gauging consensus.
        Apart from your analysis and confirmation of the specific hook that the nominator asked you to approve when pinging you, the only summary that you provided was "Oh God what happened here. What is it about the mere hint of a mention of a certain ex-pro-wrestling-promoter's name that causes everyone to go bugfuck nuts?".
        The cryptic statement "there's no censor like a self-censor." provides no additional insight, apart from seemingly implying that your personal views played a role in the decision.
        Pinging Martin, who reopened this nomination in light of serious concerns that led multiple editors to invest significant time on relevant discussion at WP:ERRORS before doing so again above (the aforementioned "go[ing] bugfuck nuts"). —David Levy 22:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hook was reworked to make it neutral, people chimed in and the original reviewer gave a check mark to the one that seemed to have the most support. Looking at your comments your comments are more about the "proposed species" part, so article content more than anything. DYK is not a place to air your personal feelings about the article content. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing that I've written above pertains to criticism of the article, which already identifies the organism as a "proposed species".
I'm inquiring as to the reviewer's evaluation of the discussion and the reasoning behind the determination that ALT1G is the consensus-backed hook. —David Levy 01:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Didn't say you criticized the article though did I? I said your object was that the hook did not include the "Proposed species" part of the article content that you apparently think is a deal breaker for the hook. Does it make the hook any more interesting by pointing out that the subject of the article isn't "official" yet? I don't see it myself, especially to the point where you kick up such a fuss for article content being excluded from the hook. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Didn't say you criticized the article though did I?

You stated that my comments are about "article content more than anything", noting that "DYK is not a place to air [my] personal feelings about the article content."

I'm not airing my feelings about the article content. I'm commenting on proposed DYK hooks, which incorporate article content by design. This is a place for that, so I'm at a loss as to what behavior you've deemed misplaced.

I said your object was that the hook did not include the "Proposed species" part of the article content that you apparently think is a deal breaker for the hook.

That's an element that I believe can be improved upon. Of far greater concern is the omission of the name's origins (i.e., why the organism has been dubbed "Dermophis donaldtrumpi"). —David Levy 03:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You just don't seem to be getting it: a hook is a tidbit that entices the reader. It's not the article, the article lead, or the article's opening sentence. It leaves stuff out because it's supposed to. No doubt readers will want to know why this little fella was named for Trump -- great! They'll click to find out. That's the idea. E Eng 04:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm familiar with DYK's format (and rarely object to such formulations). I find this particular ambiguity problematic because it relates to an unflattering comparison to a living person. (To be clear, I'm referring to the sentiment that EnviroBuild seeks to evoke.) —David Levy 04:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Since David Levy has asked for a more detailed explanation of why I don't think much of his contributions to this nomination, and since he apparently finds my attempts at saving him from public ridicule to be too veiled, here it is. He objects to the hook on the basis that it was "constructed with the intent of ridiculing a different living person", a basis that is completely false. It may be true that the species name was chosen with that intent, but the apparent consensus hook ALT1G itself does no such thing. In fact, it was wordsmithed here with exactly the opposite intent, to erase any hint of criticism or ridicule of the deserving and focus purely on the creature. The hook does not mention any living person by name at all. It also does not make the apparently-controversial claim that this is a new species nor that the chosen name will become the official name for that supposed new species. It merely states the proposed name and describes the creature that the name has been proposed for, in a somewhat-colorful way as is completely proper and appropriate for DYK, where making things dry as dust and boring as eternity are exactly the opposite of what we should be trying to do. Having an otherwise-notable subject of an article (not the hook, the article itself) be associated with ridicule of a public figure is a non-issue with respect to inclusion in the encyclopedia (see WP:NOTCENSORED) and there is no language in the DYK rules or elsewhere that we should blackball or censor any mention of such articles from the front page. Therefore, there is no valid objection to ALT1G, just misguided noise about things that are in the imagination of the reader rather than in the actual proposed hook. David Levy may object to my characterization of his contributions here but tough. With a hook that is both within rules and attention-catching (if it weren't attention-catching, it wouldn't be within the rules), and with no valid objection, this nomination is still good to go with ALT1G. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Since David Levy has asked for a more detailed explanation of why I don't think much of his contributions to this nomination,

I requested a more detailed explanation of how you gauged consensus (in particular, that it pointed to the specific hook that you've approved, as opposed to other suggestions). Certainly, that entails weighing the relative strengths of the arguments presented, but there's no need to belittle the editors behind them. I'm taken aback by your statement that you "don't think much of my contributions to this nomination", however unpersuasive you might find my reasoning to be. I was invited to participate in this discussion, and I've done so in good faith.

and since he apparently finds my attempts at saving him from public ridicule to be too veiled, here it is.

In what scenario does an objective analysis of a discussion entail "public ridicule"? When did this become about me? Multiple editors suggested hooks or otherwise contributed to the effort.

He objects to the hook on the basis that it was "constructed with the intent of ridiculing a different living person", a basis that is completely false.

You've quoted a statement made in a different, hypothetical context (in response to an assertion, carried over from WP:ERRORS, that the criticisms exist solely because of the connection to Donald Trump).

It may be true that the species name was chosen with that intent, but the apparent consensus hook ALT1G itself does no such thing. In fact, it was wordsmithed here with exactly the opposite intent, to erase any hint of criticism or ridicule of the deserving and focus purely on the creature.

I agree, wholeheartedly, that EdChem thoughtfully crafted the hook's wording with precisely that intent. Subsequently, others (myself included) suggested further improvements, seeking to address issues that most assuredly weren't intentional on EdChem's part.

My comments regarding an intent to mock Donald Trump have nothing to do with EdChem's participation. They reflect the nominator's expressed goal of "best [showcasing] this wonderful honor", preferably on a day when Trump might see the main page.

The hook does not mention any living person by name at all.

The allusion to Donald Trump is obvious (and has been acknowledged by the nominator repeatedly).

It also does not make the apparently-controversial claim that this is a new species nor that the chosen name will become the official name for that supposed new species.

Agreed. It's merely ambiguous, which allows for a higher likelihood of misunderstanding.

It merely states the proposed name and describes the creature that the name has been proposed for, in a somewhat-colorful way as is completely proper and appropriate for DYK,

There's nothing inherently wrong with the description itself. The objections pertain its presentation in isolation (i.e., without conveying the reason behind the proposed designation). In the absence of that essential context, the hook can come across as Wikipedia gleefully taking part in the derision (as opposed to merely documenting it). To reiterate, I'm aware that this is not EdChem's intent.

Having an otherwise-notable subject of an article (not the hook, the article itself) be associated with ridicule of a public figure is a non-issue with respect to inclusion in the encyclopedia (see WP:NOTCENSORED) and there is no language in the DYK rules or elsewhere that we should blackball or censor any mention of such articles from the front page.

Agreed. That's why I supported hooks identifying the ridicule's origins. And when I politely requested an explanation of the reasoning behind your decision to approve a different hook (without even suggesting that you were incorrect to do so), I received the response above. —David Levy 02:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

My god, are you paid by the word? Yoninah, since this is a reopened nom, it's not on the Needs Approval page and not on the Approved page either. Do remember what to do to return it to the Approved page, or do you want to just send it straight to prep again? E Eng 03:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

"Honestly, I think the best approach is to not get over-analytical about this, and hopefully the actual paper will come out soon. If it weren't for people foolishly making press releases and such in advance of actually doing the science, and Wikipedians pouncing on things that aren't ready for prime time (notability preceding verifiability), this would be a non-issue. Keep it simple, direct would-be editors to the talk page here, and hopefully it'll all blow over when something scientific is in print." — Dyanega (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2019 at the talk page.

You created this situation, and tendentiously pursued it with an inappropriate and distasteful air of entitlement, hounding anyone who got in the way of your prize; your fanboys set to edit-warring to create further disruption a la "freeze peach!". You contributed little to the content, instead ransoming the community work to salvage the content and hone the unfixable hook for your puerile DYK. What a waste of time, resources and patience this has been. Good joke mate! cygnis insignis 06:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I do the best I can with the material available. Since you're worried about who contributed how much, it turns out I contributed [4] 26% of the article (second only to the article's creator), while you contributed 1.6%. But hey – who's counting? E Eng 07:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sarcasm and deflection, you are grandstanding and walking a line between court jester and thug in my short experience of your contributions. Asserting a right to insult others in defence of a weak position is grotesque, it is overtly self serving and disruptive. You don't care about the content of the article, I'm embarrassed to have contributed anything to it but for the care with which I did so. Consider how much you invested in something temporal, the hook, the only permanent change will be another credit for a DYK. While you have been investing in this, I have been adding verifiable content from reliable sources to articles that are incontrovertibly important and substantive; have you analysed those contributions for the same time period? I'm going suggest you go into the room of mirrors and have a think about this discussion. I paused from commenting, your reactions are immediate and give little toward any resolution. One option is to withdraw the nomination, you are clearly not acting to improve the encyclopaedia in this instance. cygnis insignis 07:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Look, you said I "contributed little to the content" of this article, so I looked it up and it turns out I literally contibuted 15X as much as you. I won't disagree that this discussion has, as you say, been largely "a waste of time, resources and patience"; given how you feel it seems that your time, in particular, might have been better invested elsewhere. E Eng 08:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this has gone on long enough now. We have well over 90k of text on this nomination and discussion is degenerating rapidly. Hook has been approved, and it looks like a reasonable call from my perspective. No doubt there is a route to appeal this, but I would strongly recommend not pursuing this further. Shall we all get on with something else now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm against its inclusion still after all the discussion for the same reasons I stated above which were ignored.--Sigehelmus (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Your whinings above about "It is very hard to word this"..."This is more trouble than its worth" are your only contributions to this debate. They are not constructive, are not specific enough to be actionable, and do not constitute valid reasons to block a DYK nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There are already several species named after the president, I don't see what makes this amphibian particularly notable for a DYK, and how it was intended for anything but a snarky "sock-it-to-him" type of gesture. Kind of antithetical to what Wikipedia stands for. Very unprofessional!--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 01:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I can set your mind at ease on that score: Wikipedia editors aren't professionals. And there's no such thing as being "notable for DYK". Any new article is eligible. E Eng 01:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I meant notable as in "proper", sorry. What interest or purpose does this DYK serve in the spirit of the site? It seems a lot different than a fact purely for the service of education, like a DYK how Basil I died from a fever after getting his belt caught in the antlers of a deer then dragged along for 16 miles.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 01:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK is supposed to showcase facts the reader will find new and interesting. Every schoolchild knows about Basil I getting his belt caught. It's like Henry VIII having six wives or Winston Churchill being a cross-dresser -- no one would click on well-known facts like those. E Eng 02:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The worst part is I can't tell if you're being ironic, because I know a lot of people who don't even know Henry VIII had six wives or broke off from Rome...anyway, I still oppose this DYK.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose Henry VIII is somewhat obscure. But for sure everyone knows about Basil I's belt and Winston Churchill being a cross-dresser. E Eng 02:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Now this was an invigorating and satisfying historical discussion. Have a good day.

Oppose per above.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

- Since this is not something you can "veto" nor does it require 100% agreement asserting your oppinion as the only that matters is not appropriate so I will restore the tick given above. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how this DYK nomination is not politically-charged? WP:SPADE--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Considering I said nothing about politics (unless you count the word "veto") I really don' know how that is relevant to my comment that you're not in a position to veto a hook on your own. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

To be as simple and clear as possible: What makes this DYK proper and fit for display? Is it NPOV, both explicitly and implicitly, or not?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 03:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You need it to be simple and clear? sure 1) I did not comment on the "properness" of the hook 2) That it is NPOV is your opinion 3) the entirty of my point is on process. You, one single, solitary wikipedian cannot just impose your will on this and kick it out as denied. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I never intended to kick it out, I was just raising necessary questions alongside my own symbolic vote. I already know it's likely to pass, I just felt compelled to mention these concerns about the standard quality that DYKs ought to strive for.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 03:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

So you do know enough about the process to find the "DYK No" symbol, problem is that putting that symbol on the nomination has implications for the automated process, it is read as "denied" and will archive the nom at some point. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, actually I judt copied it from a toolbar. Sorry about that, thought it was just a vote--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 03:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 376: / Line 376: @@
 :::::I never intended to kick it out, I was just raising necessary questions alongside my own symbolic vote. I already know it's likely to pass, I just felt compelled to mention these concerns about the standard quality that DYKs ought to strive for.--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><small>[[User:Sigehelmus|<b style="color:DarkGoldenRod;">~Sıgehelmus♗</b>]]<sub>[[User talk:Sigehelmus|<b style="color:CornflowerBlue">(Tøk)</b>]]</sub></small></span> 03:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 ::::::So you do know enough about the process to find the "DYK No" symbol, problem is that putting that symbol on the nomination has implications for the automated process, it is read as "denied" and will archive the nom at some point. [[User:MPJ-DK|MPJ-DK]] ([[User talk:MPJ-DK|talk]]) 03:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
+:::::::Oh, actually I judt copied it from a toolbar. Sorry about that, thought it was just a vote--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><small>[[User:Sigehelmus|<b style="color:DarkGoldenRod;">~Sıgehelmus♗</b>]]<sub>[[User talk:Sigehelmus|<b style="color:CornflowerBlue">(Tøk)</b>]]</sub></small></span> 03:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 <!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->