Talk:Anomalites

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Anomalites fugitivus quartz cast

• ... that the shining leaf chafer Anomalites fugitivus (pictured) was first described on 7 March 1884, 140 years ago today? Source: Vorgetragen von Prof. Dr. Ant. Fric am 7.März 1884.
  • ALT1: ... that the shining leaf chafer Anomalites fugitivus (pictured) is a quartz cast in millstone? Source: Dies erklärt sich dadurch, dafs der Fund in Prag gemacht wurde, und zwar in der Mühlsteinfabrik des Herrn Gabriel Zizka in Prag. Der Arbeiter V. Spigl entdeckte beim Behauen des Sülswasserquarzes aus Nogent le Rotrou einen in einer kleinen Höble liegenden fossilen Käfer und wurde mir derselbe vom Fabriks-besitzer zur näheren Untersuchung anvertraut.
  • ALT2: ... that after discovery in Prague, the scarab fossil Anomalites fugitivus (pictured) was given to France? Source: Es mag auffallen, wie das kömmt, dafs man bei uns über einen einzelnen palaeontologischen Fund aus einem französischen Gestein berichtet. Dies erklärt sich dadurch, dafs der Fund in Prag gemacht wurde, und zwar in der Mühlsteinfabrik des Herrn Gabriel Zizka in Prag.
    Der Besitzer Herr Gabriel Zizka stimmte mit meinem Antrage überein und Anomalites fugitivus befindet sich bereits als Zierde der palaeontologischen Sammlungen Frankreichs in Paris.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Korowai gecko
  • Comment: Aiming for the Alt0 hook as a special occasion nomination on March 7th.

5x expanded by Kevmin (talk) and Ratnahastin (talk). Nominated by Kevmin (talk) at 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Anomalites; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Article eligibility and condition checks out. I don't think the base hook is particularly interesting, and that'd be a fairly fast turn-around for a DYK nomination. However, I don't think any of the other hooks are particularly interesting either - what about something like "...a prehistoric French scarab was discovered in a Prague factory?" Generalissima (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the word "prehistoric" as its misused too frequently for fossil writing in news sources. Prehistoric means "occurring between human invention of tools and invention of writing" This fossil is Late Eocene (Priabonian) and falls far older then what would be considerable as prehistoric. Regarding your objection to the Alt0 and timing, special occasion hooks are often passed though faster as they have the timer on them and should not be seen as a reason to object.--Kevmin § 17:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Generalissima here. The other hooks are either not very interesting or at best middling or borderline interesting. As for the objection to the term "prehistoric", we are writing for a broad audience not a specialist one, and for purposes of general readers the term "prehistoric" may be fine when used in the colloquial sense. If there is an objection to that word, maybe the term "extinct" might work as a compromise? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Extinct is a better term then prehistoric, and i will accept that as an alternate. If the vernacular use of a word is just plain wrong, wiki does not perpetuate the wrong usage. Fossil is the correct term in this instance, as seen in sources. I will refrain on commenting about the "interesting" problem, as i have strong views on that "requirement".--Kevmin § 15:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• In which case, we now have:

ALT4 ... that an extinct French scarab beetle was discovered in a Prague factory?

Other proposals have been struck (including the original version, which I am referring to as ALT3), leaving only ALT4 for review. If the reviewer wants to add the word "fossil" to the hook during their review, they can do it at that stage. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

ALT4 is short enough and certainly interesting, but would need an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 05:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Reference for ALT4 move ahead 1 sentence to meet DKY requirement.--Kevmin § 15:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's roll.--Launchballer 23:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)