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 Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment: The thirty+ species names are listed under synonyms in the taxobox.
Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 20:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC).
I haven't done a thorough review but the article looks fine, the hook is interesting, and QPQ has been done (ironically for an article I expanded and nominated for DYK :-)). The only issue I see is the fact that the article says that its appearance variation "probably explains why it has so many synonyms," but the hook makes it seem like that's definitely why it's been described about thirty times. Maybe you could somehow incorporate "probably" into the hook, Cwmhiraeth? Again, everything looks fine besides that.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512: Thank you for the review. That's a good point, how about ALT1? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that the peanut worm Phascolosoma granulatum has been described as a new species about thirty times, perhaps because it varies so much in appearance?
Doing a more thorough review now. Actually, Cwmhiraeth, sorry to contradict what I said earlier; previously I had looked at the article but not the source... the source supporting the description section says "P. granulatum is rather variable in its external appearance and thus has many synonyms." This seems to imply that its appearance variation is why it has 30 synonyms and it doesn't seem to use any kind of "probably"-related word.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind which is used. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Shouldn't the word "probably" be removed from the article then? Of course, I can remove it myself, but I wanted to check in with you before doing so to make sure there isn't an important reason why you had it there.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep probably in both hook and article, because nobody is really in a position to know why it was described so many times, so its only an informed guess really. (Could you check your black ghostshark hook in Prep3 because I have modified it.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Overall: I personally think it would be a good idea to remove "probably" and use ALT0, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. The source doesn't put any question to it and it's only an assumption that it is probable. But, it's possible that I'm the only one with that opinion, so I'll leave the decision of whether or not to promote ALT0 to ALT1 to the promoter. Everything is good to go after doing a thorough review; thanks for the follow-ups. SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but am having trouble finding the hook fact in the article. Am I supposed to count the names in the list? Even if I do, the article doesn't talk about different species, but different synonyms, which to me means different ways of calling the item, not different species. Please explain. Yoninah (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Yes, count the synonyms (although I have changed "over" to "about" in the proposed hooks). Each synonym represents the efforts of a zoologist to describe what he thinks is a species new to science, giving it a new, unique name in the process. Someone else came along later and decided that all these names were synonyms and were referring to a single species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Restoring tick per SkyGazer 512's review. Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I haven't done a thorough review but the article looks fine, the hook is interesting, and QPQ has been done (ironically for an article I expanded and nominated for DYK :-)). The only issue I see is the fact that the article says that its appearance variation "probably explains why it has so many synonyms," but the hook makes it seem like that's definitely why it's been described about thirty times. Maybe you could somehow incorporate "probably" into the hook, Cwmhiraeth? Again, everything looks fine besides that.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I personally think it would be a good idea to remove "probably" and use ALT0, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. The source doesn't put any question to it and it's only an assumption that it is probable. But, it's possible that I'm the only one with that opinion, so I'll leave the decision of whether or not to promote ALT0 to ALT1 to the promoter. Everything is good to go after doing a thorough review; thanks for the follow-ups. SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)