Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Pinguipes brasilianus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 20:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Pinguipes brasilianus

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that the Brazilian sandperch was caught by hook and line by Charles Darwin, who enjoyed eating it? Source: "CD collected specimens of Pinguipes brasilianus ... by hook and line at a depth of 14 fathoms ... made good eating"

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC).

  • new 2 July, copyvio 0%, interesting hook, long enough, qpq done, will complete review soon.Whispyhistory (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Whispyhistory (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I think you could tweak the phrasing of "good eating" in the article to some other description to avoid close paraphrasing. Also, how do you know Darwin enjoyed it? Did he write the description on the cited page? Yoninah (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I have rephrased the sentence concerned. Of course we can't be sure that he caught the fish with hook and line hims elf or that he ate it himself, maybe his shipmates did the catching and eating, however, he made the statement about catching it and that it made good eating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I'm not quite sure what the problem is? It seems to me that if he said that the fish made good eating, then that is equivalent to saying he enjoyed eating it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: it seems like an assumption to me. It may have been tasty to eat, but who says he "enjoyed" it? Yoninah (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: If you think the difference in meaning is wide enough you are welcome to suggest a variation to the hook. Personally, I think that as he specifically mentioned that the fish made good eating, we can assume he enjoyed eating it. For example, I neither like olives nor avocados, and I would never describe them as "good eating", but other people might. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
How about putting "good eating" in quotes. It does sound like he enjoyed it, but good eating also means good for you/filling food.Whispyhistory (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree, "good eating" should be in the hook and it definitely has connotations of enjoyment.
Alt1 ... that Charles Darwin caught Brazilian sandperch using a hook and line and described them as "good eating"? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
ALT1 suits me well enough. Since Philafrenzy suggested it, perhaps Whispyhistory could give it a tick. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Whispyhistory (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Philafrenzy to the rescue! Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have returned this from the queue, (a) because the hook statement doesn't appear in the article, and (b) because I think the hook is uninteresting anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: I am surprised you cannot see the hook facts in the article. Perhaps you would like to propose a more interesting hook, because as soon as I found the Charles Darwin source I said to myself "that will make an interesting hook". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It was featured at User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS, the quote (which isn't noted in the hook suggested here) from Darwin himself doesn't appear in the article. Something happened (as per usual) to this nom between being accepted and getting into a protected queue. Don't forget to check back at User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS for other such issues! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • But honestly, you guys need to think twice before creating a fictional quotation of Darwin and then expecting it to fly at the main page. I realise it wouldn't be picked up through the normal channels (hence why we now have User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS) but don't just make up quotes and then pass nominations. That's completely unacceptable. I feel sorry for Cwmhiraeth whose hook was just fine in the first place. That Darwin caught a fish himself and ate it is certainly interesting. But the made-up quote is just completely unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I see what you are getting at now. Perhaps we could go back to the original hook then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Source states "when cooked was good eating". Quoting Darwin in Fish. My reading is that Pinguipes brasilianus is the "former" species referred to in that quote. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's the good eating quote. Is it the same fish? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Whatever, the point being made here (beside the erroneous "not interesting" issue) is that the "good eating" quote wasn't mentioned in the article at all. When something's in quote marks, we expect to see it verbatim in the article. It wasn't. The decision to "sex it up" by adding a fake quote led to its downfall. Now then, fix that, and it should be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, per TRM, the quote in the hook wasn't in the article, so that was pretty much a straight pull. The other reason I pulled it though, is that I think the hook is uninteresting. It boils down to "did you know that Charles Darwin caught a fish and ate it?" which invites the response "so what?" Millions of people catch and eat fish, just because a famous person did it doesn't make it any more interesting. What would make an interesting hook is if it said something like " ... that after catching and classifying the first specimen of the Brazilian sandperch, Charles Darwin ate it?" It's not clear to me from the source however that Darwin was the one to discover the fish, though the article implies it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The fish had been first described in 1829 by Georges Cuvier, whereas Darwin's observations were probably made in 1832. I thought it amusing that he caught it with hook and line, made notes on its appearance and then ate it. I used his descriptive notes in the article because I could find no other source that gave a description. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly interesting: people would expect Darwin to observe and preserve the wildlife he recorded, not catch and eat it. It was good to go in its original form. The tinkering and subsequent bluster has been a complete waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but the hook doesn't say he recorded it, it just says he caught and ate it. I suggest the following tweak per Cwmhiraeth's clarification above:
I'm happy with whatever you decide on. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • While it's true that killing, eating and selling of organisms being studied was de rigueur among Victorian naturalists, in this case unfortunately, the hook can't be substantiated. The "good eating" refers to another species of fish, the Brazilian flathead (Percophis brasiliensis),[1] which is commercially fished even today.[2] Even your cited source, PAULY 2004, says so on page 60: "... the Brazilian flathead Percophis brasilianus Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, described in Fish (p. 23), based on a specimen collected by CD in northern *Patagonia. This fish is known in Brazil to be “de excelente gosto” (Carvalho-Filho 1994, p. 196), in line with CD, who noted: When cooked, was good eating." The confusion arises from the misspelling of brasiliensis as brasilianus.[3] (Amusingly PAULY is the editor of that taxonomic citation)
For final proof see Darwin's original notes: Entries 347 & 692 for Percophis brasiliensis both mention "good eating" while 354 for Pinguipes fasciatus (the synonym for Pinguipes brasilianus) or even 1012 for the sister species Pinguipes chilensis don't.
@Cwmhiraeth: I hope you can come up with another hook... Edit-pi (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Edit-pi: Pauly seems to have got it wrong and I have amended the article. What about:
Okay, but it's not exactly riveting is it? Weakish hooks are usually better shortened, so I would suggest:
I'm happy with ALT4.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Is this giving a tick? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
How terribly depressing. This ALT has sucked the life out the nom altogether. You could insert "animal X" in place of "Brazilian sandperch" and probably list dozens of X. That he caught it himself by fishing with line and hook was certainly of interest. This numb and bland version of events is awful. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: It's my article so I can't tick it. I agree with TRM that ALT4 is disappointing compared to the original, but the Google book I used seems to have got the eating bit wrong. We could have ALT5: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Completely uninteresting IMO, who hasn't caught a fish with a hook and line? I would stick to ALT4, it's not brilliant but it's acceptable, especially since it gets a mention of the voyage of the Beagle in there. Gatoclass (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd say literally billions of people haven't caught a fish with a hook and line. And most people would not expect to read about Darwin doing it. It's clearly of note, or else the RS wouldn't have noted it. So I'd vote for just about anything other than ALT3 and ALT4. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Normally you are a pretty reliable judge of hook quality, but honestly I think you are right off the reservation on this one. Fishing with hook and line is one of the commonest recreations on the planet - and surely "caught" implies it anyway? Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm right, as usual. Literally billions of people haven't caught a fish with hook and line. And no, there are loads of ways of catching fish, hook and line is just one of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
All right then, how about:
  • That'll do for me. This hook is close to shuffling off its mortal coil. Send it, with love and best wishes, to a Prep set. Ciao. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Finally ready for the main page. Re-promoting now. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Pinguipes_brasilianus&oldid=854081108"