Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 22:58 on 28 August 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems because this is not a talk page. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article

TFA today

• with a species name highlighting its similarity to the carrion crow (C. corone).

This left me wondering what name had originally been given to the species now called Australian raven (a pair of words that draws no parallels with 'carrion crow'): if we could clarify that it is the Latin specific name that is similar to that of the carrion crow it might be helpful. Perhaps 'with a Latin species name...', or pipe-linking 'species name' to Binomial nomenclature. Kevin McE (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Errors in In the news

• In the photo caption, "New Horizons" should be italicized. And it's a bit wordy; I think it should be cut down to "New Horizons image of Ultima Thule". (If the apostrophe is kept, it needs another S as well per MOS:POSS.) Modulus12 (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

   Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day

OTD today

• English serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper", was arrested in Sheffield, ending one of the largest police investigations in British history.

He was arrested for driving with false number plates. It took some time for him to be identified as the Yorkshire Ripper, certainly not conclusive on 2nd Jan. Suggest "English serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper", was arrested in Sheffield, initially on a charge of driving with false number plates." or "English serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper", was arrested in Sheffield, which eventually brought to an end one of the largest police investigations in British history." Kevin McE (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Errors in the current, next, or after next Did you know...

DYK current

• "that the Guêpe-class submarines were designed..." not technically an error (I think), but can I suggest removing "the". It sounds weird followed by a plural object in this sentence, IMO --DannyS712 (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

   Done, removed the 'the' Nakon 06:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Nakon: No, it is not an error, and we do add "the" to most European hooks, such as British physicians and German sopranos. Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

    • Yoninah is correct, this is not an error. DannyS712 is mistaken in that the object here is singular (a single class of submarines) rather than plural (the submarines themselves). The actual error here, IMO, is that the last part of the hook is wrong, but I've raised tat at WT:DYK. EdChem (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

      • Nope: grammatically the subject of the sentence is plural. You could rephrase it as "The Guepe class of submarines was...", when the subject would be singular. As to the original issue of whether to include "the", both versions sound acceptable to me. Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• that Guêpe-class submarines were designed to operate solely inside harbors

Apparently they were made to defend harbours, but not entirely from within. Suggest " that Guêpe-class submarines were solely intended for use in harbor defense?" (per EdChem) Kevin McE (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Admin Maile66 made this change based on my report at WT:DYK before the hook set went live. EdChem (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• "that in the 1980s, British physician..." either a comma is needed ("that, in the 1980s, British") or, ideally, the current comma should be removed ("that in the 1980s British..."). For reference, here is what happened the last time I reported this - the comma was removed --DannyS712 (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

   Done comma has been removed. Nakon 06:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Nakon: it is not our style to remove the comma (see above explanation). We also put "the" before the name of a British subject, per British English. The hook should read: "... that in the 1980s, the British physician John R. Seale ..." Yoninah (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

    • @DannyS712: your grammatical fixes are not errors, and should be discussed when the hooks are still in prep. Yoninah (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

      • I disagree: DannyS712 is pointing out an unambiguous grammatical error. See my explanation above (DYK current 1 Jan 19) about matching commas either side of adverbial phrases (or omitting both), unless the phrase starts or ends a sentence. Of course the sentence is understandable despite the error, but many of us find grammatical mistakes in text annoying, and generally Wikipedia aspires not to include such errors. It would indeed be nice if errors were recognised earlier, but that does not imply that they should be ignored if they are noticed only later. Jmchutchinson (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: You added this comma back in (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&type=revision&diff=876422756&oldid=876390291&diffmode=source). Just wanted to let you know about this discussion. Would you consider removing it? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not grammatically incorrect to have a comma after the introductory date. If anything, it reads better if you do include it. See this Grammarly article. Additionally, another article notes that it's up to personal preference in cases like these. MOS:COMMA does not refute any of this. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

But it is not an introductory date; the sentence in each case starts "Did you know that...", so those Grammarly articles are irrelevant. The time clause either needs to be totally enclosed in parenthetical commas, or have none: the practice at the moment is to close an unopened parenthetical pair, which is simply wrong. Kevin McE (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've inserted an opening comma and prepended "the" to "British physician". —David Levy 10:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK next

• "that before Andrew L. Lewis became commander of the United States Second Fleet, he flew..." - comma after Fleet should be removed (or, less ideally, a comma should be added -> "that, before Andrew...") --DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• @DannyS712: this is not DYK style (see first thread, above). Our goal is to make the hooks easy to read, not run-on sentences, and the comma accomplishes that. Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: that may be the case, but it is grammatically incorrect. See my full explanation in the first thread above --DannyS712 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added a comma after "that". Hopefully that both fixes the grammar and helps to keep the hook easy to read per Yoninah's comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• that Dimyati Natakusumah is set to compete with two of his children in the 2019 Indonesian general election?

This doesn't really emphasise the surprise element: many countries have multi-representative seats in which it is not odd for members of the same family to compete with each other: here they are with different parties, so they are competing against each other. Kevin McE (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

So where is the error?? MPJ-DK (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that "compete against two of his children" would clarify the situation, and thereby indeed make a more intriguing hook. Jmchutchinson (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Tweaked as suggested. Vanamonde (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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.) EEng 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. EEng 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? EEng 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. EEng 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. EEng 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? EEng 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. EEng 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. EEng 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. EEng 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)

• 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?

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)

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. EEng 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)

Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

POTD tomorrow

• similar to that of the closely-related prion.

There are 6 species within the genus Pachyptila, so prion would need to be pluralised.

However, the articles prion and list of prions describe the blue petrel as a prion, as does the article Procellariidae albeit with some distinction between 'true prions' and the blue petrel. So that would suggest 'similar to that of other closely-related prions.' Kevin McE (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)