Talk:Neopalpa donaldtrumpi

Smaller male genitalia?

Dead horse

Oh, no. Not again! :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Yeah, no. Some viral click bait stories going around were running headlines about the "comparatively smaller" (than N. neonata) genitals. That's not something that Nazari is really emphasizing as a difference between the two species (difference in genital structure, yes, difference in size, no). Look at the key in Nazari's paper or the diagnosis. Diagnosis is as follows: "The new species can be easily distinguished from N. neonata by its external appearance, the yellowish-white scales covering the frons of the adult head, and the distinctive orange-yellow coloration on the forewing dorsum. In the male genitalia, the valvae are strongly curved, the saccus has an acute tip, and the highly-developed bilobed processes of the vinculum, characteristic of N. neonata, are absent. In the female genitalia, the subgenital plate is simpler than in N. neonata and much less sculptured with microtrichea, and the signum wings are smooth." If genital size were an important diagnostic character, Nazari would have given measurements. "Comparatively smaller" is useless as an identifying character. Plantdrew (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC) @Plantdrew: In this case, why this is mentioned in our article? I am removing this piece of apparent fake news. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC) There is another aspect here that I somewhat dislike, that is the overly technical vocabular that should be reduced as much as possible for an wikipedia article and the technical terms that can't be avoided should (ideally) be linked. I don't think simply copying the highly technical language from scientific zoological publication is good encyclopedic writing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC) You overlooked this part in Nazari's paper (page 89): "Review of species – Neopalpa donaldtrumpi nazara, sp. n. – Male genitalia: 'Genitalia comparatively smaller than for N. neonata" which reflects the detailed comparison at "Key to species of Neopalpa" (p. 83). This aspect has been covered in several reports, so it ought to be restored in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Your talking the wrong person, although I introduced my point above with "another" I didn't (mean to) really state any opinion on the genetalia part, I just have an issue with an overly technical and unexplained language creeping in the article. That aside I have the feeling that since its creation a lot of people worked on the article without properly and fully reading the given sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry, my mistake (and the perils of threaded discussions). I meant to address the concerns of User:Staszek Lem, User:Plantdrew, and User:Staszek Lem. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Still "small genitalis" is a single WP:UNDUE nonnotable trivia picked from other detail with an apparent "small hands" joke in mind. Removed again. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC) I've readded and tweaked the sentence according to the source. It's WP:UNDUE to remove one of the identifying features of a species when it's put in the actual key provided in the source. For microleps like this, genetalia are almost always compared for species identification independent of whatever dispute is happening on the Donald Trump end of things. I could understand removing excessive detail if someone was obviously trying to lay into some genital and Trump association. It would also be too much if someone started describing all the structure names and exact measurements as that level of detail is better left for the source to describe if someone wanted diagnostic rather than encyclopedic level of identification. This is pretty far from that, and I don't see anything that's worth expanding beyond that either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC) What you readded makes a little bit sense. What I deleted did not. Yes it is WP:UNDUE to include only one, most amusing, even if identifying feature. I am still objecting this cherry-picking of a single detail from a Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Here is the major distinction by the author: The new species can be easily distinguished from N. neonata by its external appearance, the yellowish-white scales covering the frons of the adult head, and the distinctive orange-yellow coloration on the forewing dorsum. In the male genitalia, the valvae are strongly curved, the saccus has an acute tip, and the highly-developed bilobed processes of the vinculum, characteristic of N. neonata, are absent. In the female genitalia, the subgenital plate is simpler than in N. neonata and much less sculptured with microtrichea, and the signum wings are smooth. In other words, size, while mentioned elsewhere, is not considered significant enough distinction, hence WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Please read the entirety of the source. If you aren't familiar with it, the key is the summary of important characteristics for distinguishing species (and saying a key isn't significant violates WP:UNDUE) for the species very clearly states: Forewing predominantly dark brown or gray; male genitalia with large bilobate vincular processes 4× length of sacculus; phallus with a curved tip and a distinct subterminal hook; female genitalia segment 8 extensively sculpted with microtrichea, signum aviform with granulated wings...........N. neonata Forewing orange yellow except costal and terminal areas dark brown; male genitalia vincular processes not longer than sacculus, phallus tip acute with a subtle subterminal thorn; female genitalia segment 8 with hardly any microtrichea, signum aviform with smooth wings............. N. donaldtrumpi sp. n. Ignoring whatever is going on with Trump lately, genitalia comparisons like this are standard for these types of lepidoptera, and the source gives certain characteristics of those significant mention. If this were buried in the text or figure captions it might be a different story, but it's in the key. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC) You really refuse to see my objection. Where do you see me claiming that genitalia are unimportant? I am arguing their size is a relatively unimportant characteristic in lieu of the description of the features of genitalia recognized as critical distinction by the author. Exactly like reducing Trump to "small hands". And of course you cannot ignore what's going on with Trump: we cannot allow wikipedia to be a vehicle for subtle trolling. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC) I've seen your objection, but it is irrelevant and violates policy. At the end of the day, the source states that genital size is a defining feature in the key. We do not engage in original research by personally disputing such statements, nor do we violate further policy by excluding scientific information sources deemed important that people have later happened to makes memes, etc. of. If someone doesn't have the maturity to deal with genital morphology being an identifying feature in insects (and specified as important in for this species), we don't censor that information as that would violate WP:NPOV and even get into pseudoscience territory. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Please no strowman beating. No we don't censor information. And I don't censor information. I am applying WP:UNDUE guideline. I disagree that a mere mention of some minor item makes it the only other "identifying feature" listed in our article. The major distinctive features of the genitals are prominently listed by the author, yet they miss from wikipedia article. Clearly we cannot copy the whole description into wikipedia. That would be copyright violation (or can we?). But if we are summarizing it, we must stick to most important elements. I could have done it myself, but I lack biological expertise to reasonably rephrase the description. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Please WP:FOC instead of referring to strawman. Saying that genital differences directly pointed out in the key cannot be mentioned because of political drama is indeed getting into WP:NOTCENSORED issues with the content. Also keep in mind the application of WP:UNDUE means that such information will be included, not excluded, because the source mentions this in the key. At this point, concerns of genital differences not being important can be dismissed as WP:OR. As for summarizing, that was already done if you read the above conversation. I need to ask, do you know what a species key is? If you're not aware, it's the actual formal tool that is used to distinguish species with defining characteristics. If there's a question on species ID, that's what you ultimately go to for a summary. The key is clear: wing structure and genitalia. This edit already incorporated the latter, and wings could be included too if someone thinks the picture isn't enough. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC) I have no problem with WP:FOC; it is you who invoke WP:CENSORED. I am referring to strawman, because you seem to assume I am against description of genitals. You are repeatedly ignoring my point repeated in each and every statement: I am NOT objecting the description of genitals. I am objecting to listing single cherry-picked parameter of genitals, while the most prominent difference, "the highly-developed bilobed processes of the vinculum, characteristic of N. neonata, are absent" is blissfully ignored. Can you explain why size of genitals is more impotant parameter than vinculum? Yes I know what a species key is. I also know that genitalia is a key, but genitalia size is not. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Again please FOC. The censoring issue is a content issue. A concise summary is that male genital structures are overall larger or more prominent in once species than the other, while the female description is even simpler. It's erroneous to call it cherry-picked when it summarizes the overall genital structures. That's the opposite of cherry-picking. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC) I disagree that size is correct overall summary. Please provide a ref which says so. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC) I'm with Kingofaces43, the size and structuring of the genitalia are the most notable identifying features that separate the two species. The size and structural differences should not have been removed from the article, and if it had been any other species there would not have been this discussion at all. Entomology looks at genitals first, that's life, and the article here should reflect it.--Kevmin § 02:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Structural differences of genitals are not removed from the article. You were distracted by Kingofaces43's false representation of my argument. 19:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC) I concur with the above. Entomologists spend an inordinate amount of time peering at genital papillae, genital cerci, and general genital real estate. This is a standard identification area, and if part of the distinguishing characteristics (as apparently the case here), should form part of the description in the article. - Even if it was an incidental detail, the fact that it is being used to make fun of the Donald should have zero impact on whether it is included or not. This is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in airbrushing science articles to pussyfoot around societal issues. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC) The difference in genitalia was duly noted in the article. What is undue, is that difference is size declared as most prominent difference, which is clearly not, by the opinion of the discoverer. Please provide a reference which says that size is the most prominent distinction in the genitals. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Tired of this preaching to the deaf, despite being a non-expert in biology, I tried to write a correct summary of the distinction, clearly and prominently written in the source, but stubbornly ignored. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC) This was the information that was already covered in the article (again redundant on the yellow scales[1]) and what's currently included is what you were arguing against including for genitalia differences. Please don't say that the rest of us were ignoring these when we were saying this is what should have been (and was) included according to the description and species key from the start. The content you said you were summarizing in these edits is what was already summarized in the article already. Please slow down and pay attention to what people here are saying about the content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC) That's a false statement (about"already covered"). I challenge you to point the textin old versions which lists the major differences, as specifi by the discoverer. Also for the N-th freaking time I am not excluding genitals for Christ sake! Please stop your spreading falsitudes right away. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Again, please slow down. Please look at the very diff I cited. We already mention the yellow scales on the head in the sentence just before where you added a second sentence about it. As for genitals, you've been opposed to including size differences throughout this conversation contrary to the source's key. That has been the issue of contention this whole time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC) For those following this discussion, I've opened a case at AN3 due to these ongoing behavior issues. Elmidae, and Kevmin, I'm pinging you so you're aware I mentioned some of your comments there as background. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC) With respect to the non-experts here, this is something you need to back away from. Genitalia are a key characteristic for many many insects. Some species can only be reliably identified after being euthanised and having their genitalia dissected. Many the morning I have opened my fridge to get some milk and found a row of jars of bees etc all ready to be taken into my ecologist wife's work, drowned and have their knackers chopped up. Even in species where it is not a defining characteristic, it is still a key one for indentification purposes due to the differences in size, shape etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Nobody argues otherwise. You were misled by the wall of text. The article is in a stable state now. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Then in the future, please do not vehemently argue something like genital structure size is not important only to turn around and say no one was arguing that in the first place (contrary to your very clear viewpoint in nearly every single post in the wall). [2][3][4][5][6][7]. Normally, people just say they changed their mind instead of saying they never said something while claiming they are now being misrepresented. If it's not clear to you the errors in what you were saying, please get guidance from someone outside the article talk page as that's getting into behavior territory (and this has taken up enough talk page space). I think the rest of us would like to move on while making sure that doesn't get repeated again so we can keep the article stable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Please cease your belligerent spreading of false accusations. My point was that nitpicking of a single parameter of genitals, their size, and omitting the rest is WP:UNDUE, on par with reducing Trump's physique to "small hands", just like your laborous diffs above show but you still fail to comprehend. After someone else added a bit more detailed ref to genitals I always kept it in my article versions and eventually expanded myself after self-proclaimed bio experts did not move a finger to fix it. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Again, please re-read the above conversation. No one was cherrypicking a single trait and omitting the rest. That has been discussed multiple times on this talk page already in response to you repeating that in that we already discussed the key features of the scales on the head and forewings in text just before the part on genitalia. As also discussed above, we don't want to be too WP:TECHNICAL as this is an encyclopedia, not a journal. We generally don't want to delve too deep into describing specific genital structures as your edit did. Summarizing it simply as just genital structures is the appropriate level of detail for our audience. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Who wears the trousers in the death family? -Roxy the dog. bark 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Dead horses don't wear trousers. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC) There is a traditional song on that subject of sorts having its own WP article: Donald Where's Your Troosers?. But to quote the introducing post "Oh, no. Not again!" we seem to run into the same problem again. Let's hope that other WP article fares better than this one. :-)--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC) N. donaldtrumpi, where's your trousers? Like the proverbial horse, this tread is dead. Someone kilt it. Jonathunder (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Twice first described

How can it be "first described" both in 1998 and 2017 ? 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Neopalpa neonata was first described in 1998 and neopalpa donaldtrumpi in 2017. However the investigated specimens now assigned to donaldtrumpi were earlier falsely assigned to neonata. Note that the genus neopalpa (not species!) to which neonata and donaldtrumpi both belong was first described in 1998.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

temporary semi-protection?

Some people love to shit on anything Trump for some reason, and this is reflected on the Wikipedia articles about him and his franchise, as well. Trump articles are especially prone to brigading and vandalism. Yes, this is just a moth species that now bears his name, but it gets in the line of fire of vandals. Choco-mint flavor (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've requested a short increase in protection. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The "for some reason" part slays me. ...ok, ok. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC on penis size

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is male genitalia size the single most prominent feature and only it must be included in the description of genitalia, the rest being "too technical" and unimportant? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

1. No; see argumenst in the section below. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well, no and yes. The RfC is malformed and driven by a misunderstanding of entomology and hypervigilance about politically-driven nonsense. The version of the description here is appropriate, in that it a) removes redundancies in summarizing the sources, and b) summarizes the technical description of the difference in male genitalia, as was mentioned above several times, including here]. It is really a question of WP:TECHNICAL. The details the OP is demanding, well-intentionedly, but misguidedly, to include, as in this edit are just overly technical. "Smaller" is the plain language summary of those details. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Malformed question as mentioned above. The RfC is also premature as the totality of these questions were already addressed above, but largely not responded to. Here is the species key in question:

1. Forewing predominantly dark brown or gray; male genitalia with large bilobate vincular processes 4× length of sacculus; phallus with a curved tip and a distinct subterminal hook; female genitalia segment 8 extensively sculpted with microtrichea, signum aviform with granulated wings...........N. neonata
2. Forewing orange yellow except costal and terminal areas dark brown; male genitalia vincular processes not longer than sacculus, phallus tip acute with a subtle subterminal thorn; female genitalia segment 8 with hardly any microtrichea, signum aviform with smooth wings............. N. donaldtrumpi sp. n.

Each of the three genital structures mentioned are comparisons of size or prominence between the species (nothing else is described about male genitals) as entomologists do for almost any insect species identification. Being named after someone like a political figure doesn't change that we still describe the insect genitals in this manner per WP:NPOV, WP:PSCI, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Instead of being too WP:TECHNICAL, a concern also on this talk page earlier, we just summarize that the genital structures overall are larger or smaller than the other species rather than trying to describe to a lay audience what each structure is and talking about size differences that way per WP:NOTJOURNAL. All the other prominent identification features aside from genitals are already described in the article, and this edit included all of that along with the concise information about male and female genital differences. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Frankly arguing WP:TECHNICAL and WP:NOTJOURNAL with regard of the genitalia issue only is a bit of the joke given the highly technical language (more less copied lines from the zookeys article) of other parts. If there is any real interest in improving that (rather than using it for politics and wikilawyering), then those interested should open a separate thread for working on translating the zookeys content into common or popular sciences English reducing and/or explaining the technical language rather than endlessly arguing about the genitalia stuff.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's actually the next step I've been intending to work on for the rest of the description so everything else is in line with NOTJOURNAL. That will come soon. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason for a "next step" here, imho that should be the only step. I.e. you and Lem should drop the feud now spreading over several wikipedia pages and close this rfc. Instead open a thread here to work on less technical and readable version of the description section and if you can't get along there either, it might help if you both withdraw from the article and leave the work to others.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Genitalia was the ongoing issue when I first found this page. That's all. It's not hard to work on other areas once a controversial area has settled a bit. Better to do one thing at a time in such cases. I have no qualms about closing the RfC as-is (Staszek or someone uninvolved would have to do that though). Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Malformed opening question Only one person has asserted, quite falsely, that ONLY the genitalia are important and everything else must be ignored. Its hard to agf at this point that there is a simple misunderstanding going on. All the features listed in the diagnostic key are equally important. The version that was present was stable and non-redundant, and not to technical (while avoiding dumbing things to the point of being inaccurate/false).--Kevmin § 06:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Pointless and POINTY RFC It's plain disheartening how everything that's even slightly connected to contentious politics (even if it's at several removes like here) attracts this level of content warring by every means. The current phrasing of the section is by any reasonable standard a useful, accurate and not overly technical summary of the ID key material. I judge it wouldn't be questioned, much less struggled over, even if this was a featured article about a hugely popular species getting 10k hits a day. Instead, because Trump, we get level 2 trench warfare. Can we please treat this moth like any other invertebrate, abide by a descriptive section that any AGF reading would accept as a suitable summary, and move on? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Malformed opening question The question should be answered purely technically, according to the taxonomic description for the species, but as written it can hardly be answered. Of course attributes of the genitalia may be useful taxonomically: if so, they should be described here. But there is no valid reason why this should be limited to the male. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

1. In the source article, the researcher does not list size in "Diagnosis" section, which lists major distinctive features. (This section is cited in full at the beginning of #Smaller male genitalia? talk.) Hence listing only genitalia size while omitting everything else creates a distorted description of the moth, exactly what we see in yellow press: "Scientists name moth with golden hair and a tiny penis after Trump". Yes, size it menitioned in the article, in the detailed description, again, among many other features. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
   • P.S. Contrary to multiply repeated claim in the thread above, size is not mentioned in the "Key to species of Neopalpa" for N. donaldtrumpi either: Forewing orange yellow except costal and terminal areas dark brown; male genitalia vincular processes not longer than sacculus, phallus tip acute with a subtle subterminal thorn; female genitalia segment 8 with hardly any microtrichea, signum aviform with smooth wings.. (I.e., the headline "Scientists name moth with golden hair and a razor-sharp penis after Trump" would be more correct :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
2. @Jytdog: I disagree it is malformed. This is exactly my point: smaller size is not a faithful summary of the difference. The second-hand cite you cited here].= is an upside-down misrepresentation of the source; size feature is from the full description section rather than from the key, the latter being an actual summary of major differences (you know, "key", right?). The "politicall-driven nonsence" is immaterial; comparison to Trump himself is an accidental jokular one. I thought it will be funny, but not in America, as I see. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
3. @Kingofaces43: the statement "are comparisons of size or prominence between the species" is patently false, as seen from your own quote. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

   No, see again the diff I cited, where the source is quoted. You really are fixated and off-base here, but the RfC should make that clear. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

   No, please don't cite wikipedians to me. Please cite the original source which would say that all differences are reduced to size. The wikipedian writes "which reflects the detailed comparison at "Key"" - wrong: the size is but one detail of this "detailed comparison", with no indication it is the most decisive one, i.e., "reflects" is a meaningless choice of words; the correct one is "elaborates". The most decisive features are in the "key to species". Got it? KEY! Tell me that "key" is some unimportant trifle "lay readers" don't need. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

4. re "trying to describe to a lay audience" - why not? Why do you assume that lay audience is as dumb as Trump electorate is claimed to be? Not to say that the readership is not restricted to "lay" audience". Staszek Lem (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
5. I think the article might be best served if all those more or less genitalia fighters here, find some other articles to work on and leave this alone.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

   This is not about genitalia; this is about a basic logic of wikipedia faithfully summarizing the sources. Do you really think this moth is that important to me? It is faith in fellow wikipedians to be capable of logical discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

   Yes and Iäm getting the impression neither you or nor your main opponents seem particularly interested in faithful and readable summary. If you have indeed no interest in the moth, it should be no problem to leave the work to others.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

6. The size and the structure of the genitalia are one of the major features that was used to separate the two species, as is typical for insect species. The version of the page WAS stable and the Admin at WP:editwar noted as much when they looked at the case. Now we have a RFC???--Kevmin § 06:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
   1. Agree. Genitalia are important in many species because they act to prevent inter-species mating, and hence delimit species (speciation); each species therefore tends to have unique genitalia, which is useful for taxonomists. So, of course, it is right and proper to describe them here as in any other species article where they are used as distinguishing features. As to the question, that should be answered purely technically, according to the taxonomic description for the species. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANfSCD

And Now for Something Completely Different: Petition: "Rename the poor moth Neopalpa donaldtrumpi" (www.change.org/p/vazrick-nazari-rename-the-poor-moth-neopalpa-donaldtrumpi) at change.org. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

A petition is not particularly noteworthy for an article about a bug. Jonathunder (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

change.org is a primary source for this piece of info. Unless it will be discussed in mainstream press, it is WP:UNDUE here. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

RELTIME

Time matters. This is not a matter of RECENTISM but rather history. Another way to address this would be give the month and year when the name was given. As I noted in my edit note, the choice to name this after Trump will look really different in 30 years after we know what kind of President Trump turned out to be. The best solution is probably month and date, so I will edit it that way. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, from what I can see in the etymology section, him being president-elect was tangential to the naming,with the hair being the major focus. I editied the article in regards to that point of view, there is no relation more then timing really.--Kevmin § 21:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Who knows how the namer felt about it? Doesn't really matter - they did what they did when they did it. To be hyperbolic, imagine if somebody had named a moth after Gandhi in say 1888 when he was an English barrister, or after Hitler in say 1905 when he was an artist kicking around Vienna? Each of those actions would look very different 30 years later. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You could read the sources (which are mostly regurgitating this press release). "By naming this species after the 45th President of the United States, I hope to bring some public attention to, and interest in, the importance of alpha-taxonomy in better understanding the neglected micro-fauna component of the North American biodiversity." I understand it as partly a publicity stunt and partly an appeal to the vanity of a person who ultimately holds the purse strings for science funding. It's not necessarily an honor (or an insult, which was the spin some sources put on it). There used to be a mention of the namer's motives in the article, that should be restored.

And somebody did name an insect for Hitler, albeit in 1933. I don't know whether the namer admired Hitler or was just sucking up to the powerful. Plantdrew (talk)

That's Anophthalmus hitleri Scheibel, 1937. Might be a cophrophagous beetle - who knows? I'm so tired (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Size doesn't matter

It's how well you source it. Revision deleted the content where it was an issue, erring on the side of caution. Derived too much pleasure from reading it anyway. But lest's stick strictly to the source. No call on whether it belongs in the lead if it is sourceable. See where no consensus was found in above section. No problem if someone thinks I over deleted the thing sn consensus is to restore. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

(Great. Now I've the lyrics from a Rammstein song running through my head.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if revdel was needed since it was content already in the article, but I agree it doesn't belong in the lead too much. We normally leave identifying taxonomic characteristics of that detail in the body as it's usually more technical, and it's just in comparison to another species. As much as I enjoy the humor that almost always comes along with naming a species after someone, the hair thing the more noteworthy aspect for lead content at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Well the big issue was the (unsourced) satire part with regard to the genitalia, so just removed that as it had absolutely no place in the lead or in the article. The rest is probably more a matter of taste. The info about naming doesn't need to be in the lead (and it was already elsewhere in the article), so the wholesale removal was ok as well. On the other hand I see no harm in having that info in the lead as well. In any case the article is so small that, that I see no point in arguing about exact information in the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)