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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
... that donaldtrumpi measures about 10 centimeters (4 inches) and looks like a slimy worm with tentacles? Sources: "10cm amphibian" ; "slippery ... looks like a large worm ... Other characteristics ... include tentacles" 
It's currently at 836 bytes of readable prose and contains a stub tag, so too short in two ways. Can it be expanded? Also, the hook claims need to be in the article, which currently does not include a physical description, so that's an obvious place to start. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, jeesh, next time don't review so fast. We're working on it. EEng 04:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I hadn't considered that some people might follow a nominate-first write-later strategy. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't wait to get the hook out there. EEng 09:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, I think the article's ready for review. EEng 00:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
New enough (at least at nomination time), long enough (barely), looks more like start-class than stub-class, is stable now, and properly sourced. The AfD was closed, as a speedy keep. QPQ long since done. Hook is properly sourced and is, properly for the front page, an accurate description of the new species rather than a veiled political statement (to be clear, the choice of name is a political statement, but based on different characteristics than the ones described). There are two things that still remain before this is ready for DYK, though: (1) easy, remove the stub tag, and (2) reword to fix the close paraphrasing between "particularly susceptible to the impacts of global warming and is therefore in danger of becoming extinct" from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/18/blind-amphibian-named-after-trumps-climate-change-stance and the similar phrasing "particularly susceptible to the effects of global warming and are therefore in danger of becoming extinct" from our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Stub tag removed and close paraphrasing fixed; good to go! —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
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? EEng 04:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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:
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:
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:
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:
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)
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.
┌──────────┘ 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)
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?
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.
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?
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:
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)
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:
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)
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)
I have reopened this nomination based on the concerns expressed by several editors at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. It is clear that the discussion there was not making progress or reaching any conclusions, so this page is the more appropriate forum. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Several alternatives were proposed by EdChem at the other discussion.
I don't particularly like them (because I don't think the main portal of an encyclopaedia should be used to draw attention to such a publicity stunt, and because I believe scientific recognition of a species, rather than the marketing of the hope that this will be achieved, should be the threshhold for creating an article), but I wouldn't object to any of these three. I would have a marginal preference for 1f. Kevin McE (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi EdChem. Easy to miss, but I already expressed a preference for Alt1, with grammar tweak (c) These alts are somewhat better, or something from the lead I rewrote, any of them it puts this rest. Thanks for enquiring, but I'm dismayed at this discussion and am focusing on more interesting topics. I've made a similar point to Kevin McE elsewhere, we should not be part of cynical media campaign. cygnis insignis 12:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Strong support for ALT1h, which is easily the best yet. cygnis insignis 15:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Cynical media campaign? Yikes. Who here represents "The Media"? MPJ-DK (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
You understand I referring to the purchaser of the name, working hand in glove with the media craving clicks? Or did you think this was all about you, again? cygnis insignis 14:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Any of the three aforementioned hooks is more preferable than the original one which was to be posted, though like Kevin, I have a marginal preference for 1f. Even if there is no deliberately conscious effort to impugn President Trump with the original hook, it is not an unreasonable assumption to see how the phrasing can be viewed as an attack - use of emotionally charged words like "slimy" for example juxtaposed with a politician's name - being endorsed by Wikipedia. The alternative hooks at least mitigate the POV issue somewhat by pointing out that it's the proposed name, acknowledging that there is a POV that isn't necessarily Wikipedia's. The story is quirky enough. We don't need to try to enhance the quirkiness by injecting our own subconscious biases.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Any of the ALT1s would be okay with me, they're pretty much all the same as far as information conveying goes. I still like the original hook the best, but I can understand why some may think it's non-neutral.--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not make the point that EnviroBuild is trying to make, without getting into whether we're calling Trump "slimy"? Something like:
(I don't like "purported", but we can't really say that in Wikipedia's voice.) This keeps the interesting point in there while avoiding some of what may be considered editorial opinion on our part. Guettarda (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
So instead of being about a critter the blurb pulls Trump into it instead and uses the front pqge to bash his climate policy? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I question the accuracy of ALT1h. If the name were meant as a reference to Donald Trump's alleged lack of strategic vision on climate change policy, it's an extremely obscure reference. Seriously, who would look at a caecilian named D. donaldtrumpi and think "Wow, President Trump clear lacks strategic vision on climate change!"? EdChem (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm just following the text of the article. If it's a misquote, then the article should never have passed review. Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: - according to the article, that's the name of the species bashes his climate policy. Which is why anyone other than maybe herpetologists would be interested in it at all. Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, you are not following the text of the article. Choosing a name in order to raise awareness of an issue – in other words, making a choice to bring publicity to the issue – and the name being a reference to a purported lack of vision in climate change policy are not the same thing. I do not think that the article text supports this hook as written, nor do I think the hook is actually true. EdChem (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Support ALT1g Honestly I'd drop the "proposed name for" bit, since as of now Dermophis donaldtrumpi is the WP:COMMONNAME ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)); whether it's been published in a peer-reviewed article or not, it's still the name as of now -- it doesn't not have a name. If others want to pursue that possibility I'm happy to, but otherwise there's no need to fuss it. EEng 17:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It is the common name for a description [hack's guess] in a reliable source [clickbait interpretation of press release] of a "species" awaiting formal publication. Which is why I demurred from creating the article when I saw the story, it is just more TrumpCruft. cygnis insignis 19:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course, I'm sure they had their best reporters tousled-haired-junior-high-work-experience-guy on to that story when it broke. I'm not allowed to change my !vote in this debate, if I understand my new pal correctly: Is a flip-flop a thong?. cygnis insignis 20:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
You're really making a fool of yourself. Here are recent stories by the NYT reporter, Julia Jacobs. EEng 23:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Ping worked, show up, said my piece and now wonder if some people think that double standards are twice as good. Really have nothing else to say, just gonna let the consensus build however it builds. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what's given you the idea that Donald Trump in particular is receiving special treatment. If you believe that a DYK hook constructed with the intent of ridiculing a different living person would be tolerated, you're mistaken. —David Levy 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This follows our article's text more closely (without inferring "a purported lack of a strategic vision"). It also conveys that the organism's classification as a species (not its name, which reliable sources attest) is what's proposed. —David Levy 20:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I prefer David Levy's hook above all, because it presents the rationale for the name and also avoids cheap shots at Trump. But I would move the bolded link closer to the front, and reduce the overlinking, like this:
Support ALT1j, with or without linking "Donald Trump".Switching to oppose, as explained below. —06:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Switching again to support for ALT7a. —07:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that shifting the bolded link closer to the beginning improves the hook's flow. —David Levy 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I still prefer 1e, 1f or 1g to anything subsequent, and 1f most among those. Is there any particular reason for 3rd Jan to post this? Kevin McE (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I've seen none provided, apart from its proximity to an earlier date on which it was posited that Donald Trump might visit Wikipedia's main page (which obviously isn't an appropriate rationale). —David Levy 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The lead hook on January 3 marked the birthday of a girl who strikes for climate change, so I put it at the end of that set because this hook also has something to do with climate change. But otherwise, there's no specific date request for this. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
None of the hooks containing the phrase "proposed species" make any sense. It either is, or is not, a species. What has been proposed is the name for the species, assuming that it is in fact recognized to be a species. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, it is a proposed species in as much that it is argued ('proposed') that the sample animals under study are thought to be different enough from others to constitute a new species, but the relevant authorities have not yet pronounced on the matter. That is why I think the entire notion of raising it here, or even having a Wikipedia article, is premature. Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, the organism's recognition as a distinct species is what's currently proposed. To my understanding, the name that it will receive (if and when its recognition as a species occurs) has been determined, so that's merely an element of the overall species proposal, not itself the subject of debate.
"Proposed name" could be taken to mean that the organism has been recognized as a species but not yet given a name, which is essentially the opposite of what's actually occurred. —David Levy 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The sources call it a new species. And is has a name, whether that name has been published in some special place or not. That's it. EEng 23:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The sources call it a new species.
To which sources are you referring? On such matters, scholarly materials (such as peer-reviewed journals) carry greater weight than non-specialist publications (such as newspapers and news broadcasts), which often simplify or omit scientific details and regurgitate press releases.
Who in the world do you think you're talking to? With your almost complete lack of experience writing articles, you're lecturing me about evaluation of sourcing? Are you kidding? You might want to review those links yourself: Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. There being no academic sources on this topic, NYT and the Guardian are perfectly acceptable. We don't have to wait for some academic publishing formality. EEng 00:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
But that's beside the point. I'm here to help improve the hook, not to cast blame for its shortcomings.
With your almost complete lack of experience writing articles, you're lecturing me about evaluation of sourcing?
I'm lecturing no one. I'm simply describing Wikipedia's normal treatment of such subjects – including this one – wherein we don't label something a "species" until it's been designated one through peer review and formal publication.
There being no academic sources on this topic, NYT and the Guardian are perfectly acceptable. We don't have to wait for some academic publishing formality.
To have a Wikipedia article? Agreed. I'm at a loss as to why you're advocating that the DYK hook include a claim not contained therein (one that explicitly contradicts our article, in fact). —David Levy 01:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
we don't label something a "species" until it's been designated one through peer review and formal publication – Uh huh. Quote the P&G to that effect.
a claim not contained therein – what are you talking about?
On the first point, are you requesting the citation of a policy or guideline explicitly stating that "we don't label something a 'species' until it's been designated one through peer review and formal publication" (or words to that effect)?
On the second point, if you aren't asserting that it would be appropriate to state or imply that the organism is a species, I apologize for misunderstanding. —David Levy 04:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
One the first point, yes. Now can you put up or shut up?
On the second point, the hooks I've supported said Dermophis donaldtrumpi is the proposed name for a small, slimy [etc] and that donaldtrumpi measures about 10 cm and looks like a [etc], which neither say nor imply anything about a species. So apology accepted.
On the first point, I doubt that such a thing exists. If Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were to contain explicit documentation of every content issue encountered in the course of editing the encyclopedia and every decision associated therewith – including those applicable to uncommon situations – they would collapse under their own weight.
As noted above, we rely on consensus. That's how the article came to refer to refer to the organism as a "proposed species" that "is yet to be confirmed" – consistent with Wikipedia's conventions in this subject area.
If you're aware of Wikipedia articles to which a different convention has been applied (i.e., articles in which organisms are labeled "species" without qualification, despite a lack of peer review and formal publication), I certainly will reconsider my position on the matter.
On the second point, I'm confused regarding the nature of this argument. What are you contesting? —David Levy 05:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
On the first point, you've offered no evidence at all of Wikipedia's conventions in this subject area other than your saying so.
On the second point, I've contested (successfully) your statement that I've advocating that the DYK hook include a claim not contained in the article.
On the first point, I've explained that you're demanding extraordinary evidence that wouldn't normally exist. That simply isn't how consensus-based editing works. Again, I invite you to point to articles contradicting the convention that I've described.
On the second point, I mean that I'm confused as to the reason behind the argument that began above in the message timestamped 23:48, wherein you stated that "the sources call it a new species." If you weren't citing this as justification to "call it a new species", what were you asserting? —David Levy 06:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
On the first point, the way consensus-based editing works is that if you want to claim there's a consensus, you have to be able to point to something somewhere expressing that consensus. I have no idea about other articles. But I do know we have reliable nonsicientific sources on this species, in this article, and as WP:RS (which you so helpfully injected that into this discussion) says, nonscientific sources are fine.
On the second point, I said that the sources clearly support the statement that this is a species because I got tired of the assertions to the contrary by the taxofanboy official-publication gatekeeper fetishists; but when it comes to discussions of hook content, which is what matters here, I've chosen wording that avoids the question, so I don't have to get into it with said taxofanboy official-publication gatekeeper fetishists.
On a third point, despite being an admin you don't seem know that you can't copy-paste timestamps from page histories into a discussion, because editors see different timestamps in page histories depending on their timezones. This underscores my earlier point about your obvious lack of content experience and, along with linking to P&Gs you apparently don't understand, is the kind of thing one often finds with admins from back in the day when adminship was pretty much anyone's for the asking.
On the first point, the way consensus-based editing works is that if you want to claim there's a consensus, you have to be able to point to something somewhere expressing that consensus.
I'm pointing to Wikipedia's entire body of articles about species and proposed species – including this one. Again, if you're aware of any in which organisms are labeled "species" in the absence of peer review and formal publication, please cite them.
I have no idea about other articles.
So you're blindly contesting my description of a convention applied therein?
But I do know we have reliable nonsicientific sources on this species, in this article,
Agreed. That's why I'm not arguing that the article should be deleted (or even changed).
and as WP:RS (which you so helpfully injected that into this discussion) says, nonscientific sources are fine.
Indeed, they're fine in many contexts. In other contexts, they fall short. The specifics are determined through consensus, which is how the article came to refer to Dermophis donaldtrumpi as a "proposed species".
On the second point, I said that the sources clearly support the statement that this is a species because I got tired of the assertions to the contrary by the taxofanboy official-publication gatekeeper fetishists; but when it comes to discussions of hook content, which is what matters here, I've chosen wording that avoids the question, so I don't have to get into it with said taxofanboy official-publication gatekeeper fetishists.
Name-calling aside, the statement in question was a direct reply to my comment about the hook's wording, so I didn't realize that you were addressing a different matter.
On a third point, despite being an admin you don't seem know that you can't copy-paste timestamps from page histories into a discussion, because editors see different timestamps in page histories depending on their timezones.
I noted the timestamp from your message's signature (hence the wording "above in the message timestamped 23:48"). I didn't even consult the page history, which sometimes varies slightly.
This underscores my earlier point about your obvious lack of content experience and, along with linking to P&Gs you apparently don't understand, is the kind of thing one often finds with admins from back in the day when adminship was pretty much anyone's for the asking.
Heretofore, I've made zero mentions of the fact that I'm an administrator – a point that you've apparently raised for no reason other than to engage in a personal attack. —David Levy 01:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I noted the timestamp from your message's signature – It's almost incredible that you still don't understand that you can't copy timestamps from anywhere, at least not unless you know what you're doing, which you do not -- editors in other timezones see other timestamps. As for the rest, I'll let your comments speak for themselves. <suppresses guffaw> EEng 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Note the timestamp above: "01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)". Now access your preferences to select a different time zone and reload this page. What timestamp do you see?
The time zone setting affects times appearing within the MediaWiki interface – not users' signatures. —David Levy 03:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, there is a "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" gadget that can be enabled separately. If that's what you meant, my apologies. But it doesn't impact the actual timestamp that appears in the edit window, which always reflects what was posted. —David Levy 03:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Good, you're catching on. But what's in the edit window is irrelevant, because your fellow editors don't read your posts in the edit window. To put you out of your misery, if you want to copy a timestamp, you need to copy/paste the whole thing (from the edit window) including the (UTC) bit. Then it will be timezone-adjusted and appear in your post the way it does in the post you copied from. Partly because this is such a lot of trouble, it's almost always better simply supply a diff instead. Keep sharpening your knowledge and you'll be ready to be an admin some day! EEng 04:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand how the gadget functions. I simply wasn't thinking of it at the time. If you believe that this reflects incompetence on my part, that's your prerogative. But there's no need for sarcastic mockery. I welcome constructive criticism, and I'm more than willing to accommodate Wikipedia's myriad gadgets and custom tweaks to the best of my ability. —David Levy 04:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
This brings us full-circle to why I brought up the timestamp-copy point in the first place: if you got out and about in the project and did actual content editing, that would be second nature (not something you'd have to "be thinking of at the time"), as would the actual content of P&Gs you link to.
Listen, it's been a gas, but the matter of the hook is settled and I've got other things to do. I won't be responding further. Toodles! EEng 05:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I focus my limited available time on the areas of the project in which I believe my efforts can go the furthest. I'm sorry that you look down upon these contributions (though I don't see how mindfulness of the time offset gadget's existence correlates with the namespaces in which one's edits are performed).
When I link to policy/guideline pages, it's usually to point to nuanced explanations that are infeasible to summarize in sufficient detail, not to throw down a "THIS IS NOT ALLOWED" hammer. Your apparent impression that I sought to claim that non-scholarly sources are never acceptable in this subject area is mistaken, as I've attempted to convey repeatedly. I linked to a page that doesn't say that because I'm not saying that.
I bid you adieu, in the hope that our next interaction is more collegial and productive. —David Levy 05:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: It is very hard to word this DYK in a sufficiently NPOV manner considering context, and it's not even a published species (or italicized thereof). This is more trouble than its worth and I vote against it.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 02:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I have been asked to clarify - ALT1G, but have no problems with any hook that is similar in content. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
There being three editors supporting ALT1g (MPJ-DK, EdChem, me), I'm pinging the reviewer (David Eppstein) back to approve it, with apologies for the continued inconvenience. EEng 06:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Given the nominator's apparent insistence on using a hook I regard as needlessly vague and misleading (with a stated intent of irritating Donald Trump), I must oppose this nomination in its entirety. Should EEng reconsider and agree to address the relevant concerns, I'll reconsider as well. —David Levy 06:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Switching to support for ALT7a. —07:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh God what happened here. What is it about the mere hint of a mention of a certain ex-pro-wrestling-promoter's name that causes everyone to go bugfuck nuts? Yes, ALT1G is fine, more clear about the name being only provisional at this point, even more difficult to read as a double entendre (but some people when primed will look for one anyway; see "Much Ado About Nothing", end of act II scene 3), and still with enough icky creatures to attract the attention of the 3-year-old in us all (which function, may I point out, is exactly what DYK is supposed to be about). So yes, still good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
David: I assume that you read the full discussion and determined that it points to ALT1G as the consensus-backed hook. Do you have any thoughts regarding the concerns expressed and the alternative options presented in response thereto? —David Levy 07:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want me to express more of my opinions, how about: there's no censor like a self-censor. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
David: Pardon? I'm asking you to outline your evaluation of the discussion (including the portion that occurred after ALT1G was proposed, intended to address issues regarding its wording) and the factors that you took into account when gauging consensus. Apart from your analysis and confirmation of the specific hook that the nominator asked you to approve when pinging you, the only summary that you provided was "Oh God what happened here. What is it about the mere hint of a mention of a certain ex-pro-wrestling-promoter's name that causes everyone to go bugfuck nuts?". The cryptic statement "there's no censor like a self-censor." provides no additional insight, apart from seemingly implying that your personal views played a role in the decision. Pinging Martin, who reopened this nomination in light of serious concerns that led multiple editors to invest significant time on relevant discussion at WP:ERRORS before doing so again above (the aforementioned "go[ing] bugfuck nuts"). —David Levy 22:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Hook was reworked to make it neutral, people chimed in and the original reviewer gave a check mark to the one that seemed to have the most support. Looking at your comments your comments are more about the "proposed species" part, so article content more than anything. DYK is not a place to air your personal feelings about the article content. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing that I've written above pertains to criticism of the article, which already identifies the organism as a "proposed species". I'm inquiring as to the reviewer's evaluation of the discussion and the reasoning behind the determination that ALT1G is the consensus-backed hook. —David Levy 01:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Didn't say you criticized the article though did I? I said your object was that the hook did not include the "Proposed species" part of the article content that you apparently think is a deal breaker for the hook. Does it make the hook any more interesting by pointing out that the subject of the article isn't "official" yet? I don't see it myself, especially to the point where you kick up such a fuss for article content being excluded from the hook. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Didn't say you criticized the article though did I?
You stated that my comments are about "article content more than anything", noting that "DYK is not a place to air [my] personal feelings about the article content."
I'm not airing my feelings about the article content. I'm commenting on proposed DYK hooks, which incorporate article content by design. This is a place for that, so I'm at a loss as to what behavior you've deemed misplaced.
I said your object was that the hook did not include the "Proposed species" part of the article content that you apparently think is a deal breaker for the hook.
That's an element that I believe can be improved upon. Of far greater concern is the omission of the name's origins (i.e., why the organism has been dubbed "Dermophis donaldtrumpi"). —David Levy 03:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
You just don't seem to be getting it: a hook is a tidbit that entices the reader. It's not the article, the article lead, or the article's opening sentence. It leaves stuff out because it's supposed to. No doubt readers will want to know why this little fella was named for Trump -- great! They'll click to find out. That's the idea. EEng 04:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm familiar with DYK's format (and rarely object to such formulations). I find this particular ambiguity problematic because it relates to an unflattering comparison to a living person. (To be clear, I'm referring to the sentiment that EnviroBuild seeks to evoke.) —David Levy 04:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Since David Levy has asked for a more detailed explanation of why I don't think much of his contributions to this nomination, and since he apparently finds my attempts at saving him from public ridicule to be too veiled, here it is. He objects to the hook on the basis that it was "constructed with the intent of ridiculing a different living person", a basis that is completely false. It may be true that the species name was chosen with that intent, but the apparent consensus hook ALT1G itself does no such thing. In fact, it was wordsmithed here with exactly the opposite intent, to erase any hint of criticism or ridicule of the deserving and focus purely on the creature. The hook does not mention any living person by name at all. It also does not make the apparently-controversial claim that this is a new species nor that the chosen name will become the official name for that supposed new species. It merely states the proposed name and describes the creature that the name has been proposed for, in a somewhat-colorful way as is completely proper and appropriate for DYK, where making things dry as dust and boring as eternity are exactly the opposite of what we should be trying to do. Having an otherwise-notable subject of an article (not the hook, the article itself) be associated with ridicule of a public figure is a non-issue with respect to inclusion in the encyclopedia (see WP:NOTCENSORED) and there is no language in the DYK rules or elsewhere that we should blackball or censor any mention of such articles from the front page. Therefore, there is no valid objection to ALT1G, just misguided noise about things that are in the imagination of the reader rather than in the actual proposed hook. David Levy may object to my characterization of his contributions here but tough. With a hook that is both within rules and attention-catching (if it weren't attention-catching, it wouldn't be within the rules), and with no valid objection, this nomination is still good to go with ALT1G. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Since David Levy has asked for a more detailed explanation of why I don't think much of his contributions to this nomination,
I requested a more detailed explanation of how you gauged consensus (in particular, that it pointed to the specific hook that you've approved, as opposed to other suggestions). Certainly, that entails weighing the relative strengths of the arguments presented, but there's no need to belittle the editors behind them. I'm taken aback by your statement that you "don't think much of my contributions to this nomination", however unpersuasive you might find my reasoning to be. I was invited to participate in this discussion, and I've done so in good faith.
and since he apparently finds my attempts at saving him from public ridicule to be too veiled, here it is.
In what scenario does an objective analysis of a discussion entail "public ridicule"? When did this become about me? Multiple editors suggested hooks or otherwise contributed to the effort.
He objects to the hook on the basis that it was "constructed with the intent of ridiculing a different living person", a basis that is completely false.
You've quoted a statement made in a different, hypothetical context (in response to an assertion, carried over from WP:ERRORS, that the criticisms exist solely because of the connection to Donald Trump).
It may be true that the species name was chosen with that intent, but the apparent consensus hook ALT1G itself does no such thing. In fact, it was wordsmithed here with exactly the opposite intent, to erase any hint of criticism or ridicule of the deserving and focus purely on the creature.
I agree, wholeheartedly, that EdChem thoughtfully crafted the hook's wording with precisely that intent. Subsequently, others (myself included) suggested further improvements, seeking to address issues that most assuredly weren't intentional on EdChem's part.
My comments regarding an intent to mock Donald Trump have nothing to do with EdChem's participation. They reflect the nominator's expressed goal of "best [showcasing] this wonderful honor", preferably on a day when Trump might see the main page.
The hook does not mention any living person by name at all.
The allusion to Donald Trump is obvious (and has been acknowledged by the nominator repeatedly).
It also does not make the apparently-controversial claim that this is a new species nor that the chosen name will become the official name for that supposed new species.
Agreed. It's merely ambiguous, which allows for a higher likelihood of misunderstanding.
It merely states the proposed name and describes the creature that the name has been proposed for, in a somewhat-colorful way as is completely proper and appropriate for DYK,
There's nothing inherently wrong with the description itself. The objections pertain its presentation in isolation (i.e., without conveying the reason behind the proposed designation). In the absence of that essential context, the hook can come across as Wikipedia gleefully taking part in the derision (as opposed to merely documenting it). To reiterate, I'm aware that this is not EdChem's intent.
Having an otherwise-notable subject of an article (not the hook, the article itself) be associated with ridicule of a public figure is a non-issue with respect to inclusion in the encyclopedia (see WP:NOTCENSORED) and there is no language in the DYK rules or elsewhere that we should blackball or censor any mention of such articles from the front page.
Agreed. That's why I supported hooks identifying the ridicule's origins. And when I politely requested an explanation of the reasoning behind your decision to approve a different hook (without even suggesting that you were incorrect to do so), I received the response above. —David Levy 02:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
My god, are you paid by the word? Yoninah, since this is a reopened nom, it's not on the Needs Approval page and not on the Approved page either. Do remember what to do to return it to the Approved page, or do you want to just send it straight to prep again? EEng 03:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
"Honestly, I think the best approach is to not get over-analytical about this, and hopefully the actual paper will come out soon. If it weren't for people foolishly making press releases and such in advance of actually doing the science, and Wikipedians pouncing on things that aren't ready for prime time (notability preceding verifiability), this would be a non-issue. Keep it simple, direct would-be editors to the talk page here, and hopefully it'll all blow over when something scientific is in print." — Dyanega (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2019 at the talk page.
You created this situation, and tendentiously pursued it with an inappropriate and distasteful air of entitlement, hounding anyone who got in the way of your prize; your fanboys set to edit-warring to create further disruption a la "freeze peach!". You contributed little to the content, instead ransoming the community work to salvage the content and hone the unfixable hook for your puerile DYK. What a waste of time, resources and patience this has been. Good joke mate! cygnis insignis 06:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I do the best I can with the material available. Since you're worried about who contributed how much, it turns out I contributed  26% of the article (second only to the article's creator), while you contributed 1.6%. But hey – who's counting? EEng 07:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Sarcasm and deflection, you are grandstanding and walking a line between court jester and thug in my short experience of your contributions. Asserting a right to insult others in defence of a weak position is grotesque, it is overtly self serving and disruptive. You don't care about the content of the article, I'm embarrassed to have contributed anything to it but for the care with which I did so. Consider how much you invested in something temporal, the hook, the only permanent change will be another credit for a DYK. While you have been investing in this, I have been adding verifiable content from reliable sources to articles that are incontrovertibly important and substantive; have you analysed those contributions for the same time period? I'm going suggest you go into the room of mirrors and have a think about this discussion. I paused from commenting, your reactions are immediate and give little toward any resolution. One option is to withdraw the nomination, you are clearly not acting to improve the encyclopaedia in this instance. cygnis insignis 07:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Look, you said I "contributed little to the content" of this article, so I looked it up and it turns out I literally contibuted 15X as much as you. I won't disagree that this discussion has, as you say, been largely "a waste of time, resources and patience"; given how you feel it seems that your time, in particular, might have been better invested elsewhere. EEng 08:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this has gone on long enough now. We have well over 90k of text on this nomination and discussion is degenerating rapidly. Hook has been approved, and it looks like a reasonable call from my perspective. No doubt there is a route to appeal this, but I would strongly recommend not pursuing this further. Shall we all get on with something else now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm against its inclusion still after all the discussion for the same reasons I stated above which were ignored.--Sigehelmus (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Your whinings above about "It is very hard to word this"..."This is more trouble than its worth" are your only contributions to this debate. They are not constructive, are not specific enough to be actionable, and do not constitute valid reasons to block a DYK nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
There are already several species named after the president, I don't see what makes this amphibian particularly notable for a DYK, and how it was intended for anything but a snarky "sock-it-to-him" type of gesture. Kind of antithetical to what Wikipedia stands for. Very unprofessional!--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 01:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I can set your mind at ease on that score: Wikipedia editors aren't professionals. And there's no such thing as being "notable for DYK". Any new article is eligible. EEng 01:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I meant notable as in "proper", sorry. What interest or purpose does this DYK serve in the spirit of the site? It seems a lot different than a fact purely for the service of education, like a DYK how Basil I died from a fever after getting his belt caught in the antlers of a deer then dragged along for 16 miles.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 01:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK is supposed to showcase facts the reader will find new and interesting. Every schoolchild knows about Basil I getting his belt caught. It's like Henry VIII having six wives or Winston Churchill being a cross-dresser -- no one would click on well-known facts like those. EEng 02:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
The worst part is I can't tell if you're being ironic, because I know a lot of people who don't even know Henry VIII had six wives or broke off from Rome...anyway, I still oppose this DYK.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 02:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose Henry VIII is somewhat obscure. But for sure everyone knows about Basil I's belt and Winston Churchill being a cross-dresser. EEng 02:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Now this was an invigorating and satisfying historical discussion. Have a good day. Oppose per above.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 02:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Since this is not something you can "veto" nor does it require 100% agreement asserting your oppinion as the only that matters is not appropriate so I will restore the tick given above. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Can you please tell me how this DYK nomination is not politically-charged? WP:SPADE--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 02:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Considering I said nothing about politics (unless you count the word "veto") I really don' know how that is relevant to my comment that you're not in a position to veto a hook on your own. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
To be as simple and clear as possible: What makes this DYK proper and fit for display? Is it NPOV, both explicitly and implicitly, or not?--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
You need it to be simple and clear? sure 1) I did not comment on the "properness" of the hook 2) That it is NPOV is your opinion 3) the entirty of my point is on process. You, one single, solitary wikipedian cannot just impose your will on this and kick it out as denied. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I never intended to kick it out, I was just raising necessary questions alongside my own symbolic vote. I already know it's likely to pass, I just felt compelled to mention these concerns about the standard quality that DYKs ought to strive for.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
So you do know enough about the process to find the "DYK No" symbol, problem is that putting that symbol on the nomination has implications for the automated process, it is read as "denied" and will archive the nom at some point. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, actually I judt copied it from a toolbar. Sorry about that, thought it was just a vote--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
After giving this considerable thought, and being convinced that most of the motivations behind this nom are POV-oriented, I will also oppose all proposed hooks. WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Since it's buried in continued nattering, and for benefit of whatever poor prep builder stumbles in here, the approved hook is ALT1G. EEng 15:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Your characterization of good-faith input as "nattering" illustrates a major part of the problem. Even attempts to work with you on improving the hook have been met with dismissive, sarcastic ridicule and personal attacks, simply because you disagree with others' ideas. No matter how wrong you regard your fellow editors to be, you aren't entitled to belittle them and quash their contributions. —David Levy 18:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
David Levy, I certainly understand why they might have presumed a feeling of entitlement, past good works and a fanbase following their no-nonsense and humorous circumvention of other forms of disruption that damage content. That's my take, a guess based on scant information, although this is not the first time a considered query has resulted in them painting a target on me. I don't like having my integrity questioned either, so recall how thin-skinned most of us are. cygnis insignis 19:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
oppose, in support of several others who took the time to point out the shortcomings of this nomination, and the timesink and disruption it induced for a temporal sentence. If DYK has merit, this sort of thing is not an example, I think there is good evidence in the arrogant bluster and pretence at legitimate contribution that the proponents are seeking profit from a volunteered avocation, that is, willing to wikilawyer and make dishonest assertions about their motives, directly contradicted by earlier statements and generally being ducks and dicks. This simple thing to do at any stage was to recognise the net loss to the community and withdraw, not double down and insult anyone who got in the way. Some fallout has been trolling of users talk (well, me at least) with statements that 'you have proven I don't have to AGF' when the factional edit warrior with a crush on someone had made that assertion at the outset and invoked NOTCENSORED. These things happen, but what has been gained, sweet fa afaik … cygnis insignis 15:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be under the misapprehension that DYK is a vote on whether we like the subject, or something you can filibuster by stating your dislike of the topic over and over at length without addressing any of the DYK rules and just saying the same things repeatedly and redundantly ad nauseum and then after all that pointing to the length of the debate as a reason for blocking the nomination. In fact, the process is: The nominator proposes an article with a hook, a reviewer (me!) checks that all the DYK rules are satisfied for one or more of the hooks, and then someone else (one of the DYK regulars) prepares a slate of hooks often (but not always) using the hook chosen by the reviewer. It is not a debate. So your and Levy's long-winded tirades are just obstructionism, not helpful contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK's rules don't supersede those of Wikipedia, including our responsibility to present information in a neutral manner. This encompasses not only ensuring that it's verifiable, but avoiding undo prominence of placement (such as purposely highlighting facts not because of their core relevance to the subject, but because they evoke unflattering associations with a living person – even if it was someone else's idea to do so). Irrespective of whether such an issue exists in this instance, I find your characterization of sincere, policy-based concerns and efforts to address them as "long-winded tirades" and "obstructionism" highly troubling. Wikipedia is a project in which content is written, revised, replaced and removed through collaboration and good-faith discussion. DYK is part of this project, not an autonomous entity to which Wikipedia's fundamental principles don't apply. DYK's internal process is one of many means to the end of improving Wikipedia, not an end in and of itself. It's a local implementation of site-wide practices, not a standalone replacement therefor. —David Levy 22:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Again your problem seems to be more about the article than anything else, this is not the appropriate venue for that. If the name had been "ImaginasaurusRegina" and stated the same facs you would not have objected for a second, so don' pretend you aren't pushing a POV yourself. And yes "Imagina" is a real person, good friend of mine. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Again your problem seems to be more about the article than anything else, this is not the appropriate venue for that. I've explained repeatedly that my objections are unrelated to the article and its content. If the name had been "ImaginasaurusRegina" and stated the same facs you would not have objected for a second, so don' pretend you aren't pushing a POV yourself. I take great exception to that unfounded accusation. As I've stated in no uncertain terms, I would take the same position irrespective of the living person involved. My first post on the subject (at WP:ERRORS) included the following statement:
My personal opinion of Donald Trump notwithstanding, I find this hook highly problematic.
That was my attempt to avoid fueling a political argument, which isn't germane to the matter at hand. But I'd be remiss to allow any suggestion that I'm biased in Trump's favor to stand unchallenged. For the record, I take great disgust and embarrassment in the fact that he's my country's president. My only objection to the proposed species classification is that the organism isn't even more repulsive and doesn't routinely deceive others of its kind to further the interests of foreign caecilians. All of that, of course, is utterly irrelevant. No matter how strongly I despise someone, I unreservedly oppose any attempt to insert non-neutral coverage related to him/her – even a wink-wink-nudge-nudge allusion – into Wikipedia. —David Levy 23:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, there's a lot of ink on this page, and I've read some of it while waiting for this discussion to wind down (which it hasn't). I'm wondering why you all don't move away from the small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles piped link and just state a fact from the article? Aside from one editor's contention that the whole naming process was a publicity stunt, the article is well sourced. What do you think about:
I see that goes back to ALT1i and ALT1j. Not sure why we're still going on here. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I would support that wording (as I did your previous suggestion), provided that we can move beyond the out-of-hand rejection of any hook that fails to convey out-of-context derogatory allusions to Donald Trump (which is "why we're still going on here"). —David Levy 00:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, the simple answer is that you suggestion isn't nearly as hooky as the hook already approved, ALT1g. In the past we've run
... that Hillary's portrait is now being printed on the $5 bill?
A small number of editors made fools of themselves trying, unsuccessfully, to block the last of those three (but, for some reason, not the first two). People have got to get over this. Hooks are supposed to be hooky. If someone names a wormy animal after Obama, we'll run that too.
I appreciate your good intentions but there isn't a do-over because editors X, Y, and Z keep repeating their dislike of the outcome again and again. And again. And again and again and again. And again and again and again and again and again and again.
I didn't make the connection until just now, and there's no way to know for sure, but it may not be a coincidence that I received a death threat on my user page  soon after making this nomination. I submit that that's the best argument of all for proceeding with the approved hook and not some fraidy-cat anodyne substitute. EEng 7:29 pm, Today (UTC−5)
(ec)@EEng: thank you. But I am willing to promote something even over a few editors' objections. DYK is built on consensus. I'd just like to note that the 3 hooks you just mentioned were all April Fools hooks. This one is not, as far as I understand. Yoninah (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
You're right about the April Fools, but that's because those three hooks are not literally true on their face (at least given the way a typical reader would be expected to interpret the surname-only references), which is only allowed on April 1; this one is literally true on its face. But none of that affects the main point, which is that one could, if one was dedicated to the task, feign offense at any of them as impugning the good name of living persons. Luckily wiser heads prevailed. EEng 01:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hooks that are literally true but purposely allude to something else are, indeed, fun and "hooky". And in most cases, that "something else" isn't an unflattering description of a living person. This is not among most cases.
That you cited three hooks from April Fools' Day of last year (or "in the past", as you described it) is rather telling.
Yes, those hooks go far beyond this one (reflecting the special allowances made for April Fools' Day). That's why they have no place in this discussion, unless you're proposing that this hook be held for 2019's April Fools' Day. —David Levy 02:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I liked your reword of the DYK. However, I still believe this is more trouble than any interest or fun it could entertain to potential readers. At this point I would ask cui bono as far as the usefulness of this nom as opposed to its controversial walking on eggshells.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 06:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't make the connection until just now, and there's no way to know for sure, but it may not be a coincidence that I received a death threat on my user page  soon after making this nomination. I submit that that's the best argument of all for proceeding with the approved hook and not some fraidy-cat anodyne substitute.
Such conduct must not influence Wikipedia's encyclopedic content in any way. If the next death threat is made against me for opposing your preferred hook, that mustn't be considered either.
Again, ALT1G has been approved. In all the walls of text above, I see no policy-grounded argument for not using this one, no consensus for the more new proposed hooks (which appear to be attempting to suck as much interest out of the hook as possible in the hope that everyone will just ignore its dessicated corpse laying on the ground at their feet), and no reason to pay attention to the small number of really shouty people who insist that because they are shouting so loud the only consensus can be agreement with their shouting. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus for using ALT1G, nor do I see a consensus against it. I see no consensus on that point. This is because I've taken the above discussion seriously instead of deeming myself unequivocally correct, declaring that the matter isn't up for debate, belittling everyone with whom I disagree and accusing them of actively seeking to reduce Wikipedia's quality (because their preferred content's inferiority is blindingly obvious, so there can be no other rational explanation). —David Levy 01:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
At this point, I think your persistent Wikilawyering, and your persistent failure to understand how DYK hooks are chosen despite it already being explained to you here (hint: it does not involve a consensus of bystanders) rises to the level of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and may warrant attention at the Wikipedia drama boards. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I "hear" you, David. I just "heard" you dismiss good-faith discussion participants – some of whom were explicitly invited to share our input here – as "bystanders".
Meanwhile, the opinions of editors supporting your preferred hook form a "consensus". Apparently, we're "bystanders" if we disagree with you.
If you believe that my expression of alarm (or anything else that I've done) constitutes an unacceptable disruption, feel free to raise the matter on the "drama boards". —David Levy 02:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
David Eppstein and EEng, Wikipedia already has enough accusations of bias and low standards. What benefit could this DYK possibly provide with its premise, much less its hook? Realistically though maybe a few hundred people will read the thing more than a passing glance if I must estimate, but it still begs the question of how and why is this worth displaying on the main page as anything other than a political gesture. "Haha president like worm".--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 05:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I understand "how DYK hooks are chosen", and per the discussion above by DYK regulars, this hook would be ready for the main page according to DYK standards. But I am concerned by the fact that numerous non-DYK regulars have shown up to argue against the premise of the article as well as the hook. If I go ahead and promote ALT1g per to the main page, I fear that more readers will come out of the closet, send it to ERRORS, and have it pulled from the main page. Yoninah (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, they can try. If you agree that the hook complies with the rules and been properly approved, please promote it as you would any other hook. EEng 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
edit summary: "though similar censorship efforts have not ended well for their proponents" Brr, chilling, with one liners like that you could be … spiderman on the reichstag? cygnis insignis 16:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah I certainly recognize you as one of the regulars here and expect you are much more familiar with the details of the process than I. What concerns me is the fact that several people here appear to be attempting to override that process and substitute WP:IDONTLIKEIT in its place. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
We're attempting to participate in the process. Some of us have cited serious policy concerns. Disagreement with our arguments ≠ evidence of subversion. Characterizing us (including those who proposed hooks) as "bystanders" engaged in "obstructionism" is an argumentum ergo decedo. —David Levy 01:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason why simply going with "... that Dermophis donaldtrumpi has been proposed as the binomial name for a new species of caecilian?" (i.e. ALT4 but without the climate change part) is not an option? That's a neutrally worded hook, accurate, mentioned in the article, and does not delve into any sort of politics (at least that hook itself does). Personally species being named after famous people are by themselves interesting facts. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there's a reason. It violates the DYK rules. Specifically, the rule that "When you write the hook, please make it 'hooky', that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article." This sort of dry factual boring text is fine (in fact preferred) for article content, but it is not hooky. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
And I would add that the newest proposal, which can be read as "Another honor for Donald Trump!" is as political as any other. EEng 01:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I can definitely see that reading of the new proposal. It's a good argument for why the proposal is not actually any more neutral than the others. But just as I don't see the others as being too political to use, I also don't see this as a strong argument against this one. The fact that, to me, it's much more boring, seems more relevant and more based on the DYK rules. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
So by that logic, a hook that goes something like "... that Genusname obamasis is the proposed name for a species of animal" is also political because of the mention of Obama? And I don't see how my proposal is "dry". The average reader would likely find it interesting that a new species was named after a celebrity. If said person was, say for example Kim Kardashian or LeBron James instead of a politician, that aspect would still stand. The hook as proposed doesn't even have any political overtones to it: all it says is that a new species of caecilian (a topic that could also be introduced to readers) has been proposed to be named after Donald Trump. That's it. Nothing about opposition or support, nothing about Trump's policies and reactions to them, only presenting a very simple fact. And naming species after politicians or celebrities isn't exactly uncommon: we even have an article on that very topic. Finally, such wording could actually make readers actually click the article. They'd ask "why?" instead of being outright told that it was a reaction to Trump's policies. In that sense, it *is* hooky. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If you think spinning this as "interesting that something was named after a celebrity" makes this non-political, you're fooling someone. Likely yourself. And yes, changing Trump's name to Obama's would not change how political it is. But as I've said, I don't think it's too political, I just think that (species is named after someone) is something that happens extremely often and therefore is boring. There's also an inconsistency between the positions expressed somewhere above that (all caecilian's are slimy and tentacled, so we shouldn't bother describing them), (we should avoid calling out Trump himself by name in the hook because it ties him to something slimy and tentacled), and (it's more neutral to tie Trump by name to caecilians than to avoid mentioning his name but describe this caecilian as slimy and tentacled). But maybe it's not the case that all three positions were held by a single person. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK is mainly for the readers. What may be interesting to nominators or reviewers may not end up so for laymen, and vice-versa. And the objection to the proposed hook seems contradictory considering you have no problems with ALT1G, which is basically the same thing except replacing the term "caecilian" with "small, slimy, worm-like amphibian with tentacles". While that hook is accurate, even if you ignore the possible political connotations, at the very least that extra wording feels so unnecessary when a link to a detailed article on caecilians better serves this purpose (plus it actually introduced the word "caecilian", which I'm sure most people aren't familiar with). Essentially, I don't understand how you can object to ALT4 because it's "not unusual" or "not hooky", but not to the similar ALT1G which basically has the same structure. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
"Did you know ... that some name was just proposed for some thing?" also basically has the same structure; presumably you'll agree that's lacking in the pizzazz department. Hookiness is all in the details. David, can you repeat the tick? At some point someone will promote the approved hook in the usual way. EEng 02:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest not. There are credible objections to the proposed hook and while it's not unanimous, there does seem to be some consensus that we shouldn't ALT1G or any of the other hooks involving the "worm-like" wording. Considering the discussion that's happened here and the going back-and-forth between ticking and unticking, perhaps the best option here would be for a currently uninvolved editor to make a final decision (i.e. those who are already involved should not tick). At the rate things are going, this nomination is going nowhere and editors are just arguing in circles. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
So some hooks lack creativity, therefore all must? EEng 02:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
There's been no unticking, simply the tick's been repeated several time so a prep builder can find it without having to search through the walls of text. I'm glad you see a place for a final decision, because that final decision has been already made, by an uninvolved reviewer. There's no provision for a do-over just because a few editors keep filibustering. EEng 02:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It is not a final decision, there have been several objections, such as those by David Levy, Yoninah, Sıgehelmus, and myself, among others. It cannot be approved unless these editors vacate their opposition to the hook. And that is not the point I was making (since "lacking creativity" is a subjective matter), the point was merely that similar hooks without extra detail have been proposed and accepted in the past. I am aware of WP:OSE, all I'm trying to say is that there is precedent. With that said, reading through this discussion again, considering the objection to ALT4 or anything other than ALT1G, even though alternatives were proposed in the spirit of hoping to reach a compromise, I'm starting to wonder if the objection here is less of blandness but more of a desire to include the "small, slimy, worm-like" wording. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The nominator's explicit acknowledgement of an intent to "best showcase this wonderful honor" (preferably on a day when Trump might see the main page) leaves little room for speculation to the contrary. —David Levy 03:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
You really are a paranoid broken record. Case in point: preferably on a day when Trump might see the main page – I suggested that day because "Greta" had already be prepped for that set . Get a grip. EEng 04:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
That was the January 3 set. I was referring to your statement that "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." —David Levy 04:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
You honestly think I was seriously proposing we calculate when Trump would be home to surf the net? EEng 04:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
You didn't write anything nearly that specific, even in jest (and I don't mean to imply that you did). You simply mentioned a preferred outcome and a time frame in which it may have been more likely to occur. Clearly, you weren't proposing an extraordinary plan of action. —David Levy 06:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
At what point, in your view, does a user cross over from "uninvolved" to "involved"? Strictly when expressing an opinion before performing a review or promotion (and otherwise, anything goes)? —David Levy 03:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The fact that, to me, it's much more boring, seems more relevant and more based on the DYK rules.
And you believe that it's appropriate to base your review on your own subjective opinion instead of an objective analysis of other editors' opinions. —David Levy 03:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Once again to help prep builders, the reviewer's hook approval is at #approved3. EEng 02:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm rather disappointed that this is still going on. The topic is obviously political, and there's no way to get around that. There's no issue with presenting a political topic; it becomes a problem if we throw Wikipedia's voice behind a point of view that isn't also shared by the preponderance of reliable sources. For that reason, a joke about Donald Trump being small and slimy isn't going to make it to the main page (yes, I know we don't actually say that, but it's implied, and that's the only reason it's funny). EEng, in the interests of putting a stop to this time sink, I think you need to accept that. There's still ways to convey the intention behind the name; I think David Levy's suggestion (ALT1i) has merit, it just needs to be tweaked to fix the proposed species vs proposed name issue. Vanamonde (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
... that the proposed name for a newly-discovered species of caecilian, Dermophis donaldtrumpi, was suggested in order to raise awareness of Donald Trump's policies on climate change?
The article outright states that it's a caecilian and not a "worm-like amphibian", don't really understand why we can't just go with simply "caecilian". Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 03:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Further tweaking (to trim the length slightly, bring the bold link closer to the beginning, and avoid implying that the species classification has been established formally):
Narutolovehinata5, thank you for bringing a temperate, caring voice to this fuss. You and David Levy have provided valuable balance to what is obviously a politically charged nomination. Although his latest idea may garner accusations of being "bland" in its hook or something, that's a worthy sacrifice for the spirit of the site. I still think this entire premise isn't worth it and should be scrapped - while not contingent, it would provide legitimacy to this if it were an actual published species and not just essentially a political gesture - but if it must be passed both of you are on the right path.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm disappointed this discussion's still going on too. If the concern is the point of view ... shared by the preponderance of reliable sources, then the discussion should have been over long ago:
"Blind, worm-like amphibian named after Donald Trump". SFGate.
"Blind creature that buries head in sand named after Donald Trump". The Guardian.
"Business mocks Donald Trump by naming a 'blind,' wormlike animal after him". USA TODAY.
"Blind amphibian that buries head in sand named after Trump". The Hill.
"Blind amphibian that loves burrowing head in sand is named after DONALD TRUMP". Daily Mirror.
"A blind, wormlike amphibian that burrows underground has been named after Donald Trump". Washington Post
The intent isn't to convey the intention behind the name, it's to get people to click. I openly admit that, as Naruto suggests, there's a desire to include the "small, slimy, worm-like" wording, because that's what makes it hooky. We wouldn't be applying this heightened level of scrutiny for any other subject, and we should not be doing so here here.
However, in the spirit of compromise I'll be happy with the following very straightforward statement:
Regardless on our personal opinions on Trump or any other politicians, the above attitude expressed is simply unacceptable. Whatever happened to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? Trump is still a politician, and even if many editors here are not fans of him (in the spirit of transparency, this includes me), editorially he should not be treated differently just because he's Trump. We're not allowed to write a hook that pretty much says (if indirectly) "Trump sucks", because NPOV is a central part of not just Wikipedia but DYK itself. The attitude above in insisting on the worm wording accounts to essentially systemic bias and a clear violation of our policies and guidelines. With that said, ALT5 is a very boring hook and actually does lack "pizzaz". Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 03:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you hinata for mentioning systemic bias. It is often forgotten that a good portion of Trump's base support, blue-collar workers, are discouraged from becoming editors because of physical, practical reasons that they don't have a good chance to become involved with the free time and sitting necessary to become a real Wikipedian. I am not a political person, my health can't handle such stress, but I felt it was worthy to point that out. Most active editors have luxuries in life that let them be so, at least relatively, and that includes me.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 04:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that giving a high-profile name to a creature that could soon not even exist is quite hooky. EEng 04:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 04:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If the concern is the "point of view ... shared by the preponderance of reliable sources", then the discussion should have been over long ago
Again, the primary criticism has nothing to do with factual accuracy. It's about undue prominence of placement. When something is purposely inflammatory (to be clear, I'm referring to a third party's intent, not to anything occurring at Wikipedia), presenting this information out of context isn't merely "hooky".
We wouldn't be applying this heightened level of scrutiny for any other subject, and we should not be doing so here here.
As I've noted, I would apply the same level of scrutiny if a different living person were involved instead of Donald Trump. On a personal level, I'm more worried about offending the caecilians. Our personal feelings about Trump are immaterial. —David Levy 04:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 was concerned that we not throw Wikipedia's voice behind a point of view that isn't also shared by the preponderance of reliable sources – I was simply showing that the hook very much reflected the preponderance (to say the least) of sources. Any objection to ALT5? EEng 05:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 was concerned that we not "throw Wikipedia's voice behind a point of view that isn't also shared by the preponderance of reliable sources" – I was simply showing that the hook very much reflected the preponderance (to say the least) of sources.
There's no dispute that those sources reported the information in question. But they also reported other details that provided essential context.
I realize that ambiguity can help to make a hook more "hooky", but derogatory commentary on a living person (again referring to the aforementioned third party's intent) is an atypical and non-trivial complication.
Any objection to ALT5?
In my view, the Trump joke overpowers the meaningful fact. The organism literally is vulnerable to extinction, but this statement in isolation is more likely to come across as a dig about Trump's presidency (particularly given its lack of applicability to this caecilian in particular).
Can we try to make the wording "hooky" and provide sufficient context to avoid fueling an inference that Wikipedia endorses the unflattering sentiment? How about:
ALTXX ... that a proposed species of caecilian – a nearly-blind, serpentine amphibian – has been named Dermophis donaldtrumpi to raise awareness of Donald Trump's policies on climate change?
That description of caecilians comes straight from the article's lead. It's colorful but not sensationalistic, and the commentary clearly falls outside of Wikipedia's voice. —David Levy 06:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
You're hiding the reason Trump's policies were chosen for awareness-raising. Also, seven sources use the term wormlike and only one serpentine (and that same source uses wormlike as well). How about
ALT6 ... that the man who proposed naming a nearly-blind, wormlike amphibian Dermophis donaldtrumpi did so because he sees Donald Trump as "capable of seeing the world only in black and white"?
David Levy and EEng: any hooks which imply any vermin or serpent like traits to Trump in subtext, irrespective of anyone's opinion thereof, violate both NPOV and BLP heinously. Many people will know what the DYK is "getting at" here, let's be real.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 06:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that a hook mentioning a third party's negative opinion of Trump – clearly framed as such, with no implication of endorsement on Wikipedia's part – is inherently non-neutral. —David Levy 07:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Sigehelmus) Have we moved on to testing how political we can make the hooks and still be acceptable? I'm not convinced that's a good direction to take. Also, is "Donald Trump's policies on climate change" a non-empty set? Doesn't that phrase implicitly assume that Trump agrees to the existence of climate change and the need for policies on it? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
That's a great point. We shouldn't be putting ideas, such as that Trump has policies, in Wikipedia's voice. That's why I'm using the quote marks and attributing to the "man who named". Here's one with no vermin or serpents, as S wants:
ALT7 ... that the man who named a nearly-blind amphibian that buries its head in the sand Dermophis donaldtrumpi did so because he sees Donald Trump as "capable of seeing the world only in black and white"?
EEng, how cute. Funny enough to not get frustrated at. This is clearly leading in a whirlpool forever, so I give up. I maintain all my points above, surely a long read.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 06:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
So we can only run DYKs about complimentary things people say or do? EEng 06:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
EEng, Your words, not mine. I have nothing more to say that hasn't already been said. I'm done. Let this close or continue to 2020, whatever.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 06:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Slight tweak (to avoid using "sees" before "seeing"):
ALT7a ... that the man who named a nearly-blind amphibian that buries its head in the sand Dermophis donaldtrumpi did so to suggest that Donald Trump is "capable of seeing the world only in black and white"?
This does not insult Trump as a person, as ALT7/a does. Can we get this discussion over with already? EEng if we're waiting for you to approve something that's apolitical, which does not seem likely at this point, can we get a consensus from everyone else and just promote the thing? On the other hand, can I IAR and reject this nomination for going on so long without consensus? (Sorry, I'm really fed up by the length and tone of this discussion.) Yoninah (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
So now we're not even to mention someone else's criticism? Even my new best friend David Levy is on board with Alt7a. EEng 15:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I regard the explicit attribution to a third party as a fundamental distinction.
Additionally, I believe that the description accurately reflects reliable sources' reporting, presenting significant details in a suitable context (the aforementioned third party's relevant statement). —David Levy 16:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Considering what has been mentioned in the very long discussion above, even with attribution and the like, ALT7 is a very loaded hook. It many be citing someone else, but the intent behind the proposal, an apparent attempt to indirectly insult Trump, makes it no different from the initial insistence of ALT1G. ALT1J (at least without "worm-like amphibian") already seems like a reasonable compromise: it mentions Trump's policies while neither endorsing nor criticizing them, nor having loading language. Going with ALT7 will give the impression that Wikipedia only gives voices to anti-Trump statements as opposed to having a neutral point of view. Can we please stop insisting on a Trump-bashing hook already, even if it's attributed? It feels like we're going around in circles at this point. For the record, I would share similar thoughts if the politician involved was Obama/Clinton/Sanders as well. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 20:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If you think there's a problem with "intent", feel free to open an ANI thread and see what kind of laugh you get. Here on this page we discuss a hook for what it is, period, regardless of what you think the intent is. We run hooks with attributed criticism of, or praise for, people, places, ideas, works of art, and things all the time. There's no special immunity for politics or politicians. The raison d'etre of the naming was criticism of Trump, and to minimize or obscure that would be the act of bias, not stating it factually. We've run Obama hooks and Hilary hooks, and if you've got a Pelosi hook or a Schumer hook, we'll run that too. Even though I disagree with him on the exact line to be drawn, David Levy's criticisms here have at least been reasoned; this whining that nothing can even touch on outside criticism is mindlessly craven. EEng 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
At this point I'm tempted to take it to ANI just to end this astonishingly prodigious discussion.--WaltCip (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
At the rate things are going, simply closing this nomination might be a better option. No one seems to be happy about anything about this point and sides aren't willing to budge. Reasonable compromises have been rejected and the alternatives aren't much better. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Finally, can someone here please explain what's wrong with using the word "caecilian" in any of the hook proposals? Why must we use these very detailed words instead of the actual scientific word? That would like proposing a hook that went "... that a worm that infects hard-shelled reptiles that swim in the seaBaracktrema obamai?" or "that an extinct species of two-shelled mollusc that was once abundant in present-day Virgia was named Chesapecten jeffersonius?". I really don't understand why there is an apparently refusal to use the simple term and instead insist on terms like "worm-like amphibian", "nearly-blind amphibian", or "amphibian that buries its head in the sand". We normally don't do so for other species hooks, why this one then? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 21:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Because caecilian will be clicked on only by people who think it has something to do with the Mafia. And to repeat: The raison d'etre of the naming was criticism of Trump, and to minimize or obscure that would be the act of bias, not stating it factually. You seem determined to find the most lifeless, desiccated hook you can. EEng 21:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If that's the case, wouldn't "... that the man who named a proposed species of caecilianDermophis donaldtrumpi did so because he believed that Donald Trump is "capable of seeing the world only in black and white"?" work then? The same thought could be expressed without resorting to those terms. Never before on DYK have I seen anyone insist on not using the common name for an animal, so this episode has been very bizarre to say the least, especially for a reason like this. The reasoning feels no different from the initial insistence on ALT1G and its "slimy" "worm-like" words, and sticking to that thought is going to lead this nomination nowhere. And never would I have thought in my life that caecilians could be compared to the mafia. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 21:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Because unless the reader happens to know what a caecilian is, your hook makes no sense. Surely you've heard of the caecilian Mafia. Please don't make me explain the joke further. EEng 22:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Look, I understand both from this discussion and from your user page that you are not a fan of Donald Trump. For the record, so am I. But just because we don't like Trump doesn't mean we should treat him differently from any other politician. Political affiliations or beliefs aside, we as Wikipedia editors still need to follow policies such as BLP and NPOV, and as much as possible we shouldn't let our beliefs cloud our editing. ALT7 appears to fall afoul of those policies, if not from the wording then from the intent. I'm seriously wondering if you would still be insistent on using those terms instead of "caecilian" if, for the sake of discussion, the species was named after Obama or other Democratic personalities instead of Trump. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 21:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
You obviously know nothing about me or the history of my activity on WP generally or DYK in particular. You really need to stop talking about my intent and focus on the hook itself. EEng 22:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Considering phrases earlier in the discussion such as "Anyone have other thoughts re what date would best showcase this wonderful honor?", comparing Trump's administration to "being Fool's Day everyday" in a previous nomination, and a userpage that among other things, compares Trump to a hippo, there does appear to be an intent here, whether intentional or not, to (indirectly) disparage Trump. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
In any case, even if we go beyond the political implications of ALT7, I also oppose it on writing grounds. As I mentioned above, the detail is excessive for the point that it's trying to put across. It's also pretty long, and could be made shorter. DYK is about quirky and snappy hooks, and too much detail defeats the point of being snappy. There's no need to call it a "nearly-blind amphibian", call it what it is (a caecilian). Call a spade a spade. If we must use that hook (which I'd suggest not, for reasons I've elaborated on above), I proposed a wording above that makes the points clearer without going into undue detail on what caecilians are. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is going nowhere, and it has devolved into unnecessary drama. Suggesting the following hooks and seeing if something can be agreed upon. If this won't break the deadlock, I'm afraid this nomination will have to be marked for closure.
ALT7b ... that the man who suggested the name of a proposed species of caecilian, Dermophis donaldtrumpi, did so because he believed that Donald Trump is "capable of seeing the world only in black and white"?
I understand that ALT7b is just under 200 characters so there might be a way to shorten it further, but these appear to be the best options moving forward (my personal ranking would be ALT1k > ALT > ALT7b), as they're more-or-less neutrally worded (at least for ALTs 1k and 4a), properly and clearly attributed in the case of ALT7b, and interesting. No need for elaborate wordings that could (unintentionally or not) be interpreted as Trump bashing, it's best to get straight to the point. Now I understand that the nominator may not be happy about the use of the word "caecilian", but if consensus determines that using it would be the best option, then so be it. In any case, if no agreement can be reached here, then closing might be the last resort. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
There being no policy- or rule-based objection to Alt7a, and seeing as it has the unprecedented combined support of WaltCip, David Levy, and me, I'm pinging the reviewer, David Eppstein, back for what I earnestly hope is absolutely, positively the very last time. Here again is Alt7a:
ALT7a ... that the man who named a nearly-blind amphibian that buries its head in the sand Dermophis donaldtrumpi did so to suggest that Donald Trump is "capable of seeing the world only in black and white"?
And you have been unable to give a policy or rule-based objection to the word "caecilian", and your objections above appear to be nothing more than WP:IDLI. ALT7a is unacceptable, ALT7b is more in line with guidelines. And there are also rule objections to it: it's exactly 200 characters long, and per reviewer discretion, hooks of that length can be rejected. It's too detailed, when the rules suggest that hooks should "short, punchy, catchy. In addition, WP:DYK also states that hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided. This is my last comment to this nomination as it appears my involvement, which has been an attempt to help rather than divide, is leading us nowhere.Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Um. I'm impressed that you've come to an agreement and would like to show my approval of your having done so. And we have the precedent of Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Angela Forbes according to which it's ok for a DYK hook to incorporate text whose only purpose is to disparage a person, as long as that text is attributed to someone rather than being in Wikipedia's voice. But Lady Angela is not a living person and Trump is. How does the (attributed) statement that Trump is "capable of seeing the world only in black and white" not fall afoul of the DYK rule that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided"? Clearly this proposed hook focuses on a negative aspect of Trump, a living person. And the rule says nothing about attribution of the negativity. I suppose the question is whether the focus is undue in this case, but using that as an escape clause seems a little weasely to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, then, David Levy, I guess we're back in the soup. But I have an idea: the first part of a suggestion of yours from way back (which I have marked ALTXX) + the end of Alt7a:
ALT8 ... that the man who named a nearly-blind amphibian that buries its head in the sand Dermophis donaldtrumpi did so to raise awareness of Donald Trump's policies on climate change?
ALT8 is ok, quibbles above about the phrase "Donald Trump's policies on climate change" aside (I think everyone on both sides of this issue understands what this means and can treat the phrase as being neutral). It more clearly separates the behavior of the creature from Trump, so there is no direct focus on negative aspects of a living person. I have no strong opinion on whether this hook should be preferred over other previously-ticked hooks (that's for the set-builder, not the reviewer, to determine). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
16px I know I mentioned that I wouldn't comment here again, but there has still been no good objection raised on the use of the word "caecilian" in the hook. As I implied above, I would be fine with something similar to what ALT8 says, but using the phrase "nearly-blind amphibian that buries its head in the sand" is unacceptable and toes the line on the "focusing on negative aspects of living people" rule. @David Eppstein: Would you be fine with the variation ALT8a ... that the man who named the proposed caecilian species Dermophis donaldtrumpi did so to raise awareness of Donald Trump's policies on climate change? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and Apostles. EEng 02:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
(FTR, the other ticked hooks were ALT0 (i.e. the original hook) and ALT1g, but I'm happy to withdraw those.) Shit, I meant to change "policies on" to "attitude toward" or "approach to" or "opinions on", but forgot. But I'm not going to tamper with success. Others' thoughts on Alt8? EEng 02:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
EEng, please do not remove ticks from other editors' comments. The original reviewer is not always the sole reviewer (indeed, DYKNs with multiple reviewers is fairly common), and any editor can make an objection if necessary. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Nonetheless I'm removing your tick again. On uncontroversial noms where there's been an obvious oversight in the review (article too short, missing citations) I have myself added an overriding tick, because I know that would be welcome. But your repeated attempts to substitute your judgment for that of an experienced and respected admin are not welcome. Your objections have been noted, Others may or may not endorse them. But in the meantime the reviewer's judgment sticks. This discussion won't go on and on forever because you keep returning it to the ground state by repeatedly inserting your one-man veto. EEng 02:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
16px Make that a multi-man veto (although just thought Narutolovehinata5 was a girl?); I couldn't stay away forever. EEng, you're over the line. This DYK cannot tiptoe around its violations of NPOV and BLP. You are ideologically charged to push this DYK as a sock-it-to-ya to Trump so a few thousand anonymous strangers might smirk at it when they see it. You need to drop your vendetta that sullies the spirit and reputation of this site.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Others disagree with you, including several admins, and no number of men (or women) constitute a veto. I've removed your tick as well, which attempted to override the reviewer's; it was explained to you previously  why you should not do this. Contrary to what Naruto believes, there's only one reviewer at a time. Your objections will be taken into consideration by your fellow editors in their comments, no doubt. EEng 03:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure those several admins would be happy to explain how the premise of this DYK is not intended with defamation against NPOV and BLP, as you yourself confessed and was cited on this page, right?--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
If you regard ALT8 as non-neutral, that's your prerogative (and I respectfully disagree). But when did anyone involved in this discussion express an intent to commit defamation? —David Levy 05:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
"a nearly-blind amphibian that buries its head in the sand". Come on. Obtusity is not a virtue. When the man on the Clapham omnibus reads this DYK, the connection he's going to make in relation to Trump is obvious. According to most cultures and indeed the general human condition and instincts, snakes and frogs and worms and various vermin and crawling things not regarded as cute are negative things to be compared to. The defamation is in the intent. The only way this DYK could possibly be sufficiently neutral is if the focus is entirely on the environmental gesture and the mention of the actual creature is in a "safe" term like caecilian, well-insulated in its scientific Latinate etymology and unlikely to obviously associate Trump with animals associated with dirt/rot/creepiness/evil/etc. Which draws me back to my original point that this entire DYK is not worth it, because EEng is right and DOES have a point: it would take an absolute genius to word this hook in a way that does not violate policy, because anything safe enough is boring. Hence, scrap all of this for the common good.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 05:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The connection is stated explicitly. No inference is required. As reported by reliable sources, the sentiment was expressed by the person who named the organism.
I objected to hooks in which the negative association was implied with a wink and a nudge, which came across (to me, anyway) as derision of Donald Trump in Wikipedia's voice. This differs materially from a straightforward explanation that someone else derided him.
The defamation is in the intent.
"Defamation" refers to the communication of statements that are both injurious and false. Where in this discussion did someone advocate including false information in a hook, let alone confess to doing so intentionally?
The only way this DYK could possibly be sufficiently neutral is if the focus is entirely on the environmental gesture and the mention of the actual creature is in a "safe" term like caecilian, well-insulated in its scientific Latinate etymology and unlikely to obviously associate Trump with animals associated with dirt/rot/creepiness/evil/etc.
Wikipedia remains neutral by adopting no position on the matter, not by omitting biased statements of opinion made by others and reported by reliable sources. (Please see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.) —David Levy 06:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the existence of the species or a DYK about it per se. I do take issue with intent and wording. Yes the most recent version is an improvement, but it still begs the question: Is this DYK an implicit endorsement? Can the caecilian be described in a way that is both fitting for a hook yet does not in any manner condone the intent behind it? We need to look at this from the perspective of how it will be seen by outsiders and average, casual readers. That's my philosophy with editing in general.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 07:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems as though we took the same approach and arrived at different conclusions. I find that understandable, but I remain puzzled by your claim that EEng confessed to intentional defamation. —David Levy 07:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I should have used a different word, sorry. I just meant as was said before that EEng did, initially at least, have political ideological intent behind his nomination, with the goal being to ostensibly make fun of Trump for people to see. I'm feeling more puzzled probably because I don't know what to recommend that still abides by policy without any attempt to slip under it.-~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 07:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
This speaks to our differing conclusions. I believe that we arrived at a suitable solution, but I respect your opinion to the contrary. —David Levy 08:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You gotta fucking get off talking about other editors' intents. Only the content matters. If you one more time say anything like that I "confessed" to intending to defame someone, you're gonna be at ANI so fast it'll make your head spin. EEng 22:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I have literally never heard of there's only one reviewer at a time before on DYK, and there's nothing of that sort that's mentioned in either the DYK rules nor the supplementary guidelines. I can't find a rule that explicitly forbids more there being more than one reviewer at a time, and in fact Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide mentions if no other reviewer subsequently disagrees with this assessment, which implies that there can be more than one reviewer, or that others may leave objections. Restoring both my and Sigehelmus's ticks: do not remove them unless there is consensus to do so. And remember that editing other people's comments (other than maybe minor typo fixes) is generally frowned upon on-Wiki. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 04:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
In the byzantine DYK pages a number of things are said that don't match practice; for example, to the extent you think if no other reviewer subsequently disagrees with this assessment means unanimity is required, that's ridiculous. And there really is just one reviewer (assuming he or she sticks with the process to the end); only one person – the reviewer – will receive QPQ credit which he can in a future nomination of his own. As mentioned earlier, a cancelling tick is often placed where there's no reason to think there will be any objection, but here you keep interposing a canceling tick just to reassert arguments your fellow editors have repeatedly rejected. The ticks are have special meaning to DYK's bot, and by sticking in your own you're gumming up the works. I've converted them to the : form that the bot won't see. If you don't like it take it to Talk:DYK. EEng 22:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I support ALT8, for the reasons discussed above. —David Levy 02:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
David Levy, you are a gentleman and a scholar. EEng 02:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
support ALT8, preferred something similar earlier on, the is an appropriate 'did you know this fact', as opposed to, 'have you heard this one'. cygnis insignis 05:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Strong support also for the gentlemanly conduct of David Levy, especially while others, and I include myself to some degree, were less than helpful in reaching a solution.
Just to be clear ALT8 is the best so far but still disappointing and probably futile in my view.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 06:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
All this discussion and no one other than the nominator has commented on the suggestion to simply use "caecilian" instead of "a nearly-blind amphibian that buries its head in the sand". @David Levy and David Eppstein: and @Cygnis insignis: Is there no reason why we can't go with "... that the man who named the proposed caecilian species Dermophis donaldtrumpi did so to raise awareness of Donald Trump's policies on climate change?" instead? At the rate things are going, using the phrase "a nearly-blind amphibian that buries its head in the sand" could lead to a trip to WP:ERRORS.Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 07:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't actively oppose such wording, but it doesn't strike me as a likely path to consensus. —David Levy 07:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty much the same as ALT8, the main difference is replacing the overly detailed description with the actual kind of animal. Don't really see how it's not a likely path to consensus, other than the fact that the nominator opposes it. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 07:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The description conveys traits of the organism relevant to the comparison that its namer seeks to draw. Consequently, the description's removal renders the statement less clear (and arguably less "hooky"). —David Levy 08:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, a slight preference, as you asked, but this is presentable as is and I'm not going to invest in disrupting a formulation that is otherwise unobjectionable. I changed the article lead to satisfy a contradiction created in the sources, which said blind, nearly blind, and sensitive to light, which may hinge on the definition of eye in the eye of source's author (googling reporters?). The source that would resolve this apparent contradiction has not been published, and the information was probably sourced and extrapolated from caecilian. More than a slight preference if I were not swayed by less hooky point made above, and think that Alt8 is satisfactory as it stands. As a hook, and as a community, it is a less worse outcome, possibly good one. cygnis insignis 08:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure about this, I've never really seen an animal-related DYK hook where they don't call the animal by its actual name, and the long description feels excessive to me. Had the species not been named after a BLP I'd probably not object, but as it is, the hook content is objectionable. And in any case ALT8 is at about the 200 character limit so it would need trimming anyway. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 10:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
ALT8 is 176 characters; maybe on your planet that's "about the 200 character limit". Here, I'll give you $176 for this $200 TV! And ALT8 does call the animal by its name: Dermophis donaldtrumpi (italicize or not as you prefer). We don't have to give group any more than we have to give order, class, and phylum. EEng 22:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I also support ALT8 as the best compromise. It avoids BLP violations because it's attributed to someone else, and it's also very toned down as a criticism. I don't think (fingers crossed) that it will raise too many eyebrows at ERRORS. Yoninah (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I support ALT8 as well, obviously, and just in case it's too hard to find in all the above, the reviewer has approved it as well. EEng 22:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)