The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 07:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by MarkZusab ( talk). Nominated by EEng ( talk) at 02:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC).
Discussion at
WP:ERRORS
|
---|
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)
So based on comments what make the hook "Not Neutral" is that it does no point out that the description is not unique to the donaldtrumpi: Voila, several options to address that
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?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Given that MPJ-DK has now expressed a clear comment on my proposal, regarding two unrelated facts, I can make a further suggestion. The word "proposed" is necessary for the binomial name as it the new species is not yet officially named. Offering a description of the caecilian is not an unrelated fact, it is an explanation that is needed if readers aren't going to click on caecilian to find out what it means.
MPJ-DK, the current hook and your ALTs appear constructed to imply "that Trump is a slimy worm." I make no comment on your intent, or anyone else's, but that is the reason for the concerns here. My ALTs are tweaking this to recognise that the intention of the namer of the species might be to evoke that idea, but that WP is not stating / implying that this is true. I am willing to openly admit that I do not like / admire Donald Trump... but as a Wikipedian, I still am concerned about implying, in WP's voice, that Trump is a slimy / a worm or even making an unflattering comparison on the size of some part of his anatomy. Please, would you explain to me either (a) how the current hook is not going to be read (at least by some) as WP implying that Trump is slimy or worm-like, or (b) why the emphasis of my ALTs is unacceptable to you or not hooky or problematic, or both? David Levy, FYI, I read MPJ's mention of family as a reference to its meaning within the taxonomic structure – see family (biology) – though I now see that Dermophis is actually the genus and the family is actually Dermophiidae. Also, I think your version ALT1c was preferable to my ALT1a and ALT1b, so I have struck them. So, may I ask (and I direct this comment / question generally rather that at any individual), can we move the focus of this discussion more to the hook and bring the temperature down? Thank you. EdChem ( talk) 10:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
|
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.
These suggestions may provide a way forward — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
"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. E Eng 17:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The sources call it a new species.
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. E Eng 00:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
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?
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.
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?
Uh huh. Quote the P&G to that effect.
Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars.
what are you talking about?
Dermophis donaldtrumpi is a proposed species of caecilian...
It was originally discovered in Panama and is yet to be confirmed as a new species...
we don't label something a "species" until it's been designated one through peer review and formal publication. Please be more explicit.
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.
Wikipedia's conventions in this subject areaother than your saying so.
advocating that the DYK hook include a claim not containedin the article.
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.
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> E Eng 01:28, 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.
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,
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.
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)
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.
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.My personal opinion of Donald Trump notwithstanding, I find this hook highly problematic.
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
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 [5] 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. E Eng 7:29 pm, Today (UTC−5)
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 [6] 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.
preferably on a day when Trump might see the main page– I suggested that day because "Greta" had already be prepped for that set [7]. Get a grip. E Eng 04:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The fact that, to me, it's much more boring, seems more relevant and more based on the DYK rules.
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:
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:
E Eng 03:51, 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
We wouldn't be applying this heightened level of scrutiny for any other subject, and we should not be doing so here here.
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? E Eng 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.
Any objection to ALT5?
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. E Eng 21:44, 10 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. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 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.
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. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
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. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:25, 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:
E Eng 01:47, 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? E Eng 02:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
When the man on the Clapham omnibus reads this DYK, the connection he's going to make in relation to Trump is obvious.
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.
there's only one reviewer at a timebefore 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. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 04:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
if no other reviewer subsequently disagrees with this assessmentmeans 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. E Eng 22:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 07:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by MarkZusab ( talk). Nominated by EEng ( talk) at 02:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC).
Discussion at
WP:ERRORS
|
---|
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)
So based on comments what make the hook "Not Neutral" is that it does no point out that the description is not unique to the donaldtrumpi: Voila, several options to address that
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?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Given that MPJ-DK has now expressed a clear comment on my proposal, regarding two unrelated facts, I can make a further suggestion. The word "proposed" is necessary for the binomial name as it the new species is not yet officially named. Offering a description of the caecilian is not an unrelated fact, it is an explanation that is needed if readers aren't going to click on caecilian to find out what it means.
MPJ-DK, the current hook and your ALTs appear constructed to imply "that Trump is a slimy worm." I make no comment on your intent, or anyone else's, but that is the reason for the concerns here. My ALTs are tweaking this to recognise that the intention of the namer of the species might be to evoke that idea, but that WP is not stating / implying that this is true. I am willing to openly admit that I do not like / admire Donald Trump... but as a Wikipedian, I still am concerned about implying, in WP's voice, that Trump is a slimy / a worm or even making an unflattering comparison on the size of some part of his anatomy. Please, would you explain to me either (a) how the current hook is not going to be read (at least by some) as WP implying that Trump is slimy or worm-like, or (b) why the emphasis of my ALTs is unacceptable to you or not hooky or problematic, or both? David Levy, FYI, I read MPJ's mention of family as a reference to its meaning within the taxonomic structure – see family (biology) – though I now see that Dermophis is actually the genus and the family is actually Dermophiidae. Also, I think your version ALT1c was preferable to my ALT1a and ALT1b, so I have struck them. So, may I ask (and I direct this comment / question generally rather that at any individual), can we move the focus of this discussion more to the hook and bring the temperature down? Thank you. EdChem ( talk) 10:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
|
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.
These suggestions may provide a way forward — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
"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. E Eng 17:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The sources call it a new species.
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. E Eng 00:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
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?
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.
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?
Uh huh. Quote the P&G to that effect.
Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars.
what are you talking about?
Dermophis donaldtrumpi is a proposed species of caecilian...
It was originally discovered in Panama and is yet to be confirmed as a new species...
we don't label something a "species" until it's been designated one through peer review and formal publication. Please be more explicit.
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.
Wikipedia's conventions in this subject areaother than your saying so.
advocating that the DYK hook include a claim not containedin the article.
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.
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> E Eng 01:28, 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.
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,
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.
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)
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.
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.My personal opinion of Donald Trump notwithstanding, I find this hook highly problematic.
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
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 [5] 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. E Eng 7:29 pm, Today (UTC−5)
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 [6] 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.
preferably on a day when Trump might see the main page– I suggested that day because "Greta" had already be prepped for that set [7]. Get a grip. E Eng 04:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The fact that, to me, it's much more boring, seems more relevant and more based on the DYK rules.
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:
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:
E Eng 03:51, 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
We wouldn't be applying this heightened level of scrutiny for any other subject, and we should not be doing so here here.
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? E Eng 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.
Any objection to ALT5?
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. E Eng 21:44, 10 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. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 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.
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. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
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. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 01:25, 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:
E Eng 01:47, 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? E Eng 02:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
When the man on the Clapham omnibus reads this DYK, the connection he's going to make in relation to Trump is obvious.
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.
there's only one reviewer at a timebefore 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. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 04:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
if no other reviewer subsequently disagrees with this assessmentmeans 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. E Eng 22:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)