Template:Did you know nominations/Formica paleosibirica

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) 06:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Formica paleosibirica[edit]

(

)

... that fossil Formica paleosibirica males may or may not be the same ant species as Formica biamoensis? Source: "it can be neither confirmed nor excluded that the above described worker and males belong to one and the same species" Dlussky, G.M.; Rasnitsyn, A.P.; Perfilieva, K.S. (2015)

Reviewed: Necromys
Comment: reviewed pleasant bolo mouse of the nomination

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 18:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC).

Comment only Is there nothing better for a hook? That hook doesn't seem to meet the interesting criterion. Edwardx (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As I have asked before, what is the objective definition and criteria for "interesting"?--Kev min § 22:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There isn't one. It's subjective, like most of what we do here at WP. I've read the article and, frankly, I can't find anything in it that's hookworthy. Sorry, sometimes that's just the way it is (IMHO, of course). E Eng 02:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

And that is why I dont feel that "interesting" is a viable criterion, there is NO definition for it. I personally think that it possibly being the same ant species as Formica biamoensis is interesting, hence me nominating.--Kev min § 06:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

And it's a lucky thing there are people who do find it interesting, because society needs such people, but we have to think about the broader reading population. Are you sure you can't scare up some story about entomologists falling down chasms in pursuit of the holotype, or writing novels on the side, or something? E Eng 07:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The rules, WP:DYK, are clear: "interesting to a broad audience". Edwardx (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That rule is clear as mud, and has been questioned for years as to its use. How do either of you determine that this is NOT interesting to a "broader audience?--Kev min § 16:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course that rule is subjective. However, I imagine that EEng and I both have significantly wider interests than the average Wikipedia reader, and neither of us find the proposed hook interesting. Therefore, it seems reasonable to infer that it will not be "interesting to a broad audience". Edwardx (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Very crudely, that is interesting which puts the reader in mind of something with which he's already familiar, or thinks he understands, then juxtaposes something surprising, unusual, or intriguing. If there's no aspect of the hook that's within the reader's experience then the whole thing seems remote and unintelligible. The problem here is that that you've got two mouthful latinate names of species, unfamiliar to all but specialists, and then you tell us that one might be the same as the other. Oh, so something I've never heard of might be the same as something else I've never heard of? Wow. Here's a (made-up) hook that would be a good deal better, just to give you an idea: DYK ... that there is controversy about whether the newly described species Formica nuevo is really just the common house ant? (I have no idea whether there's such a thing as a common house ant.) But you see my point? At least this ties something familiar to something new, and to a puzzling (to laymen) situation i.e. scientists aren't sure whether two things are really one. E Eng 17:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thats the thing, "crudely" the most definite the "interesting" criteria has ever gotten. It is a concept that will never be definable and given the volume of hits the mainpage gets every day, you to are not going to be in any way able to say that you know what is or is not interesting. That the hook uses binomials (they are not Latin in derivation btw) should have no bearing on the situation. If you feel the criteria should make or break a hook, take it to talk. I do know that your last attempt showed there was little support left for the criteria. --Kev min § 19:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Latinate means they're "like Latin" i.e. seemingly abstruse, not that they are Latin, or derived from Latin. My proposal at TDYK was that determination of which hooks qualify as interesting be done via numeric voting by randomly recruited editors. There was tepid (to put it charitably) interest in that; instead, there was broad encouragement to reviewers to reject dull hooks directly on the nom page -- something most people have been gun-shy about doing until now. You seem to be more interested in arguing that the interestingness criterion should be ignored than you are in finding a better hook, so now I'll put that recommendation into practice:

Please come up with a hook which is, as the guidelines require, interesting to a broad audience. If that's not possible, then this nomination will have to be rejected. E Eng 21:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I would concur with the current sentencing. Please ensure a broad audience would find this interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

How does one "ensure" anything like that?--Kev min § 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If scientists can't tell the difference between two species, that strikes me as interesting, even as someone who hasn't formally studied science beyond high school. (Shades of the Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus saga). Maybe tweak the hook from that angle- "scientists cannot be certain Formica paleosibirica males, ants known only from fossils, are a distinct species from Formica biamoensis?" Ribbet32 (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's more like it. Try

ALT1 ... scientists aren't certain whether Formica paleosibirica males‍—‌ants known only from one fossilized group of individuals‍—‌are a distinct species from Formica biamoensis‍—‌known only from one individual?

Not the best wording, but I'm up against the length limit. Please check the technical statements, and this will require importing some stuff into the article. IMHO this is much better, highlighting both the is-it-the-same thingamajig, as well as that some species are described from a single individual. E Eng 01:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This hook interested me when I read it (although I can see how others have found it uninteresting), but that was until I read the source used for both ant articles. (Definitely no Apatosaurus situation.) The original hook implies to me that F biamoensis is a well-known species compared to F. paleosibirica, but they're literally described in the same paper. F. paleosibirica is furthermore the "species" with more specimens. ALT1 is an improvement, but suffers from similar problems. I would suggest reframing it somewhat, such as in:

ALT2 ... scientists are unsure if some male ant fossils classified as Formica paleosibirica are actually a different species to a female fossil classified as Formica biamoensis?

It still suffers from focus on F. paleosibirica, but that's the nature of this DYK nomination I suppose. CMD (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, since transgenderism is all the rage these days, can we play up the male-female confusion a bit more? ;) E Eng 07:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Alt 2 is inaccurate, F. paleosibirica was described from males while F. biamoensis was described from workers, and with no gynes or swarms fossilized there is not a way to determin if the Bol’shaya Svetlovodnaya fauna had one or two species. @EEng: "transgenderism is all the rage"? TBH as a gay guy I think that statement is pretty naive and offensive.--Kev min § 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm a gay guy too, and I think it's hysterical, and timely too. Lighten up. E Eng 00:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Due to the narrow interest range of the two reviewers I suggest:

ALT3 ... that the fossil ant species Formica paleosibirica has been described from only three partial males and two lone wings?

my DYK list belies that uninformed idea. Anyway, I think ALT3 is really good -- very few people understand that many species have been described from even just one individual. So I was wrong when I said that the article seemed devoid of hookworthy material -- I should have had more faith. E Eng 00:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Kev can you explain how Alt 2 is inaccurate? I'm not grasping it from your response, which seems to say exactly what I wrote in Alt2. (I find Alt3 dull and uninteresting, but I am familiar with the concept already! Don't take my response as a criticism of it.) CMD (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The wording of alt:2 is very awkard and gives the impression (by the use of "some") that only some of the fossils are in question, while the two species themselves are solid. That is not the case, its a matter of the males and the workers not being associated in a way to say that the ants were a single species.--Kev min § 01:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was using "some" to indicate it was multiple specimens, contrasting with "a female fossil". The awkwardness was, much like with EEng's attempt, because I was trying to say quite a bit within the character count. CMD (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

New enough, long enough, checks free of copyvios, ALT3 hook is adequate, only one ref, but that may be unavoidable with a newly described species. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)