Template:Did you know nominations/Phyllophora antarctica

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Phyllophora antarctica, Iothia emarginuloides[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 10:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC).

  • @TonyTheTiger: "The Antarctic red alga Phyllophora antarctica grows under ice in cold dim light conditions." "Four taxa were found on Phyllophora antarctica ... The limpet Lepeta coppingeri was numerically dominant in all months except November." - Lepeta coppingeri is a synonym of Iothia emarginuloides, a fact I should perhaps have mentioned earlier. You can see it mentioned under the taxobox in the list of synonyms, and you can check that at the WoRMS site. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I think not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Oddly WP:OTHERNAMES is silent on this issue and the section mentions the horribly formatted Gdańsk, which has the abysmal 6 paragraph LEAD format. Bolding alternate names use to be policy and still seems standard practice at WP:FA. Look at the first three articles at FA. I don't think 7 World Trade Center has alternate titles, but see how Acra (fortress) has three bolded names as does After the Deluge (painting). Also see the most recently promoted FA article (yesterday) Red-billed quelea. In my own FAs, I have seen this style endorsed over and over again. See McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink, Harris Theater (Chicago), Freedom from Want (painting), Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Jay Pritzker Pavilion, Exelon Pavilions (maybe overdone), Drowning Girl, BP Pedestrian Bridge, Cloud Gate, Fountain of Time, Look Mickey, McDonald's Cycle Center, and Saxbe fix. I am most certain that bolding alternate names in the LEAD is the stylistically preferred format for those who know how to create high quality articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I agree that the scientific name and the common name should be bolded in the lead. I took you to mean that all the synonyms should be listed and bolded in the lead as well. Perhaps what you actually meant was that any synonym that is mentioned in the lead should be bolded, and I am not sure about that. You would really need to look at biological FAs for examples - Laevistrombus canarium does and Oryzomys couesi doesn't bold synonyms. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
MOS:BOLDSYN is the MOS guide on this subject. Yes synonyms, nicknames and alternate names notable enough to be mentioned in the LEAD should be bolded. If they are not fit for thew lead they need not be forced into the LEAD. Why are the alternate names burried in the main body though. I would think for any species the official name and the common name should both be mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I don't see an alternate name burried. I see Iothia coppingeri unbolded for some reason in the LEAD in one and no alternatives in the other. Does neither species have a common name?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Not that I've come across. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
O.K. so after all of the examples that I have presented and after I found MOS:BOLDSYN, you have still chosen not to bold Iothia coppingeri. Explain your thinking in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not understand this thread in the slightest. Bolding or not bolding synonyms is not one of the DYK criteria, so this seems to be ultimately irrelevant to a DYK nomination, though it might be for a GA, which requires strict adherence to MOS:LEAD as one of the GA requirements. I also don't understand why there is not yet a DYK icon/symbol indicating the current state of the nomination after four days and over a dozen edits. Please supply one. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I got distracted by this issue from a complete consideration of the criteria. Note that the hooks pipe to other names, which caused me to look for alternate names in the articles. Finding none in bold, I was confused. I actually continue to be confused. There is no reason to put a malformed article out there since we are on the topic. It is not like I am asking him to overhaul the article or do a lot of research. I am just asking what his thoughts are on bolding a word, which I would not have looked for if he had not piped the article title in different ways. I'll go through the other criteria in the next 24 hours. Unless you prefer a seemingly malformed article on the main page, there is no reason not to consider a simple bolding.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Putting an icon on this in advance of the completed review: the descriptor "red seaweed" is used in both hooks but appears nowhere in either article; if it's going to be used in the hooks, it needs to be in the articles. Pinging Cwmhiraeth to address this. However, I don't understand why "species of limpet" or "red seaweed", both very generic terms and the only linked ones in the hooks, would need to be bolded in the articles; if they had been official common names like TheCwm's limpet or Red-moonset seaweed, that's one thing, but they aren't. As for a no-longer-valid designation like Iothia coppingeri, I don't see why it should be bolded, effectively elevating it to a current synonym rather than a name that has been superseded due to recent scientific research. The characterization of "malformed" simply doesn't hold water. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that the source describes controversial "continued use of coppingeri". The name is officially changed, but there is controversial continued use of the former name, which makes it a current synonym. We may all agree it is a former name, but the WP:TRUTH of the matter is the source describes "continued use of coppingeri", necessitating bolding.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • While looking at the text, there is no support for the claim that one name is older than the other in the source: "Supported by the fact that type specimens are very similar and were described from nearby localities (separated by maximum 400 km at the same latitude), we consider, as did Strebel (1907: 112), that coppingeri and emarginuloides are synonyms, and the consequence is that Philippi's name is the one to be used. Strebel (1908), Egorova (1972), and Dell (1990) recognized this, but gave no reasons for their continued use of coppingeri"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: The article may not use the term "red seaweed" but it does use "red alga", and also has Rhodophyta in the taxobox. "Seaweed" is a colloquial term and lacks a formal definition. I used the word in the hook for accessibility by the general public, who would not necessarily know the term "red alga". I will change it to the latter if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I am just realizing that this subject has a dozen names (according to the infobox). I don't understand why the source makes so much of an issue about a specific one and that the article notes one alternate name to be significant. It is confounding to see so many names. As a reader, I would want to know why. This is not a DYK issue though. My issue is that that current text has singled out one alternate name and that there is controversy among editors as to whether this alternate name is a current one. I too await a comment from BlueMoonset regarding the treatment of an alternate name that is regarded as foreign but that the source describes as in continued use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I think these articles deal with the topics in a similar way to many other articles on organisms and plants. I am going to ask @Casliber:, who is knowledgeable in this area, to reassure you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: (I presume we're talking about Iothia emarginuloides?) I generally only put common alternative names in the lead. The list of synonyms is exhaustive and many were never in common use. For instance, a history might go like this. See Banksia serrata, the synonyms listed were only used once in the 19th century before authorties realised they all referred to B. serrata, hence it would be undue weight to include them in the lead. Most synonyms fall in this category. Looking at it now, of the alternate common names (old man banksia, saw banksia, saw-tooth banksia and red honeysuckle), including the last two in lead is debatable as they aren't used much anymore, if at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Casliber, I am not asking you to include any more or less of the dozen names from the infobox in the article than you do since completeness is not a DYK issue. I just wanted to makes sure that there were no common names omitted and that all the names mentioned in the LEAD were bolded. Neither you nor Cwmhiraeth has made a statement as to why the second name in the lead should not be bolded. I have pointed out MOS:BOLDSYN numerous times now and neither of you has clarified why an alternate name that you have chosen to include in the LEAD is not being bolded. The source that you have presented uses the phrase "continued use of coppingeri", thus leading me to believe it has current alternate name status. Yet no explanation from either of you. As an aside (probably more of a WP:GAN issue), I also wonder whether it would be appropriate to mention that this species (not sure if I am using the proper term) has been known by a dozen different names.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I have bolded the name in the lead at your insistence. I am far from persuaded that it should be done, but in this case, the synonym was in use for a hundred years, so perhaps it warrants it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I apologize to you (as well as Casliber and BlueMoonset who have been dragged in to this) if this annoys you (as implied by your tone). I am not trying to be bossy or hardheaded. As a reviewer, I am suppose to resolve any MOS issue, which of course includes MOS:BOLDSYN. O.K. with that resolved can we get back to the other issue of whether you can properly source the date priority of the name. I showed you above, which section of the source I was looking at. You need to point me to somewhere else to confirm the sourcing of the facts in that section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you talking about your statement ".. current text has singled out one alternate name and that there is controversy among editors as to whether this alternate name is a current one."? I thought I had explained that in the Taxonomy section. There is often disagreement among biologists as to which is the correct name, as they find out more, their views change. WoRMS is the authoratative source for current names, and it states that Iothia emarginuloides is valid and that Iothia coppingeri is invalid. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not questioning the validity. I am questioning facts in that section such as:
  1. are very similar in morphology
  2. were collected only 400 km (250 mi) apart
  3. I. emarginuloides had been described before I. coppingeri
  4. the earlier name took priority.
Is any of this in the source?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is in the source, except for "so by the rules of zoological nomenclature, the earlier name took priority", which is common knowledge (in zoological circles). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the part of the text that I saw: "Supported by the fact that type specimens are very similar and were described from nearby localities (separated by maximum 400 km at the same latitude), we consider, as did Strebel (1907: 112), that coppingeri and emarginuloides are synonyms, and the consequence is that Philippi's name is the one to be used. Strebel (1908), Egorova (1972), and Dell (1990) recognized this, but gave no reasons for their continued use of coppingeri" The above are not in that. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm a bit confused by the confusion here. TonyTheTiger, you listed four issues, and they seem to be addressed by the article that you just quoted:

  1. are very similar in morphology (source: "type specimens are very similar")
    1. Is morphology the only type of similarity among species?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. were collected only 400 km (250 mi) apart (source: "type specimens . . . were described from nearby localities (separated by maximum 400 km at the same latitude)")
    1. I apologize about the 400 km issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. I. emarginuloides had been described before I. coppingeri (source: page 4 lists the dates of their descriptions as new species, with emarginuloides in 1861 and coppingeri in 1881)
    1. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. the earlier name took priority. (source: "Philippi's name is the one to be used" I'll trust Cwmhiraeth that the reason is because of zoological convention, especially as the article seems to take it for granted that the reader would know that) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    1. "Philippi's name is the one to be used" does not verify that his was first or that being first was the reason.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we forget about all that and go back to first principles? Does this nomination and hook meet the DYK criteria? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  • You may be aware that when you edit a DYK nomination at the top of the page it says "Please use the following criteria when reviewing the nomination below."
The third thing listed is a consideration of whether the nomination is "Within policy – meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular:
is neutral
cites sources with inline citations
is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism"
  • At an operational level this means that at some cursory level we are suppose to look at the prose for its neutrality (which yours passes), evaluate the use of sources to make sure the facts are backed up by WP:RS and make sure the presentation does not violate copyright laws. It could not get any more cursory than basing my evaluation on the use of a single citation (the first one in the text).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger I certainly appreciate the thoroughness of your review, which is well beyond average. In the scheme of the article and the hooks, I think this point is pretty minor. Perhaps a good compromise would be to ask Cwmhiraeth to add a source which explains that zoological convention defers to the first name, and then move forward with approving the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added a reference for that fact. The rule in question is Rule 22. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • FOrgive me but this is not my field. I see the new source which includes the following text "The person who first publishes the scientific name of an animal, is the original auther of a name". However does being the original author of the name mean that the person will be the final and forever author of a name?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • O.K. why does similar mean similar in morphology?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, "morphology" deals with form and structure, so in this context, "similar in morphology" means similar in appearance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The source says "type specimens are very similar". You are saying that this phrase supports the current prose of the article that says "The type specimens of I. emarginuloides (Philippi, 1868) and I. coppingeri (E.A. Smith, 1881) are very similar in morphology". If the source said, "similar in morphology" that would support WP prose that said "similar". A source that says "similar" does not support prose that says "similar in morphology" unless morphology is the only way type specimens can be similar. Keep in mind WP is suppose to summarize sources not extrapolate on them. I think you need another source or you will need to revise the text based on what the source actually supports. I also think given how this source check has been problematic, I will have to dig into another source for further evaluation. I don't look forward to this since this is out of my area of expertise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Did you respond to this issue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably not. I have given up on this nomination which to me seems such an obvious pass. If it is outside your area of expertise, perhaps we should get another reviewer in. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
If you don't want to properly source the content, you can reapply after taking it to GAN. It seems like this meets the quality threshold for many of your species kinfolk.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"unless morphology is the only way type specimens can be similar". That IS how type specimens are similar. That's how it works. Other specimens are compared to the type specimen to see if they are morphologically similar enough to be considered the same. --Khajidha (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • O.K. the first citation that I checked in the other article (Phyllophora antarctica) also is problematic. Check the citation in the "Distribution" section, which seems to be broken. This is not good. Problems with both citations so far.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
If you are talking about the AlgaeBase source, it works OK for me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
That citation is now working for me. I will have a look at it later or on Monday, depending on how my day goes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: May I ask what issues remain with this nomination? It's been a while. It does seem to me to meet the DYK guidelines. Vanamonde (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde, at the time you posted this query, you should have been able to see my most recent back and fourth with the author leaving the status of the article in question. Since then, Khajidha, has stated a belief that no one else has explained that morphology is the way that type specimens are deemed similar, which I could believe. Do all the species experts feel this is a valid fact?--04:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde, TonyTheTiger has yet to give this nomination any review icon at all, and so far as I can tell has yet to complete his review, mentioning one thing at a time but never listing all the issues remaining. (He was going to check AlgaeBase source, but hasn't yet said what the results of the citation check were.) My suggestion would be that the review be completed by someone who is knowledgeable in matters scientific, since that's clearly what's needed here. A note to Cwmhiraeth: so long as the article does not specifically use and cite the term "seaweed", it should not be used in the hooks; if "alga" is what the article uses, then so should the hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I have changed the hooks to use the term "alga" instead of seaweed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, is there a symbol for expert opinion request? Basically, I am torn over sufficiency of sourcing. I think it passes on most other issues. I just need one expert to validate or deny Khajidha's claim above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I would not claim to be an expert, but I have written a fair number of articles on biological taxa. The primary method for describing a new species is through describing the morphology of a type specimen, and comparisons to said specimen will be made on the basis of morphology. Other types of comparisons (genetic, etc) may be made, but these not yet the primary means of comparison. Vanamonde (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93, O.K. Morphology is the main comparison and other types of comparisons exist. So if a source says a species is similar to the type specimen, does one assume that is a morphological similarity or is it regarded as unclear.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I would assume morphological similarity is what is meant unless the source specifically refers to some other type of similarity, as morphological similarity is still the primary means of comparison. Vanamonde (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Phyllophora_antarctica&oldid=1020518231"