Talk:Amabilis uchoensis

Did you know nomination

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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the tiny fossil turtle Amabilis uchoensis is a "non-podocnemidid member of Podocnemidoidae"? Source: Hermanson et al. 2011 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/spp2.1300 "In all MPTs, Amabilis uchoensis is positioned as a non-podocnemidid member of Podocnemidoidae."

• ALT1: ... that the fossil turtle Amabilis uchoensis's genus name is "Latin for lovable, because of its tiny size"?
• ALT2: ... that Amabilis uchoensis is a member of the suborder of "side-necked turtles"?
• Reviewed: Dragomino
• Comment: "non-podocnemidid member of Podocnemidoidae" is longer than the 2.5 cm fossil skull, from which this species was described.

Created by HouseOfChange (talk). Self-nominated at 03:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

• The article is long enough and new enough. I assume good faith on the references. The article is neutral. A QPQ has been completed. The only issue is that I don't see the hook as being interesting to a broad audience. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The wordplay was all right once I caught it, but my eyes just kind of glazed over at the unpronounceable words before i took the time to put it together—you won't have the luxury of already-captured attention with DYK readers. This is a long-form way of saying no, I don't think this hook is interesting to a broad audience at a first glance, but it's not without merit :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 00:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I suggested two ALTs, but I don't know if they're that much better. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 00:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this is a great hook, and it will interest anyone that has an interest in fossils. I have said it before and will repeat it here, "interesting to a broad audience" is an unenforceable and unmeasurable goal. Given the multi-billion views the main page gets in a 24 hour period, it will always be interesting to a subset of that group. WE are not a valid data set to judge.--Kevmin § 00:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Kevmin This type of complaint is brought up frequently, but it is part of DYK policy for us to be the final judges. I like the alt hooks more, but I would like to hear from the nominator. SL93 (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
      • SL93 There is a reason its brought up frequently, it should not be a rule. We should NOT choose what others might find interesting. --Kevmin §
      • I think that your comment of that "it will interest anyone that has an interest in fossils" is part of why I brought the hook up. That isn't a general audience and I feel that editors shouldn't be faulted for going by a policy that hasn't changed. Like I have said in AfD several times before about notability guidelines, the source needs to be changed first. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
        • I also find it interesting that you say the goal is unmeasurable—we have pageview statistics, you cited them yourself. 5.3 million people visit the main page every day, on average—DYK attracts roughly 40,000 views in 24 hours for all of its hooks combined, or roughly 5,000 for a 24-hour hook. From my time managing the DYKSTATS page, I could pretty safely say that the main hook probably couldn't crack 2,500 in a 24-hour cycle, and that's highballing it. Hooks shouldn't be judged solely by view count, of course—it's not always about going for solely the most hooky hooks. However, in this case, I don't see it being interesting to a broad audience—regardless of whether or not its interesting to me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 00:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
          • I agree, as someone who writes a lot about fossils, including Podocnemididae, the first hook would be meaningless to most people, who have no idea what a Podocnemidid even is. I'd support ALT1 as being more understandable to a broader audience. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
          • ALT1 is probably the more clickable hook. Personally, I would probably click on ALT2, just to find out what the heck are "side-necked turtles". I'm OK with all of them, but ALT1 might be more clickable to a broad audience. Maybe ALT2 - it's a toss up.— Maile (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I will take your word for it that the hook is too heavy, although it made me laugh to hear this tiny turtle get such a puzzling description. How about these other hooks? (I haven't had a chance to see LeekyCauldron's when I wrote this due to edit conflict

• ALT3: ... that the fossil turtle Amabilis uchoensis was called "lovable" (amabilis in Latin) for its tiny size? Source: Hermanson et al. 2011 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/spp2.1300 "Derivation of name: Latin for 'lovable', for its tiny size." Theleekycauldron did this better than I did.
• ALT4: ... that the tiny fossil turtle Amabilis uchoensis was given the Latin name "amabilis" for being "lovable," but the large evergreen tree Abies amabilis is called "amabilis" because it is "lovely"? Sources: 1) Hermanson et al. 2011 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/spp2.1300 "Derivation of name: Latin for 'lovable', for its tiny size."2 Gymnosperm Database http://www.conifers.org/pi/Abies_amabilis.php "The epithet amabilis means 'lovely.'"

I like ALT 1 better than my own formulation ALT3. I also really like ALT 4. I am happy if this can be approved with either ALT1 or ALT 4. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• I can approve ALT1, but the last half of ALT4 needs to be in the article. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I also like ALT4 a lot. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@SL93: I am still open to ALT1, but I put the fir tree facts and RS into the DYK article as well, so I think ALT4 is also good now. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The promoter can choose ALT1 or ALT4. SL93 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Promoting ALT4 to Prep 4 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Category

Hi @HouseOfChange. According to Template:Taxonomy/Amabilis, family Podocnemididae is not found in the taxonomy of this species at all. Perhaps the taxonomy template is wrong, or perhaps we are getting it confused with the (spelled almost exactly the same) clade Podocnemidoidae (note the extra "o")? Podocnemidoidae (with an "o" at the end) is found in the taxonomy of this, but does not have its own category, therefore I believe the most specific cat is probably Category:Pleurodira. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Novem Linguae for your civil enquiry. My edit was an error. My original reason for creating this article was that it was an interesting-looking redlink in the article about that family "Podocnemididae." But Hermanson 2020 clearly assigns it to the Podocnemedoidae and not Podocnemididae. Perhaps our article Podocnemididae needs to be corrected on this count. I will revert my revert, and thanks for calling the error to my attention. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Thanks for the response. See you around :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)