Talk:Dermophis donaldtrumpi

This has NOT been confirmed as a new species, nor formally published yet

As such, all the editing and addition of content is extremely premature. Until it's formally published, the name has just as much validity as a "scientific name" as Chuck Jones' use of "Speedipus rex" as a "scientific name" in the Roadrunner cartoons. Dyanega (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dyanega: Thank you for stating this. Should I tag for accuracy among its many other problems?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the present content is inaccurate, so long as the validity of the taxon is being disclaimed appropriately. I am concerned about subsequent edits removing the disclaimer, though, or trying to link this page to the Dermophis article. That needs to be avoided. Dyanega (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have (third-hand) information that this is official, and I am trying to track it down and find a reference.EinkomischerKauz (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The right to name the species was auctioned off by the Rainforest Trust for $25,000 and was purchased by the sustainable building materials company EnviroBuild. The only thing unknown is the result of the peer review, an if the name changes it is easy to move the article to thge new name. --Joergens.mi (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Publicity stunt?

This sounds more like a political publicity stunt. All the references are from media and the company, no scientific publications. DerElektriker (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think it is fake news - this is a speciality of an other guy, the species exists and the naming must only get though the peer review --Joergens.mi (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Description

The sentence ought to be written about the organism, not the individual, the use of citations to snicker and guffaw at each comparison is OR, inappropriate, and puerile. The cited articles mention the comparisons, that allows a separate sentence, maybe a quotation; the content is currently serving another purpose. Trump is a god-level troll, don't feed it. cygnis insignis 05:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Stop your whining and fix it … oh, you have! The only concern remaining is blind and sighted contradiction in the description. cygnis insignis 06:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Italics

Should we be using italics for this proposed species name? Some articles do: EnviroBuild, Business Insider, The Quint, The Guardian, and NewsWeek. Might it be best to err towards putting it in italics given that is how species should be displayed? Anarchyte (talk | work) 14:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: As you undid my edit (and I assume this would be BRD). Anarchyte (talk | work) 14:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I would support using italics. I'm not able to find a source that says italics should not be used for proposed species, and considering reliable sources use italics for this species, I think that's what we should use as well. Courtesy pinging Sigehelmus as the one who originally reverted the addition of italics.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a firm position, but the history shows that others thought it best left off. The italic, in one sense, is a reference to the published description, which as I understand it this is not. Not accepted yet, not even published, any proposal is cited from sources that are not RS for this purpose, we should demur from implying it is a species. We should also give the person who removed it the opportunity to reply, the urgency for the DYK is unrelated to that. cygnis insignis 15:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-English words, including New Latin binomials, are generally italicized. Jonathunder (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

As it happens, I don't accept the contention that a binomial is Non-English. Systematic names were/are intended to be universal, not 'foreign'. cygnis insignis 16:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: @Jonathunder: @SkyGazer 512: @Anarchyte: I would cite this part of the MoS for this rather interesting case:

“ Derived uses in non-biological contexts are not italicized: The largest carnivore in family Tyrannosauridae was T. rex itself, but Unicorn was an album by the band T. Rex. ”

Until D. donaldtrumpi is formally registered, it's about as scientific as Federal Express is federal. Italics gives off an impression to the average reader that this is a legitimate species, and while its status is pending, I believe italics is arguably POV in this case. I can certainly see why it's a grey area for many, but it's just not registered and, as others have said on this page so far, the name is not legitimate until it...is.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 16:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, don't quote the MOS to a wonk, sheesh! :) it appears to make an inappropriate contraction if the full name was not given, ie. "Tyrannosaurus rex, and sort of suggests the T. abbreviates the family Tyrannosauridae". I dare not look to see if the italic at the organism T. rex was lost on your clipboard, because it should be. cygnis insignis 16:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, oh yes the first italics was lost, fixed it sorry! Anyway I guest I rest my case here and don't have more to say, if anyone else wants to oppose it or leave it that's fine with me of course.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 16:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

As a Commissioner of the ICZN (which oversees the formation and publication of zoological names), I'll reinforce that there ARE rules about this, but the rule in this case is essentially asymmetrical. That is, if it's a scientific name, the genus and species MUST be italicized. There is no rule saying that a name that is not a scientific name must NOT be italicized, though if it were a higher-rank taxonomic name (family, order, phylum, etc.) then the rule does specify non-italics. As such, a "proposed name" falls into a gray area in the rules, and my inclination would be to either not italicize it until it has been formally published, or to put the name in quotes. Realistically, as noted, until it's been published it has no more scientific validity than "Speedipus rex" from the WB Roadrunner cartoons, or "Draco conflagratio horribilis" from D&D, and using italics implies that it is a real name. Dyanega (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

[snaps to attention] Thank you for your service! o7

I think this identified something that was bothering me, I modified the lead (again), "Dermophis donaldtrumpi is a proposed [name for a] species of caecilian, a nearly blind …" Now what is a good term for the description, "Dermophis donaldtrumpi is [reportedly?] about 10 cm (4 in) long …" I nearly added "said to be", but that doesn't weaken the authority enough. Adding the quotes at description conveys some doubt too, if others favour that as a solution. cygnis insignis 18:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: I'd removed the "a proposed name for" bit earlier as the article is about the species, not its name. I'm curious as to why you feel that bit belongs. Bradv🍁 18:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, pardon, if I'd known or remembered it was there before i would have asked first (my head is full of the taxonomy of bats today, literally and figuratively). I reverted that, and will cede to consensus or authority on this, but I sense there something amiss in what the article asserts. cygnis insignis 18:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, no worries. It's certainly an unusual article. Bradv🍁 18:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, unusual? it's as boring as batshit, frankly speaking, it can at least be correct in a taxonomic sense. cygnis insignis 19:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Dyanega, should the unclear status of donaldtrumpi concerning italicization be denoted in the text? (i.e. "Considering the status, the name should be left without italics even though many references erroneously do so" to give a sloppy example)? Or is the lack of italics self-evident enough?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:36, 2 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 (UTC)

Notes removed

EEng, what was wrong with the notes I gave? Bell's quotations, which are necessarily central to the references and evidence of this article within its context, are full of errors which need to be pointed out. There is no such thing as "dermatrophy" referring to skin being eaten and "caecilian" is descended from "caecus" but only by a fair etymological distance. A very many articles contain such distinctive notes as I have put in, and they are directly relevant in my view, and they maintain NPOV. What issue do you take with them?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about the material removed here [1]. Adding your opinion that a source is using a word incorrectly, based on your own research with dictionaries, is classic WP:OR. Usually I'd suggest you find another source pointing out the error. In this case, since the source is a press release, we really shouldn't be using it anyway except to summarize/paraphrase it a bit for its own content, not as a fact source; if we think it uses some words incorrectly, then we should just leave that stuff out.

@EEng: I do agree that I did go a bit overboard with the [sic]s like with the "Caecilians is" instance, which looking back how some sources don't have it is anew irrelevant typo. However, in the case of Bell's etymology and the use of "dermatrophy" is crucial to his words as used by the listed references for the base of article. I do not see in any way how leaving these in carte-blanche is anything but detrimental and misleading for readers, and I certainly don't see how this is OR and needs to be tossed out entirely instead of maybe trimming the fat. I feel that I'm keeping within the spirit of Wikipedia by pointing these out; if you want an example of an article I made with notes like these that was peer reviewed by a user recently, please see Cannabis in Vatican City.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, you were very helpful last time with me concerning this page, and have been active on this talk (and even convinced me to drop the XRD so I'm not biased). Could you please offer your views on this matter? Were my notes an improvement to the article in any way?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, if I read this correctly, we're quoting the person who named the species, and then we're providing our own analysis and commentary on his remarks. I would say that's synthesis (some similar examples are provided at that link). Now if there were an article somewhere explaining the etymology of the name and how it relates to this species, we could include it, providing a consensus of editors found it relevant and useful. But none of us should pretend to editorialize this ourselves and present our own research. Does that help? Bradv🍁 06:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a good summary. If for some reason we can't avoid using a source's words, and there's an error in them of the type you seem to be pointing out, then we're in a bit of a quandary. But to add quotations just so you can point out they're wrong, when no source has done so, is completely inappropriate. EEng 06:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, oh well, I see then how that may fit...reviewing the etymology part I can view it as less relevant than I initially thought. However, at least the "dermatrophy" part Bell describes is just plain wrong. The closest known term for a creature getting its skin eaten by its young is dermatophagy, which usually describes a human eating his own skin. If we just leave it in - and the rest of his quote is directly relevant and connected to his accusations and reasons for the name - that is very misleading to readers. Surely at least that deserves some kind of mention? I have seen featured articles that have done this before in some way.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 06:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The derma stuff isn't in the article now and doesn't need to be. The article already makes the point that the name was inspired by Trump's behavior and policies, and extensive quoting of the press release isn't needed beyond that, and would likely be WP:UNDUE. Problem solved. EEng 06:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The quote provides necessary context though. Remember that almost if not every reference used on this article revolves around Bell and his words. For imstance, the nepotism accusation-comnevtion makes no sense without his quote and needs to be mentioned anyway relating to how and why the species was named relating to its behavior with its children.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 06:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, I suspect that part of the problem here is that some editors are trying to describe this species in a very scientific way, but the scientific resources to do so simply aren't available. All we have available at this point are popular media sources, which can be less than ideal for this purpose. If there are details in the media or in the press release that don't make sense scientifically, we'll need to either leave those details out or find other creative ways of dealing with it without violating our prohibition on original research. In this case, it may be better to leave some details unexplained. Bradv🍁 07:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv¡, you have a soothing way with words. I probably am overanalyzing a lot here, a bad habit of mine sometimes. This really all does draw back though, to me anyway, the "purpose" of this article. It's a proposed name for a species based on an expensive political gesture. It just feels awkward and in a sort of grey area though. Let it be is a wise path I suppose until we get an update, but right now I just don't know what impression this article is giving off, as if it's a legitimate thing. I don't know if this kind of case has been encountered before, I just feel like something needs to be done with it, but I'm ready to give up...--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 07:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, no, don't give up. I believe you're right that we are in uncharted territory here, and your insight is very helpful. It's relatively simple to regurgitate facts, but to create an article that's really thought-provoking and interesting (kind of in the style of the species name in the first place) is an art form. Keep thinking and sharing. Bradv🍁 07:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, Thank you very much, I'll need to mull over what you said as I sleep. This fascinating case could set a precedent that I'd be honored to partake in. I'll try what I can to find what little further info there is out there. Tomorrow I'll review an idea I had for this, thank you for your input with all this.-~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 07:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Quote dilemma, Part II

EEng, many articles use [sic] to note quotes as they were transcribed with no problem. Calling the EPA the Environment Agency is a colloquial mistake, likely from a slip or contortion of memory, but should be left alone. Yes, my first attempt with the article went extreme with the tags and I wasn't thinking straight, however you just are going to the other end of the spectrum now. If anything, excessively fixing the quote text can be seen as POV in itself - like we are trying to polish it - except for minor typographical errors, the text should be preserved as transcribed for WP:V. I see my current revision as perfectly reasonable and in line with the MoS and Five Pillars. These are my only intentions and goals with the text.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 20:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder provided an interesting edit where he just removed the tag but left the text. Is the EPA really just called the Environment Agency in foreign media? Even so, Bell is stationed in America so it still seems like a mistake. I'm just interested.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 20:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] The person who said it isn't from the U.S. "Environment Agency" is likely more recognizable to him than EPA. Is there any doubt as to what he meant? There's no reason to point out what isn't even much of an error. Jonathunder (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

How context-dependent is [sic] supposed to be though? If Environment Agency is indeed a common name in other Anglophone countries (if so this ought to be noted in the EPA article itself), then yes that's fine. If Bell referred to instead the Department of Urban Development and instead said "Urban Department" or something like that, would that merit a sic or no?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 20:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Our style manual says to use sic if "there is a significant error in the original statement" which this is not. It's a case of using different words for what is quite clearly the same thing. Jonathunder (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I was just making sure. Thank you. I believe the current form as you put is acceptable.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, seems like I'll need your wisdom once more. I took your advice and thought about what I could do for the article, and I restored the "dermatrophy" part of the press release quote (see recent edits and summary). I believe it is necessary to include as part of Bell's reasoning for the name, and I believe not including it because of the fictitious term is against NPOV (as if his words need to be polished or hidden for image, see replies above for EPA resolution). I think my current revision is neutral and optimal and in the article's best interest, but I would appreciate your input please.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 04:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, is the "dermatrophy" claim factually incorrect? The [sic] and the link to dermatophagia imply that the claim is wrong, but it's not spelled out in the article. If so, I'd say we have two choices - explain the inaccuracy using reliable sources, or leave the quote out entirely. The subject of the article has to be the species itself, and our efforts should be aimed at providing the best information available about the species. Bradv🍁 04:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, I was thinking something similar but I came across a dilemma. The part of the sentence itself that mentions *dermatrophy could be cut out with ..., but I am not sure if that would make sense. Alternatively, if the entire quote is left out it leaves a verified chunk of Bell's reasoning out of the article, which comes off as "sweeping it under the rug". The article already mentions that it does engage that behavior with its young, which Bell acknowledges as a foundation of his gesture alongside burrowing and poor vision. For your option you mentioned considering reliable sources, I don't know what would qualify besides an online medical dictionary I found. Articles I find mentioning the dermophis genus doing such a thing are all about the news itself - and again incorrectly mentioning "dermatrophy" as if it's a real thing as described, which is concerning but unsurprising, and a reason I see that the mistake should be noted. As it stands, there is misinformation spreading. What to do?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 04:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the phenomenon may be correct, per Caecilian#Reproduction, but the name "dermatrophy" is not (as it simply means thin skin). I'd like to find a reliable source that explained this. Bradv🍁 04:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Well that's good then, though do you mean a source that explains the process of dermophis with its3young, or a source explaining that "dermatrophy" is just the thinning of the skin, or something else? If the latter, there is already online medical dictionaries I can cite that define dermatrophia (same word but -y is much rarer).-~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, here's a source that describes this behaviour in another species of caecilian. It uses the term "dermatophagous" to describe the behaviour. What do you think of removing the erroneous part of the quote, and adding a sentence about this behaviour being described in other species of caecilians? Bradv🍁 05:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv Sure nice that's fine I'd like to see your idea, edit it in right now if you want. I don't know how you want it formatted so you should do it how you think fits best--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Further down in that article it does use the term "dermatotrophy", which is similar to the term used in the press release. Dermatotrophy, as seen in B. taitanus, is a highly unusual mode of parental care previously unknown in tetrapods, in which nutrient provisioning involves remarkable adaptations of both the mothers and the young. Bradv🍁 05:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah interesting , in that case should it appear as dermatrophy or [dermatotrophy] within the quote, the former as resolved for the EPA part? Also apparently this doesn't exist yet as an article....although I just searched it and it is indeed a real and fairly accurate term!--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the article which I think resolves it. An article on dermatotrophy may be worth writing. The references in Caecilian and Boulengerula taitana would be of use. Bradv🍁 05:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv Thank you very much! That's an excellent addition and I hope you are as satisfied with it as I am. I may start that article as well. I wonder though, I'm just making sure, should the clarification you added about dermatotrophy stay in the main text or be formatted as a s Ed crooned note? And do you think the article in general now is good?--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, I started the article Dermatotrophy. Feel free to expand it - you likely have more experience in this area than I. As for this article, I think this edit fixes the issue of the erroneous press release and the unexplained "sic", and provides more information about the subject, but I'm open to what others think as well. Bradv🍁 05:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, I disagree with turning this into a note. The article is about the species, not about the press release, and the sentence that is actually about the species shouldn't be relegated to the appendix. Bradv🍁 05:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, as I meant to say before auto correct I *sectioned* the note you added as ancillary but necessary information, please revert if you feel that is not needed. I will edit that article too thank you for starting it. I think I am done with this article for now and also await other thoughts. Edit: I just saw your reply and that's fine, I'll undo it, I just was unsure about styling.-~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Italics

Regarding this edit by Sigehelmus, genera and species are to be italicized per MOS:LIFE. There is no requirement in the manual of style for such species to be formally identified. Even if this isn't treated as a species name, MOS:FOREIGNITALIC applies as these terms are in Latin. Bradv🍁 18:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever it is, Dermophis donaldtrumpi is definitely not English. It should be italicized. Jonathunder (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, I thought this had already been settled above by the clause in the MoS that says "Derived uses in non-biological contexts are not italicized: The largest carnivore in family Tyrannosauridae was T. rex itself, but Unicorn was an album by the band T. Rex." Jonathunder, please read the second sentence in particular; T. Rex is from Latin yet in that case is not italicized. Other words borrowed too aren't necessarily always italicized either, e.g. German kitsch vs. Sonderweg.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 18:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have posted this comment in that section, but I don't think the issue is resolved at all. The example given in the MOS of a "derived" name refers to a band named after a species, which is not the same thing at all. This name is not derived from anything – it is the Latin name of a species. Bradv🍁 18:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Words which have gained widespread use in English are typically not italicized, but that is obviously not the case here. Nor is this a "non-biological context" as there is detailed biological information starting with the first sentence, unlike your "T. Rex the band" example. Jonathunder (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but what about the POV concerns? Does italicized text not implicitly prematurely legitimize the name? Not all news outlets italicized the name either, such as the India Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/meet-dermophis-donaldtrumpi-a-newly-discovered-amphibian-named-after-us-president-trump/articleshow/67156984.cms --~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 18:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "legitimizing" the name as there isn't any other name for the thing. Italics indicate the words are binomial and not English. Jonathunder (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Dermophis is derived from Greek, not Latin. The closest parallel here is probably Mycoplasma laboratorium; while italics in that article are inconsistent, most instance of "Mycoplasma laboratorium" are not italicized. Bifidus regularis is another case of something that looks like a scientific name but isn't. Plantdrew (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, media outlets (currently almost the only sources for it) provide a mix of italicized and non-italicized text. This name is in a grey area and there is, as far as any objectivity is concerned, the same level of reality to this as the Road Runner is "Speedibus rex" as was noted before many times, should that be italicized too? Both that and this are obvious fake Latin names, coined in English itself.Edit conflict: I endorse Plantdrew's related point.-~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 19:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Our style manual is not irrelevant for this article. Format in other media might be, since they don't all italicize the same way we do. Your Road Runner example is spurious, since that's an obvious farce. Stick to serious examples, please. Jonathunder (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Many people would consider donaldtrumpi is just as much of a farce as Road Runner, just slightly less expensive. Objectively speaking, until it is published this is not a real species whatosever, it is meaningless and a political gesture. I know it gets philosophical here but that's the truth. When (or if) it gets published, then it can definitely be considered a scientific taxonomic name worthy of italicization. As is, it is just nonsense coined in English, not even Latin.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 01:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's similar to the construction of Neopalpa donaldtrumpi, Tetragramma donaldtrumpi, Aptostichus barackobamai, Desmopachria barackobamai, and many others which are italicized. If this is "nonsense coined in English" then so are those. Jonathunder (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: those are formal, published species. This is not, its name is meaningless and has no worth. This is the crucial difference.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, I can't find any policy or guideline that supports your position. This is an article about a species. The fact that the species has not been formally published is important (and duly noted in the lede), but it does not detract from the species' notability in any way. The standard rules and conventions regarding species apply to this article. Bradv🍁 03:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, if the standard rules and conventions apply to this article as with other species, then inter alia the infobox should be fully restored.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 03:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigehelmus, infoboxes are placed at the discretion of the editors on the article (local consensus), and there is no requirement that we have an infobox. On the other hand, the use of italics is prescribed in the MOS. Bradv🍁 03:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, I have an idea. Can you find any updates at all to this article and see if there has been any news about the species from which we can deduce from sources how to make this less controversial? I'm limited in what I can do right now sadly.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 03:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how more sources would help this discussion. Either we follow the manual of style or we don't. Bradv🍁 03:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I meant that if there was updates about this then it can be more confidently formatted without concerns about POV and such.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 03:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your "POV" concern seems to be only about the formal publication, which isn't relevant to italics, as noted above. Let's follow our guidelines. Jonathunder (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder, your assertion this is not english? I'm happy to revert myself if you demonstrate how that is so. cygnis insignis 14:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this ever going to be published?

@Dyanega:, do you think this particular name is ever going to be published? It's pretty clear Envirobuild's reasoning for naming is intended to give offense (contrary to the ICodeZN's code of ethics). And even if they're not concerned about offending Trump or the code of ethics, the taxonomists who would actually be publishing the name might not want to give a name that is "just mean to the creature". 21:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair question, but I don't know who the people are who are preparing the description, and only they would know what's going on. The one thing I will say is that it sounds like there was some sort of contractual agreement, so it SHOULD be getting published. If the winning bidder has refused to pay the $25,000 bid, then I would expect legal action to compel them to pay. If the fee was paid, and the scientists refused to publish the name, I would likewise expect legal action. It really would be nice to know what has happened in the intervening 5 years. Dyanega (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)