- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Catodontherium
- ... that Catodontherium had a prior genus name that was mistakenly thought to have been used before and therefore was replaced? Source: Classification of Mammals: Above the Species Level, pg. 406 ("'Proposed on the grounds that Catodus is preoccupied by Catodon Linnaeus, 1761. This is not preoccupation, but Catodus was a numen nudum in its earlier publication (1905) so that Catodontherium may be retained' (Simpson, 1945:147)"
- Reviewed:
Created by PrimalMustelid (talk). Self-nominated at 16:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Catodontherium; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Starting Review--Kevmin § 15:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Article new enough and long enough, though a bit dense for a lay reader at times. no copyvio issues identified and hook source verified. I think we should maybe look at wordmithing of the hook itself so it flows a little better and is a little more concise.--Kevmin § 17:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, how do you suggest I reword the hook? PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delays in responding. We could go with something along the lines of:
- Alt1... that due to a misunderstanding, Catodontherium was moved from its original genus name?
- --Kevmin § 20:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that sounds good. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, how do you suggest I reword the hook? PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, we will need another set of eyes to give a verification that the new hook I proposed is acceptable then, The article overall is ready for passing, as it has no copyvio issues. is new enough and long enough, and does not have any notable rules issues.--Kevmin § 18:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Launchballer Alt1 does that with the verbiage "due to a misunderstanding"--Kevmin § 19:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but the article says 'may', while the hook does not.--Launchballer 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer @Kevmin I don't wish for this hook to be in stagnation, so I slightly reworded the sentence to comply with the hook. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but the article says 'may', while the hook does not.--Launchballer 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
