Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclocephala nodanotherwon

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) 06:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Cyclocephala nodanotherwon

(

)

... that the rhinoceros beetle genus Cyclocephala already had over 200 species when C. nodanotherwon ("not another one") was described in 1992? Source: "211 species are known" (Endrődi 1985:28)
- ALT1:... that the specific name of the rhinoceros beetle Cyclocephala nodanotherwon ("not another one") is an example of wordplay in binominal nomenclature? Source: self evident, but see Мурашев (2007) "Языковая игра в биологической номенклатуре" [1] or Watson (2005) "Are they serious?" [2]
- ALT2:... that University of Nebraska State Museum entomologist Brett C. Ratcliffe named a new species of rhinoceros beetle Cyclocephala nodanotherwon ("not another one")? Source: "when US taxonomist Brett Ratcliffe was faced with naming yet another species of beetle in the genus Cyclocephala, he expressed his weariness by naming it Cyclocephala nodanotherwon ('not another one')" [3]

Reviewed: ~~TBD~~ Did you know nominations/Israel Isaac Kahanovitch
Comment: I'm on the fence as to whether or not to spell out the pun, but decided to be explicit for the benefit of the many Wikipedia readers who aren't native English speakers. Also re the original hook the article says "at least 240" but I got that number by doing some WP:CALC adding the species in Endrődi, Endrődi's appendix, and Ratcliffe's addendum. I wrote "over 200" instead of "over 240" b/c that was easier to source in a single quotation.

Converted from a redirect by Umimmak (talk). Self-nominated at 02:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC).

I think it's a good idea to spell out the pun. When I see scientific names I tend to skim over them without actually "reading" them, so I imagine it could be missed even by native English speakers. 97198 (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Starting review--Kev min § 22:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Article new enough and long enough with full sourcing to each paragraph. Alt0 sourced and cited, with the 200 being accepted as not controversial. No policy issues identified in the article, no copy-violations identified. Alt0 would be more readable if the extra links (at least rhinoceros beetle and described) were unlinked.--Kev min § 02:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kevmin: if your only issue is that the original hook is apparently overlinked, then the promoter is free to un-link "described" and "rhinoceros beetle", I suppose (although I personally am not sure why it's an issue; it's far from a WP:SEAOFBLUE). Umimmak (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Umimmak: My note stems from this discussion in which WP:OVERLINK was discussed and generally looked at as to many links aren't useful. The issue is still raised by promoters. I think Alt0 stands best with out the two links I noted.--Kev min § 17:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I'm not sure what my next step is. Do I need to explicitly write out the version without those links for you to give me the tick?

ALT0a: ... that the rhinoceros beetle genus Cyclocephala already had over 200 species when C. nodanotherwon ("not another one") was described in 1992?

Umimmak (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Alt0a hook is good to go, no changes in article since review.--Kev min § 15:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)```