Template:Did you know nominations/Xiphophorus signum

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 16:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Xiphophorus signum

(

)

A male

... that Xiphophorus signum (pictured) is the only swordtail to be particular about with which swordtail species it mates?

Source: "With the possible exception of X. signum, all species of Xiphophorus can be hybridized with each other in the laboratory." [1]

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Quintus Quincy Quigley

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 180 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC).

Doing... ミラP@Miraclepine 18:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nominated five days after creation and size is 1822 B. Figuring out if ref 4 supported the text and hook needed an extra minute of thought, but the article is overall in good shape. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Miraclepine. Wording the article text and the hook to match what the source says took me more than a minute, I must say. Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This is what was posted at Errors just before this went live:

"that ... is the only swordtail to be selective in which species it mates with?". This statement is not supported by the bolded article and contradicted by the reference cited there. The article states only that this is the only species "that has proved difficult, and potentially impossible, to hybridize with others". Logically, species can be rather selective in prefering mates of their own species, yet nevertheless occasionally produce hybrids, especially in unnatural situations or when deprived of choice. That is the case here. The cited reference states, "In spite of the many areas of sympatry and the relative ease with which many hybrids are obtained in the laboratory, only three or four localities are known where two species of Xiphophorus hybridize with each other." Essentially, the existence of hybridisation in the lab does not imply lack of selectivity in the wild. I suggest to change to "... that Xiphophorus signum is the only swordtail not known to hybridise with other Xiphophorus species." (Even then, the cited reference clarifies that the evidence was not there for the species recently described, but maybe it is reasonable to ignore that caveat.) JMCHutchinson (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

With there not being time to resolve this, I've pulled the item. Please review and discuss the above and come to some conclusion. Schwede 66 23:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Surtsicna and Miraclepine: Please address the above, as this hits two months tomorrow and is liable to be timed out.--Laun chba ller 10:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I'm on a tight schedule (a hour before I must leave for school), so how about this?

ALT1A: ... that Xiphophorus signum (pictured) is the only swordtail not known to hybridise with other Xiphophorus species?
ALT1B: ... that Xiphophorus signum (pictured) is the only swordtail not known to hybridise with other Xiphophorus species?

I've linked Xiphophorus twice in ALT1A, assuming those unfamiliar with ichthyology would be unfamiliar enough to even have to link swordtail, but I have an ALT1B in case it's redundant to link twice? And as for the recently-described species caveat, I think we can ignore it as while the source is from 2006, the most recently-described species on FishBase is from 2004. ミラP@Miraclepine 18:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record: the proposed hook had no links, so the proposal above is for adding links given the uncertainty on whether to link to the same article twice. JMCHutchinson, next time you propose a hook, please add links to them so the approval process is more convenient. (Oh, and it also helps to format them this way.) ミラP@Miraclepine 18:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

What is here to address, Launchballer? JMCHutchinson has proposed an alternative hook, which should now presumably be reviewed by another editor. I had not even been pinged about this until now. Practically speaking, the proposed hook is a rewording of the original hook and might have been implemented without pulling and waiting for a new review. Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think that 'swordtail' should be linked and not Xiphophorus, but I'll let a promoter decide. Approving AGF.--Laun chba ller 23:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)