Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:48, 24 January 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Insects Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lepidoptera Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

A fact from Neopalpa donaldtrumpi appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 January 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that a newly described moth species, Neopalpa donaldtrumpi (pictured), was so named because its yellowish head scales reminded a scientist of Donald Trump's hairdo? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2017/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi.

Smaller male genitalia?

Oh, no. Not again! :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Some viral click bait stories going around were running headlines about the "comparatively smaller" (than N. neonata) genitals. That's not something that Nazari is really emphasizing as a difference between the two species (difference in genital structure, yes, difference in size, no). Look at the key in Nazari's paper or the diagnosis. Diagnosis is as follows:

"The new species can be easily distinguished from N. neonata by its external appearance, the yellowish-white scales covering the frons of the adult head, and the distinctive orange-yellow coloration on the forewing dorsum. In the male genitalia, the valvae are strongly curved, the saccus has an acute tip, and the highly-developed bilobed processes of the vinculum, characteristic of N. neonata, are absent. In the female genitalia, the subgenital plate is simpler than in N. neonata and much less sculptured with microtrichea, and the signum wings are smooth."

If genital size were an important diagnostic character, Nazari would have given measurements. "Comparatively smaller" is useless as an identifying character. Plantdrew (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: In this case, why this is mentioned in our article? I am removing this piece of apparent fake news. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There is another aspect here that I somewhat dislike, that is the overly technical vocabular that should be reduced as much as possible for an wikipedia article and the technical terms that can't be avoided should (ideally) be linked. I don't think simply copying the highly technical language from scientific zoological publication is good encyclopedic writing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You overlooked this part in Nazari's paper (page 89): "Review of species – Neopalpa donaldtrumpi nazara, sp. n. – Male genitalia: 'Genitalia comparatively smaller than for N. neonata" which reflects the detailed comparison at "Key to species of Neopalpa" (p. 83). This aspect has been covered in several reports, so it ought to be restored in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Your talking the wrong person, although I introduced my point above with "another" I didn't (mean to) really state any opinion on the genetalia part, I just have an issue with an overly technical and unexplained language creeping in the article. That aside I have the feeling that since its creation a lot of people worked on the article without properly and fully reading the given sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake (and the perils of threaded discussions). I meant to address the concerns of User:Staszek Lem, User:Plantdrew, and User:Staszek Lem. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Still "small genitalis" is a single WP:UNDUE nonnotable trivia picked from other detail with an apparent "small hands" joke in mind. Removed again. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've readded and tweaked the sentence according to the source. It's WP:UNDUE to remove one of the identifying features of a species when it's put in the actual key provided in the source. For microleps like this, genetalia are almost always compared for species identification independent of whatever dispute is happening on the Donald Trump end of things. I could understand removing excessive detail if someone was obviously trying to lay into some genital and Trump association. It would also be too much if someone started describing all the structure names and exact measurements as that level of detail is better left for the source to describe if someone wanted diagnostic rather than encyclopedic level of identification. This is pretty far from that, and I don't see anything that's worth expanding beyond that either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What you readded makes a little bit sense. What I deleted did not. Yes it is WP:UNDUE to include only one, most amusing, even if identifying feature. I am still objecting this cherry-picking of a single detail from a Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the major distinction by the author:

The new species can be easily distinguished from N. neonata by its external appearance, the yellowish-white scales covering the frons of the adult head, and the distinctive orange-yellow coloration on the forewing dorsum. In the male genitalia, the valvae are strongly curved, the saccus has an acute tip, and the highly-developed bilobed processes of the vinculum, characteristic of N. neonata, are absent. In the female genitalia, the subgenital plate is simpler than in N. neonata and much less sculptured with microtrichea, and the signum wings are smooth.

In other words, size, while mentioned elsewhere, is not considered significant enough distinction, hence WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read the entirety of the source. If you aren't familiar with it, the key is the summary of important characteristics for distinguishing species (and saying a key isn't significant violates WP:UNDUE) for the species very clearly states:

1. Forewing predominantly dark brown or gray; male genitalia with large bilobate vincular processes 4× length of sacculus; phallus with a curved tip and a distinct subterminal hook; female genitalia segment 8 extensively sculpted with microtrichea, signum aviform with granulated wings...........N. neonata
2. Forewing orange yellow except costal and terminal areas dark brown; male genitalia vincular processes not longer than sacculus, phallus tip acute with a subtle subterminal thorn; female genitalia segment 8 with hardly any microtrichea, signum aviform with smooth wings............. N. donaldtrumpi sp. n.

Ignoring whatever is going on with Trump lately, genitalia comparisons like this are standard for these types of lepidoptera, and the source gives certain characteristics of those significant mention. If this were buried in the text or figure captions it might be a different story, but it's in the key. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You really refuse to see my objection. Where do you see me claiming that genitalia are unimportant? I am arguing their size is a relatively unimportant characteristic in lieu of the description of the features of genitalia recognized as critical distinction by the author. Exactly like reducing Trump to "small hands". And of course you cannot ignore what's going on with Trump: we cannot allow wikipedia to be a vehicle for subtle trolling. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've seen your objection, but it is irrelevant and violates policy. At the end of the day, the source states that genital size is a defining feature in the key. We do not engage in original research by personally disputing such statements, nor do we violate further policy by excluding scientific information sources deemed important that people have later happened to makes memes, etc. of. If someone doesn't have the maturity to deal with genital morphology being an identifying feature in insects (and specified as important in for this species), we don't censor that information as that would violate WP:NPOV and even get into pseudoscience territory. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please no strowman beating. No we don't censor information. And I don't censor information. I am applying WP:UNDUE guideline. I disagree that a mere mention of some minor item makes it the only other "identifying feature" listed in our article. The major distinctive features of the genitals are prominently listed by the author, yet they miss from wikipedia article. Clearly we cannot copy the whole description into wikipedia. That would be copyright violation (or can we?). But if we are summarizing it, we must stick to most important elements. I could have done it myself, but I lack biological expertise to reasonably rephrase the description. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC instead of referring to strawman. Saying that genital differences directly pointed out in the key cannot be mentioned because of political drama is indeed getting into WP:NOTCENSORED issues with the content. Also keep in mind the application of WP:UNDUE means that such information will be included, not excluded, because the source mentions this in the key. At this point, concerns of genital differences not being important can be dismissed as WP:OR.

As for summarizing, that was already done if you read the above conversation. I need to ask, do you know what a species key is? If you're not aware, it's the actual formal tool that is used to distinguish species with defining characteristics. If there's a question on species ID, that's what you ultimately go to for a summary. The key is clear: wing structure and genitalia. This edit already incorporated the latter, and wings could be included too if someone thinks the picture isn't enough. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with WP:FOC; it is you who invoke WP:CENSORED. I am referring to strawman, because you seem to assume I am against description of genitals. You are repeatedly ignoring my point repeated in each and every statement: I am NOT objecting the description of genitals. I am objecting to listing single cherry-picked parameter of genitals, while the most prominent difference, "the highly-developed bilobed processes of the vinculum, characteristic of N. neonata, are absent" is blissfully ignored. Can you explain why size of genitals is more impotant parameter than vinculum? Yes I know what a species key is. I also know that genitalia is a key, but genitalia size is not. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Again please FOC. The censoring issue is a content issue. A concise summary is that male genital structures are overall larger or more prominent in once species than the other, while the female description is even simpler. It's erroneous to call it cherry-picked when it summarizes the overall genital structures. That's the opposite of cherry-picking. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Kingofaces43, the size and structuring of the genitalia are the most notable identifying features that separate the two species. The size and structural differences should not have been removed from the article, and if it had been any other species there would not have been this discussion at all. Entomology looks at genitals first, that's life, and the article here should reflect it.--Kevmin § 02:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Twice first described

How can it be "first described" both in 1998 and 2017 ? 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Neopalpa neonata was first described in 1998 and neopalpa donaldtrumpi in 2017. However the investigated specimens now assigned to donaldtrumpi were earlier falsely assigned to neonata. Note that the genus neopalpa (not species!) to which neonata and donaldtrumpi both belong was first described in 1998.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

temporary semi-protection?

Some people love to shit on anything Trump for some reason, and this is reflected on the Misplaced Pages articles about him and his franchise, as well. Trump articles are especially prone to brigading and vandalism. Yes, this is just a moth species that now bears his name, but it gets in the line of fire of vandals. Choco-mint flavor (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've requested a short increase in protection. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Insects articles
• Low-importance Insects articles
• WikiProject Insects articles
• Start-Class Lepidoptera articles
• Low-importance Lepidoptera articles
• WikiProject Lepidoptera articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles