Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• 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?

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)

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 disagree that size is correct overall summary. Please provide a ref which says so. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 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)

Structural differences of genitals are not removed from the article. You were distracted by Kingofaces43's false representation of my argument. 19:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the above. Entomologists spend an inordinate amount of time peering at genital papillae, genital cerci, and general genital real estate. This is a standard identification area, and if part of the distinguishing characteristics (as apparently the case here), should form part of the description in the article. - Even if it was an incidental detail, the fact that it is being used to make fun of the Donald should have zero impact on whether it is included or not. This is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in airbrushing science articles to pussyfoot around societal issues. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The difference in genitalia was duly noted in the article. What is undue, is that difference is size declared as most prominent difference, which is clearly not, by the opinion of the discoverer. Please provide a reference which says that size is the most prominent distinction in the genitals. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Tired of this preaching to the deaf, despite being a non-expert in biology, I tried to write a correct summary of the distinction, clearly and prominently written in the source, but stubbornly ignored. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This was the information that was already covered in the article (again redundant on the yellow scales) and what's currently included is what you were arguing against including for genitalia differences. Please don't say that the rest of us were ignoring these when we were saying this is what should have been (and was) included according to the description and species key from the start. The content you said you were summarizing in these edits is what was already summarized in the article already. Please slow down and pay attention to what people here are saying about the content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a false statement (about"already covered"). I challenge you to point the textin old versions which lists the major differences, as specifi by the discoverer. Also for the N-th freaking time I am not excluding genitals for Christ sake! Please stop your spreading falsitudes right away. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, please slow down. Please look at the very diff I cited. We already mention the yellow scales on the head in the sentence just before where you added a second sentence about it. As for genitals, you've been opposed to including size differences throughout this conversation contrary to the source's key. That has been the issue of contention this whole time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• For those following this discussion, I've opened a case at AN3 due to these ongoing behavior issues. Elmidae, and Kevmin, I'm pinging you so you're aware I mentioned some of your comments there as background. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• With respect to the non-experts here, this is something you need to back away from. Genitalia are a key characteristic for many many insects. Some species can only be reliably identified after being euthanised and having their genitalia dissected. Many the morning I have opened my fridge to get some milk and found a row of jars of bees etc all ready to be taken into my ecologist wife's work, drowned and have their knackers chopped up. Even in species where it is not a defining characteristic, it is still a key one for indentification purposes due to the differences in size, shape etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Nobody argues otherwise. You were misled by the wall of text. The article is in a stable state now. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Then in the future, please do not vehemently argue something like genital structure size is not important only to turn around and say no one was arguing that in the first place (contrary to your very clear viewpoint in nearly every single post in the wall). . Normally, people just say they changed their mind instead of saying they never said something while claiming they are now being misrepresented. If it's not clear to you the errors in what you were saying, please get guidance from someone outside the article talk page as that's getting into behavior territory (and this has taken up enough talk page space). I think the rest of us would like to move on while making sure that doesn't get repeated again so we can keep the article stable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Please cease your belligerent spreading of false accusations. My point was that nitpicking of a single parameter of genitals, their size, and omitting the rest is WP:UNDUE, on par with reducing Trump's physique to "small hands", just like your laborous diffs above show but you still fail to comprehend. After someone else added a bit more detailed ref to genitals I always kept it in my article versions and eventually expanded myself after self-proclaimed bio experts did not move a finger to fix it. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, please re-read the above conversation. No one was cherrypicking a single trait and omitting the rest. That has been discussed multiple times on this talk page already in response to you repeating that in that we already discussed the key features of the scales on the head and forewings in text just before the part on genitalia. As also discussed above, we don't want to be too WP:TECHNICAL as this is an encyclopedia, not a journal. We generally don't want to delve too deep into describing specific genital structures as your edit did. Summarizing it simply as just genital structures is the appropriate level of detail for our audience. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Who wears the trousers in the death family? -Roxy the dog. bark 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Dead horses don't wear trousers. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a traditional song on that subject of sorts having its own WP article: Donald Where's Your Troosers?. But to quote the introducing post "Oh, no. Not again!" we seem to run into the same problem again. Let's hope that other WP article fares better than this one. :-)--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

N. donaldtrumpi, where's your trousers? Like the proverbial horse, this tread is dead. Someone kilt it. Jonathunder (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)