Talk:Vermiviatum covidum

Did you know nomination

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 Troubled.elias (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Humbertium covidum

• ... that flatworm Humbertium covidum was named after the COVID-19 pandemic? Source: [1]
  • ALT1: ... that flatworm Humbertium covidum, named after the COVID-19 pandemic, was classified in a study written mostly during the initial lockdown? Source: [2]
  • Reviewed: Crime in Latvia
  • Comment: ALT0 is probably better, to be honest :) found a news story, found that someone had written the wiki article, I couldn't resist.

Created by Mayra SA (talk). Nominated by Theleekycauldron (talk) at 05:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC).

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

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

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: Interesting article, interesting hook. I agree that ALT1 is more interesting. Cute flatworm. Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the speedy review, Guettarda! To clarify, you think ALT1 is more interesting? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry, yes I misread what you said. I like ALT1 better, but either one is good. Guettarda (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Gotcha- either one works for me as well! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Moving ALT1 to Prep 6, with slight copyedits to the hook for flow. What a quirky, adorable fella! ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 07:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"black"

I saw the text saying it was classed under the synonym Diversibipalium "black", which looked to me as though it was glossing diversibipalium as "black", which would clearly have been an error.

By the time I took out the third one, it occurred to me that maybe that wasn't what was meant, that maybe the specific epithet is the entire phrase "Diversibipalium 'black' ", as opposed to Diversibipalium something else. If that's the case, my apologies, but it's still super-confusing. In that case, could someone reword it so it's clear? --Trovatore (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• These corrections were unecessary and erroneous and were reverted. Please read primary resources before editing and please learn about the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature before editing pages. The etymology of the name Diversibipalium "black" is clearly explained in the paper by Justine et al. (2018) and this name is clearly cited in the paper by Justine et al. (2022), including the abstract: "The new species Humbertium covidum n. sp. (syn: Diversibipalium “black” of Justine et al., 2018) is formally described..." Both 2018 and 2022 papers are openaccess. Mayra SA (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  It may well be explained in the sources, but it's still confusing to readers — it looks like it's saying that diversipalium means black. Please fix the confusing aspect rather than taking an attitude with the person who points it out to you. --Trovatore (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• It's not that condescending to say people should perhaps read sources before editing articles to make sure they understand what the article is saying and that they don't introduce errors. If you had offered a suggestion to make it less confusing to you, perhaps that would have been better. In any event, I'm not sure it's necessary to change it, but Mayra SA maybe The species was initially mentioned using the provisional name "Diversibipalium sp. 'black'" in 2018 (a wording found six times in Justine et al. 2018 and also once in Justine et al. 2022:8) the first time it's mentioned might possibly prevent future editors from misinterpreting this as a gloss, especially since LittleWhole also had this issue as well. Umimmak (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, to me it also *looked like a gloss until I thought about it for a while. Was pretty confusing. LittleWhole (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• I simply changed a sentence, current version is now "At this time, the species was assigned to the genus Diversibipalium Kawakatsu et al., 2002, a collective group created to accommodate species whose anatomy of the copulatory apparatus is still unknown, and was not given a Latin species name, hence "black", a simple adjective." I hope this is simple and clear. Mayra SA (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• That's not bad. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)