The following discussion 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) 10:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Tyrannasorus rex[edit]

(
)

5x expanded by Surtsicna (talk). Self nom at 21:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note to reviewer: The article does not explicity say that Tyrannasorus rex had wings and six legs. It says that it was a beetle, and beetles are animals who have six legs (like all insects) and wings. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Point of order: I'll give you the six legs, but aren't there wingless beetles, like dung beetles? How do we know it had wings? If we can't get around the wing problem, I'd suggest saving this for April Fool's Day and using an alternative hook along the following lines. Prioryman (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Dung beetles do have wings. (See, for example: The body is covered with a hard shield, protecting the beetle’s membranous wings.) Beetles without wings are very rare, and Hybosoridae do have them. As for six legs, I think that is the most undisputable fact about this creature, as insects by definition have six legs. If it does not have six legs, it is simply not an insect. I am afraid that the alternative hook is not nearly as hooky, given that many readers would not realise that Tyrannosaurus rex could not have been preserved in amber. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd agree that the first hook is definitely hookier. Would you be happy with delaying running it until 1 April? I think it'd be a great choice for that day. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just noticed that the main source used in the article describes the insect's elytra, i.e. wings. Yes, of course, if you feel that the hook would fare better on 1 April than on another day, let's delay it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, I am afraid that the DYK section will be full of similarly shocking hooks and that this little bug won't receive as much attention as it would on any other day. Surtsicna (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say it would attract much more attention. April Fool's DYKs tend to record a significantly higher number of page views than those on other days, particularly if they have clever/funny hooks. Prioryman (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that because April Fool's DYKs are all deliberately a bit misleading and shocking? I'll admit: I am not sure I would want it to compete with your Fucker and Polish spanking girls :D Besides, this is a rare case when the hook is shocking enough without tricking readers. Could you take a look at my nomination of the article about a fly called Carmen Electra She Kiss Me? Perhaps we could come up with an April's Fool hook there - it's very promising! Surtsicna (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If the original hook is to be used, remember the following rule:

The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article.

I prefer ALT1. Both hooks rely on being deliberately misleading (a straightforward hook such as "... that a species of beetle had wings and six legs?" would be very boring), but the original hook is too obviously not about T. rex the dinosaur, whereas the alt is more plausibly misleading. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Both the wings-part and the legs-part are now explicitly mentioned. The six legs part is inline sourced already in virtually every paragraph. As I explained, it is mentioned in the article (very clearly) that Tyrannasorus rex was an insect, and insects by definition have six legs. I do not understand the issue here, but since the source mentions the insect's legs, I suppose there is no harm (except for redundancy) in saying that it did have six legs. As for the choice of a hook, I have to disagree. Most people would be too astonished to realize that the T. rex is not T. rex the dinosaur before opening the article. Even the few that would realize would probably still be curious to read about it. On the other hand, the sad truth is that many readers would not know what amber is and even more of them would not realize that the dinosaur could not have been preserved in amber. Surtsicna (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the original is much preferable, although I agree that six legs should be explicitly cited in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It is mentioned now, in a way that doesn't make the article look silly by stating the obvious. I hope I have achieved that. Surtsicna (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Acceptable. Tick for original hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Category