Talk:Ctenobethylus goepperti

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a 40-million-year-old fossil ant was discovered in famed German polymath Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's private amber collection in 2026?

• Source: https://antcat.org/references/144623

• • ALT1: that famed German polymath Johann Wolfgang von Goethe unknowingly owned a 40-million-year-old fossil ant in his amber collection that was only identified in 2026?
  • ALT2: that famed German polymath Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's amber collection contained a 40-million-year-old fossil ant discovered in 2026?
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my fourth DYK nomination, so the next one and every one onwards from that will require a QPQ. I am proposing a special set some time in the future, possibly within a month or two, which will comprise exclusively of ant-related DYKs, including this page, Pheidole navigans, and 5-6 more I have planned, if it is possible.

Created by 2003 LN6 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

2003 LN6 05:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC).

• NOTE:If you're planning to propose an ant only DYK set @2003 LN6:, you need to start that request process now, as its going to take a lot of convincing and you would need 9 total articles to fill a prep set.--Kevmin § 00:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
• Starting Review.--Kevmin § 00:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • As an initial note, the alt1 hook is OR, we dont know that Goethe was unaware of the ant, it is visible to the naked eye in the amber specimen, and nothing in the article say he didn't see the inclusions. Baltic amber is noted to darken with age, and the specimen was likely lighter in tone and plausibly more transparent when he aquired them. I will also fully object to the use of 40mya in the hooks. We don't know the exact source of Goethes specimens, and Baltic Amber age is noted to be contentious, with Priabinian to Early Oligocene still noted in papers and the Goethe paper itself uses Middle to Late Eocene dated (47–34mya). Third, the whole article should be at the gens page and I have started a merge proposal.--Kevmin § 00:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I also suspect that such a set will not gain consensus. Following recent events, single-topic sets have become controversial and are likely to be scrutinized. It would also likely require an actual special occasion date to work; a single-topic set on a random day is unlikely to get support given the lack of a connection. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@2003 LN6: the issues are still outstanding in the article and hook.--Kevmin § 03:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• No response from the nominator despite a ping and a talk page message, and despite activity elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment— the first hook makes it sound like it was discovered new to science in Goethe's collection: I'd rather ALT1 or 2. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 14:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cremastra:, this comment needs to be on the actual nomination template Template:Did you know nominations/Ctenobethylus goepperti, not here, where its just transcluded and comments here don't show there.--Kevmin § 00:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Merge

This is a content fork of Ctenobethylus, and per current WP:paleo best practice should be covered on the genus page, as evidenced by a very large proportion of the prose in each section being about the genus and not the species.--Kevmin § 00:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)