Talk:Pheidole navigans

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: promoted by Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Pheidole navigans, a species of big-headed ant invasive in many parts of the world, was misidentified as a different species for over 50 years?

• Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4714327/

• • ALT1: ... that Pheidole navigans, a species of invasive big-headed ant, was misidentified as a different species of big-headed ant for over 50 years? Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4714327/
  • ALT2: ... that Pheidole navigans, a species of invasive big-headed ant, was misidentified as a different species of big-headed ant in its invasive range for over 50 years? Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4714327/
  • Reviewed:

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

2003 LN6 15:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC).

• Starting review--Kevmin § 18:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • As it stands now, the expansion is new enough and long enough. However the description section for the castes is in violation of CLOPEN rules and needs heavy revision, full phrases that are not specific un-translatable technical terms are lifted from sources. Earwig shows a 60%+ duplication with the main reference used for the morphology section. Also, sentences are duplicated across the subsections with only changes to the data numbers, resulting in multiple duplicated links.
  • In addition though the entire section is making the article unbalanced. Section tracking added to the talk page shows 2,060 words in Morphology, and only 1,028 words for the entire rest of the prose. Articles should be written for a general audience not a specialist looking to do identifications. There should be more that can be said about the ecology and the human impacts.--Kevmin § 00:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @2003 LN6: heads up.--Kevmin § 18:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the notification. I will make my best effort to revise the article based on the needed changes within the next few days.2003 LN6 18:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
      • Article expansion new enough and long enough, with full citations. Article is neutrally written with the CLOPEN issue addressed. Hook is cited, but the hook wording does not align with the article prose. Currently the article asserts full synonymy in 2003, meaning the taxon would have been treated as a valid subspecies for 102 years before synonym by Wilson, and then resurrection to full species only 12 years later.--Kevmin § 01:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
        • @Kevmin: That is indeed true, however it was misidentified as Pheidole moerens in its invasive range from 1967 up until 2015. It was indeed a valid subspecies from 1901 to 2003, yet that name was not applied to its invasive populations during that time. I have added an ALT2 that clarifies this. 2003 LN6 03:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

with the new alt with better wording I think this nomination is now good to go.--Kevmin § 00:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)