Template:Did you know nominations/East Zhejiang Maritime Affairs/Folk Custom Museum

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

East Zhejiang Maritime Affairs/Folk Custom Museum

(

)

Ningbo's Tianhou Palace c. 1870

... that Ningbo's Tianhou Palace (pictured), once said to be among the finest temples in China, has been repaired and reopened as a museum?
- ALT1:... that Fujianese merchants repaired the Tianhou Palace in central Ningbo (pictured) and then used it as their guildhall?
- ALT2:... that Ningbo's Tianhou Palace (pictured) carefully placed its stages so that the goddess could watch Chinese opera?
- ALT3:... that Ningbo's Tianhou Palace (pictured) is now filled with scale-model replicas of Chinese ships with moving parts?
- ALT4:... that parts of Ningbo's Tianhou Palace (pictured) destroyed during the Cultural Revolution were rebuilt using historical drawings?
- ALT5:... that Chinese legend credits Korean sailors with erecting Ningbo's Tianhou Palace (pictured) for the Fujianese goddess Mazu?
- ALT6:... that the entrance of Ningbo's Tianhou Palace (pictured) is watched over by the "Dragon Tongue Squad"?
- ALT7:... that the Empress of Heaven honored by Ningbo's Tianhou Palace (pictured) is Mazu, a medieval Fujianese teenager deified for her miraculous protection of her family during a typhoon?

Reviewed: ~~Will do.~~ Hemp in Kentucky
Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to verify the hook(s) most interesting to you. If it's #7, lemme know and I can copy/paste some descriptive text and sourcing from Mazu the Goddess.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 03:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC).

Comment - It's a mess. Ridiculous number of transcription boxes, the history section is one absurdly long para. Use mini-galleries for the too-small pics, & move the over-bolded "Names" section to the end. It has at least 2 "clarification needed" tags. And what on earth is the redirect here about? Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look at the article and to comment here, especially given the template problems caused by the slash in the name. That said, no policy actually supports any of your concerns, so they don't have any bearing on DYK and should be discussed as style issues on the article's talk page, if you're not feeling WP:BOLD yourself.
In the interest of heading that off, though, I'll note here that—beyond not supporting you—several policies and style guides sharply contract you.
I get it: the thing has been called a lot of different names over the years. That said, all of the sourced English names bear inclusion (WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH) in a separate section (WP:ALTNAME). Those names are bolded (WP:ALTNAME) and the section goes at the top of the page given the need to address alternative names that might be encountered in English as quickly as possible (WP:LEAD).
Those names need traditional and simplified Chinese forms with—at minimum—tonal pinyin and really—given the era, location, and occupants—Wade, Minnan POJ, and Ningbonese as well at some point down the road (MOS:CHINESE). It's far less messy to do that in a {{chinese}} infobox (WP:INFOBOXGEO) than to use the broken inline {{zh}} template, which—even without including other romanizations—would produce atrocious running text and a truly ridiculous number of repetitions of "traditional Chinese", "simplified Chinese" (neither of which are correctly named), and "pinyin" (which the template unhelpfully formats as though it were a separate language). What I could do is to nest them all into a single {{chinese}} box. My take, though, is that it's more helpful to divide the names according to the complex's various functions over the years. It also allows period illustrations to break the monotony and to illustrate the era involved. Given that, if you still find it too much of an eyesore, it's fixable on your end: you can adjust your CSS to hide them for you.
WP:WBA doesn't actually support you about the paragraph structure since you can't honestly call 14 short sentences of chronological progress "unreadable". What's important is having natural sections and natural breaks in the topic. Personally, I don't believe there are many, which is why I wrote it the way I did. Deferring to your user experience, I'll go ahead and split off the discussion of its renovation as a museum as a separate paragraph [

Done] even though—given how short that subtopic is at present—doing so is in mild violation of our style guides.
MOS:IMAGES and WP:IG explicitly say the current layout is better than moving the images away from the text they illustrate to a floating gallery section. 200px is bog standard (not "too small") and, personally, I feel it's better to have set pixel widths and as attractive a layout as possible: It's inescapable that tradeoffs are necessary between image size and readable text, and curious users needing more detail can always click through to the media player. Now, that said, you're welcome to change the pixel setting to |upright=1 instead, which will increase their size to the default 220px and make it a little more compatible with vision-impaired readers. If their settings vary too much from 200 or 220px, though, it'll give them a lousy (/lousier) layout anyway and I don't feel it's actually helpful.
Even if you wanted to go WP:IAR because articles with many sourced English names offend your sense of aesthetics, we only ignore the rules when it's a service to the reader. Removing the names here is such as disservice that the lack of it before my article caused Wikicommons to mislabel the temple's photographs in four different ways across three different locations. (It was placed variously in Ningbo, Xiamen, and Fujian and divided among its use as a temple, guildhall, and present-day museum. It's a little ugly, fine, but it's needful.
As for the rest, I added the ^{[clarification needed]} tags myself. They're important, sourced points to note but they still need to be clarified. It doesn't improve the DYK at all to have me remove them, process the nomination, and then re-add them. It's just something that will get fixed in time as more readers see the page. Finally, the redirect is because the page has to go at its present name and use but the hooks are about its historical use, which—like you saw—had a different name. "Tianhou Palace (now converted into the EZMAFCM)" is not going to improve the hooks any. — LlywelynII 09:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Now that we've addressed Mr Bod's concerns regarding the page's aesthetics, it still needs an actual DYK review. Again, you just need to verify the hook(s) most interesting to yourself. — LlywelynII 09:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of suggested hooks so we need to focus on one. I liked ALT6 about the Dragon Tongue Squad but found that there's a {{what}} tag on this and that does seem to need attention as the source doesn't explain it well and all I'm finding online is a Chinese hip-hop crew who actually seem to be notable but are probably not what's meant here. Andrew D. (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Mr Davidson, there is a {{what}} tag because it's obviously a bizarre (mis)translation of something that should be explained in greater detail or linked. That said, it is sourced to the museum's own official English explanation of itself and all the hook mentions is its placement and role, which the source covers. If you remained concerned that it needs to be explained, (a) it really doesn't since this is for new articles and future Chinese editors will be able to clarify what the museum was talking about and (b) there are plenty of other hooks to choose from. — LlywelynII 15:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm striking ALT6. That's it for me for now. Andrew D. (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

After the recent discourse above, ALT6 was struck. A review is still needed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Article is new and long enough. Image appears to be in public domain. ALT0 strikes me as too promotional for the main page. ALT2 is not in the article. The language of ALT3 is not supported by the article, but could be tweaked to work. ALT5 is mentioned in the notes which might qualify as "mentioned in the article". ALT7 is actually about Mazu, not the building. So I'm leaning for ALT1 or ALT4 unless my concerns with the other hooks are cleared up. ^Falling_Gravity 22:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

So what's your question?

We don't need to fix all the hooks, just one that you like. That said, ALT0 isn't actually promotional but descriptive (That you feel otherwise is fine but just a matter of taste, not anything "fixable"); ALT2 is in the #Architecture section and uses cite [2]; your "problem" with ALT5 seems... is there a polite way to say this?... "devil's-advocate-y" given that the notes are part of the article and the only question is whether it's sourced (It is); ALT7 is about the building's votive goddess (Again, matter of taste and nothing "fixable").

If you are passing both ALT1 and ALT4, I'm not sure what your is about. You just needed me to pick one? They're both blander but both fine (That's why I mentioned them). Of those two, ALT4's better in my opinion. Anything that actually needed to be addressed, though? or we'll just go with ALT4? — LlywelynII 12:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ceiling of a stage

New reviewer, unless you don't want me ;) - Thank you for info about a fascinating place, on good sources, offline and Chinese accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. Common problems of all hook's: they lack pictured, and I'd misread Ningbo's as a person's, like some king's. Let's look at just one hook, my favourite, paraphrasing ALT2:

ALT8: ... that the stage of the Tianhou Palace (stage decoration pictured) in Ningbo was positioned for the gods to watch Chinese opera?

The source speaks of the gods, not only Mazu, no? Better wording welcome. It's sourced to the official guide, - an additional ref would be welcome. Now let's look at the article. I don't like the sea of bolded names. Even if they are all redirects, they don't need to be bold. Make it a table perhaps? I don't like the pictures left of the infobox, - can they go below? - I don't like the sea of red-linked personalities, - do they have an article in Chinese? Then please use {{ill}} to establish notability. Others I would delink. - Some paragraphs need at least one citation, such as the one-liner about a park. So much for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

My problem with this (ALT8) and ALT2 is that the fact is not mentioned in the article itself. That's why I'm leaning toward some version of ALT4, unless this fact can be added to the article. ^Falling_Gravity 18:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I read it in the article, show with a link to Chinese opera, - but am open to saying "show" (with or without a link) as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As above, ALT2 & 8 are mentioned and sourced, as Ms Arendt found and confirmed by amending the hook using the cited text. — LlywelynII 12:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem with a third reviewer, although I think FallingGravity was fine with the article and was just deciding between ALT1 and ALT4. (They may prefer ALT2 or 8, though, now that you've confirmed my point that they are mentioned and sourced in the article.)

As far as your own notes, some are certainly well taken. I've added (pictured) to all the hooks. The park is certainly true and has nothing to do with the hooks, and a good example of why the "cite-for-every-paragraph" was a stupid policy to introduce. I know it's true via Google Maps of the site but no idea how to source it unless I can find something in Chinese. That said, you're still right that that is a DYK policy. (Fixed.)

The rest of the points are less well taken: feelings about the names and layout have already been addressed above and are (understandable but mistaken) concerns to be raised on the page's talk page, since they have nothing whatsoever to do with the DYK process. Similar general point about the Chinese figures: There's no DYK or policy necessity to remove them and WP:READER implies keeping them since we use redlink totals to show that pages need to be created. English Wiki's coverage of China is still lacking and needs help. That said, I concede the general point that if they're unmentioned on the Chinese Wiki and Baidu Baike they probably are non-notable enough that there's no public interest being served by keeping the links. It's nothing to hold up the DYK over but I'll look into it when I have some time. — LlywelynII 12:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

ALT8 which is only a rewording of ALT2, not "my" hook. Thank you for the replies. I should have clarified that the comments regarding the article are just that: suggestions, no conditions for an approval. Thank you for taking some on board. If another reviewer approes an additional hook or more, we'll have a choice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)