Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Finger (gesture)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Finger (gesture)

[edit]
(
)

The finger

  • ... that monkeys give each other the finger (pictured) by showing each other their erect penis?

Created/expanded by Muboshgu (talk). Self nom at 04:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Article has not been created or expanded 5x within the past 10 days (3420 days) DYKcheck does not account for previous versions with splits or copyright violations.
    • It was at 783 bites when I started, and 4082 when I finished. DYKcheck makes mistakes. Anyway, Bagumba has expanded it to 4335 with his edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh wait, it could be because another user cut it on July 3, and that's interfering with the timeframe. I hadn't seen the page history until now. I just came across the page at 783 bites last night. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I owe you a review when the QPQ is done. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, only 2.8x expansion, not 5x. On June 18, the article had 1861 prose characters, prior to the July 3 vandalism; it now has 5281. It will need 9305 to qualify for 5x expansion. Do you think expanding that much will be feasible? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I was afraid you (or someone else) might say that. Grr I thought it was already at 5x, didn't notice it was so short because of vandalism until after the nomination. That's frustrating. It's actually at 6,115 now, which rounds off to 3.3x. The good news about the speed of this nomination and review is that I started the expansion less than 24 hours ago, so I have four more days to see if I can get it to 5x. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary break of sorts to start a new review
  • Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 64 edits ago on June 4, 2012. Article has not been created or expanded 5x within the past 10 days (36 days) . I get no. I can't tell if I want this to pass for lulz and WP:IAR to allow it or be a complete hard ass to make this impossible to pass so we can avoid drama and controversy of any of the hooks. :(
  • QPQ done. Article is fully supported by sources. Article is neutral enough. Hook is properly formatted. Picture found in article and images have acceptable copyrights. Plagiarism check shows no cause for concerns. Hook proposed supported by text. Alt1 and Alt2 also supported by text and sources.
  • Greek language and offline sources were not plagiarised to write and the sources support the text. --LauraHale (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

MOAR TEXT. --LauraHale (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Huh? We should be good. DYKcheck messes up sometimes. The largest recent version (pre-vandalism) was, as BlueMoonset said, 1,861 bytes (June 27), making this a 5x expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • PS, you know you want to see the drama. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


"1861 B (313 words) "readable prose size"" as of June 28. Prose size (text only): 9450 characters (1551 words) "readable prose size". Please kick me. :( If some one moving things to the prep area wants to move this there, it meets all the criteria. All three hooks supported. Preference for no picture and alt2 for less drama but it is the head of the mover on the block so take your pick as all check out. --LauraHale (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Thank you for the review. I of course prefer the main hook with the picture. I think that the nature of the gesture will draw lots of page views, which is the ultimate point. And compared to other items that have caused controversy, like that hook about child rape, this is pretty tame. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Would support any IAR request and avoid the parochialism of ALT2; however can this be held up a couple of days to allow verification of the classical references; some of the RSness of the sources might be stretched a little where philology's the concern and there's danger of some urban myths seeping in; think it would be good to have some corroboration from primary sources in this instance; will attend, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm perfectly okay with that. The RSness stuff was from the pre-expansion, and it's not in my wheelhouse, so it would be good to verify. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that Martial gives advice for dealing with accusations of gender-deviancy – "laugh loud ... and extend the middle finger" (pictured)? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC) And another:
ALT4: ... that in The Clouds, Socrates gets the finger (pictured)?

Are we confirmed on the Greek? I still prefer the main hook or ALT1 over the other choices, and am happy to strike ALT2 per Maculosae. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The main hook is everything WP:DYK asks for, "... that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. An interesting hook is more likely to draw in a variety of readers." Wikipedia is not censored, I think ... ALT1 and ALT3 also satisfies hookiness (to a lesser extent).—Bagumba (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't think this is about censorship, just that Aristophanes and Socrates make for a far more interesting hook than willies, of the existence of which I imagine many readers are already aware; there's also some related chat over at the Humanities Reference Desk; perhaps then ALT3 as a balance between the salacious and the educative? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
      • What's more, does not the failure to decline and inflect rule out the original hook as it stands? And the San Jose Mercury News is in no way a reliable source for the Classical past, thus ruling out ALT1, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
        • No offense to Aristophanes and Socrates, but I think that the main hook and ALT1 are far more interesting to the general reader, as Bagumba suggests. I didn't know the facts in either of those two hooks (the monkeys and Ancient Rome) until I did reading in the process of expanding the article. Also I see no reaason not to trust the San Jose Mercury News, since it's directly attributing the fact to Jesse Sheidlower, a noted linguistic expert. I'm not sure what you mean about the "decline and inflect rule". If the main hook needs a rewrite to be better grammatically, it can be rewritten. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Certainly, due deference to the expander and nominator - but perhaps here's your chance to do these dusty old ancients a good turn and help reintegrate them in the popular imagination; sure, Socrates was a filosofa but doesn't it bridge the gap of the millennia, knowing they were chortling over the same things? Have tweaked the previously rather stentorian Clouds ALT4 - and the gender-deviants of ALT3 might also have immediate appeal; (have consulted a couple of pros on the refs issue) I'll tweak the section a little more, but other than for hooks, I think we're ready to roll again; thanks for the delay etc, over and out, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This has been approved, all of the above symbols may be obscuring that fact. Please choose the main hook or ALT1. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Finger_(gesture)&oldid=829011216"