Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Pasquinade

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 05:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Pasquinade

(
)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 03:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC).

  • Comment half de-merger from Pasquino, & not very well done. The hatnote there still begins "This article is about a genre of anonymous lampooning...." and much of it still is. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The new article could be accused of being a WP:POVFORK, because though you claim to have split the literary form to here, leaving the statue there, you left in the other article much stuff that is about the literary form, not the statue, and an assertion that the subject of the article is the literary form. So now we apparently have two articles on the same subject. You began your article as a "split", & have a responsibility to clear up the relevant points at the base article, such as the hatnote, now clearly wrong in at least two respects. You changed redirects, but not debolded them at the original destination. It's very sloppy work, and your responsibility. Odd English (wrong tense etc) in both hooks, btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • IF you think the new article is a POVFORK, you can nominate it for AfD. There was no 'de-merger', because there was no merger in the first place. The 'split' amounted to two sentences or so ([1]); effectively a single ref rescued from the old article. I do not have any responsibility to clean up the mess that is the old article (but in fact I did some c/e to it), and its state has no relevance to the article nominated here. Ping User:BlueMoonset for a DYK-supervisor ruling on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert on this (and have no supervisory powers), but I see two potential issues here (though there may be others I'm missing). One is that any material copied from the originating article must be expanded fivefold. That doesn't seem to apply in this case. Another is a bit broader than that but it sounds like it may be an issue here, per WP:DYKSG#D10: If your article contradicts an existing article, the contradiction should be resolved one way or the other before your article is approved. So if Pasquinade contradicts Pasquino, the two must be reconciled. (I took a look at the two hooks, and they do have tense problems.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • He bought over a little, & has undoubtedly expanded that x 5. But, apart from leaving a "fork" situation as described above, he failed to bring over stuff , including all or most of the "Cultural legacy" section at Pasquino, which relates to the literary form rather than the statue, or to both. If he'd brought that over, I don't think a x5 expansion could be claimed. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I fixed the tense issue (I hope, ping User:Nihil novi for a grammar review, TIA). A lot found at the Paquine article is problematic, there are errors and such. I did not bring it over as I consider most of what's there irrelevant or erroneous. This article about a different topic was written from scratch. There are no contradictions as far as I can tell, the other article just contains useless trivia. Again, fixing that other article is not relevant to what is discussed here. In all my years at DYK I've never seen a criticism 'this article cannot be DYKed because some other article has a problem. This is a DYK for pasquinade, not pasquino --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This is nonsense, I'm afraid. The topic of "pasquinade" was very clearly part of Pasquino, indeed the hatnote wrongly claimed that was the only subject. And you did not exactly write it from scratch, you brought over a bit, calling it a split, but leaving a lot of other stuff, changing two redirects from there to the new article. So your subject is now split over two articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The trouble with the literary stuff you left at the statue is not that it is a "mess", "problematic", "irrelevant or erroneous", but that it has no references, and if you had brought it over, it would have messed up your x5 count, and needed some referencing. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I have done as you suggest. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I looked at the history. IMHO, this isn't a split or a de-merger, or the a copy paste. Pasquino is a statue, while pasquinade is a form of literature. While there is a clear relationship, each article can stand apart from the other. It appears to be new enough, long enough, and it is sourced. I think the prose could use some sprucing up. Piotrus next time I would suggest drafting the article separately and then bringing life. --evrik (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems good to me but I'd shorten it like this (ping User:evrik): --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Pasquinade&oldid=1022215738"