The following is an archived discussion of Gąsawa massacre's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Gąsawa massacre edit
... that the Gąsawa massacre was a 13th-century Polish regicide whose victims also included a number of Piast dukes ambushed in their baths?
Created by Volunteer Marek (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 05:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC).
Is it really accurate to call a massacre as a regicide? I mean, regicide can be part of a massacre, but by definition I don't think you can equate the two. Chamal T•C 02:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's extensive discussion on talk about the proper name. This was a case of both a regicide and a massacre, it's just the regicide part gets most of the attention. An alternative name would be "Crime in Gąsawa", for which there is an English language source, and which is close to what I had the title under originally. Some editors though were concerned that "Crime in Gąsawa" makes it sound like the article is about crime (robberies, murders, assaults, jaywalking) in the village of Gąsawa, which is a legitimate concern. Personally however, I think that until someone wants to write an article about robberies, murders, assaults and jaywalking in the village of Gąsawa, "Crime in Gąsawa" could be used for this article, as the primary topic.Volunteer Marek 18:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that regicide was part of the massacre, but my point is that regicide and massacre shouldn't be given as the same thing since the meanings of the two words are completely different. I think the wording of the hook should be changed to clarify this. How about the following:
- ALT1:
... that a number of Piast dukes were ambushed in their baths during the 13th-century Polish regicide and massacre at Gąsawa? - ALT2:
... that a number of Piast dukes were ambushed in their baths during the Gąsawa massacre in 13th-century Poland?
- ALT1:
- Chamal T•C 17:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, how about:
- ALT3: ... that Grand Duke Leszek the White and a number of other Polish Piast dukes were ambushed in their baths during the 13th-century regicide and massacre at Gąsawa?
- Volunteer Marek 16:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Baths or a bath? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, how about:
- I understand that regicide was part of the massacre, but my point is that regicide and massacre shouldn't be given as the same thing since the meanings of the two words are completely different. I think the wording of the hook should be changed to clarify this. How about the following:
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean THIS article needs a full review, or that there is a need for the quid-pro-quo review of another DYK nom? Volunteer Marek 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- This symbol means a review of this nomination is needed: it's a visual call for a reviewer. If I'd meant a QPQ review was needed, I would have said so, and the symbol would have been different. (As the article was created by one person and nominated by someone else, it avoids the QPQ requirement, though a review would be welcome if someone decides to do one anyway.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can I review this (being the nominator)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- No. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, adequately referenced. Foreign language hook ref AGF. ALT3 is hooky and the combination term "regicide and massacre" solves all problems. "Baths" is correct. ALT3 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks (and yes, it would be "baths", since otherwise it would imply that they were all sitting in one bath together... funny image of a bunch of Dukes all sitting naked in a bathtub talking matters of state, but incorrect) 22:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
