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 Bruxton (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet and Seddon: looking at the source, it seems like it's a different story that's blockquoted to show the description of an airship? The Wicked Prince is mentioned, but not specifically for a dirigible, I think. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Schwarzenberger reminds us that the first dirigible with motors was in the air in 1852, some months after [the blockquote from a different story] was made. The Stone of the Wise Man (1858) and the later grotesque The Flea and the Professor (1872) deal with flying as well, while flights to other planets were seen as impossible; the uncanny fantasy The Wicked Prince, as early as 1840, could be added. The link is reasonably clear to me (a group of Andersen works dealing with motorized flight extremely early in its evolution, or prior to it). Is there an alternative word you'd prefer to describe what-kind-of-thing-is-flying? Vaticidalprophet 21:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: I think the source falters in a couple ways. First, it attributes inline to another's analysis – it's probably fine as long as the source it takes from is similarly published, but otherwise, we'll need to inline attribute ourselves. Second, the deal with flying as well doesn't necessarily mean that it's a dirigible (although this would be nitpicky if not for the next point). Third, the could be added tells me that this story in particular is more open to interpretation on how it manifests flight than the other mentioned stories. The link seems to be there, but not definitely – i mean, maybe we could soften the language in the hook to not say "depicts a dirigble"? That does make it explicit. A little unsure of how to proceed, open to suggestions :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
So 'could be added' here is a bit of a sticking point, but I read that statement (in the context of other writing on this work) not as meaning "it's a borderline case", but "it's a very obscure one of Andersen's works so doesn't usually come to mind". I definitely understand where the former reading is coming from, but I didn't take it as the intent in the context of how this work is covered in general and as part of Andersen's body of literature. I agree softening the language is probably a reasonable way to square #2 and sidestep the debate over #3, but am not sure what phrasing works best ("depicts powered flight"?). Vaticidalprophet 21:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It turned out the nominal wording was a little trickier than intended (damn Wright brothers, etc), but I think this is passable as both 'representative of the source' and 'factually accurate':
since we're talking about popes off-wiki, it seems appropriate to say nihil obstat :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Seddon talk 01:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
since we're talking about popes off-wiki, it seems appropriate to say nihil obstat :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)