Template:Did you know nominations/Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird
- 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) 06:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird edit
Golding-Bird's trachea dilator
- ... that surgeon Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird invented a dilator (pictured) for use in tracheotomies? Reference: British Medical Journal, vol. 1, no. 4080, p. 590, 18 March 1939
... that Cuthbert Hilton Golding-Bird is the most ridiculous name ever nominated at DYK?
- Reviewed: Sheng Zhongguo
Created by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 17:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC).
??????????????????
- I'll chime in and say that while we can assume good faith on the offline sources, the article seems quite unwieldy and a much more sensible hook must be offered. Kingoflettuce (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Real funny 😀😀😀😀 I took a closer look at the article; aside from the fact that the style of referencing leaves much to be desire, some bits are clearly unreferenced, e.g. much of Golding-Bird's early life. You would know better than I do -- please rectify Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why do you say that? Nearly all of that section comes from the Plarr's Lives of the Fellows page to which it is cited. The small bit that doesn't has an inline cite (and on rechecking, even that is in Plarr's as well). SpinningSpark 09:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I still think the referencing is a mess, and would kindly advise you to work on it -- a cleanup is clearly in order and as it stands the references are very hard to follow, templates like Template:Sfn exist for a reason (unfortunately this does not seem to be a DYK criterion). It would also be good to cite the note on demonstration, borders on WP:OR. The "Early life, education, and family" section, strangely enuf, also talks about his death... (If these stylistic things are in fact pertinent to DYK, I stand corrected). Otherwise, (the real) hook is somewhat interested and is cited by sources that do not have previews available to me and the rest of the article is sufficiently backed up by other offline sources. New and long enuf. Similarly AGF on copyvio (but sources seem too dated anyway). Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, the refs are in too bad a shape for an approval tick at this time. Yoninah (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Referencing style has never been a DYK issue. Are you trying to say that DYK is now insisting on sfn templates? Please be specific in your objection and be specific on which DYK rules are pertinent here. SpinningSpark 10:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why do you say that? Nearly all of that section comes from the Plarr's Lives of the Fellows page to which it is cited. The small bit that doesn't has an inline cite (and on rechecking, even that is in Plarr's as well). SpinningSpark 09:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
It has been several weeks and the referencing issue has not been addressed. @Spinningspark: If is not resolved within a week or so, the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: As I said above, I don't consider the referencing style to be a problem. It is fully compliant with Wikipedia policies (WP:V) and guidelines (WP:CITE). It is fully compliant with the DYK rules and supplementary rules. Articles using this citation style have become featured articles. I am outraged that DYK is trying to impose a change of referencing style because editors here don't like it. This is actually directly contrary to the spirit of WP:CITEVAR. If DYK fail this because it uses a citation style that is actually guideline compliant, I will open a community discussion on DYK overstepping their authority. SpinningSpark 11:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Give me 15 minutes and I'll fix up the referencing for you. If you're planning on reverting, though, I won't waste my time. Yoninah (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I would be fine with doing it myself as well, but when I tried to I was reverted.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Don't waste your time. Don't waste mine either. It is infuriating that people who aren't going to add anything substantive to an article try and control the method of work of those that do. SpinningSpark 14:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out to me as well, please read WP:OWN. Yoninah (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Spinningspark: I hope this doesn't come across as rude or anything, because I absolutely do not mean it that way, but just out of curiosity, what benefit do you see to using the current citation style instead of sfn? I completely understand if you would not want to fix the issue yourself because it's not explicitly part of the DYK criteria, but I am really confused as to why you think the current style, which many editors have pointed out is confusing, is so much better than sfn that if someone changes it to such it has to reverted. So far, it doesn't seem that you've provided any reason for reverting users who try to improve the citation style, besides the fact that it isn't explicitly stated in the DYK criteria.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- A DYK nomination is not the place to discuss the merits of different citation styles. I am happy to discuss the issue as it relates to this particular article on its talk page, or the general principles on my talk page, or a policy talk page. It is outrageous to hold a DYK to ransom in this way to try and force a change. The DYK discussion should be about whether it complies with DYK requirements. Basically, if you want it prescribe a citation style, get it written into the guidelines, then we'll all have to comply. SpinningSpark 14:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Due apologies, but I've had to pull this because the discussion over at the talk page doesn't seem to have come to a resolution just yet. Plus, the nomination wasn't re-ticked for approval yet. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)- There was never anything to resolve. No one has given any explanation of why the citation style is a DYK matter. And where do you get off making a pronouncement like
If is not resolved within a week or so, the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful
? Cool it with the officiousness, please, if you don't mind. Pinging the reviewer for a retick: Kingoflettuce. EEng 04:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Replacing Kingoflettuce's tick because reference style is not a DYK issue. This nomination has been hanging around for too long. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)