Template:Did you know nominations/Isosceles triangle
- 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 Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Isosceles triangle edit
- ... that in Flatland, isosceles triangles represented the working class? (Source: Barnes, John (2012), _Gems of Geometry_ (2nd, illustrated ed.), Springer, p. 27)
- ALT1:... that decorative patterns using isosceles triangles date back to the Early Neolithic? (Source: Washburn, Dorothy K. (July 1984), "A study of the red on cream and cream on red designs on Early Neolithic ceramics from Nea Nikomedeia", American Journal of Archaeology, 88 (3): 305, doi:10.2307/504554)
- ALT2:... that Lewis Carroll learned that all triangles are isosceles from W. W. Rouse Ball? (Source: Ball, W. W. Rouse; Coxeter, H. S. M. (1987) [1892], Mathematical Recreations and Essays (13th ed.), Dover, footnote, p. 77)
- Reviewed: Harvard Graduate Students Union
Improved to Good Article status by David Eppstein (talk). Self-nominated at 17:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC).
Article is long enough, nominated in time (became GA on 13 September, nominated on the same day), and article is within policy.- Hooks are all short enough and interesting. AGF on the offline sources. I prefer ALT1, as I think it appeals to a wider audience.
- QPQ done.
Overall this nomination passes (with AGF on the offline sources for the hook). Congratulations. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein, Joseph2302, and Narutolovehinata5: I like this hook, but the fact that is used for it has an original research tag, and without access to the source I cannot promote this to the main page. Vanamonde (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93 and Joe Roe: The "original research" tag was added by Joe Roe, who beyond this drive-by tag has done no editing work on the article and who seems to believe that the sentence is OR because it implies that these patterns were not used even earlier. I don't think the sentence makes any such implication, so I disagree with the tag, and the source for the claim clearly indicates that they were in fact used in the early neolithic. It's a very specific source but I wanted to avoid citation overkill. The issue is made more complicated by the fact that searching for terms like paleolithic and isosceles finds many irrelevant hits (descriptions of shapes of arrow and spear points, not decorative uses, or as in doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959160236 the use of "isosceles triangle" to describe shapes that are more humanoid than triangular and only approximately symmetrical). Essentially, Joe is asking me to prove a negative, and blocking the article from DYK until I do so. I think this is extremely unfair, and that the tag should be removed unless Joe can provide actual evidence of these patterns being used earlier, rather than his own vague suspicion (which, to me, seems more to meet the definition of original research). But now that this has brought the DYK nomination into question, I suspect that removing it unilaterally would only inflame the situation. Joe, do you want to weigh in here? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see an issue with the hook. If Joe Roe doesn't mention specifically what their issue is, then I think this hook should be used. It doesn't have an implication that it wasn't used prior to that period. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with respect to the substance, but not the procedure. The tag is only justified if the source doesn't support the material in question; the article cannot be expected to prove a negative. A suggestion that there have been earlier uses needs a source to back it up. However, If the tag is unjustified, it should be removed, preferably after a discussion; at which point this can be placed back in a prep set. I'm not going to run it while the tag is present. Vanamonde (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I did already remove the tag. But we can wait a few days for Joe Roe to defend himself. We've already waited a month anyway, so a few more days won't hurt. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with respect to the substance, but not the procedure. The tag is only justified if the source doesn't support the material in question; the article cannot be expected to prove a negative. A suggestion that there have been earlier uses needs a source to back it up. However, If the tag is unjustified, it should be removed, preferably after a discussion; at which point this can be placed back in a prep set. I'm not going to run it while the tag is present. Vanamonde (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- For the bot. Vanamonde (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, tags are gone, doesn't look like the user is interested in re-adding them given the length of time past. Szzuk (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
restoring tick as no reason was given for the tagging. Nine days is more than long enough to wait for a response. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
