- The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 11:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Muggeseggele edit
- ... that according to Swabian author Henning Petershagen an entomologist of the Naturkundemuseum in Stuttgart measured average lengths of 0.22 millimetres (0.0087 in) for a Muggeseggele (pictured)?
... that according Swabian entrepreneuer Thomas Lindner, at the Indian premises of his company everybody knows what a Muggeseggele is (pictured)?
Created/expanded by Serten (talk). Self nominated at 16:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC).
- I added some text and erased the UD reference. The funny aspect of the first hook seems to be lost in translation. Muggaseggele is an idiom, no one expect to have an exact length being measured. Cheers Serten (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
My issue with the hook was that there was no needed commas - "that according to Swabian author Henning Petershagen, an entomologist of the Naturkundemuseum in Stuttgart, measured average lengths of 0.22 millimetres (0.0087 in) for a Muggeseggele (pictured)?I assume good faith on the references. SL93 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Rjanag placed a "merge" template on the article. Accordingly, I'm pulling it from the prep area until the situation is more settled. Here's the hook wording that was in the prep area:
- ALT... that the average length of a muggeseggele has been measured as 0.22 millimetres (0.0087 in)?--Orlady (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- The article is now at AFD.
- Serten: as I have explained multiple times, the fact that you don't agree with merging does not mean that there isn't a discussion happening. DYK has rules expressing that nominations don't get passed while there is a discussion like this ongoing; you cannot keep trying to pretend there is not a discussion just because you don't agree with merging. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would llike to aopolgize for not being as familiar with DYK and discussion habits as I should be probably. I however have the impression, that if you provide sources in german, it is handled as if they would not exist here. Thats sometimes annoying. Serten (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I never acted as if the sources don't exist. As I have already articulated multiple times at the discussion page, regardless of how many sources there are I don't think the claims being made are sufficient to establish notability. For example, even though I could find thousands of dictionaries with the word "the", and probably thousands of articles and blogs talking about it, I still would not claim that the number of sources makes the word "the" notable. In short: whether your sources are written in German or English has no bearing on the points that I was making, I never suggested that it did, and you don't need to keep trying to change the subject like this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would llike to aopolgize for not being as familiar with DYK and discussion habits as I should be probably. I however have the impression, that if you provide sources in german, it is handled as if they would not exist here. Thats sometimes annoying. Serten (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Need an independent reviewer to do a full review of the nomination—should probably take a look at the merger discussion on the article's talk page—including the ALT hook (have struck all hooks but the one that was originally in prep before the AfD began). BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)- Well, this could be a lot of fun--but the article needs to be seriously Englished. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've made some copyedits, as have some friendly souls, but the article is still far from well-written. It's a lot of small things (incorrect punctuation, for instance) as well as bigger things--infelicitous grammar, word choice. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I wont do that myself, as I am the person responsible for the grammar mostly. But I asked Yngva to have a second look and she brushed it up. I hope get some further helping hands but it looks better in my eyes now. Cheers Serten (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article is much better now, so I think it passes on the usual grounds of newness, length and sourcing, but really, the hook is boring. The concept of Muggeseggele isn't explained at all. I'd suggest the following alternative. Prioryman (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the length of a housefly's penis is a unit of measurement in Swabia
- "Unit of measurement" implies that things are actually measured in Muggeseggeles, e.g. "this filament is only 20 Muggesegeles in length." Actually the word seems to be used like English idioms smidgen, mite, bit, or German Bisschen.
- ALT2: ... that in Swabia the length of a housefly's penis is an idiomatic expression for a very short length?
- I wont do that myself, as I am the person responsible for the grammar mostly. But I asked Yngva to have a second look and she brushed it up. I hope get some further helping hands but it looks better in my eyes now. Cheers Serten (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Pass it on with ALT2; thanks Prioryman. (BTW, sorry this took so long--I didn't know another reviewer had come along. I came across the article by accident and made a few more tweaks.) Drmies (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)