Jump to content

Talk:Caffoy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What IS caffoy?

[edit]

What actually defines caffoy; how is caffoy distinct from other fabrics? It's not the fibre used, as silk was replaced or supplemented by wool. Is it a type of weave? Or is it simply an obsolete word that may not have been well-defined, or whose meaning has been lost or successively modified? Or was later "caffoy" a sort of counterfeit silk caffoy? Pol098 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator has WP:CIR issues in english and spend his time creating these obscure articles, often with refs that are more than a century old. It is an obsolete word that had fallen into misuse many many years ago, and like many of the article creaters articles has no encyclopeadic value at all. Like many of the articles he has started, it shouldn't exist. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The entire Oxford English Dictionary article is "Caffoy: Obsolete. 1. Some kind of fabric, imported in the 18th cent." I will go away and do something useful. Actually, I will add this to the article. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dont belittle yourself, this exchange has been useful, and you've improved the article. Its all good. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Cielquiparle (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Full review to follow, but can alternate hooks be proposed here? Both hooks seem to be reliant on specialist knowledge (the first hook mentions a building readers may not necessarily be familiar with, while ALT1's context may not be clear to non-specialists). DYK rules require that hooks appeal to readers that don't have special knowledge or interests and I don't think either hook meets that criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 Hi! Kindly check. Thanks RV (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RAJIVVASUDEV: Apologies for the delay in replying. I'll need a few days first to think about if ALT2 or ALT3 are okay (I think ALT2 is probably the one that meets the criterion here best, albeit marginally). My main concern is that the article writing seems rather non-standard, with lots of '[' and ']' symbols along with an inconsistent use of quotation marks. I would probably suggest that the article be given a copyedit before the nomination can proceed further. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 Made the necessary changes. Please have a look. Thanks RV (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really really sorry about the delay in replying! I got caught up in a lot of real-life matters and I forgot to get back to this. In any case, I've struck all hooks as I think those other options are either not very intriguing or require specialist knowledge. I do think ALT2's hook fact has the most potential, and reading through the article again, I think one possible option would be a slight revision of it: rather than focusing on when it was popular, the focus could be on it being used as an imitation of silk. My article spot-check and paraphrase check also showed that the article does appear to meet requirements and a QPQ has been done, although the sentences that exactly mention it being used as a substitute for silk do need footnotes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Let me rework and ping you then. Thanks RV (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Kindly check ALT5. Thanks RV (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hook suggestions seem a bit complicated. Maybe simplifying it a bit? There's also maybe a few too many links, which might distract people away from checking out the article and instead direct them to those other articles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Kindly check ALT6, it is simplified, and I have fixed overlinking. Thanks RV (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for the edits. I think I prefer ALT5. However, I've gotten caught up in many real-life matters and thus can no longer commit to a final review for this. As such I'd like to ask for help from another editor, ideally a subject expert on English history and/or textiles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can step in for review. I'm not an expert on, well, anything, but I'll do my best. jengod (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Length Newness Cited hook Interest Sources Neutrality Plagiarism/paraphrase
    ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

    QPQ done. Approved for any of alts 4 5 and 6 with a recommendation of ALT4. Thank you for sharing your expertise and research with us! jengod (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @RAJIVVASUDEV: I want to promote this but I keep getting stuck on citations missing from the end of paragraph 1 (yes, citations are optional in the lead paragraph, but only if it is clearly summarising facts that are cited in the main article body; in this case, I cannot easily find a citation for the year 1579, so it would be good to have a footnote); "Origin" paragraph 1; Erddig sentence 1. I assume in the latter two instances, the footnote was left out because it would have been "repetitive" but if so, I would strongly recommend repeating the footnote anyway, because this is Wikipedia, other editors will edit and rearrange content, and things will get mixed up quickly, and it just looks like uncited content. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caffoy&oldid=1199487455"