Jump to content

Talk:Infernal machine (weapon)

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

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 Lee Vilenski (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Assassination attempt on King Louis Philippe I of France on July 28, 1835
Assassination attempt on King Louis Philippe I of France on July 28, 1835

Created by ~riley (talk). Self-nominated at 02:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi ~riley. This article is not currently eligible. The majority of the "Useage" section is copied directly from old content at Giuseppe Marco Fieschi and the new content is fewer than 1,500 characters. Per the DYK rules the new article "may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article". I think if more than 1,500 characters of new content can be added it will be eligible again though - Dumelow (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dumelow, thanks for noting that. The article is now at 1,585 characters of new content after some additions. I will be continuing to expand it as I have found some more interesting content, however, it is eligible for now. ~riley (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, ~riley, Dumelow, when pre-existing content is copied into a new article, the rule is that it needs to be expanded 5x, not that there needs to be 1500 prose characters in addition to any copied material. Per WP:DYKSG#A5, If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. In this case, 1093 prose characters have been copied from Giuseppe Marco Fieschi, which means the resulting article must be at least 5465 prose characters; at the moment it is just under half that, at 2686 prose characters. A significant further expansion will be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the copied text so that WP:DYKSG#A5 no longer applies. I will be working on rewriting and adding back in the pertinent information (i.e. weapon effectiveness, barrels exploding, misfiring, etc), otherwise, {{Main}} serves its purpose. As it stands, article is at 1500 prose characters and eligible for DYK. ~riley (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the rules BlueMoonset . The article now seems to satisfy the requirements as there is no copied content. ~riley, I have a query with regards executedtoday.com, what makes this source reliable? It describes itself as a blog, is the author a known expert? - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dumelow: Although the information was correct, it is indeed not a reliable source. I have removed the source, replaced it with a reliable source, and expanded the sentence to be more detailed while at it. ~riley (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ~riley, everything now resolved. Hook is interesting, no overl; close paraphrasing found; image is freely lincensed (the caption could do with trimming I think); QPQ has been done - Dumelow (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an unusual situation, where material that had been copied from another article was removed and then reinserted in paraphrased form. I'd like to check with Nikkimaria to see whether there are any DYK issues with this. I would also like to recommend that these updated sections be copyedited: the tense changes from past to present and back in a problematic manner, and there are other grammatical issues as well. These should be addressed before the article is approved to run on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Good idea to have Nikki take a look. The tense change seems appropriate, past tense is describing how the weapon was made, fired and used in the assassination attempt and present tense is in the lead and in the legacy section as they apply to today. If you can identify how it could be smoother, please let me know. As for the grammatical issues, I would appreciate if you could either identify them or fix them. If both Dumelow and I are missing them, it seems most appropriate that you give specific feedback that offers the opportunity for them to be corrected. ~riley (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So there are two issues at play here: copyright and DYK rules. Because the attribution was provided in the article history I don't see a problem with the former, regardless of the closeness of the paraphrase. With regards to the latter: on the one hand it seems pretty clear to me that the intention of the rules is to avoid promoting content that was simply taken from an existing article, but then on the other I'm aware from previous discussions (eg around translations from other wikis) that not-directly-copied content has generally been accepted as new. On that basis I would suggest we count very closely paraphrased content (which by my count is just under 600 characters) as the basis for a 5x expansion, which means this is about 250 characters short. That should be fairly easy to make up. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria. I will get to work on this. ~riley (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Expanded by 450 characters to meet the additional 250 characters required as per Nikki. ~riley (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ~riley, the size looks fine per Nikkimaria's count. Thank you. I've just edited the article, including the new material, to address the tense changes within paragraphs and other grammatical issues I found. (I also corrected the address: N. 50 is the actual address of the building, not an apartment number for the third-floor rooms where the machine was located.) Please check to be sure I haven't misstated anything, though the sources I was able to access seemed pretty clear to me. If you're satisfied, then if Dumelow could recheck the newly expanded article and, if everything's okay, retick below, this will be ready for its eventual promotion to prep and the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset: Wow, highly appreciate the copyedit. My original interpretation of the sources in relation to the address was incorrect, thank you for catching and correcting this. I have not learned so much from one DYK, so thank you for walking me through this process! I am going to have to write more historic articles to solidify what I have learned. @Dumelow: Let me know your thoughts. ~riley (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks good to me, great work everybody! - Dumelow (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 January 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:DIFFCAPS. There is no other primary topic that is lowercase, making this the primary topic for the lowercase version of the phrase. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "infernal machine" is a legal term in lower case e.g. per State Laws and Published Ordinances, Firearms 1989 Page 110 "An infernal machine is any box, package, contrivance, bomb, or apparatus containing or arranged with an explosive or acid or poisonous or inflammable substance, chemical, or compound, or knife, loaded pistol, or gun, or other dangerous or ..." which does not refer to Infernal machine (1835) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: I deleted the entry "A term in US Firearms law for any dangerous device", because there's no use of the phrase in the article. If you were to update any article with this information, you could add the article as an entry to the dab page. I note that Infernal machine (1835) redirects to Infernal machine (weapon), which in light of what you just said may be an ambiguous title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Slugs

[edit]

This seems like a US slang term. Is it meant as a synonym for lead pellets? What is the original French and how was that translated? If slug is an accepted term then fine, but it seems unencyclopaedic: cannot lead pellets be used again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.157.179 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Infernal_machine_(weapon)&oldid=1207714859"