Talk:Tarmac scam
 | A fact from Tarmac scam appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 October 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Italian
[edit]- Non-English names include "asfaltaris Irlandese" (Italy), …
Words native to Standard Italian never end in s, I'm just sayin'. —Tamfang (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Tamfang, thanks for pointing this out! I've checked Dillon's articles and he uses "asfaltari". I'm not finding any Italian sources using this title either, though, so it may still be a mistake. I have found a French-language source for "les faux bitumeurs". Blythwood (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
( )
... that in a typical tarmac scam, a conman posing as a builder knocks on your door and claims he can pave your driveway cheaply with some asphalt left over from another job? Atavist: in a typical job, a well-dressed young man will knock on a homeowner’s door and introduce himself as a member of a road crew hired to resurface a stretch of nearby highway. The crew, he says, has some asphalt left over from the work that’s going to be thrown away; would the homeowner like to have their driveway resurfaced for a few thousand euros?, Mandelstam "they would tell some story...[that] they had a quantity of material over, which they could use to tarmac the victim's drives", Shropshire Council/Bomere Heath Parish Council, there are cold-callers in Shropshire this morning trying it on with a ‘tarmac’ scam...They will knock the door and quite plausibly tell you that they have tarmac leftover from a job nearby that they can let you have before it goes off, Construction NewsALT1:... that in a typical tarmac scam a conman knocks on your door, claims to be a builder working on a contract nearby with some asphalt left over, and offers a cheap deal to resurface your driveway with it?- ALT2:... that in a typical tarmac scam someone at your door claims to be a builder working on a contract nearby with some asphalt left over, and offers a cheap deal to resurface your driveway with it?
- Reviewed: Grand Jubilee of 1814
Created by Blythwood (talk). Self-nominated at 20:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC).
@Blythwood: Article is new enough (created 8 September), long enough (1911 characters), and within policy (0% match with earwig!). The hook mostly looks fine, and is supported with references, but I think 'builder' needs to be 'conman' or 'conman posing as a builder', and 'offering' needs to be 'claiming to offer', in order to be accurate. QPQ is done. If you can propose an ALT hook, then I think this otherwise good to go. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Mike Peel, thanks! I've made your first change. The second I find a bit awkward phrasing: the conman is offering to pave your drive, even if it's not an honest offer! So I've gone with "claims he can" if that works for you? Blythwood (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Blythwood: Thanks for the changes. It's raised two new issues, though. The first is that ideally, you would propose an "ALT1" hook rather than modifying the original one, since rewriting the original one makes my comments see misplaced to anyone else reading this discussion (not a biggie, it's just a social convention). The second is that you now say 'he', I think that might be better as 'they' to be more gender-neutral. Although 'conman' is probably also problematic in that case! I should have realised this when I suggested it, sorry: perhaps 'crook' would be a gender-neutral word? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK, these are fair points (although I should stress that every case reported in the article seems to have involved a male ringleader). I think what I'm going to do is go have a rest and think about a better hook. Will ping at that point. Blythwood (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Mike Peel, I've now added two alternative hooks. Alt1 is I think a bit zippier, alt2 more gender-neutral. Blythwood (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Blythwood: Thanks for the new hooks! ALT2 looks good to me, so let's go with that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Mike Peel, I've now added two alternative hooks. Alt1 is I think a bit zippier, alt2 more gender-neutral. Blythwood (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK, these are fair points (although I should stress that every case reported in the article seems to have involved a male ringleader). I think what I'm going to do is go have a rest and think about a better hook. Will ping at that point. Blythwood (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Blythwood: Thanks for the changes. It's raised two new issues, though. The first is that ideally, you would propose an "ALT1" hook rather than modifying the original one, since rewriting the original one makes my comments see misplaced to anyone else reading this discussion (not a biggie, it's just a social convention). The second is that you now say 'he', I think that might be better as 'they' to be more gender-neutral. Although 'conman' is probably also problematic in that case! I should have realised this when I suggested it, sorry: perhaps 'crook' would be a gender-neutral word? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
