Template:Did you know nominations/Ancient text corpora
- 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 Bruxton (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ancient text corpora
Part of the Akkadian corpus
- ... that all known writing in Ancient Hebrew totals just 300,000 words, versus 10 million in Akkadian (pictured), 6 million in Ancient Egyptian and 3 million in Sumerian? Source: Peust, Carsten (2000). "Über ägyptische Lexikographie. 1: Zum Ptolemaic Lexikon von Penelope Wilson; 2: Versuch eines quantitativen Vergleichs der Textkorpora antiker Sprachen". Lingua Aegyptia 7 (PDF). pp. 245–260.
Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 21:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ancient text corpora; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Article is new, well-cited, long enough (though reads more like a list than an article). The hook is interesting, the source is in German so I'm assuming good faith. QPQ is done, no copyvio found by earwig. I like the image, approve the hook with it.
Artem.G (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile and Artem.G: I took me a while to find the cited 300,000 claim. But the above hook undershoots the total by 5,500. It was hard to find the claim because our article does not have the wording of Ancient Hebrew or Biblical Hebrew. Instead it says Hebrew Bible. Maybe we should not be piping the link? Bruxton (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Another ping @Onceinawhile and Artem.G:. Bruxton (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- and @Onceinawhile and Artem.G: Bruxton (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed the first one somehow. Thanks for checking the source, I agree that it's better to remove the pipe. Artem.G (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton:, thank you for following up here. You were right - the reference was not clear. I have clarified the reference, and also added a quote from the underlying source for the original numbers (Clines). With that I have added the pipe into the article, so I think it is OK to stay here. I have also amended the article so it matches the 300,000 here, which is the correct number. The confusion, which I have now clarified, is that Peust, on whom the estimate is based, excludes the definite article from the word count to ensure consistency between the languages. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks I would like to see what @Cielquiparle:. Thinks about the numbers. I think we need to be. precise but I am not sure the hooks is. Bruxton (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton:, thank you for following up here. You were right - the reference was not clear. I have clarified the reference, and also added a quote from the underlying source for the original numbers (Clines). With that I have added the pipe into the article, so I think it is OK to stay here. I have also amended the article so it matches the 300,000 here, which is the correct number. The confusion, which I have now clarified, is that Peust, on whom the estimate is based, excludes the definite article from the word count to ensure consistency between the languages. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed the first one somehow. Thanks for checking the source, I agree that it's better to remove the pipe. Artem.G (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- and @Onceinawhile and Artem.G: Bruxton (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Another ping @Onceinawhile and Artem.G:. Bruxton (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile and Artem.G: I took me a while to find the cited 300,000 claim. But the above hook undershoots the total by 5,500. It was hard to find the claim because our article does not have the wording of Ancient Hebrew or Biblical Hebrew. Instead it says Hebrew Bible. Maybe we should not be piping the link? Bruxton (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I hope you end up finding a perfect hook because I think this is a great topic.★Trekker (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle: can you help with this nomination? Bruxton (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: Fascinating topic but I'm not familiar enough with the Wikipedia rules for articles like this (statistics presented in list form). Cielquiparle (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle: can you help with this nomination? Bruxton (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I hope you end up finding a perfect hook because I think this is a great topic.★Trekker (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile and Artem.G: I am not seeing any progress here so I am going to be bold and by tweaking and shortening the hook. The number in our article is 9.9 million but the hook said 10 million. Bruxton (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that all known writing in Ancient Hebrew totals just 300,000 words, versus 9.9 million in Akkadian (pictured)? Bruxton (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)