Template:Did you know nominations/Autograph (manuscript)

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: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
page has several tags; page creator wants to withdraw nomination

Autograph (manuscript)

(

)

From Beethoven's autograph of his Ninth Symphony

... that autograph can mean a collectible signature of a celebrity, but also a manuscript written by the author of its content (example pictured)? Source: several

Reviewed: Henri Fertet
Comment: I found this suggestion just now in Template:Did you know nominations/Bach Digital. Strictly speaking, the article is a few days too old, but I believe it's an interesting subject, worth some lenience. With Beethoven's Ninth often played in New Year's concerts, it might work well 1 January.

Created by Francis Schonken (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 11:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

Oh, please, what a horrible hook – it doesn't even link to the autograph article, and the "... autograph ..." link is again, in the context of the proposed ALT0 text, a horrible WP:EGG. The proposed image isn't even an autograph, there's no reference that calls it an autograph. Non-starter in the context of DYK rules and unwritten conventions if I ever saw one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Francis, the nom page is long, and you find the word "horrible" on it 3 times, 2 times right here ;) - OK, the hook you proposed was a bit different:

ALT1: ... that autograph not only means a collectible signature of a celebrity, but also a manuscript written by the author of its content?

The bolding has to be the new article, so I had to change that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That was not how I wrote it, and I don't like what you made of it
I said from the outset that I was content ("... so be it") with the fact that the text I suggested at the Bach Digital DYKnom page is not possible according to current DYK rules
Please stop wasting everybody's time, pretty please, again please, please, please, it's nearly Christmas, could you please, please, please, stop wasting other editors' time. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You can do two things here: unwatch, or supply an ALT to your liking. You say you know enough about DYK, so you know that we can't bold the old article autograph, only the new one, autograph (manuscript), piped or unpiped. Alternatives welcome, anybody. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I said I know enough of DYK procedures to know that this will never work – so please stop: whatever appears here will be read by me, but it wastes my time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I must have misinterpreted you. You wrote in the other nom:

What I would think an interesting DYK for Wikipedia's Main Page is, for instance, something like "... that autograph not only means a collectible signature of a celebrity, but also a manuscript written by the author of its content?", but current DYK rules are incompatible with that kind of DYK hook: these rules are rather about giving credit to individual editors than to the Wikipedia encyclopedia as a whole – so be it.

It told me that you wanted that knowledge promoted, and that you thought the DYK rules were against it. I believe that it could have worked, but won't pursue it against your will. Until your last comment I thought that you could just unwatch, and we make it possible.

If you can't unwatch, we better drop this. We can still link to the article from a Bach Digital hook. Thank you for the article, Francis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)