Template:Did you know nominations/Ferdinand Rudow
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ferdinand Rudow
[edit]
Ferdinand Rudow, date unknown
- ... that German entomologist Ferdinand Rudow (1840-1920, pictured) was so notoriously lackadaisical about assigning species names that he often used the same name for more than one species in a single paper? Vidal, Stefan (January 2005). "The history of Hymenopteran parasitoid research in Germany", page 32
- ALT1:... that German entomologist Ferdinand Rudow (1840-1920) was described in 1993 as "undoubtedly the most incompetent" European taxonomist working with Ichneumonidae? Horstmann, Klaus (1993-04-19). "Revision der von Ferdinand Rudow beschriebenen Ichneumonidae I., page 3
- Reviewed: Neil Dewsnip
- Comment: The history looks a bit wonky because I imported the French Wikipedia article (fr:Ferdinand Rudow) to our redlink, thinking I was just going to translate what they had and leave it as a stub. But then I got interested in how hilariously useless this guy apparently was and wound up writing a ton more, basically to the point where there is nothing left of the translated version. However, if my reviewer wants to judge it as expanded rather than new content, it is more than a 5x expansion of the imported version, so it ought to qualify on that basis as well.
Created/expanded by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Self-nominated at 13:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC).
Interesting life, on good source, no copyvio obvious. Should we really only mention where he failed? How about also his donation to the museum? - Next time: don't import, just use {{translated}} on the talk. It's easier to read, and less confusing for DYK check. How about his image for this nom? How about an infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt: the guy is mostly notable for being really bad at his job. I don't think "donated to museum" is nearly as interesting to the reader as "pretty much the worst". And literally every source I found on him focused on that, it's not just one guy who disliked him being unfair. The guy really and truly was the worst.
- I don't like putting infoboxes in shorter, less complex articles, and they're not required.
- The image isn't that great, but I've thrown it in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
As you wish. The prep builder can decide. - Just for curoisity: why would you permit the reader of a more complex article to see dates and places of birth and death at a glance, but not for a simple one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Because I think they add very little value when there's not very much to summarize about someone or something. The trade-off in clutter/redundancy is not worth it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, did you read the question? I talk about four parameters: date of birth (DOB), place of birth (POB), date of death (DOD, place of death POD). Every decent printed encyclopedia has them together at the beginning. I am looking for nothing else. See Beethoven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I did, thank you, and my answer is the same. In a complex article there is more to summarize in an infobox. In a simple article there is very little to summarize. I don't think there is much value in putting a very small amount of information in a box on the side of the article when half the information (date of birth and death) is available at the beginning in the very first line of the article. It's redundant and adds clutter. I recognize that you disagree, but unfortunately we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point; I don't care to argue about it further. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- As you wish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I did, thank you, and my answer is the same. In a complex article there is more to summarize in an infobox. In a simple article there is very little to summarize. I don't think there is much value in putting a very small amount of information in a box on the side of the article when half the information (date of birth and death) is available at the beginning in the very first line of the article. It's redundant and adds clutter. I recognize that you disagree, but unfortunately we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point; I don't care to argue about it further. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, did you read the question? I talk about four parameters: date of birth (DOB), place of birth (POB), date of death (DOD, place of death POD). Every decent printed encyclopedia has them together at the beginning. I am looking for nothing else. See Beethoven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Because I think they add very little value when there's not very much to summarize about someone or something. The trade-off in clutter/redundancy is not worth it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
