Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Lipi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 06:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Lipi

[edit]
(
)
Brahmi script is a Lipi
Brahmi script is a Lipi
  • ... that Lipi is a Sanskrit word that means writing script (pictured), and that a Buddhist text states Siddhartha (future Buddha) learnt 64 different scripts as a child at a school?

Created by Ms Sarah Welch (talk). Self-nominated at 13:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC).

  • Age ok, length ok, well cited. Haven't checked for copyvios. Alternative hook:
alt2 ... that Buddhist tradition claims that there are 64 different lipi, or scripts, that have been used to write Sanskrit.
Stevage 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Stevage for the partial review. You can check for copyvio with this wiki tool. Do you have a source for the ALT2 hook you suggest? The Buddhist tradition claims that Siddhartha (future Buddha) learnt 64 different lipi at a school, but it does not state whether these 64 lipi were used for Sanskrit or a combination of Indian languages. Per DYK rules, the hook must be directly supported in a reliable source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Stevage: any other comments or questions to help complete this review? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Full review needed; previous reviewer has not returned. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Article is big enough and nominated on the day it was written. Copyvio check results in all clear. The original hook is not in the text - the first part is, but it does not say that Buddha learned 64 scripts. Hook alt1 does appear in the text and at 142 characters is short enough. alt1 has a reference. I cannot see the interior of the reference so AGF it is in there. The image is used and is public domain, so has a suitable license. QPQ performed. Good to go with alt1 (and not with any other hook so far). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Returning this to the nomination page for an alternative hook to be proposed, as per discussion at Prep 3 (Lipi). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Struck ALT1 hook, since apparently it was a problem; superseding tick icon so this isn't promoted by mistake while awaiting a new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ... that Lipi means writing script (pictured), and Siddhartha (future Buddha) mastered many Lipi at a school according to the Buddhist text Lalitavistara Sūtra?
  • ALT4: ... that Lipi means writing script, and as many as 64 Lipi such as the Brahmi script (pictured) are listed in ancient Indian texts and their Chinese translations?
  • The discussion at Prep 3 (Lipi) stated "I fail to see the link between the first clause and the second clause" of the ALT1 hook. Proposing ALT3 and ALT4. @The Rambling Man:, @Black Kite: I have reviewed your comments, checked the sources, embedded quotes and clarified the article as well. How do these hooks look? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Both ALT3 and ALT4 are short enough. The hooks are in the article, with citations, but as before I cannot confirm from the sources. So Good to go with ALT3 or ALT4. I prefer ALT4 as it reads more smoothly. I suspect that a more compact hook saying the same thing could be devised too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Graeme Bartlett: I like ALT4 too. Am open to suggestions. Please note that Jainism texts list 18 Lipi, while Buddhist texts list 64, which is why there is "as many as" qualifier in that hook. A request for closer/promoter: please hold off till October 24, since there is unusual, new and welcome activity in progress in this article, that is improving the article. I feel it would be better if the article reaches a stable state, assuming the DYK is approved/promoted. If this wait is not possible, I accept withdrawing this nomination. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Returned from prep per discussion at WT:DYK. This hook sounds like a teacher delivering a lesson. Can we come up with something that's really a "hook"? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
1st hook discussion at WT:DYK
... that Lipi means writing script in Sanskrit, and that a Buddhist text lists 64 scripts of ancient India with Brahmi as number one?

I'm feeling particularly stupid this morning but I sadly fail to see the link between the first clause and the second clause of this hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the link, either. The lead of the article says "In the Indian tradition, Brahma is credited with inventing Lipi, the scripts for writing.[4]", so maybe:
  • ... that in the Indian tradition, Brahma is credited with inventing Lipi, the scripts for writing?
Assuming the reference supports it, of course. EdChem (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The source says that Brahma invented script, and Lipis are a type of script, but it doesn't specifically mention Lipi in that context, only in the context of Jain scripts. Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, it's not just you. The scripts appear to be Lipi, so it should be something like "... that Lipi means writing script in Sanskrit, and that a Buddhist text lists 64 Lipi of ancient India with Brahmi as number one?" But what does "Brahmi at number one" mean? It could mean that texts written in Brahmi are the most common of the Lipi, but later on we find the sentence "The Jaina script list includes Brahmi at number 1", but this refers to a different set of 18 Jain texts, not the list of 64. To add to the confusion, the list of 64 text in Lipi is titled "Indian and Chinese texts". It doesn't help that Lipi is not particularly clear or well-written on some points ("until the time of Ashoka where the 3rd-century BCE pillar edicts evidence the Brahmi script"). Black Kite (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    Sadly, the quality of writing isn't considered important by this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    Ah - the source makes the "number 1" bit clear (the texts are numbered), but the article doesn't! Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the confusion from three different editors here, I suggest this is pulled and placed back in the nominations pool for a hook re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"... that Lipi means writing script in Sanskrit, and that a Buddhist text lists 64 scripts of ancient India with Brahmi as number one?
Here is a link to the nomination template. I propose we just remove the last five words which would have been more appropriate if the image had been used. In fact I will remove them unless anyone objects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see the link between the clauses, even when you remove the last five words. It is a bizarre and uninspiring and counterintuitive hook, even grammatically questionable, especially if you just remove the last five words. It needs work, so pulling it is best to allow more time for a more considered approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
2nd hook discussion at WT:DYK
... that Lipi means writing script, and as many as 64 Lipi such as the Brahmi script are listed in ancient Indian texts and their Chinese translations?

While my cold is almost better, I'm sorry, this has already been revisited once, but this hook still leaves me stumped. Can someone explain what this means and how it is interesting to a broad audience, per the requirements of DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? What is it you don't understand? It seems perfectly clear to me, but then I'm not a Chartered Nitpicker. Please provide a link to this sort of thing, especially if you are going to quote without the links. There seems to be a feeling growing in parts of the nitpicking community that hooks need to make everything perfectly clear. It isn't. Hooks (the clue is in the name) are intended to entice the reader to actually look at the article, and sometimes an element of mystery can be very useful. Rather than just asking "Can someone explain what this means and how it ...", have you actually notified the nominator? Of course you haven't. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I find it poorly written and not hooky, and I'm unclear what its significance is. The structure is off, for a start, when do we start a hook "X means Y and some X are..."? After that, what relevance does Chinese translations have to this? This really isn't nitpicking, it's asking for how this is interesting to a broad audience, per the requirements of DYK, and for my benefit, a further explanation as to the significance of the claim. I'm not a Chartered Nitpicker by the way, just someone who feels that the readers deserve quality content on the main page of Wikipedia. If everyone is content that they see it differently from me, that's fine. But we are allowed (in fact we are encouraged) to discuss things on talk pages, and that's all I've done. I'm sorry if I've upset you. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I also am unimpressed by the hook; it sounds like a teacher delivering a lesson. Yoninah (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you two could reach a consensus on whether it has too much explanation or not enough? Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the significance. It's a string of three facts all of which are simply not interesting, and I fail to see how, either together or indpendently, they form anything that would be interesting to a broad audience, per the requirements of DYK. But I can see that you've lost patience with me and had to resort to a personal attack, so I'll leave the discussion to others. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Instead of racking our brains to figure out this hook, why don't we create a real hook? My experience with this page creator is that she is very open to new hook suggestions. I'm returning it to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
And, of course, not giving her a link to this discussion! Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how to do that, because there have been so many posts under this section. But I will add a link to this section. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you already did that. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec twice) Since, as TRM has recently pointed out, virtually all acceptable hooks eventually reach the main page, the point at which to attempt to make hooks more interesting is during the nomination process, when the nominator, reviewer and others will be aware. Using a range of special places which only the nitpicking community watchlist is of course unhelpful and annoying, even to those not involved, let alone nominators, but this has been pointed out multitudes of times before, to no avail. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is "Lipi" capitalized? The sources used in the article (like [1] all seem to discuss "lipi", not "Lipi". And " and their Chinese translations?" is superfluous, if the 64 scripts are mentioned in the old Indian (better: Sanskrit) text then it doesn't really matter which translation also includes them. Fram (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Stripped back, it seems to me that the hook amounts to:
  • ... that ancient Indian texts include as many as 64 different writing scripts?
In that case, for me, the hookiness lies in there being so many different writing forms. The form TRM quoted is turgid, IMO; at least this formulation is succinct, though not using the word "lipi" is unfortunate. If we relaxed the rule on using parentheses, it could be "... as many as 64 different lipi (writing scripts)?" EdChem (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Or you could be superbold and just stick with lipi and get the reader thinking "what on earth is a lipi???" and clicking on it to find out... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I like that idea, TRM. What do others think of "... that ancient Indian texts include as many as 64 different lipi?" EdChem (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
That works! Yoninah (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all. Glad to know that I wasn't the only one who didn't really get the proposed hook! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • New hook proposed:
  • ALT5: ... that ancient Indian texts include as many as 64 different lipi? EdChem (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @EdChem / @Yoninah: It is short and crisp, and I am fine with it. Lipi is an uncommon word, therefore:
  • ALT5a: ... that ancient Indian texts mention as many as 64 different writing scripts called lipi?
  • ALT5b: ... that ancient Indian texts mention as many as 64 different writing scripts, calling each a lipi?
Not knowing what is Lipi could make it 'hookier' to some, but not others. I am ok either way. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • If the hook gives away the clue, it's not a "hook". The DYK column is not meant to be a list of facts, but of tantalizing tidbits that motivate readers to click on them. If you're okay with ALT5, I will go ahead and approve that. I am approving it without the image, which will only give things away; this hook deserves the quirky (last) slot in the queue! ALT5 hook ref verified and cited inline. Rest of review per Graeme Bartlett. ALT5 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lipi&oldid=748763624"