Template:Did you know nominations/Namacpacan Church

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 97198 (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Namacpacan Church

(

)

~~... that the image of the Virgin Mary enshrined in Namacpacan Church (pictured) reportedly appeared in a dream of Pope Pius XII before he died?~~

ALT1: ~~... that Pius XII's question about the Virgin Mary shrine in Namacpacan Church (pictured) could not be answered in time?~~

Reviewed: Jeremi Wiśniowiecki

Created by Carlojoseph14 (talk). Self nominated at 05:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

New enough and long enough, interesting hook. Image properly licensed. Spot checks revealed no close paraphrasing. I've quickly run through and cleaned up the grammar; it is an interesting and well-put together article. AGF on offline ref. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I added "reportedly" to the hook (as well as the article), because we can't definitively say what somebody dreamed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have pulled this hook from the queue, for the reasons described at WT:DYK#Prep area 5, two birds with one stone?. Fram (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Alt proposed. Serten (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

ALT2: ~~... that the Namacpacan Church (pictured) was canonically erected in 1690 under the patronage of Saint Catherine of Alexandria?~~
ALT3: ~~... that the statue of the Virgin Mary enshrined in Namacpacan Church (pictured) is the tallest known Marian image in the Philippines?~~

--Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That Alt1 is even worse than the one that got pulled. Please, no, never that one. Fram (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

How come? The architectural Alts are just boring. Serten (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any somewhat reliable source (i.e. a source with some expertise on the life of Pius XII) that indicates that any question was ever asked? Fram (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't care to look for. Point is, its part of the story of the church, the question is, how we convey it. Serten (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be a lot better if for DYK purposes we stuck with the factual history of the church, and ignored the "folklore" (or PR bullshit) surrounding it, certainly when it introduces people who have nothing to do with the church. Fram (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Such folklore is an essential part of the history of that church. Sorry, what is the purpose of DYK, promoting trout fish tail length measurements instead? Serten (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Labelling folklore as "PR bullshit" is jsut rediculous. Folklore is a valuable part of the cultural heritage of any country. Just because a particular editor does not like, or approve of, folklore is no reason to erase it from Wikipedia. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We have no evidence whether this is really "folklore" ass the defenders state, or just some recent invention to lure pilgrims. I don't dislike folklore, but I've yet to see any indication that this really is folklore. And I haven't proposed to erase it from Wikipedia, I have opposed and removed a DYK hook. Let's keep things in perspective please. Fram (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Alt3 indicates again how unreliable these Philippine sources often are (not all of them, obviously, but these kind of local tourist guides?) It seems rather doubtful that a Catholic and rather exuberant country like the Philippines would have no Marian image taller than 6 feet 4 inches. And of course it does, there are plenty of those. The tallest one at the moment is a whopping 71 feet[1], there is one planned that would be more than 100 metres high. Please strike ALT3, and correct the article. Fram (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Tallest known Marian image (venerated in this case) not statue or monument or structure (Which in your argument is this). It is also cited here or here. But if you still think that the hook is a PR, I am sure that this ALT 4 is not anymore a PR stint from the Philippines.

ALT4: ~~... that Namacpacan Church (pictured) is in Luna, La Union, Philippines?~~ --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that a sculpture is not an image. Or that the Namacpacan "image" wasn't a statue. So please, enlighten me, which definition of "image" would include the Namacpacan one but exclude all the larger ones? Fram (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Marian image, in this context, refers to a Marian statue of popular devotion, with Pontifical recognition, venerated by the people, housed inside the church building, in one of its altars or niches in the church's sanctuary. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is impossible to convey in a hook of course (the definition should be added to the article, as most people will probably not be aware of that definition). Fram (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

ALT4 is rather uninteresting, so what about

ALT5 ... that Namacpacan Church (pictured) is built with buttresses and thick walls in order to withstand earthquakes? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:, ALT 5 is good. Reviewer needed. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Independent reviewer needed for ALT5 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with ALT5. It's appropriately succinct and cited to a reliable source. Simon has already covered the other criteria, so I'd say we're good to go with this. Prioryman (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)