Template:Did you know nominations/Saint Ilar
- 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 Fuebaey (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Saint Ilar
[edit]
- ... that Stephen King's idol Arthur Machen used Saint Ilar—whose towns have been renamed and churches conflated with a Frenchman—as an example of the lost traditions of the Celtic Church?
- ALT1:
... that the Welsh saint Ilar is so obscure that his namesake town is now called Trefilan and its church (pictured) is now dedicated to a Frenchman instead? - ALT2:
... that the Welsh saint Ilar is so obscure the Anglican church now names his churches (Trefilan's pictured) after Saint Hilary instead? - Reviewed: L.A. Takedown (
in progressdone)
- ALT1:
Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self nominated at 06:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC).
- New enough and long enough. Cited with inline citations, and Earwig's copyvio tool revealed no close paraphrasing issues that were a sentence or more in length (just short phrases like "in his work"). [1]
However, the article doesn't say that Machen used Ilar as an example of the traditions of the Celtic Church, if you could change either the hook or article to match the other on this point, I would say this is good to go.Thanks for explaining this Llywelyn, this looks good to go after all.
Everymorning talk to me 00:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- The hook doesn't say Machen used Ilar as an example of the Celtic Church: he is part of the traditions of the Celtic Church and Machen used him as an example of the lost nature of those traditions. That's the part about "...his accidental replacement by the French bishop Hilary..." It's a work of fiction so there's not going to be any explication balder than that. Did you just need that clarified? or do you think the hook requires including "My researches led me to the connection of the Grail Legend with the vanished Celtic Church which held the field in Britain in the fifth and sixth and seventh centuries" from Machen's preface, "the Legend of the Grail is, in one of its aspects, the Legend of the Celtic Church" from his letters, or "people... have forgotten all about Ilar" from the story itself?
or do want to go with one of the ALTs instead? — LlywelynII 15:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- The hook doesn't say Machen used Ilar as an example of the Celtic Church: he is part of the traditions of the Celtic Church and Machen used him as an example of the lost nature of those traditions. That's the part about "...his accidental replacement by the French bishop Hilary..." It's a work of fiction so there's not going to be any explication balder than that. Did you just need that clarified? or do you think the hook requires including "My researches led me to the connection of the Grail Legend with the vanished Celtic Church which held the field in Britain in the fifth and sixth and seventh centuries" from Machen's preface, "the Legend of the Grail is, in one of its aspects, the Legend of the Celtic Church" from his letters, or "people... have forgotten all about Ilar" from the story itself?
- Added a tick mark to make Everymorning's change of heart clearer. If someone wants to give the article a second once-over, though, it's pretty short. — LlywelynII 11:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- New enough and long enough. Cited with inline citations, and Earwig's copyvio tool revealed no close paraphrasing issues that were a sentence or more in length (just short phrases like "in his work"). [1]
- LlywelynII, I've removed your interpolated tick mark; it's up to Everymorning to add the appropriate icon to a review, not for you to give your interpretation of what mark should have been added. Everymorning, this does mean that you need to assign an appropriate icon now, and your review should specify which of the hooks are approved (it could be one, two, or all three). In general, you should include an icon when you first review, and with every subsequent review that warrants an icon different from the most recent icon. Thanks for taking care of this. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to clarify two things. First, I am sorry for the delay in following up with regard to this nomination. Second, the hook that I consider to be "good to go" is the main one, rather than any of the alts. Everymorning talk 03:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Duplicating here the tick made by Everymorning near the end of the first review paragraph to make it easier for promoters to see it, and striking the ALT hooks as unapproved. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)