Template:Did you know nominations/The Idea (book), The Idea (1932 film)

The following is an archived discussion of The Idea (book), The Idea (1932 film)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 12:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC).

The Idea (book), The Idea (1932 film)

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that Frans Masereel's 1920 wordless novel The Idea and its 1932 film adaptation star a naked lady (pictured) who runs rampant through the city and incites a socialist revolution?

Reviewed:

Comment: This is a double nomination; this nom is especially important as it features a naked lady.

Created by Curly Turkey (talk). Self nominated at 23:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC).

A few things:
- Unless this is part of a series of works featuring naked earls, naked knights, and so on, naked lady should be changed to naked woman.

I'm pretty sure in modern English (even the formal variety) that "lady" is not restricted in this way. I think "naked lady" is funnier and has more punch—it's a better click magnet. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the things I've said here were half-joking and so on, but I need to be clear here: I am dead serious. Absolutely not. See wikt:lady, which to my surprise contours the various acceptable uses of lady (outside of aristocratic usage) quite well. It would be an embarrassment for this wording to appear on the main page.

The 11th edition of the Oxford Concise gives as its first definition: "1. (in polite or formal use) a woman." Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You misinterpret "polite or formal use", which means Won't you ladies please follow me? or such. It absolutely doesn't mean formal writing in the sense of WP. In a similar vein you might find the NYT society page reporting that After the cotillion, the ladies were seen safely home by their escorts or whatever, but you won't find the front page reporting that The three inmates -- one of them a naked lady who had been showering at the time of the escape -- ran into the street but were quickly recaptured. EEng (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You also wouldn't see headlines in the NYT like "?"; DYK serves a different purpose. Could we get a third opinion on this?

Certainly there's some latitude in DYK for playfulness, but this wouldn't come across that way. Just so you know, I just happened to be attracted by the graphic as I was passing by, and have no skin in this game. Why don't you ask User:Tony1? EEng (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Actors and actresses star in films; the characters they play are not stars, and novels don't have stars. How about feature?

Sure. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the two articles doesn't mention any kind of revolution (but rather disruption of the social order) and the other specifies only a workers' revolution.

Okay, I guess. There appear to be more sources that talk about the socialist aspects of the film on Google Books, but I can't access them. Too bad...I really wanted to have a hook about a naked lady inciting a revolution. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly "worker's revolution" strongly suggests socialism, but not exclusively, and I'm just going by the article. Actually, I think "disrupting the social order" sounds more insidious -- judges cavorting in nothing but their wigs and so on. EEng (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

May I therefore suggest

ALT 1... that Frans Masereel's 1920 wordless novel The Idea and its 1932 animated adaptation feature a naked woman (pictured) who runs rampant through a city, thereby disrupting the social order?

Anyway, disrupting the social order is more fun than a revolution, which could get unpleasant what with the tiresome rhetoric about means of production and so on. EEng (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it is in real life, but I thought "inciting a socialist revolution" would catch more eyes. It's a moot point, as it's uncited. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer needed now that hook seems to be settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's not settled. We're still waiting on a third opinion about "naked lady". Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. Then as part of the review, which involves two articles as well as the various hooks, the reviewer can express an opinion on that as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel 'naked lady' is slightly better. Sounds somewhat more artistic. The thing about socialist revolution has to go indeed, since the articles don't state as much. The checkable sources of The Idea (book) are good; the uncheckable ones I accept in good faith. Well written, 390 words, 5x expanded in the timeframe. I had to remove {{1920s-novel-stub}}, though. The Idea (1932 film): Well written, 532 words, 5x expanded in the timeframe. Checkable sources all check out, uncheckables ones I accept in good faith. Since I slightly edited the book article, I can say it's probably ready for {{DYKtickAGF}}, but I can't approve this myself now. I would go for this hook:

ALT2... that Frans Masereel's 1920 wordless novel The Idea and its 1932 animated adaptation feature a naked lady (pictured) who runs rampant through a city, thereby disrupting the social order?

Cheers. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 11:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not gonna make too much more fuss about this since, quite frankly, DYK embarrasses Wikipedia in plenty of more serious ways, but while how something sounds is important, it's not as important as avoiding the appearance that we don't understand the subtle details of good English composition. Lady is flatly inappropriate here, for reasons already described. EEng (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to be clear that my own insistence on keeping lady is because:

I don't believe that the word "lady" is restricted in modern usage in the way EEng insists.
I thought it was funnier and more eye-catching—"classiness" wasn't a consideration. I stick to "woman" in the actual article.

If it turns out that consensus rules against me on both points, I have no problem backing down. I understand EEng's concern about usage (the colloquial butchering of the word "literally" drives me up the wall), but I honestly believe modern usage of "lady" has all but obliterated its archaic noble usage, and that this change happened generations ago. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not some supercilious prescriptive fussiness on a par with complaining about split infinitives. If there was even a hint of self-consciousness in the use of lady here it would escape the appearance of tone-deafness, but there's isn't. In contrast here's a use that would be OK (and humorous):

...that at the opening ceremonies of the 1916 Daughters of the American Revolution national convention, several of the ladies on the rostrum became intoxicated and ran naked through the convention hall?

Do you see the difference? EEng (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of seeing or not seeing the difference. Words have plenty of different meanings and usages for those different meanings. What it seems to me is as if you're making the distinction between different usages of the word "gay"—of course I see the distinction, but distinction's not the issue. It's whether the particular usage I've made is inappropriate—"naked lady" is a set phrase ("naked earl" and "naked knight" are not) that's generations old, and it's meaning is carved in stone and well (universally?) recognized. Under no circumstance (aside from obvious word play) is it allowed to mean anything other than "naked woman" by a native-level speaker. The difference in usage between "naked lady" and "naked woman" is that one is a giggle-inducing and a set phrase, and the other is neither, which was the point. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We'll see what a new reviewer says about this. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 10:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I was led astray by "naked lady"—given that the hook has just used "1920s wordless novel" and "1932 film adaptation"—into believing that "lady" had the more restrictive meaning: given the time period involved, it was someone who was clearly a "lady" (i.e., probably upper class but certainly someone who acted like a lady), which makes the nudity and disruption of social order take on a different flavor (and "social order" seemed a confirmation of the more restrictive use of "lady" in the class sense). Having read both articles, I see that is not at all the case. Since the articles only ever call her a woman, the hook would not be able to mislead if it followed suit. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, then, if someone's actually being led astray by "naked ladies", then I'll back down. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case, can you approve ALT 1, BlueMoonset? —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 14:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there anybody who can lend a hand in picking a hook? —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe Curly and Blue (and I) agree ALT1 is fine. Is that good enough? EEng (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If you give it a {{DYKtick}}, it will be. I'd rather not because of my involvement in this article.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There is an agreement that naked woman should be used, thus I'm approving ALT1. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because a woman is naked doesn't mean she's an object for you to "use". EEng (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless it's consensual. Let's hold this over until the naked ~~lady~~ woman weighs in. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Worse and worse. By commenting of women's weights you further reinforce the pathological obsession with thinness engendered get it? by the male-imposed ideal of female beauty. EEng (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)