Template:Did you know nominations/Deruvian


 * 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 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Deruvian, Fagan (saint)

 * ... that SS Fagan and Deruvian were once credited as the apostles of Britain?
 * ALT1:... that a monk at Glastonbury (pictured) seems to have forged the mentions of SS Fagan & Deruvian in William of Malmesbury's history of their abbey?
 * ALT2:... that the 2nd-century apostles SS Fagan & Deruvian are not attested before the 12th century, when their names seem to have been forged into William of Malmesbury's history of Glastonbury (pictured)?
 * ALT3:... that pious forgeries about SS Fagan & Deruvian were added to William of Malmesbury's history of Glastonbury, Geoffrey of Monmouth's pseudohistory of British kings, and the Iolo MSS ... and yet they might still have been real?
 * ALT4:... that the holy wells of SS Fagan & Deruvian were credited as curative for "the falling sickness" and paralysis, respectively?
 * Reviewed: I managed some fact checking for International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children but haven't shepherded it through, so I won't count that; there's Sigma I-62 war game & I'll look for another one Sigma I-62 war game & "Beer, Beer, Beer"
 * Comment: As per the Dup detector, there is overlap but note that the vast majority is in the citations: the running text should be focused and long enough in both cases to still qualify; I'm responsible for the added content in both; and we're running them together.
 * Comment: Provided a link to clarify the monks' order but feel free to remove if it seems defamatory towards the present-day monks who are presumably more scrupulous.

5x expanded by LlywelynII (talk). Self nominated at 14:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC).
 * I moved this nomination to February 1, the start of expansion, which is on time, fortunately. George Ho (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — Llywelyn II   03:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Were you going to finish the rest of the review? or just offering your ALT for future reviewers? — Llywelyn II   15:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I fear US readers will interpret SS as meaning these are ships (or Nazis, I suppose). EEng (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Paging . EEng (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good thing I thought of that already and linked it. There may be other problems but that's perfectly legitimate, possibly educational, and (being both terse and slightly unusual) good→great for a hook. — Llywelyn II   03:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my philosophy as well re hooks-as-education, but I couldn't resist making a crack. EEng (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh. (But stop writing here and scaring away the reviewers...) — Llywelyn II   01:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Really? I scare reviewers? EEng (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you don't, not me at least. I am attracted because I wrote about a church dedicated to another saint for the fallen sickness (fallen = valen), also SS. I think SS should not appear at all, unless you intend to attract extra clicks going for anything Nazi.
 * Symbol question.svg Both articles are interesting and well sourced. I wonder why one has Saint in the name, but not the other. The image is dramatic and free, but you need to make some connection to the hook, or do without. I would not try to educate by hook (did that for the first years on this page), but to make curious to click, and therefore suggest to reword the original hook to a quirky:
 * ALT5: ... that the possibly legendary saints Fagan and Deruvian were once credited as the apostles of Britain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't scare reviewers, but long discussions do. — Llywelyn II   15:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, but SS is perfectly valid and (with all due respect to your interests) only becomes Nazicentric when we cease using it for other legitimate purposes. It meant "saints" long before the National Socialists and, unless atheism catches on more than it has lately, will continue to be used long after the blackshirts' German name has been forgotten. Similarly, only the hooks that mention Glastonbury use the picture. Otherwise we do do without. In answer to your question, because of : I agree that it's a stupid policy but—even when "Saint Xyz" is the —there's a consensus that the page should be at vanilla "Xyz" unless a ambiguation is necessary. So, since there's no other notable "Deruvian", the page goes there. Since there are many other Fagans, he's Saint Fagan. (Actually, Fagan (saint) at the moment because someone didn't understand natural disambiguation, but hopefully we can move it at some point down the road to the right namespace.)


 * Thank you for many ideas, - some replies. SS is perfectly valid and historic etc, but not everything valid should go in a short statement on the Main page. If you link it it takes away clicks from your articles, - bad enough to have two. If you don't link, people will misunderstand. I agree that the guideline (!) is stupid, all saints should be created equal ;) - Got it about the image only for certain hooks. - I can't approve my own, sorry ;)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg review needed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a review.
 * A1 Both articles were expanded at least fivefold in February. ✅
 * A2 Both article are quite long, perhaps too long. ✅
 * A3 I'm not content with the leads of these articles which seem to suppose that the reader knows all about early Christianity in Britain or is willing to follow lots of links to find out. Our articles should be written for the general reader who knows nothing of this.  In particular, they should explain more clearly that these people were supposedly early Christians who came from Rome to Britain and converted the supposed pagan King of the Britons to their religion.  Their tenuous status and association with Glastonbury's pretensions should be more clearly summarised in the leads because the bodies of the articles are so dense and confusing that they're quite hard to read.
 * H1 The format of the hooks seems to be technically ok, except for ALT3 which is too long, but I'm not liking the use of SS either. This is linked to list of Welsh saints which is too much of a surprise and fails to explain the abbreviation clearly.  This seems to be obscurantism for its own sake and we should be writing clearly rather than giving the reader a puzzle to decrypt.  The problem is easily avoided because the word saints is not so long that it needs to be abbreviated.
 * H2 Between the variety of hooks and the tangle of scholastic detective work, it's too hard to figure out what the key fact is that we should verify. I'm quite happy to assume good faith in this but we need a clearer trail, please.
 * O1 The two QPQs were done. ✅ The "Beer, Beer, Beer" review seemed too bitey for my taste.
 * O2 The image of Glastonbury is ok technically but I'd prefer a picture more directly related to the saint(s) such as the buildings named after St Fagan - the church or the castle. ✅

H2: In that case, thanks for taking it on. Let me know which hook you're actually interested in and I can try to help. — Llywelyn II   12:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC) O2: I'm game for using either church photo, if you opt not to use one of the Glastonbury hooks, although I think that the admin would just use a different hook for the lead if our image was just a church when the hook isn't about that place. — Llywelyn II   12:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg In summary, more seems needed to make the material clearer, please. Andrew D. (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A3: I kept the phrasing different to avoid running afoul of the reviewer thinking I just duplicated everything. I can see what you're talking about with Saint Fagan but not really on the Saint Deruvian article. It seems to explain who he is rather clearly and to simply provide the links for those who want more information. That said, look at the new version (which includes a use of SS and clarifying link for the concerned). I've tried to work in something like your phrasing, so let me know if it still seems unclear.


 * Calling last rounds for and asking for some assistance from  and the terrifying . Otherwise it's closing time. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I find these topics quite difficult and so haven't rushed back but, as I have some familiarity now I'll try to squeeze in some time again this Easter. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Extremely flattered. And I love Nazi shipping - am I part of your "Plan B"? But what can I do? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

EEng (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To perhaps save Andrew D some squeezing ;) let me see if I can push some of these concerns out (referring to the list above):
 * A3: These concerns may be valid in terms of improving the article, but they're not blocks to DYK approval. As I've often said, we should be frank with our readers, and ourselves, that DYKs are new content with plenty of work still needed -- maybe someone will click through the hook and make these improvements.
 * H1: I'd be OK with SS if there was some real need for it, but I'd prefer Saints (and skip the link).
 * H2: ALT0 and ALT4 are easily found in the articles -- didn't check the others -- and I like ALT4 best.
 * Yep. SS is fine and that's all I was pointing out. If we're not bumping up against any character limit, there's no problem writing out lower-case saints.


 * As you say, his A3 wasn't 100% kosher for this process but, regardless, I already addressed it. We're just waiting on another look through and approval or further comments. — Llywelyn II   02:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That made no sense whatsoever. I had addressed his concerns and the reviewer was tardy in giving a new assessment. That's not a reason to close. (It's a possible reason to get a new reviewer, but I'm fine with Andy continuing if he's interested.)  In unrelated issues, I'm now curious why someone might be expecting a subtle muffin...   —  Llywelyn II   02:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's being tardy with a reply, and then there's a risk that the original submitter might have abandoned their submission entirely. As it was coming up on 3 weeks since the last edit, I considered this a potential risk, and as such hoped to spark interest again to try and gauge which situation we were in. Luckily, not abandoned! As for the muffin - it grants wishes and is mysterious in its unsubtle ways. Who knows? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg There wasn't any tardiness with the reply and it was there a fortnight before your comment. In any case, I'm open to a new reviewer; it's been almost a month without Andy seeing if I addressed his concerns. —  Llywelyn II   14:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I happened on a copy of the Oxford Dictionary of Saints when I was tidying up stacks of books at Easter. I thought this might help but then I found that these saints weren't included.  This was quite demotivating as this indicates that these are quite marginal figures and so I'm not likely to do any more on this as I have numerous other topics awaiting attention.  Sorry. Andrew D. (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As the hooks and articles relate: they're not marginal at all. They're just now considered likely fabrications or legends built upon people whose names have been lost to time. Regardless, thanks for your time. — Llywelyn II   12:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed. The tl;dr of the conversation above is just an interesting hook needs to be selected and checked and articles given fresh reviews. If a concern is that the lead paragraphs are too similar, that was actually intentional to please reviewer above, but we can restore the older, more distinct grafs if need be. —  Llywelyn II   12:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The hook says "that SS Fagan and Deruvian were once credited as the apostles of Britain?".... so I go to each article and search for "apostle" because I would expect to find a sentence with "apostle" and the names of the saints and Britain in a sentence with a ref at the end. It might be but I cannot find this. So I look at the next hook and try searching for "forg" and again I don't find the fact with a ref at then end. Am I missing something? I was thinking that be now we would have these hook facts quite clearly referenced. There are easy refs in the catholic encyclopedia.... could we not add a nice clear sentence for one of these hooks with a nice clear ref ... and let this get out of the DYK queue? Do ping me when this is ready to be approved, or explain what Im missing because Im finding it hard to help this article. Victuallers (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean the Catholic encyclopedia? Because I thought Wikipedia was the catholic encyclopedia. EEng (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you might need to check your browser. I just clicked Fagan and CTRL+F'd for "apostle" and got 7 hits, some pointedly referenced. So I'm not sure what the difficulty you're running into is. Regardless, thanks for stopping by. — Llywelyn II   17:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ive checked my browser and it confirms that there is no appearance of the word apostle as I describe above. Sure the word occurs frequently, but the closest I can find is "that Fagan and "Duvian" were the first apostles of all Britain, baptizing its king Lucius and then converting all his subjects after their arrival in 140" ... and it has no ref at the end of the sentence. Could you fix this quickly?? Victuallers (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weren't the Deruvians those guys who worshipped trees and built Stonehenge and all that stuff? EEng (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, sorry, that was the Druids. The Deruvians are in South America -- where the Incas were and so on. [EEng]
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Both these articles are fivefold expansions. They are long enough and were newly expanded when nominated. For the sake of simplicity, I have struck all the hooks except ALT4, which has inline citations in each article to offline sources. The articles are neutral and I detected no policy issues. Although I might have expressed the ALT4 hook differently I am not going to propose a different phrasing now because this nomination has been hanging around for about twelve weeks already. So, good to go with ALT4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)