Template:Did you know nominations/Dianthus plumarius


 * 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: rejected by Vanamonde (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Dianthus plumarius

 * ...that the color pink is named after a flower? Dianthus plumarius is commonly known as the garden pink. Source: Pink is Named after the Dianthus Flower — Ripley's Believe it or Not
 * ALT1:... that the color pink is named after a flower, the garden pink?
 * Reviewed Melanerpes
 * Comment: I'm actually torn on whether to rename the article Garden pink, as per Wikipedia:Article titles advice on using the common, expected name over the formal one. Also, are we supposed to include an alt hook at the start? Or is alt1 really just for review suggestion based on reviews? Also, I see conflicting source formats, is there one that's the preferred way? Is the source following the hook just for the reviewer, or will it be used in the accepted hook, somehow? Should it be quoting the article to prove the hook is used in it, or should it be showing the citation used to footnote the fact in question?

Created by Kazvorpal (talk). Self-nominated at 02:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article created on 11 May and DYK nominated on 12 May. So fits within 7 day range. Both the hooks are within 200 character limit. QPQ done. 1582 B (253 words) "readable prose size" which is just above 1500 character limit. Reference 3 is a Bare URL so needs cleaning and it does not mention what article claims. Reference 4 is another encyclopedia so not sure if its allowed to cite. Reference 5 is a dead link. - Vivvt ( Talk ) 05:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The fifth link works fine, I just checked it. As far as I know, the fourth link is considered acceptable, but I can change it if necessary. Link 3 is fixed. — Kaz (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The referecnes used do not support the hook statement, they refer to the genus as a whole, and not this one species.-- Kev  min  § 19:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, if you read that entire reference, it includes this: "In the 16th Century, the Dianthus Plumarius was commonly referred to as a pink", that is the specific species in this article. It was in the 16th century, within 20 years of Dianthus Plumarius becoming documented as the flower called "pink", that the color becomes documented as being called pink. — Kaz (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Ripleys reference is contradicted by the Dictionary.com reference, so no the hook is not supported.-- Kev min  § 15:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dictionary.com is a poor source to be using in a scientific article anyway. SpinningSpark 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

In my view this nomination should be struck completely unless far more reliable sources than 'Adrian' from Ripley's Believe It Or Not, plus an online dictionary can be found. Whilst the statement might prove to be true, far more than this Tertiary source is needed for such a fundamental DYK statement. I have discussed another concern about this article on its talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I don't think Kaz's review of Melanerpes can possibly count for QPQ. There is no sign that any of the five nominated articles were reviewed against the DYK criteria and the comment "I don't need to look at each article..." indicates that they were not. SpinningSpark 21:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I rejected the article based on other criteria. Clearly, I don't have to read the unnecessary list of five articles if I'm rejecting it. My objection was, in part, that the laundry list of five articles didn't meet the "interesting" standard. If he addressed my objection — which might involve REDUCING the number of articles — and I was going to accept it, then I'd need to read the (remaining) articles. Basic logic, really. — Kaz (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that you rejected the nomination without doing a full review. I don't have a problem with that concept.  The issue is that you have claimed it as meeting QPQ.  In my view, QPQ requires a full review of the nomination.  The whole point of QPQ is to reduce the workload on the volunteers doing the DYK preparation.  If the problem you raised was fixed, could someone then look at that nom and say, "yes, the outstanding issues have been fixed, I can now accept this and move it to prep"?  No, they could not, because a full review would still be required.  What you have done is lazy, pushing the main work on to someone else but claiming the credit for yourself. SpinningSpark 09:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, quid quo pro does not require more than a justified rejection. That's just silly. If my objection is, in part, that five equally weighted articles linked makes it uninteresting, then of course I didn't need to read all five of the articles. That's bureaucratic nitwittery. — Kaz (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * QPQ requires a review, not a promotion or rejection. If your judgement is that it is not worth doing a full review of Melanerpes, then you must review another article to meet QPQ. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 10:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I'm afraid I agree with SpinningSpark's assessment here. While that comment was helpful, it cannot count as a full review (just as, for instance, this comment will not count as a QPQ for me). Please provide another review. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have clearly been active since the last concerns were raised: do you intend to see this through? Vanamonde (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)