Template:Did you know nominations/What Child Is This?


 * 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) 08:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What Child Is This?

 * ... that the lyrics to the carol "What Child Is This?" were written by William Chatterton Dix during his spiritual renewal following a near-death experience?
 * ALT1:... that the story behind the carol "What Child Is This?" centres around the Adoration of the Shepherds (pictured)?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Fluorine azide
 * Comment: Please save for Christmas Day.

5x expanded by Bloom6132 (talk). Self nominated at 11:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough expansion, long enough (5x expansion of prose, from 590 to 3,044 characters by my admittedly unscientific count), and free of most major policy issues (the article is neutral, generally well cited, and free of any apparent copyright violations or close paraphrasing). Aside from the two references that are behind paywalls, which I am accepting in good faith, the only issue I detected with this nomination is that the "Recordings" list/section is uncited (save for two references). I believe that this is an issue, and it should be taken care of at this stage. Both the hook and the alternate are short enough, cited in the article, and interesting. Furthermore, QPQ has been done, and the image looks great (it is in the public domain, is used in the article, and shows up well at relatively small size). Once the mostly uncited list of recordings has been cited (or the community deems that this is not an issue), I'll be happy to pass this nomination, accepting the two sources that are behind paywalls in good faith. Michael Barera (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC) (original post modified at 19:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC) and again at 21:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Finally, I'd be happy to move this nomination to the Christmas special occasion holding area. If someone else would rather move it instead, that's fine by me as well. The nomination has already been moved to the Christmas holding area. Michael Barera (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Update: The uncited list of recordings has been removed from the article, which resolves my only concern about meeting DYK criteria. I think this nomination is now good to go, accepting the two sources that are behind paywalls in good faith. Michael Barera (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , discography lists do not need to be cited, and the page creator should be encouraged to restore them. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, Yoninah, how many exceptions are there to the "content must be cited" rule? We were just having a discussion about the exceptions to said rule, and I thought that you said the only exceptions were 1) intros, 2) plot summaries, and 3) paragraphs that summarize other cited content. Discography lists don't fall in any of those three categories. Do they constitute yet another excpetion, and if so, how many others are there that aren't covered in Rule D2? Michael Barera (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an "exception" to the rule. The idea is that uncited prose is discouraged. Look at any musical group – say, The Beatles – and you'll see an uncited discography list. (I appreciate that you're very rules-oriented. So am I.) Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently I was wrong; discographies such as the removed "Recordings" list/section don't have to be cited, even though such an exception is not mentioned in Rule D2. Yoninah would like me to encourage you to simply restore the list and not worry about the fact that it is mostly uncited. I will stay with my "good to go in good faith" assessment, which I probably should have stuck to from the beginning. Sorry for all the confusion. Michael Barera (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)