Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Jaggln

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Jaggln edit

(
)
The top trumps in Jaggln
The top trumps in Jaggln
  • ... that Jaggln is an almost-forgotten, East Tyrolean card game whose rules had been passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth"?
    Source: "In Osttirol gibt es ein ganz besonderes historisches Kartenspiel, dessen Spielweise von Generations zu Generation nur mündlich überliefert worden sind." at Jaggln and "...das fast vergessene Osttiroler Kartenspiel "Jaggln"..." at Dritter Spielenachmittag des Spielkreises Osttirol
    • ALT1:... that Jaggln is an almost-forgotten, East Tyrolean card game with the unusual feature of 3 top trumps called Jaggl, Zanggl and Buggl?
      Source: "In Osttirol gibt es ein ganz besonderes historisches Kartenspiel, dessen Spielweise von Generations zu Generation nur mündlich überliefert worden sind." at Jaggln and "Die Hauptkarte ist der Jaggl... Als zweithöchster tritt der Zanggl... Der dritthöchste is der Buggl…" at Höllenspiel und Jaggln

Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 21:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: (1) Sourcing yes. I'm taking the German sources for the main body of the article at AGF, since the pdf's don't translate automatically in my browser. I was able to Google Translate the hook sources though, and they are fine. (2) Copyvio OK. Same for copyvio checks - Earwig was completely flummoxed by the long texts in German, so I am taking that at AGF anyway, especially as you will have had to rephrase the German, due to the different word-order. (3) Sourcing problem: DYK rules require at least one citation per paragraph, but effectively for the DYK checks, this article has lots of little paragraphs without citations. Please could we have at least one citation at the end of each little paragraph, and at least one citation at the end of each bunch of one-liners or bullet points, e.g. in the Variant section? (4) Picture licensing query: the picture has a free licence, but is the design on the cards still under copyright? If the images on the cards are prints of a pre-1923 design, then you are OK. If you are not sure, it might be safer to omit the image from the DYK nom. (5) Good for April Fools' Day DYK nom? I really enjoyed this article - at first it looks like a prank version of bridge but it's genuine. Assuming that the article passes DYK, it might be a good entry for April Fools' Day. (Edited to add that your review is pending; I'll check that in due course. Storye book (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)) Storye book (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Storye book: Thank you, that's helpful. The QPQ is done. Re paragraph citations: all the paragraphs are sourced but since the rules all come from one reference, I've only cited it in the opening sentence which ends in a colon to indicate that all that follows is from that source. I can, of course, copy that reference to all the sub-paragraphs, but that isn't normally what we do. Re the card design: I'm not an expert, but the design appears to have been created by Josef Schneider in 1837 as indicated by these 2 sources: [1] and [2]. I'll post a query on WikiProject Board and Table Games and see if an expert can shed more light. I do think it would be hilarious to run it for April Fools' Day! HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: Thank you for your reply and for the links re the image. I'm happy now about the image, and I've updated the review for that, but please could you kindly attach your second citation (Daily News Hungary) to the image page? That should cover it. Re your QPQ: Your link on this template just takes me to the article NGC 3665. I have searched for its nom template but cannot find it on the nominations page or in prep. Please could you kindly give us a link to the nom template, and/or put its nom template on the article talk page? Re para citations: Your explanation makes sense to me, but I've never got away with that for my own DYK entries. Just to oil the wheels and get this through DYK, please could you kindly repeat the ref at the end of each para? I agree about the bullet points; you can leave that one as it is. I really want to see this one get through. Storye book (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Storye book: Thanks. I've repeated the references after each paragraph in the Rules section and each bullet in the Variant section. I've inserted the link to the QPQ DYK nom template above. I'm not sure how to add the Daily News Hungary link to the image. Can you help? Bermicourt (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: Good to go. Thanks, all in order now, and thank you very much for your patience in this. I have added the source for the 19th century artwork, to the image page. It turns out that there is a J. Schneider category for the image, which will validate it nicely as well. I look forward to seeing this on the main page on 1 April, if you choose to enter it. Good luck. Storye book (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Storye book: VMT. I've never run a DYK for a specific date, so I'll go and look at that. Sounds fun. Thanks again. Bermicourt (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
April Fools' Day on WP was a challenge for me at first. In the UK, you just tell a great big lie, then laugh at people when they believe it. But on WP it's different. You tell a truth-stranger-than-fiction story, so that the reader is amazed when they click on it and discover it's true. So that's why I reckoned that your article would fit so well - it's real, but at first sight it doesn't appear so. Writing the hook should be fun for you. Storye book (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay so here's my first cut at a more "April 1st" hook:
ALT2:... that Jaggl, Zanggl and Buggl are the cards to have in the old East Tyrolean card game of Jaggeln?
Source: "In Osttirol gibt es ein ganz besonderes historisches Kartenspiel, dessen Spielweise von Generations zu Generation nur mündlich überliefert worden sind." at Jaggln and "Die Hauptkarte ist der Jaggl... Als zweithöchster tritt der Zanggl... Der dritthöchste is der Buggl…" at Höllenspiel und Jaggln Bermicourt (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Do you think it would be worth mentioning 3 top trumps to confuse it with bridge? e.g. something like: ALT3 (Note: If you want this suggestion considered, you will need another reviewer). Storye book (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Or to go one step further and bring in the wacky Austrian name for their top suit cards:
ALT4: ...... that Jaggl, Zanggl and Buggl and the four Sows could be the top cards to have? Bermicourt (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry it looks as if I never gave you an ALT3 - I must have accidentally deleted that bit. Anyway, your ALT 4 is fine too. Storye book (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there a pun or wordplay here that I'm not getting? If this is merely a game from a non-English-speaking country with terms that sound "foreign", I don't know if that's particularly surprising, unbelievable or April Fool's-worthy. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It sounds like a hoax or prank version of bridge, but when you click on it, it turns out to be real. This is not about laughing at foreign languages. It works because most English-speaking card players have not heard of this set of cards. I was fooled by it initially, when I read the original hook. Storye book (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not entirely how jocular or mysterious the April Fool's DYKs are intended to be, but are they meant to be more like this:
      • ALT5: ... that you're definitely onto a winner if you can catch four Sows with the Jaggl, Zanggl and Buggl? Bermicourt (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
        • @Bermicourt: I really like ALT5 - it looks like the best one yet. Can you confirm that ALT5 correctly reflects the rules of the game Jaggln? Storye book (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks, ALT5 is much hookier. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Yes, if you have the top 3 trumps, you will definitely win the 3 tricks you play them to. And if by doing so you win the 4 Sows, you have 5 of the 9 so-called gewisses (4 Sows plus the Jaggl), which means you have won. Bermicourt (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
            • @Bermicourt. If you want ALT5, then, please could you put that explanation in the article, along with the words of the hook? If I'm still the reviewer, I'm happy with ALT5, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to continue to review for the April 1st entry specifically. Storye book (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Admin. Do we need a second reviewer for 1 April DYK entry? Storye book (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Storye book:. That's done. I've added it as an example in the lede, so April Fool's Day readers will get the explanation up front. The existing reference covers it.Bermicourt (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Excellent. That should cover it. All we need now is to find out whether this nom needs a second reviewer, due to moving into the 1 April bracket. Storye book (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Bermicourt, Storye book, this does not need a second reviewer just because it's for April 1; a single reviewer is sufficient. However, given all the ALTs that have been proposed since the approval tick was given, I'd like to suggest that Storye book reiterate the tick below, along with listing which of the hooks/ALTs are approved for that date. (If any aren't, then you might want to strike them; the original hook and ALT1 both look a bit pedestrian for April 1.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that, BlueMoonset, and I agree about the ALTs. @Bermicourt: I would be happy to strike the original hook and ALT1 as per BlueMoonset, and approve the rest - but I'll wait for your agreement first. Left to my own devices, with April 1st in mind, I'd strike them all except for ALT5, but maybe we should offer a choice of two? Storye book (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Happy to go with your suggestion of a choice of two. Bermicourt (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Good to go with ALT4 or ALT5. Thank you Bermicourt for your input. Storye book (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

ALT5 is clearly the better hook IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jaggln&oldid=890294389"