- 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) 16:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mulatschak edit
... that although the card game of Mulatschak may justifiably be called the national card game of Salzburg, its rules were first published only in 2004?Source: "Das Mulatschak kann man mit Fug und Recht als das Salzburger "Landesspiel" titulieren… [aber] die Regeln für das charakteristischeste unter allen Salzburger Kartenspielen, bis heute nirgendwo publiziert wurden." (Geiser, Remigius (2004). "100 Kartenspiele des Landes Salzburg"], in Talon, Issue 13, pp. 37 & 40.)
- Reviewed: French submarine Fulton
Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 16:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC).
@Bermicourt: The hook fact is not directly described in the article, only indirectly (in the references). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the feedback. I thought I'd covered it in the "Background" section, but I've now added a summary to the lede which aligns with the hook and cited the reference there too. Hope that's okay. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. However, the assessment of it only being published in 2004 appears to be the rules author's self-assessment and not a certain fact. I suggest then that the hook and article be rewritten to instead express this uncertainty (i.e. instead of "its rules were first published only in 2004", perhaps instead it could be rephrased as "the rules were only codified in 2004" or a similar wording?). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- The claim is now verified by a second authoritative source (cited below and in the article), although that too stops short of absolute certainty. Anyway, how about this:
* ALT1: ... that although the card game of Mulatschak may justifiably be called the national card game of Salzburg, its rules were almost certainly unpublished before 2004?Source: "Das Mulatschak kann man mit Fug und Recht als das Salzburger "Landesspiel" titulieren… [aber] die Regeln für das charakteristischeste unter allen Salzburger Kartenspielen, bis heute nirgendwo publiziert wurden." (Geiser, Remigius (2004). "100 Kartenspiele des Landes Salzburg"], in Talon, Issue 13, pp. 37 & 40.) and "His [Geiser's] article includes what is almost certainly the first published description of Mulatschak..." McLeod, John (2005): "Playing the Game: Schnellen, Hucklebuck and Donut" in The Playing-Card Journal Vol 30, No. 2, p. 288. Bermicourt (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. However, the assessment of it only being published in 2004 appears to be the rules author's self-assessment and not a certain fact. I suggest then that the hook and article be rewritten to instead express this uncertainty (i.e. instead of "its rules were first published only in 2004", perhaps instead it could be rephrased as "the rules were only codified in 2004" or a similar wording?). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems good to go. New enough, stable, and of an adequate length. The offline source for the hook is accepted in good faith (although a quote has been provided). The images in the article are all freely licensed. A QPQ has been provided and verified. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt, Narutolovehinata5, and Cwmhiraeth: With due apologies, I have pulled this. Most of the article is uncited; it isn't ready to appear on the main page. To be honest, had I been the reviewer, I would have failed this outright. Vanamonde (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: I disagree: the only part that appears to be unreferenced is the Rules section; however, the entire section, as seen from the top sentence, is cited to the Geiser source. One possible way to solve this objection would be to add footnotes to every paragraph (using the Geiser source), but calling this "uncited" is inaccurate to say the least. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies, I missed that sentence. Nonetheless, I am rather dissatisfied with the hook (a problem I didn't even bring up earlier, because of the citation issue), and indeed with the wording of that paragraph, which makes over-heavy use of Wikipedia's voice. Let's go with something more naturally phrased, please, in both places. I'd suggest "Geiser describes..." in the article, and "has been described" in the hook. The lead will also need to be modified. Also, I'm not terribly happy about using Geiser to claim that Geiser was publishing the rules for the first time. This is an exceptional claim being cited to its author. Vanamonde (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the rules are entirely based on Geiser and that is clearly stated. Secondly, if you read the hook sources above, you'll see a second leading authority, McLeod, also backs it up and I carefully worded the hook to reflect his wording "almost certainly the first published description". So I don't think we need "has been described" in view of that. Bermicourt (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt: If there is a second source saying this, you should duplicate it where the article mentions this fact. Ideally, the fact about "Mulatschak is a member of the Rams family" should also be moved down; right now it's in the lead but not the body, which is a MOS problem. But really the "may justifiably be called" is really odd phrasing. What is the issue with using the simpler wording I proposed? The likelihood of that being flagged while on the main page is really quite high. You could even just say "has been called" in place of "may justifiably be called". Vanamonde (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Both sources are cited where this fact is mentioned (i.e. in the lead). They are references 1 and 2. The phrase "may justifiably be called" is a direct translation of the source text "kann mit Fug und Recht ...titulieren" but I'm happy to use "has been called" provided another editor doesn't come back and say we're not quoting the source accurately. I've moved the fact about the Rams family to the main body and summarised it in the lede. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, you're quoting? See that's the problem; the quote needs to be inside quotation marks, with a citation at the end of the sentence. If two sources have said something equivalent to "Mulatschak is the national game of Salzburg", we can say "Mulatschak has been called the national game of Salzburg", no problem. One other issue; Salzburg isn't a nation, so "national game" is a problem (I didn't realize the source was discussing it as a contemporary phenomenon). Vanamonde (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- The hook is not a quote, but the phrase you didn't like is an accurate translation of the original. Salzburg isn't strictly a nation, but translating Landesspiel as "state game" makes it sound as if it is a pastime officially decreed by the state authorities and, IMHO, "national" conveyed the spirit better. But we're going around in circles. Every time we answer an objection; you raise another one. Please would you help us understand all those things that you think is wrong and need fixing, so we can now fix them all in one pass. @Narutolovehinata5: - are you able to help? Bermicourt (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, you're quoting? See that's the problem; the quote needs to be inside quotation marks, with a citation at the end of the sentence. If two sources have said something equivalent to "Mulatschak is the national game of Salzburg", we can say "Mulatschak has been called the national game of Salzburg", no problem. One other issue; Salzburg isn't a nation, so "national game" is a problem (I didn't realize the source was discussing it as a contemporary phenomenon). Vanamonde (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Both sources are cited where this fact is mentioned (i.e. in the lead). They are references 1 and 2. The phrase "may justifiably be called" is a direct translation of the source text "kann mit Fug und Recht ...titulieren" but I'm happy to use "has been called" provided another editor doesn't come back and say we're not quoting the source accurately. I've moved the fact about the Rams family to the main body and summarised it in the lede. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt: If there is a second source saying this, you should duplicate it where the article mentions this fact. Ideally, the fact about "Mulatschak is a member of the Rams family" should also be moved down; right now it's in the lead but not the body, which is a MOS problem. But really the "may justifiably be called" is really odd phrasing. What is the issue with using the simpler wording I proposed? The likelihood of that being flagged while on the main page is really quite high. You could even just say "has been called" in place of "may justifiably be called". Vanamonde (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the rules are entirely based on Geiser and that is clearly stated. Secondly, if you read the hook sources above, you'll see a second leading authority, McLeod, also backs it up and I carefully worded the hook to reflect his wording "almost certainly the first published description". So I don't think we need "has been described" in view of that. Bermicourt (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies, I missed that sentence. Nonetheless, I am rather dissatisfied with the hook (a problem I didn't even bring up earlier, because of the citation issue), and indeed with the wording of that paragraph, which makes over-heavy use of Wikipedia's voice. Let's go with something more naturally phrased, please, in both places. I'd suggest "Geiser describes..." in the article, and "has been described" in the hook. The lead will also need to be modified. Also, I'm not terribly happy about using Geiser to claim that Geiser was publishing the rules for the first time. This is an exceptional claim being cited to its author. Vanamonde (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: I disagree: the only part that appears to be unreferenced is the Rules section; however, the entire section, as seen from the top sentence, is cited to the Geiser source. One possible way to solve this objection would be to add footnotes to every paragraph (using the Geiser source), but calling this "uncited" is inaccurate to say the least. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Look, you're acting like I'm trying to prevent this from getting onto the main page; I'm not. I'm trying to make sure what we post is correct (and that you don't get hauled over the coals by TRM or someone else). The original issue, of sourcing the rules, has been fixed. The others are simple; I'd like the phrasing to be something more conventional, I'd like the article not to describe Salzburg as a country, and I'd like the hook and the article to be consistent. I'd fix these myself, except I don't have access to the source. Vanamonde (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. How about this as an alternative:
- ALT2: ... that although Mulatschak has been called the state card game of Salzburg, its rules were almost certainly unpublished before 2004? Source: "Das Mulatschak kann man mit Fug und Recht als das Salzburger "Landesspiel" titulieren… [aber] die Regeln für das charakteristischeste unter allen Salzburger Kartenspielen, bis heute nirgendwo publiziert wurden." (Geiser, Remigius (2004). "100 Kartenspiele des Landes Salzburg"], in Talon, Issue 13, pp. 37 & 40.) and "His [Geiser's] article includes what is almost certainly the first published description of Mulatschak..." McLeod, John (2005): "Playing the Game: Schnellen, Hucklebuck and Donut" in The Playing-Card Journal Vol 30, No. 2, p. 288. Bermicourt (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt: You still have that quotation about the national card game in the body, but otherwise this is GTG with ALT2. Vanamonde (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've changed it to "state" as well. Bermicourt (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)