Template:Did you know nominations/Notre-Dame du Taur
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Notre-Dame du Taur edit
- ... that Toulouse's church of Notre-Dame du Taur does not have a bell tower as such, but instead a clocher-mur, a bell-tower wall.
Source (French): Detailed description of the church, section L'église, paragraph L'extérieur [1]
- ALT1:... that taur, bull, in the name of Toulouse's church of Notre-Dame du Taur is a holdover from when the church was dedicated to Saint Saturnin, martyred by a bull.
Source (French): History of the parish of Saint Sernin/Saturnin [2]
5x expanded by Awien (talk). Self-nominated at 01:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC).
Awien created this article in July 2016 as a stub translated from fr:Église Notre-Dame du Taur, and expanded it tenfold (350 characters to 3628 characters) on August 15. (Translated material still "counts", as per DYK criterion 1f.) The result looks good, with galleries of photographs (reproduced from the French article) showing the interior of the church. No other DYK entry has been reviewed but this is okay since the nominator has submitted here fewer than five times.
- Allow me to suggest another version of the second hook:
- ALT2 ... That the French Catholic church Notre-Dame du Taur derives its name from the bull that killed Saint Saturnin?
- The article itself is good but I must humbly ask, Awien, if it would be possible to improve the referencing a bit. Could you (in ascending order of difficulty):
- Add more complete bibliographic information in the references, in addition to the bare URLs?
- Combine duplicate references (e.g., http://toulouse.catholique.fr/IMG/143/Notre_Dame_du_Taur.pdf is given in four different footnotes, when it could be given a reference name and invoked four times). WP:REFNAME explains how to do it.
- Add footnotes for the etymology section?
- (Perhaps) use some more scholarly sources? Tourism sources are just not that reliable. You could use, for example, "La Conservation-Restauration des Peintures de l'Église Notre-Dame du Taur (Toulouse)", which comes from an archaeological journal.
- Thank you for your work on this article and I hope these requests are not too onerous. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Groupuscule: before I even try to address 1, 2, or 3, if Notre-Dame du Taur's own website, the official sites of the the Parish of Saint-Sernin and the Toulouse les Orgues Festival, and a document produced by the Catholic Diocese of the Rhone aren't acceptable sources, I guess it's game over. (Your suggested scholarly site deals only with the restoration of paintings). Thanks anyway, Awien (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Awien, I don't mean to direspect you or your work. Nor do I mean to posture as an authority on this topic. I mean only to help improve the article through constructive criticism.
- I wrote "(Perhaps)" at the beginning of the fourth point to indicate that I intend this point as a suggestion more than a requirement. That being said, the most-cited source in the article is a bare link leading to a PDF of a trifold pamphlet, "réalisée en concertation avec la PRTL (Pastorale des Réalités du Tourisme et des Loisirs)". Perhaps this pamphlet is an official publication of the Diocese of the Rhone, but that's really not obvious from looking at it. The lack of information in the footnote adds to the confusion. The reference at Toulouse Les Orgues looks pretty good and after scrolling to the bottom and looking up the author I see he is the organist at the church. Thus although he is well-qualified in a sense, he is not independent, and not necessarily a historian. Thus the un-footnoted paragraph at the beginning of his article about the organ may not be the best source for the legendary origin of the church. I'm sure there are better sources out there.
- Looking at the the etymology section again; perhaps you don't need references for these claims. I was going by the "one reference per paragraph" rule of thumb but maybe these are obvious enough. On the other hand if you have a reference for them it wouldn't hurt to include it.
- Again, I don't mean to frustrate you or cause you to do unnecessary work; I'm giving my the steps which in my opinion will improve the article. Best, groupuscule (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not offended, but for simple logistics can't meet your criteria. WP gained a decent little article about a mildly interesting little church with s ludicrous name, but it's not fit for DYK. So be it. I'll be withdrawing the nomination tomorrow. Awien (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. Sorry DYK didn't work out; thanks for the article. groupuscule (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not offended, but for simple logistics can't meet your criteria. WP gained a decent little article about a mildly interesting little church with s ludicrous name, but it's not fit for DYK. So be it. I'll be withdrawing the nomination tomorrow. Awien (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Can I delete this nomination myself, or does an admin have to wave a magic wand? Thanks! Awien (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
(To clarify: I'll try to figure out how to clean up the format of the refs; the body of the article is new, not a translation; from where I am I don't have access to the books that would be a more scholarly source, but I do believe the Catholic church probably has a pretty good handle on the history of its physical plant, so I have no qualms about the content of the article.).