- 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) 00:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Witch of Agnesi edit
- ... that the witch of Agnesi comes from a circle and kisses it? Source: Haftendorn, Dörte (2017), "4.1 Versiera, die Hexenkurve", Kurven erkunden und verstehen (in German), Springer, p 81, doi:10.1007/978-3-658-14749-5: "Der erzeugende Kreis ist der Krümmungskreis der weiten Versiera in ihrem Scheitel." This is the line of the article that reads "The defining circle of the witch is also its osculating circle at the vertex"; osculating curves, such as the witch and this circle, are also said to kiss.
- Reviewed: Eveline Crone
Improved to Good Article status by David Eppstein (talk). Self-nominated at 01:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC).
This article is a newly promoted GA and is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are sourced inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The quoted line (about the "kiss") does not appear to be in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: Let me write it bigger since apparently you missed it in the fine print: This is the line of the article that reads "The defining circle of the witch is also its osculating circle at the vertex"; osculating curves, such as the witch and this circle, are also said to kiss. More strongly, "osculating" and "kissing" are synonyms in non-technical English. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, but how many readers are likely to know that "osculate" is a synonym for "kiss"? (I don't think I've ever even encountered the word before). I suggest you add the alternative definition to the article so that readers can make the connection. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have more good faith in the intelligence of Wikipedia readers and their ability to follow a wikilink in the hook for an otherwise unfamiliar term, but whatever. I added the synonym to the lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for that David, but it still isn't cited. Gatoclass (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- The claim that it is the osculating circle is certainly cited. Is there a requirement that individual words of the hook be cited separately even when they are part of a claim that is properly cited in different words?? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- If "osculate" was commonly known as a synonym for "kiss", I don't think there would be a problem with just citing that the circle osculates, but since it isn't commonly known, and the hook uses the word "kiss", there needs to be a cite for the fact that "osculate" means "kiss". Otherwise, you are forcing readers to go and verify that for themselves. Apart from the fact that this is our most basic rule ("the hook fact has to be in the article and cited), I would say this nomination stands a high chance of being pulled from the queue or main page by the ERRORS crowd if the stated fact that osculate=kiss isn't cited. Gatoclass (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- We are demanding citations for dictionary definitions now? This is ridiculous. If you want to insist that every word is widely known by all English readers, why are you here instead of over on simple.wikipedia.org? Anyway I found a citation that used the exact word "kiss", in the verb sense, as something a curve does with its osculating circle, and explains the meaning and origin of the terminology. I hope you will not now demand that I rewrite to avoid copyvio because we use exact single words from the sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- If "osculate" was commonly known as a synonym for "kiss", I don't think there would be a problem with just citing that the circle osculates, but since it isn't commonly known, and the hook uses the word "kiss", there needs to be a cite for the fact that "osculate" means "kiss". Otherwise, you are forcing readers to go and verify that for themselves. Apart from the fact that this is our most basic rule ("the hook fact has to be in the article and cited), I would say this nomination stands a high chance of being pulled from the queue or main page by the ERRORS crowd if the stated fact that osculate=kiss isn't cited. Gatoclass (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- The claim that it is the osculating circle is certainly cited. Is there a requirement that individual words of the hook be cited separately even when they are part of a claim that is properly cited in different words?? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for that David, but it still isn't cited. Gatoclass (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have more good faith in the intelligence of Wikipedia readers and their ability to follow a wikilink in the hook for an otherwise unfamiliar term, but whatever. I added the synonym to the lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, but how many readers are likely to know that "osculate" is a synonym for "kiss"? (I don't think I've ever even encountered the word before). I suggest you add the alternative definition to the article so that readers can make the connection. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
