Template:Did you know nominations/Tracy Park
- 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tracy Park[edit]
... that the restaurant at Tracy Park (pictured) was originally a Masonic lodge?
- ALT1:
... that Tracy Park (pictured) is thought to have inspired Anna Sewell when she wrote Black Beauty?
- Reviewed: Aleen Cust
- ALT1:
5x expanded by Ritchie333 (talk), Giano (talk), Eric Corbett (talk). Nominated by MelanieN (talk) at 00:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC).
Substantial article on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, added image, would prefer infobox (you know that it can have the image in flexible size?). Both hooks are fine and sourced, I prefer the original, - thanks to all involved! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Just brought this back from prep, it needs new hooks as neither facts are in the article at this time. Miyagawa (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not only are the facts not there now but - curiouser and curiouser - the text to support both suggested hooks was removed on 24th February, several days before Gerda's review. Look for "in what is now the hotel restaurant, but was originally Davy's Masonic Lodge" in the first paragraph on the left-hand side of the diff, and for the removal of the "in literature" section at the bottom. Gerda Arendt, why did you approve this article for DYK? BencherliteTalk 22:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I expect it was because Gerda had been watching me re-write it (when the facts were left in) for quite a while; I think it was User:Noswall59 who removed them, and I agreed with him and chose to leave them out as I too thought the references were weak. I suspect it was probably one of those things where the brain does not tell you what the eyes are not seeing. They may possibly be re-inserted, but not without a more reliable source. I don't think there's anything curious about Gerda's review - just word blindness. This page is still very much a work in progress, so may change quite a bit yet. Giano (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I did remove the material. As I wrote in the edit summary, and as Giano states, the citations were weak. I believe there was uncertainty on the talk page about whether someone can even have a masonic lodge in their home, but that's beyond the point. Apologies for any confusion caused, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC).
- Take your time, I will watch here for news, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I did remove the material. As I wrote in the edit summary, and as Giano states, the citations were weak. I believe there was uncertainty on the talk page about whether someone can even have a masonic lodge in their home, but that's beyond the point. Apologies for any confusion caused, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC).
- I expect it was because Gerda had been watching me re-write it (when the facts were left in) for quite a while; I think it was User:Noswall59 who removed them, and I agreed with him and chose to leave them out as I too thought the references were weak. I suspect it was probably one of those things where the brain does not tell you what the eyes are not seeing. They may possibly be re-inserted, but not without a more reliable source. I don't think there's anything curious about Gerda's review - just word blindness. This page is still very much a work in progress, so may change quite a bit yet. Giano (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not only are the facts not there now but - curiouser and curiouser - the text to support both suggested hooks was removed on 24th February, several days before Gerda's review. Look for "in what is now the hotel restaurant, but was originally Davy's Masonic Lodge" in the first paragraph on the left-hand side of the diff, and for the removal of the "in literature" section at the bottom. Gerda Arendt, why did you approve this article for DYK? BencherliteTalk 22:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for any confusion - I was not criticising the removal of the material, just curious as to how Gerda could approve two hooks that weren't in the article. Giano has explained that Gerda must have been thinking of an older version of the article she had seen that had the facts in, so there we go. Possibly, just possibly, if Gerda had spent less time worrying about whether the article had or needed an infobox and more time actually checking for the DYK review essentials, such as "hook fact is accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article", this situation would not have arisen. BencherliteTalk 23:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I take the blame, should not review close to midnight, - I had seen the article several times the day. Giano and I worked on architecture (Holzhausenschlösschen, St. Lamberti, Hildesheim), he would know where to find a model for an infobox if wanted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody's "blaming" you - the facts were there and then magically they weren't - tricking the eye is how magicians make a living. However, from our working together, you know I am happy to ignore infoxes on pages where others have asked me to assist and make small contributions and they usually exist already because I feel the unofficial policy of leaving infoboxes to the discretion of the major contributing editors is the best solution - especially when connected to one of the arts. It's too easy to pull out random facts which give a totally false impression - especial on buildings like this which don't fit easily into any stereotyped box, visual or virtual. Those facts need explaining properly. Giano (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- No need for general statements here ;) - I only said you "would know", - approved anyway. - Now please give me a new hook, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really think the page is ready for too much publicity yet. I'd rather get it properly finished. Giano (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Repeating from above: take your time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really think the page is ready for too much publicity yet. I'd rather get it properly finished. Giano (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- No need for general statements here ;) - I only said you "would know", - approved anyway. - Now please give me a new hook, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody's "blaming" you - the facts were there and then magically they weren't - tricking the eye is how magicians make a living. However, from our working together, you know I am happy to ignore infoxes on pages where others have asked me to assist and make small contributions and they usually exist already because I feel the unofficial policy of leaving infoboxes to the discretion of the major contributing editors is the best solution - especially when connected to one of the arts. It's too easy to pull out random facts which give a totally false impression - especial on buildings like this which don't fit easily into any stereotyped box, visual or virtual. Those facts need explaining properly. Giano (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I originally nominated this, but the documentation for both of my hooks has been removed from the article, and I don't offhand see another hook I want to propose. I suggest that some of the people now editing the article propose a hook so that this nomination can move forward. Or else withdraw the nomination, if as User:Giano suggested it is not ready for publicity at this time. If it does not get to DYK at this time as a new article, it could be nominated in the future if it is accepted as a Good Article. But it really shouldn't sit here forever. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
