Template:Did you know nominations/Watching paint dry
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 19:37, 26 September 2020 by imported>Coffeeandcrumbs (+)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Watching paint dry
- ... that watching paint dry takes 10 hours? Source: Independent
- ALT1:... that a censorship board can be forced to watch paint dry for 10 hours? Source: Independent
- ALT2:... that watching paint dry can be scientifically important? Source: Royal Society of Chemistry
- Reviewed: Honey Badger (men's rights)
- Comment: With apologies to Template:Ping, if he wishes to make his own suggestions or put it in the April Fools set, I will not object
Moved to mainspace by Ritchie333 (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 17:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC).
- Personally I'd trim A1 to
- ALT1b:... that the British Board of Film Classification had to watch paint dry?
- EEng 03:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Template:Re the section on etymology is WP:OR and easily disprovable.[1] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Uh oh. EEng 03:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Here is another from 1952. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Template:Ping According to Template:Ping, Newspapers.com got it wrong and that clipping is apparently not from 1946 but from the 80s. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- As an additional note, the initial alternative states that "a censorship board can be forced to watch paint dry"; the statement primarily appears to necessitate revision, as a censorship board was forced to watch paint dry, with the statement that "a censorship board can be forced" remaining particularly stylistically erroneous, within my opinion. SurenGrig07 (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Here is another from 1952. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Uh oh. EEng 03:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Template:Ping I have made an adjustment to the Etymology section based on the source you have provided. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's still OR. For example, does the source say that the etymology is uncertain? Maybe it's quite certain, but you just haven't run into the linguistic researcher who tracked it down. I suggest you simply drop that section. EEng 11:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Template:U, This is the source you want. Pascal Treguer is trained linguist and has been cited in several RS, therefore qualifies as an expert. The only thing missing from the Treguer blog source is the LATimes writer's name. Using a primary source for that is acceptable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, goody, that fixes it. Yes, an example from a primary sources is fine as an illustration of something established in a secondary source. EEng 12:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Warren has been dead for 7 years, so no BLP concerns.[2] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, how could quoting a theater review possibly raise a BLP issue? EEng 14:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Template:U, WP:SPS: Template:Tq We are implying Warren may be the source of the phrase. I am just crossing every t and dotting every i for the crazies at ERRORS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, how could quoting a theater review possibly raise a BLP issue? EEng 14:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Warren has been dead for 7 years, so no BLP concerns.[2] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, goody, that fixes it. Yes, an example from a primary sources is fine as an illustration of something established in a secondary source. EEng 12:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Template:U, This is the source you want. Pascal Treguer is trained linguist and has been cited in several RS, therefore qualifies as an expert. The only thing missing from the Treguer blog source is the LATimes writer's name. Using a primary source for that is acceptable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's still OR. For example, does the source say that the etymology is uncertain? Maybe it's quite certain, but you just haven't run into the linguistic researcher who tracked it down. I suggest you simply drop that section. EEng 11:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, I am not just poking holes. I am doing the review. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)