- 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 Victuallers (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Magnus Sinus
edit
- ... that Ptolemy's Great Gulf (Latin: Magnus Sinus) was bound on the west by the Golden Chersonese and the north by the ports of the Sinae?
- ALT1:... that European cartographers initially considered the Pacific Ocean to be Ptolemy's Great Gulf?
- ALT2:... that Roman geographers knew of the Great Gulf thanks to a Greek merchant who traveled to East Asia and back again?
- Reviewed:
Will do. Gimme a sec.Car dooring
Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self nominated at 14:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC).
Have you got better source than this? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- @LlywelynII:? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have notified on UTP, many editors have disabled notification that are made through userlinks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- @OccultZone: Could you explain what the issue is with that particular source? From what I can tell, it looks like an excerpt from a 19th century academic book. Fuebaey (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- If you believe that it is relevant enough, then I have no problem. The article is still uncategorized. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Absent of any sourced objection, it seems to be relevent. I would have accepted a query based on the reliablity of a 150 year old source, in case any new info has since been discovered, but that does not appear to be the issue. Unsure on what category to add since I know little about the subject, but an uncategorised article is not a reason to withhold a nom. Have not been through the rest of the article so have no opinion on the rest of the review, which still needs to be done or at least stated for clarity. If you need help reviewing, familiarise yourself with this guide and then feel free to ask myself or over at WT:DYK. Fuebaey (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- No I would better just add some category myself and I did already. We've discussed it a few times, that DYK is a milestone and should serve as an example to other articles, that's why I often look for more. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Absent of any sourced objection, it seems to be relevent. I would have accepted a query based on the reliablity of a 150 year old source, in case any new info has since been discovered, but that does not appear to be the issue. Unsure on what category to add since I know little about the subject, but an uncategorised article is not a reason to withhold a nom. Have not been through the rest of the article so have no opinion on the rest of the review, which still needs to be done or at least stated for clarity. If you need help reviewing, familiarise yourself with this guide and then feel free to ask myself or over at WT:DYK. Fuebaey (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- If you believe that it is relevant enough, then I have no problem. The article is still uncategorized. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- @OccultZone: Could you explain what the issue is with that particular source? From what I can tell, it looks like an excerpt from a 19th century academic book. Fuebaey (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have notified on UTP, many editors have disabled notification that are made through userlinks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I see no problem with the reliability of the questioned hook source (it states a fact about the subject, not an opinion, and therefore is unlikely to be updated by more recent scholarship) and I think this has been good to go for ages. I note that the article does have a [citation needed] tag on another fact (unrelated to the hook) but that is not considered a problem per the rules; indeed, the rule about how to count prose length explicitly assumes that there may be some tags of this type (that are not counted in the length). Why are we delaying this? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it is good to go now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- @LlywelynII:? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
