 | A fact from Saw pit appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 November 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Removed ext links
editPer the WP:EL policy, I am removing these external links:
- http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/ RCAHMS Canmore archaeology site
- http://www.flashearth.com/ Satellite Imagery
- http://geo.nls.uk/roy/ General Roy's Military Survey of Scotland 1747 - 52
- http://www.nls.uk/maps/ Old maps of Scotland from the National Library
- http://www.old-maps.co.uk/indexmappage2.aspx Old Ordnance Survey Maps
- http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_Researcher's_Guide_to_Local_History_Terminology A Researcher's Guide to Local History terminology
Only direct links to relevant content not provided by the article is given to readers in External links, not just vague links to homepages.
- If they are sources used for writing the article AND needed to back up its claims, please list them in the <REF> or References section, with a direct URL to the relevant pages.
- If they are just sources or tools you used to find pictures or format the article (such as the "Researcher's Guide"), you do not need to list them here, but possibly only on the description page of the uploaded images.
- If they are sites with useful content, please provide a direct URL to the content (not to the homepage), or at least short instructions about what the reader is supposed to do to get the relevant content.
Thanks. — Komusou talk @ 22:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Topdog/Underdog
editThe sole reference given for this (the sawpit) being a possible origin of the phrases 'top dog' and 'underdog' was a page which says "while the saw-pit theory as the origin of 'top dog' and 'under dog' is attractive, the complete lack of evidence to support it renders it as mere speculation.", ie. the reference does not just not support the claim, it contradicts it! No amount of weasel words like 'may' can make that claim suitable for Wikipedia in my view.
If the story about the origin of the words were widely known, it might merit a sentence along the lines of "The oft-repeated story that ... has no evidence to support it", with a reference to the phrases.org page; but it certainly should not have the better part of a paragraph stating the claim, still less be repeated in the introduction.
However, the paragraph about 'top dog' also contains information about sawing for ship-building, and I'm not sure whether there isn't material in there that should be retained, so I've commented the paragraph out rather than deleting it, in the hope that somebody can rescue what is worth rescuing in there. --ColinFine 00:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)