- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Einion Frenin
edit- ... that drinking from the Hoofprint of Einion's Horse, a petrosomatoglyph in Wales, was thought to cure what ailed you?
- ALT1:
... that Welsh legend turned two of Saint Einion the King's brothers into saints as well ... and may have turned the third into King Arthur? - ALT2:
... that linguistic development means that every placename in Wales named for Einion Frenin, a king and a saint, now honors someone named "Engan" instead? - ALT3:
... that the Welsh language mutates the beginning of words, so that Ennianus (Einion) the king (brenin) becomes Einion Frenin?
- ALT1:
- Reviewed: Nangong Kuo (disciple of Confucius)
Created/expanded by LlywelynII (talk). Self nominated at 15:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. A question about sourcing: It's not clear why you cited Footnotes 1 and 5 for the discontinuation of the feast day. Citing a source that doesn't mention the feast day isn't proof that it was discontinued; you need to cite a source that says it was discontinued.
- I do understand where you're coming from, but those are the official lists of all feast days. Its non-inclusion is proof of the current official non-observance of the feast. — LlywelynII 04:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- All your very creative hooks caught my eye! But please note that the hook fact has to be mentioned in the article. I don't see anything about Welsh mythology or King Arthur in the article (ALT1), or anything about Engan being a proper name (ALT2). ALT3 is mentioned in the source but not in the article. You may wish to expand the article by adding in the appropriate information from the sources. Meanwhile, the original hook is very good, verified and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good points.
- @ALT1: The original sources on the lives of the early Welsh kings are all hagiographic or bardic (=legendary) or the very incomplete historical annals (This king doesn't seem to be any of the Annales Cambriae). That makes them part of Welsh legend, although I'm not sure how one would go about "citing" that. Maybe just a sentence or two on the primary sources? The Arthurian connection is a fair enough point: Cuneglas's article mentions it; there's no source there, at Arthur, or at historical basis for King Arthur, though. The last actually cites Gildas as calling Cuneglas the charioteer to the "Bear", which it proposes as a possible reference to (working for) Arthur. Seems like something that could be sourced but actually more WP:FRINGE than I thought. I'll nix it.
- @ALT2: You missed the lead, then: Sant Einion or Engan Frenin. Do you think it really needs a separate = = Name = = section sourced to the discussion of Baring-Gould to discuss the velarization of the name at length? It occurred naturally in all of the local place names (as seen in the Legacy section) but modern Welsh seems to ignore it and use the original form instead.
- @ALT3: Isn't mentioned in any sources in the article since it's a linguistic point. I suppose it could go in a Name section with a source on Welsh mutation, though I'm not sure I could find one specifically mentioning brenin→frenin.
- If the first hook is good to go, great. Did you prefer it to the others? — LlywelynII 04:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I do prefer the original hook. It follows the source with your own hooky flair at the end. I was just saying that the other hooks would also be good, if they were stated outright in the article. While the conclusions in the ALTs may be obvious to you as a Welsh scholar, please remember that you are writing for a general encyclopedia. A "Name" section that includes the etymology is definitely in order to expand and improve the article.
- Regarding the feast day calendar, I hear you, too, but Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not assumption. There simply must be a source that says it was removed from each of the calendars. Since it's in the lead, and this is for DYK, not GA, we can safely remove the cites, which I've done.
Hook ref verified and cited inline. Original hook good to go. Yoninah (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
