- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Escaped plant
- .
.. that some refugees are valued for their ornamental properties?
Created by Qumarchi (talk). Nominated by A. C. Santacruz (talk) at 01:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC).
Welcome, Qumarchi, and welcome to DYK! This is a detailed article, on fine sources, offline sources accepted assuming good faith (AGF). - I am not so happy with the hook, because I don't think we should refer to refugees in a way that could be interpreted as humourous. Can you word something less "Easter egg", perhaps using "garden refugees"? - In the article, the long list of Latin examples leaves me cold (uninterested), - could you perhaps provide English familiar names also? Or group them under one familiar family names? Or drop it altogether, mentioning the examples in the prose? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment On your first point, Gerda, I do think this is a very hooky hook, with nothing mean about it. It does not suggest anything unkind about anyone, and I just wonder if there is anything in the DYK rules that rules out the whimsical humour here. If there is, I can’t find it. On the long list, it clearly isn’t intended to be read as entertainment! It might indeed be more useful if English names were added, where they exist, but I wonder if that’s more a GA point than a DYK point? Moonraker (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- You can see it your way, - I see it my way, the refugee topic. - Qumarchi, as for the list of names: that's no prerequisite to an approval, just a suggestion once I'm here, think of it as reader feedback. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, we all have our views on such things, but the grounds for saying no to a DYK hook should surely come from the rules, and not from our personal feelings? Moonraker (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Did I refuse?? I appealed to the author to consider that. Give them a chance to comment first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Given the news from Afghanistan, this hook is not going to be whimsical for everyone (I normally support humour at DYK, but not on this subject today). Is there another pun on say "fencing". Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Gerda and Victuallers I want to respond to your comments because I disagree with them. The rules of DYK say nothing to my knowledge about how hooky DYKs should be. The only rule I could see be somewhat relevant is "[the hook should be] neutral and does not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people"—which I do not believe my hook breaches. My goal is to get as many people to read the article and hopefully go down a blue-link rabbit hole once they're there to learn more about ecology and invasive species. I don't believe I am making fun of either human refugees or recent situations (and I would hesitate to connect a recent geopolitical development to an article on invasive species). In fact, I think it is good for critical thinking that someone might see the hook and assume it is about people and then get their interest sparked when they see it is an article about plants. --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you, but this hook is not going to be whimsical for everyone and IMO this out trumps your worthy opinions and aims. We have an IAR clause - you may not see a connection to "a recent geopolitical development" with c.60 dead and I am sure that "you do not intend" etc.. but I think that many will see a strong and distasteful connection. Victuallers (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I said above that I don't go by rules, but first of all want a conversation with the nominator. Repeating: I didn't say I'd refuse the hook, just that a different one would make me happier. I hate it when a nomination discussion gets longer than the article, - not here of course where we have a substantial article. It deserves a substantial hook, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Gerda and Victuallers I want to respond to your comments because I disagree with them. The rules of DYK say nothing to my knowledge about how hooky DYKs should be. The only rule I could see be somewhat relevant is "[the hook should be] neutral and does not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people"—which I do not believe my hook breaches. My goal is to get as many people to read the article and hopefully go down a blue-link rabbit hole once they're there to learn more about ecology and invasive species. I don't believe I am making fun of either human refugees or recent situations (and I would hesitate to connect a recent geopolitical development to an article on invasive species). In fact, I think it is good for critical thinking that someone might see the hook and assume it is about people and then get their interest sparked when they see it is an article about plants. --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Given the news from Afghanistan, this hook is not going to be whimsical for everyone (I normally support humour at DYK, but not on this subject today). Is there another pun on say "fencing". Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Did I refuse?? I appealed to the author to consider that. Give them a chance to comment first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, we all have our views on such things, but the grounds for saying no to a DYK hook should surely come from the rules, and not from our personal feelings? Moonraker (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- You can see it your way, - I see it my way, the refugee topic. - Qumarchi, as for the list of names: that's no prerequisite to an approval, just a suggestion once I'm here, think of it as reader feedback. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment On your first point, Gerda, I do think this is a very hooky hook, with nothing mean about it. It does not suggest anything unkind about anyone, and I just wonder if there is anything in the DYK rules that rules out the whimsical humour here. If there is, I can’t find it. On the long list, it clearly isn’t intended to be read as entertainment! It might indeed be more useful if English names were added, where they exist, but I wonder if that’s more a GA point than a DYK point? Moonraker (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, I am ok with letting the matter slide if the hook is a big issue. I am not super familiar with the pace at which DYK goes so if it would go through the process quicker than the Afghan crisis would take to settle (if such is the issue) then another hook could be
Iceplant refugees along the California Coast
- * ALT1:
... that some garden plants can become invasive in the wild? - However I think adding an image such as the one below while preserving my first hook can be helpful to preserving clarity and reducing the likelihood the original hook would cause offense, and is my preferred way to resolve the disagreement if y'all are ok with the solution. Please let me know what y'all think. --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry that I didn't realize that you are the nominator. There have been refugees in all ages, those who drown in the Mediterranean on their trip from Africa to Europe for example, - nothing specific to Afghanistan. I like the last hook better, and would encourage saying "garden refugees". An image is fine, and this one is licensed, but perhaps we have one with less detail, because that doesn't show well? It has to be in the article, but could be any of the example plants. The hook has to say (pictured) somewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt I have added the ALT hook and a picture. Does this look better? --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, but no, I think the other one is better. Next time, please add later hooks at the bottom, for chronology in the conversation. For this time, I just get it down here and approve.
- ALT2:.. that garden refugees can become invasive in the wild (example pictured)?
I believe that the second image shows the plants better when in stamp-size. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I didn't know that was the proper format for conversation, and agree with your image choice. --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 06:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- (just explaining, although it doesn't belong here:) Imagine hooks were approved, and afterwards a new one gets added without a date per the template format: it would automatically look approved also. The nomination has a date, and nothing (except typos and such) should be added above the date. I go more by common sense than by rulez ;) - Nice to meet you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I didn't know that was the proper format for conversation, and agree with your image choice. --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 06:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt I have added the ALT hook and a picture. Does this look better? --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry that I didn't realize that you are the nominator. There have been refugees in all ages, those who drown in the Mediterranean on their trip from Africa to Europe for example, - nothing specific to Afghanistan. I like the last hook better, and would encourage saying "garden refugees". An image is fine, and this one is licensed, but perhaps we have one with less detail, because that doesn't show well? It has to be in the article, but could be any of the example plants. The hook has to say (pictured) somewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- * ALT1:
