Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Eugène de Mirecourt

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Yoninah (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Eugène de Mirecourt

edit
(
)
Eugène de Mirecourt
Eugène de Mirecourt

Created by LouisAlain (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 23:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC).

  • Article is long enough, new enough, interesting hook and QPQ is done. However, there are some passages in the “Life” section that need citations: last sentence of 1st passage; entire 3rd passage; last sentence of 4th; 5th and 7th passages. —Al Ameer (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I hope I did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda. This nomination is good to go now. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: @Al Ameer son: with apologies Gerda, because you are the awesomest of awesome Wikipedians, but per the discussion at WP:ERRORS2 I'm going to have to pull this one from today's queue and bring it back here to the nom page. The criteria for DYK are clear that the hook facts must appear in the article, and they must be directly inline cited. If it's possible to bring the 100 biographies thing into the article along with the specific names like Berlioz, then great. Otherwise maybe there are other hooks that could be made? Happy to help if I can expedite this back to the queues once the issues are resolved, just give me a ping. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, when I commented out unreferenced things, I commented out too much. Brought the 100 and the two names back, with a cite for each, - please check. Kind of ironic that the article was created to not leave a red link on FA Berlioz ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, I forgot the ping. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Ha, that makes a bit more sense now then. I did think it strange that the fact wasn't mentioned at all! So now it comes down to The Rambling Man's point that although the source names 100 volumes of the work, its not clear that there were 100 biographies. With the names listed in your Wikisource link, it does seem that the statement is true, but without the direct 3rd party citation we're not quite there yet I think... It's a tricky one.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
"Les Contemporains" translates to "The Contemporaries". Overdue for bed. Please go to the French Wikisource (bottom right) where you have all 100 names, and say how to quote that?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm not too sure to be honest. Maybe we can accept it under the good faith assumption that the page at Wikisource is true to the original source, which none of us have seen? It might be worth asking the question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get an opinion on that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You can see the original for Sand and Berlioz, no? You can see the original for several - the first - entries. You can look for the others among the 699 entries in the German National Library. - The words Good Faith are rarely used, thanks for that ;) --
I'm getting confused. Did this get pulled from Prep 6? We had a long thread at WT:DYK. That which is on Wikisource, is first uploaded at Commons. So, c:File:Mirecourt - Gavarni.djvu is the original scan of all 102 pages of that book that exists on Wikisource. Just look at the drop-down arrow on the right-hand side of that Commons file. There's also c:Category:Eugène de Mirecourt other works and images. Other than that, I think what's being discussed above is out of my field of knowledge. And I don't read French. Hope this has helped in some way. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth, SashiRolls, and Yoninah:, @Narutolovehinata5:, @Gerda Arendt:, @Amakuru:, @Al Ameer son:. I was just browsing through that book I linked above that is on Commons. Skip to about page 97. Again, I don't read French. But there seems to me to be pages of listing of names on Pages 97 through 101, which might be a list of the biographies he wrote. Does that help solve this mystery? — Maile (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
And another thing. Look at the bottom of the Miracort article where it says "Authority Control". Click on the VIAF link. There's an itemized list of his works at VIAF. It shows a lengthy list of bios he wrote. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the searching, and it looks promising. However - and I also don't read French - if it's just a list of names, it doesn't confirm (at least for the sceptics) that the texts under the names are biographies. LouisAlain, does the book say they are. - The article about this man began because the article about Hector Berlioz said Mirecourt wrote the first biography about the composer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Tell that The Rambling Man, not me ;) - That list still gives titles only, without saying that what he wrote were biographise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's been about two weeks since the last response here, has there been progress in the sourcing side of things? If we can't go with the 100 biographies thing, we could try something else here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@LouisAlain and Gerda Arendt: Ping. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Did you see that LouisAlain was blocked and doesn't want to get into more trouble. The 100 biographies is THE THING he is known for, we have have some of them on Wikisource. So sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Until the sourcing issues have been addressed, then I'm afraid we can't go with it. @Maile66: Thoughts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Either Gerda can request this be closed as rejected, or she can wait it out until someone else makes the request. Or there can be a request made at WT:DYK. If you can't move forward, there's no sense keeping it open. — Maile (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I've left a message on WT:DYK asking for some help. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no sourcing issue. It is well sourced that he wrote 100 works in the series Les Comtemporains with well-sourced 100 individual titles, 100 names of people. The only question is if these can be called biographies. I see no problem, but others see one. While they are certainly not what one would expect in a modern book biography, they seem to be pretty much like wikipedia articles on people which we often call biography. So, sceptics, drop it, our use a different word in the hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The "others see one" whoever they may be, need to post their objections here, with specifics about what they object to. Gerda Arendt, Narutolovehinata5 the only comments on record, the only ones acceptable for this nomination, are either here or at WT;DYK. It doesn't matter what you may, or may not, be seeing somewhere else. Yoninah has already posted at WT:DYK that this is ready for promotion. So either get those others to post their objections here on this template, or let it be promoted, or just close it as rejected by the nominator. It is resolving nothing just to have "others" influence you, without their going on record here. This vagueness has been going on for 2 months. Either let it be promoted, or close it out. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
You don't have to close it out, you can just replace "biographies" by "works/essays/profiles/you name it", or you can put "biographies" in quotation marks. I believe that biographies is best. It's a word with a broad meaning, and obviously what the author intended, see in George Sand: "Ne craignez pas de trouver en nous un de ces biographes indiscrets qui lèvent brutalement les voiles défendus."(machine translation: "Do not be afraid to find in us one of these indiscreet biographers who brutally lifts the defended veils.") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm new to this, but I was wondering why the Theoretical Discussions of Biography source from 2014 (FN7) is not sufficient for the 100 biographies fact. It mentions the publication of 100 issues of Les Contemporains, and later uses the phrase weekly short biography of a living contemporary. I read the latter phrase as referring back to Les Contemporains, which if an accurate assessment, and given the context of biography in the chapter and on page 27 here, would seem to indicate that 100 biographies were done. However, I find I'm very confused by the chronology given in the Wikipedia article. It is unclear what the relationship is between the Gallery of Contemporaries mentioned in the third paragraph in the Life section, which started publication in 1854 according to this paragraph (thought the source for that sentence, which is again FN7, does not mention anything by that name), and presumably also had 100 biographies, and Les Contemporains from the fourth paragraph, which is said here to have been a weekly that started in 1857, despite the fact that the hathitrust.org (FN8) has facsimiles of publications digitized from Harvard, which have the header Les Contemporains above the main title (the person being written about); note that I've only checked volumes 1 through 4, which Harvard bound together and is available in a single viewable file, and all four have the header and were published in 1854. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! - I looked at the French article, and found the same thing there, and no source for from 1857. I don't read French well. I'd understand the French Wikisource as 100 "Les Contemporains" between 1854 and 1857, perhaps also called Galeries? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
this is very similar to what the French article says. The galeries phrase also appears here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reviewer for ALT1 please. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Reviewing. Prognosis positive. Stand by. Lagrange613 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Article was new enough when nominated lo these many moons ago. It is long enough and exhibits no policy issues. The hook is interesting, correctly formatted, and cited within the article. (You have to piece verification together from a few different sources, including primary sources—not ideal, but acceptable.) I've edited the hook lightly to correct the dangling modifier. (This also addresses the minor issue of the article never explicitly including the Dumas broadside among Les Contemporains.) The one outstanding issue is QPQ. From what I can tell, the nominator's contribution to the nomination cited for QPQ was a paragraph of advice about the article's content. Per the DYK rules, QPQ requires a full review of a nomination. Once the nominator links a full review for QPQ, this will be ready for approval. Lagrange613 22:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/A. C. Bilbrew, - sorry, I meant to do more for the other, but forgot it never happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Lagrange613 02:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Eugène_de_Mirecourt&oldid=883942979"