Template:Did you know nominations/Babou (ocelot)
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Babou (ocelot)
Salvador Dalí and Babou
- ... that Salvador Dalí's pet ocelot Babou (pictured with Dalí) was said to have only smiled once, on the day it escaped? Source: see article
- ALT1... that Salvador Dalí once passed off his pet ocelot Babou (pictured with Dalí) as an ordinary cat “painted over in an op art design"? Source: see article
- Reviewed: to be done
- Comment: currently undergoing an expansion to meet the word count
Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 07:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC).
... New enough, no copyvio issues. reads well, image clear and free. fyi...can ocelots smile? Darwin felt they could I believe but Charles Bell felt animals couldn't. Both hooks in article and followed by inline citations to references containing hooks. Ping me when done QPQ and when you want me to check word count. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I refer you to Lewis Carroll's paper in The Lancet on the Cheshire Cat.((citation required)). Philafrenzy (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The QPQ is supposed be done within a week of nomination, and certainly seven days after being specifically mentioned (as it was above). If another seven days elapse after this post, the nomination will be marked for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that giving yet another 7 days is a good message with the backlog issue. SL93 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Narutolovehinata5 for their opinion because they have mentioned a QPQ time limit a few times. SL93 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some reason you have it in for this one, SL93? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wow. I'm not sure why you think it's just this nomination. It's ANY nomination where a QPQ wasn't supplied within 7 days. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you think that you're so special that the rule doesn't need to apply to you? SL93 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Where have I ever claimed that any rule doesn't apply to me? Why would I? It's still being expanded and was extensively revised, by me, within the last week. Since it is only 2 weeks old, I wouldn't say that this one is unduly delayed. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. Why do you think that I have it in for the nomination when I never claimed such a thing? Why would I? I, and everyone else, should have the ability to say their thoughts civilly with no bad faith assumptions being made in response. It doesn't feel good, does it? SL93 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Woah, woah, woah. Everybody take a breather, there's nothing left to argue about. Philafrenzy, please try to supply a QPQ as quickly and quietly as possible; I'm happy to donate one of my own if you're exceptionally busy. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. Why do you think that I have it in for the nomination when I never claimed such a thing? Why would I? I, and everyone else, should have the ability to say their thoughts civilly with no bad faith assumptions being made in response. It doesn't feel good, does it? SL93 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Where have I ever claimed that any rule doesn't apply to me? Why would I? It's still being expanded and was extensively revised, by me, within the last week. Since it is only 2 weeks old, I wouldn't say that this one is unduly delayed. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I refer you to Lewis Carroll's paper in The Lancet on the Cheshire Cat.((citation required)). Philafrenzy (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, WP:DYKCRIT says this:
Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, and a reminder to the nominator, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete."
It does not matter if the article is still a work in progress at the time of the nomination, what matters is that a QPQ has to be provided within seven days of a nomination. Technically there's nothing in the rules requiring another seven days from a notification (merely that a "reminder" has to be given); in practice, usually another seven days are given to give the nominator a chance to provide a QPQ if they weren't aware of the rule or otherwise haven't done it yet. So yes, a QPQ should have been provided within seven days of the nomination and BlueMoonset was right to bring it up. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm honestly confused why there isn't a QPQ yet despite the nominator knowing about the rule. It might be different if the May 14 review didn't mention it. I normally don't like giving special treatment for the rules since it looks bad to those who had the rules enforced against them. I don't consider this an IAR exception for the reasoning that it sets a bad precedent. Thanks for commenting, I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
No QPQ has been provided for this nomination now more than two weeks old. The lack of a QPQ is disrespectful to fellow DYK editors. Flibirigit (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I'm not inclined to accept a donation for this, either. This rule needs to mean something. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have time to do a review at present as I am busy in real life, so please close it. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm honestly confused why there isn't a QPQ yet despite the nominator knowing about the rule. It might be different if the May 14 review didn't mention it. I normally don't like giving special treatment for the rules since it looks bad to those who had the rules enforced against them. I don't consider this an IAR exception for the reasoning that it sets a bad precedent. Thanks for commenting, I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
