Template:Did you know nominations/Kosakeln
- 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) 17:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Kosakeln[edit]
The Trull cards in Kosakeln
... that Kosakeln is the 2-player version of the "queen of all Tarot games played with the 54-card pack", Illustrated Tarock?
Source: "the queen of all Tarock games played with the 54-card pack..." in Dummett, Michael (1980) The Game of Tarot London: Duckworth (1980), p. 480. ISBN 0-7156-1014-7.
- ALT1: ... that Kosakeln is the 2-player form of the "queen" of all three-handed Tarot games?
Source: as above - ALT2: ... that Kosakeln is an Austrian Tarot game for 2 players whose name means "playing Cossack"?
Sources: As above, plus entry for Kosak in Worsch, Wolfgang (2004). Langenscheidt Muret-Sanders Großwörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch. Langenscheidt, Berlin. ISBN 3-468-02126-7 - ALT3: ... that if two Austrians say they're "playing Cossack", they're likely to be enjoying the Tarot game of Kosakeln?
Sources: Dummett and Worsch (see above).
- Reviewed: Katja Wulff
- ALT1: ... that Kosakeln is the 2-player form of the "queen" of all three-handed Tarot games?
Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 08:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC).
I'm afraid that I've had to strike the hook since I don't think this appeals enough to people who aren't card game enthusiasts. Please suggest a new hook, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I don't accept that and will remove the strikeout. You are not the sole arbiter of whether hooks are interesting enough - Wikipedia is a collaborative venture and no one editor is given a veto. It's perfectly okay to state an opinion alongside other editors; but quite wrong to delete someone else's proposal because you don't like it based on your view of the world. Very few hooks will appeal to a worldwide audience; I find most of the others pretty boring too. On the other hand, an article about a card game is most likely to appeal to card players and be boring to others. I'll suggest an ALT; please work with me to suggest improvements that will fly or let other editors step in and help. Bermicourt (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually it's generally discouraged for editors, particularly nominators, to unstrike hooks that have been struck by reviewers without their permission, unless consensus determines that it is appropriate. And given that there have not been any other comments here thus far, there is no consensus to do so at this point; I have restruck the hook until further notice. And to be frank, the hook that was initially proposed was simply not going to fly. I understand that you have great enthusiasm for old European card games, and surely something better than that could have been written instead. With that said, I am quite open to seeing what alternatives you will be able to propose, and am willing to give suggestions on what could be done. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Help me understand, then, why it's okay to strike hooks without consensus? Surely we do that when better alternatives are agreed? Assuming it is Wiki practice, please point me at the guidelines to say that I can't just unilaterally strike other DYK hook proposals because I personally don't find them interesting. Meanwhile, to show goodwill, I've added a first alternative which, at least, flows better. I'll try and look for others. But we have to work with the material we have and the sources for card games aren't brimming with CNN-quality sound bites... but neither for that matter are most of the sources for DYK hooks judging by what gets posted. :) Bermicourt (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- A reviewer has the option to strike hooks when they determine that currently proposed hook(s) would be unsuitable. It's actually a fairly common practice. Technically it is not in the rules that a struck hook can be unstruck unilaterally by the nominator. But in practice, doing it or even suggesting it is frowned upon (see Template:Did you know nominations/Sun of Unclouded Righteousness, particularly the quote that goes
[the nominator] certainly should not be unstriking any hook struck by a reviewer.
, as well as my own nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Lynn (voice actress)). As for the new hooks, I don't think ALT1 is much better and still feels too niche. ALT2 does appear to have some potential, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)- I'm not an intentional rule-breaker - that's not my style - but I do find it strange that a single editor can wipe a DYK nom without any discussion or consensus, simply based on their own perspective/experience/interests. We're all human and no one person has an infallible eye for what makes a successful hook, so I assumed if there was doubt, we would encourage a better or different hook. To strike it out seems pretty harsh and I'd never do that; I'd just work with the proposer to try and come up with a more 'catchy' one. Hey ho, I'll comb the various sources again and see if there are alternative citations we could use. I get we're trying to showcase Wikpedia and that means trying to appeal to a broad audience if we can. Bermicourt (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've taken another approach with ALT3. Is that more the style you're looking for? Bermicourt (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose so, ALT3 is pretty cute. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've taken another approach with ALT3. Is that more the style you're looking for? Bermicourt (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not an intentional rule-breaker - that's not my style - but I do find it strange that a single editor can wipe a DYK nom without any discussion or consensus, simply based on their own perspective/experience/interests. We're all human and no one person has an infallible eye for what makes a successful hook, so I assumed if there was doubt, we would encourage a better or different hook. To strike it out seems pretty harsh and I'd never do that; I'd just work with the proposer to try and come up with a more 'catchy' one. Hey ho, I'll comb the various sources again and see if there are alternative citations we could use. I get we're trying to showcase Wikpedia and that means trying to appeal to a broad audience if we can. Bermicourt (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- A reviewer has the option to strike hooks when they determine that currently proposed hook(s) would be unsuitable. It's actually a fairly common practice. Technically it is not in the rules that a struck hook can be unstruck unilaterally by the nominator. But in practice, doing it or even suggesting it is frowned upon (see Template:Did you know nominations/Sun of Unclouded Righteousness, particularly the quote that goes
- Help me understand, then, why it's okay to strike hooks without consensus? Surely we do that when better alternatives are agreed? Assuming it is Wiki practice, please point me at the guidelines to say that I can't just unilaterally strike other DYK hook proposals because I personally don't find them interesting. Meanwhile, to show goodwill, I've added a first alternative which, at least, flows better. I'll try and look for others. But we have to work with the material we have and the sources for card games aren't brimming with CNN-quality sound bites... but neither for that matter are most of the sources for DYK hooks judging by what gets posted. :) Bermicourt (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually it's generally discouraged for editors, particularly nominators, to unstrike hooks that have been struck by reviewers without their permission, unless consensus determines that it is appropriate. And given that there have not been any other comments here thus far, there is no consensus to do so at this point; I have restruck the hook until further notice. And to be frank, the hook that was initially proposed was simply not going to fly. I understand that you have great enthusiasm for old European card games, and surely something better than that could have been written instead. With that said, I am quite open to seeing what alternatives you will be able to propose, and am willing to give suggestions on what could be done. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article was new enough at the time of the nomination, entirely sourced to offline sources (AGF accepted), QPQ done, and no close paraphrasing was found. My main concern is that the article seems to be mostly about the rules and not so much about anything else other than a short section on the history and etymology. I don't know but isn't the rules section possibly a bit too crufty for Wikipedia? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'll check the sources and see if the history or cultural aspects can be expanded. But card games are defined by their rules; there's no other way to do it. It's the rules that give them their character. Kosakeln is not a simple game - that's why the original hook stated that it was the two-player equivalent of the "queen of Tarock games" i.e. the most complex and challenging one. That said, I'll see if I can make the text of the rules a bit more succinct.Bermicourt (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've reduced the amount of text in the rules by some wordsmithing, reorganising the article and converting the announcements to a look-up table. I've also tightened up a couple of references and added others. There's not a lot more in the literature on the history and character of the game, although I'm still looking at that. Bermicourt (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt: Have you been able to find more about the game, or do you think the article now reflects what can be said in sources? I'm willing to accept the article now as it is and approving ALT3, just need your confirmation. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Thank you. Yes I've beefed up the history section to set it more in context. Hope that helps. Bermicourt (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now the problem is that, unfortunately, ALT3 doesn't seem to be explicitly mentioned in the article. While ALT2 is an acceptable backup, ALT3 is a lot catchier and it would be a shame if it doesn't run (add to the fact that ALT2 sounds a little dry). Can this be resolved? ALT2 is still possible, just that I don't think it's as good as ALT3. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've added the hook into the article. It does rely on extrapolating from a combination of the dictionary definition and the various sources (I've cited Dummett as the English language source) that describe the game. But we do that for 1 April DYK's, so I don't see why it can't apply here. Bermicourt (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edit. However, it seems that the relevant sentence ends in an exclamation mark instead of a period? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sorted. Bermicourt (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I think this should be good now. I'm a bit worried that the hook fact for ALT3 or the sentence discussing it could count as synthesis, but I will let the promoter decide if that's the case. If this turns out to be the case, then we have ALT2 as the other option. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorted. Bermicourt (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edit. However, it seems that the relevant sentence ends in an exclamation mark instead of a period? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've added the hook into the article. It does rely on extrapolating from a combination of the dictionary definition and the various sources (I've cited Dummett as the English language source) that describe the game. But we do that for 1 April DYK's, so I don't see why it can't apply here. Bermicourt (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now the problem is that, unfortunately, ALT3 doesn't seem to be explicitly mentioned in the article. While ALT2 is an acceptable backup, ALT3 is a lot catchier and it would be a shame if it doesn't run (add to the fact that ALT2 sounds a little dry). Can this be resolved? ALT2 is still possible, just that I don't think it's as good as ALT3. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Thank you. Yes I've beefed up the history section to set it more in context. Hope that helps. Bermicourt (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt: Have you been able to find more about the game, or do you think the article now reflects what can be said in sources? I'm willing to accept the article now as it is and approving ALT3, just need your confirmation. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've reduced the amount of text in the rules by some wordsmithing, reorganising the article and converting the announcements to a look-up table. I've also tightened up a couple of references and added others. There's not a lot more in the literature on the history and character of the game, although I'm still looking at that. Bermicourt (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'll check the sources and see if the history or cultural aspects can be expanded. But card games are defined by their rules; there's no other way to do it. It's the rules that give them their character. Kosakeln is not a simple game - that's why the original hook stated that it was the two-player equivalent of the "queen of Tarock games" i.e. the most complex and challenging one. That said, I'll see if I can make the text of the rules a bit more succinct.Bermicourt (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
