Template:Did you know nominations/Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg

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) 20:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg[edit]

(

)

... that King George I's brother Maximilian William (pictured) was arrested for plotting to become a duke, lost a chance to become a king by turning Catholic and a chance to become a bishop by staying Catholic?

Alt 1 ... that the mother of King George I and Maximilian William seemed to have prefered Max, but had concerns about his lack of geist?

Alt 2 ... that King George I's brother Maximilian William (pictured) was arrested for plotting and was not too lucky with his choice of confessions?

Reviewed: Jozsef Grosz

5x expanded by Surtsicna (talk). Self nominated at 21:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC).

Long enough, interesting enough and fivefold extended, then in time. First hook too long. Serten (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Serten (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

- Thanks for taking a look (really, it's been over a month!), but you cannot strike out the original hook without discussion. At 195 characters, it's not too long. "(pictured)" doesn't count. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Surtsicna, actually, a reviewer can do just that, though it doesn't often happen. There's another concurrent review where this has happened. According to the rules, The hook should be concise: fewer than about 200 characters (including spaces and the question mark, but not including the "..." or any "(pictured)". While 200 is an outside limit, hooks slightly under 200 characters may still be rejected at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators. I'll leave it to Serten's discretion as to whether the strikeout should be reinstated or not (whether this particular hook is deemed too long for this nomination at 195 characters). BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have experience with deWP's 'Schon gewusst' but undergo a steep learning curve with enWP culture, I welcome feedback as here. If I have an issue with a hook, I feel obliged to provide a new one. Formally lenght of 195 is within limits (without the "pictured") - noted, but its still not a good hook / teaser, way too clumsy and not concise. The striked one involves strong claims that are on the fringe of the sources. I e.g. strongly doubt another conversion would have helped Max to become Bishop in OS. Therefore I ask to boil it down. Feel free to do so. Serten (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Another hook suggested

ALT2 looks great, unless someone objects to the fact that the "unluckiness" itself is not mentioned in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

God, I hate being that person. How about: ALT 3: ... that Maximilian William (pictured) could not be Prince-Bishopric of Osnabrück as it was a Lutheran's turn? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, the original hook is by far the most interesting, though I worry the inline citations are bundled at the end of the sections rather than immediately after the salient facts. Assuming an inline citation can be added after "...forfeited his succession rights.", how about something that has a nice pithy and enticing symmetry to it: ALT 4: ... that King George I's brother Maximilian William (pictured) lost a chance to become a king by turning Catholic and a chance to become a bishop by staying Catholic? Sionk (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dunno if I'm eligible to tick it but that seems perfect to me. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that ALT 4 is the best, but there needs to be an inline citation right after each hook fact. Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Surtsicna needs pinging. Sionk (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I put the DYK template note on Surtsicna's talk page right after I posted my comment. Yoninah (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The original and ALT4 are definitely hooky (and as Sionk says, the symmetry is nice), but we can't really say that Max lost his chance to become king. He lost his place in the line of succession, which was 2nd at best. But since George had a son who lived (and sired heirs), there never arose the situation where Max would have been king, but was passed over because of being Catholic. You might say that he had a chance (possibility) of becoming king (if only his brother had died), but it feels like stretching the meaning of "lost a chance" as I would normally read it.

And Serten has already pointed out the strong doubt that "another conversion would have helped Max to become Bishop".

So here's another crack – ALT 5: ... that Maximilian William (pictured), brother of King George I, was exiled for plotting to regain his inheritance, and his election as prince-bishop was invalidated because it was a Lutheran's turn?

[Reverted and pasted changes back, due to technical glitch; see history. Pelagic (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)]

One for the lawyers, I guess - Max had a 'chance' though a very slim one indeed ;) In the absence of anyone amending the inline citations, the ALT 5 hook is verified by inline citations (in two places, for the two distinct facts) and still sufficiently 'hooky' (it would be difficult for this guy not to be interesting). At last this one's ready to go, in my opinion. Sionk (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)