Template:Did you know nominations/Eider Canal
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Eider Canal[edit]
- ... that the Eider Canal was proposed by the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, built by Denmark, conquered by Prussia, and then decommissioned by the German Empire? Sources: "As early as 1571 there were plans for a canal to cross [Schleswig-Holstein]..." ([1]); not sure how to source the uncontroversial fact that Schleswig-Holstein became a Prussian territory after the Second Schleswig War; "Kaiser Wilhelm I laid the foundation stone in the Kiel district of Holtenau in 1887. Kaiser Wilhelm II opened the canal eight years later..." ([2])
- Reviewed: West African Ebola virus epidemic
Created by Bryanrutherford0 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC).
New enough (first published Oct 29, nominated same day); long enough (~9,000 character count); Earwig check no problem (highest result is 2%); QPQ check confirmed.
- It's a clever hook. All the elements of the hook are cited (acknowledging the uncontroversial fact noted in the nomination). I think it might be better to say "first proposed" because the article refers to later proposal too. Also, could the hook be adjusted to use "under" rather than "by" (or some other way of making each change a little more abstract)? I say this because these States didn't make these decisions but rather the decision was made when the canal was under the control of those states. e.g. you've said the proposal was by a person, but the building/commissioning/conquering was by states - it would be good to make them consistent. See what I mean? Wittylama 13:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Good points! Maybe for the Duke, we could say "Holstein" to parallel the others. I feel like referring to the actions of a government as having been taken by the state or nation that government governs is a fairly standard metonymy, along the lines of "Russia hacked the DNC" to mean that "agents of the Russian state hacked the DNC"; I'm also not thinking of a clear, succinct way to spell out that these actions were taken by ministers or commissions appointed by the rulers of those states. So, could an alternate proposal be "... that the Eider Canal was first proposed by Holstein, built by Denmark, conquered by Prussia, and then decommissioned by the German Empire?" -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the name of the state is a perfectly accepted common shorthand for 'people acting on behalf of instructions issued by leaders of <name of state>'! :-) How about this version which gives slightly different descriptions to each: "... that the Eider Canal was first proposed as part of Ducal Holstein, built under Danish rule, conquered by Prussia, and decommissioned under the German Empire?"
- I'm quibbling, so I'm happy with either - I'll leave it to others to see which they prefer.
Wittylama 22:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Good points! Maybe for the Duke, we could say "Holstein" to parallel the others. I feel like referring to the actions of a government as having been taken by the state or nation that government governs is a fairly standard metonymy, along the lines of "Russia hacked the DNC" to mean that "agents of the Russian state hacked the DNC"; I'm also not thinking of a clear, succinct way to spell out that these actions were taken by ministers or commissions appointed by the rulers of those states. So, could an alternate proposal be "... that the Eider Canal was first proposed by Holstein, built by Denmark, conquered by Prussia, and then decommissioned by the German Empire?" -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
