Template:Did you know nominations/Intihuatana (Písac)
- The following discussion 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Intihuatana (Písac)
[edit]- ...
that the Intihuatana stone has been described as "perhaps one of the most beautiful and enigmatic places to be found in Machu Picchu"?
Created/expanded by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Rosiestep (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 09:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
interesting topic, well written on multiple good sources. In both article and hook it's not always clear if the general concept is meant or the one excellent example in Machu Picchu. Propose to clarify in the article, and
- ALT1: ...
that "perhaps one of the most beautiful and enigmatic places to be found in Machu Picchu is its Intihuatana, a solar clock stone (pictured)?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1: ...
Yeah I know, Rosie made it more generalised as I hadn't realised it referred to more than the one at Machu.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- While I kept researching this particular stone, I found the word Intihuatana applied to the stone in general, and not the specific one that the article was about, so for clarity, I just split the content between Intihuatana and Intihuatana (Písac). Here is ALT2:
... that "perhaps one of the most beautiful and enigmatic places to be found in Machu Picchu" is its Písac Intihuatana, a solar clock stone (pictured)?--Rosiestep (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- While I kept researching this particular stone, I found the word Intihuatana applied to the stone in general, and not the specific one that the article was about, so for clarity, I just split the content between Intihuatana and Intihuatana (Písac). Here is ALT2:
- Thanks for researching further. I don't know if splitting was necessary. I know at least two cases when a broader article was derived from a specific one, Easter egg tree and Alpine route. If you keep them separate, is the stone really known as "Písac Intihuatana"? My understanding is "Intihuatana in Machu Picchu, Písac". If so, Písac doesn't have to be in the hook, it's rather confusing for people who know the place as Machu Picchu and may think a Písac Intihuanta is a special kind of Intihuanta. So suggest
- ALT3:
... that "perhaps one of the most beautiful and enigmatic places to be found in Machu Picchu" is its Intihuatana, a solar clock stone (pictured)?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC) - ps: if kept split, Intihuatana (Písac) should be moved to Intihuatana, Písac (location qualifier), and the nomination moved back to the original name (quote: the "name of a nomination should almost never be changed", ask Mandarax). But think of "reuniting", just make clear from when on it's about the specific stone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Where is this review now? I've closed the open quote on both ALT2 and ALT3, but there aren't any comments about length, hook sourcing, or the usual parameters of a DYK review. (A response here is fine.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- The article was moved, but I didn't notice, sorry.
- The article on the stone doesn't reflect the new title yet, also I don't know by which standard the present Intihuatana (Písac) is preferable to Intihuatana, Písac. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- It appears that the preference would be for Intihuatana to be re-merged into Intihuatana. I'm not sure how to do that as there have been subsequent edits. Is there someone else who can assist? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you mean my comment, no that's not what I wanted to suggest, keep them separate. However, the lead for the Pisac article still reads as for the combined article. As the reviewer, I don't want to change too much. Suggestion: Instead of "The Písac Intihuatana is a ritual stone in South America associated with the astronomic clock or calendar of the Inca. The most notable of the known intihuatana, the stone is located at an archaeological site at Písac in Machu Picchu, Peru."
- something like "The Intihuatana at the archaeological site Písac in Machu Picchu, Peru, is a notable intihuatana, a ritual stone associated with the astronomic clock or calendar of the Inca in South America." - I am used to location qualifiers in article names not in brackets but separated by a comma. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- I moved the article to Intihuatana, Písac and made some clarification edits. Rosiestep (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- It appears that the preference would be for Intihuatana to be re-merged into Intihuatana. I'm not sure how to do that as there have been subsequent edits. Is there someone else who can assist? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
fine, appr with the new link:
- ALT4: ... that "perhaps one of the most beautiful and enigmatic places to be found in Machu Picchu" is its Intihuatana, a solar clock stone (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
