Template:Did you know nominations/Phoulkon: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Response |
m minor edit |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* '''ALT1''': ... that the '''[[Phoulkon]]''' was a shield-wall infantry formation of the late and eastern [[Roman Empire]], and the term may have originated from the [[Germanic languages]]? |
* '''ALT1''': ... that the '''[[Phoulkon]]''' was a shield-wall infantry formation of the late and eastern [[Roman Empire]], and the term may have originated from the [[Germanic languages]]? |
||
<small>Created by [[User:Sfjyu|Sfjyu]] ([[User talk:Sfjyu|talk]]). Self-nominated at 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)</small> |
<small>Created by [[User:Sfjyu|Sfjyu]] ([[User talk:Sfjyu|talk]]). Self-nominated at 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)</small> |
||
* '''ALT2''': ... that the '''[[Phoulkon]]''' was an [[shield wall]] [[Tactical formation| |
* '''ALT2''': ... that the '''[[Phoulkon]]''' was an [[shield wall]] [[Tactical formation|formation]] of the [[Late Roman army|late]] and [[east Roman army]], that classical writers described as both a [[testudo formation|testudo]] and a [[phalanx]]? |
||
* '''ALT3''': ... that the '''[[Phoulkon]]''' was an [[Tactical formation|infantry formation]] of the [[Late Roman army|late]] and [[east Roman army]], and despite contemporary classical writers referring to it as both a [[testudo formation|testudo]] and a [[phalanx]], was actually a [[shield wall]] whose name may have originated from the [[Germanic languages]]? |
* '''ALT3''': ... that the '''[[Phoulkon]]''' was an [[Tactical formation|infantry formation]] of the [[Late Roman army|late]] and [[east Roman army]], and despite contemporary classical writers referring to it as both a [[testudo formation|testudo]] and a [[phalanx]], was actually a [[shield wall]] whose name may have originated from the [[Germanic languages]]? |
||
<small>Created by [[User:Sfjyu|Sfjyu]] ([[User talk:Sfjyu|talk]]). Self-nominated at 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)</small> |
<small>Created by [[User:Sfjyu|Sfjyu]] ([[User talk:Sfjyu|talk]]). Self-nominated at 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)</small> |
||
Revision as of 22:46, 21 September 2019
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Phoulkon
... that the Phoulkon, a shield-wall infantry formation of the late and eastern Roman Empire, may have originated from the Germanic soldiers serving in the military?- ALT1: ... that the Phoulkon was a shield-wall infantry formation of the late and eastern Roman Empire, and the term may have originated from the Germanic languages?
Created by Sfjyu (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that the Phoulkon was an shield wall formation of the late and east Roman army, that classical writers described as both a testudo and a phalanx?
- ALT3: ... that the Phoulkon was an infantry formation of the late and east Roman army, and despite contemporary classical writers referring to it as both a testudo and a phalanx, was actually a shield wall whose name may have originated from the Germanic languages?
Created by Sfjyu (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
New enough, long enough. Must AGF on the citations; the hook matches citation 4 which discusses the possible Germanic etymology of the terms. Fewer than five DYKs; no QPQ needed. This should be good, even if it feels a touch bare. Raymie (t • c) 03:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't see the last hook fact, may have originated from the Germanic soldiers serving in the military?
in the article. I see something about the word having a Germanic origin. The last sentence under Etymology may be supporting the hook fact, but it lacks an inline cite. Citation 4 does talk more about the Germanic military connection, so more could be added to the article to flesh it out. Yoninah (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I'll work on fleshing the article out just a bit more, and I also rephrased the hook to make it clear that the possible Germanic connection is a linguistic one.Sfjyu (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sfjyu, I've restored your original hook wording, and listed the new hook wording (minus a comma) under ALT1, so that it's clear what the original query about the hook was referring to. I have struck the original hook because of the issues with it, but the wording can still be read. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
