Talk:Blessing in disguise

Burnt toast theory was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 September 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Blessing in disguise. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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) 00:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

"Blessings in Disguise", 1865.

... that in 1865, Confederate losses during the American Civil War were seen as "blessings in disguise" (cartoon pictured)?

Reviewed: Laidlaw Purves

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 12:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Article is new enough, hook is interesting, most citations check, (AGF on subscription source), images are in the Public Domain, and, other than quotations and titles, there is no close paraphrasing, while the QPQ is pending. However, the citations need work, per url links. There are just too many bare url addresses mixed in with the text and in the references section. Some of the url addresses link to books. The url for citations [9] and [10] should use templates as was done in citation [11]. Also, page numbers should appear in the reference section when books are used as sources. As an alternative, you could use the open url with a label, enclosed in [brackets]. For example, Citation [10], using the existing url, could look like this: Chinese-English Classical Idiom Stories, pp.165-166 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will fix them shortly. I didn't want to miss the deadline. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers: Everything should be OK now. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. Mind you, the DYK criteria doesn't say anything about citation and source formatting, but in this case I thought a little organization was called for. All criteria check. QPQ now satisfied. Nice article. Good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fact from Blessing in disguise appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 September 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 1865, Confederate losses during the American Civil War were characterized as "blessings in disguise"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blessing in disguise (idiom).

Wikipedia

Chinese tale, and other languages

I asked at User talk:Nlu about the translation and they've never heard that particular story, but have heard another about a lost horse for which that phrase is actually the second half of a complete saying, and what I can see of the source seems to be possibly a source for this lost horse story? I'm wondering if that sentence might need attention from someone familiar with Chinese folktales/sayings.

I know this saying/concept must be present in other languages/regions, too. It almost defies credibility that it wouldn't be. --valereee (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's likely to have developed independently in many cultures. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing in disguise (idiom) → Blessing in disguise – Disambiguation unnecessary per WP:DIFFCAPS. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unlike the situations for when the only usage has a specific capitalization and editors argue that a reader writing that specific way can only mean they are searching for that title, the same cannot be said for all lowercase. That's just how people search. This helps no one other than you for some reason (and it's a bit annoying that I'll need to copy/paste my same argument to all nominations now). --Gonnym (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did it that way to distinguish it from Blessing in Disguise which is a disambiguation page. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to support this one, not per nom but per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The concept is encyclopedically important and the phrase retains a great deal of currency that has nothing to do with pop culture references, none of which would seem to come close to primary-topic status. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom although the other uses of the upper case do get more (963) than the idiom (629) [[1]] it seems reasonable especially by PT#2 to land readers here. This is a fairly common phrase and I don't think anyone who doesn't bother to capitalize will be surprised to land here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The only use with this capitalisation, and the origin of all other meanings. It's where a reader who types into the search box without caps would expect to land. WP:DIFFCAPS is also relevant. Narky Blert (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meaning of the phrase. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger of burnt toast theory??

There was a thundering hue and cry to merge the burnt toast theory article into this one, and it passed, but no one has actually put anything about the burnt toast theory in this article? I am trying to understand how Wikipedia works. When will one or more of the people that wanted it merged, actually do it??? Personally I voted for deletion, but the decision was merge, what's up with that??

Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the full comments Owenx made while closing. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also voted for deletion, but it looks like it's been long enough, I could take a stab at it. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]