Template:Did you know nominations/Sea sponge aquaculture
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3 talk 14:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Sea sponge aquaculture
[edit]- ... that sea sponge aquaculture (pictured) has the potential to generate novel anti-inflammatory and anti-viral drugs?
Created by VazishtaA (talk). Nominated by Fuhghettaboutit (talk) at 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| SmartSE (talk) | SmartSE (talk) | SmartSE (talk) | SmartSE (talk) |
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SmartSE (talk) | SmartSE (talk) | SmartSE (talk) | SmartSE (talk) | SmartSE (talk) | SmartSE (talk) | SmartSE (talk) |
- I will review this shortly. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find any problems with this except that I noticed on the author's talk page a query about the image (and the others in the article) which hasn't been resolved. I will ask the author to get the owner of the photographs to confirm the licence via OTRS. SmartSE (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the titles of these articles be standardised? Some are "Aquaculture of (animal)" while some are "(animal) aquaculture". I think "Aquaculture of (animal)" is more in line with WP's style guide for names. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree and was going to rename these articles after the DYKs ran their course. They are part of an uncoordinated university project with a sudden influx of often very messy articles – hard to find and try and keep up. There's a lot more that could have been DYKs if there had been coordination and time. I thought renaming the article titles was more a matter for the relevant project than for DYK, and could wait. Should I rename them consistently now? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was wondering why there were so many of these articles and soon I have to handle a similar class. I think it could be done before DYK if the articles haven't been promoted yet, although the one who moves the page would also have to fix the DYK credits and links. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Be careful of making a mass renaming decision just for consistency. Often it may seem like a series of category-related articles should have the same naming considerations, but upon more careful examination, on a cases by case basis, it turns out that the world has already chosen a common name for one and an opposite form of name for another. For example, a (really hasty) search here indicates that Sea sponge aquaculture has a fair bit of presence as a name out in the world, as does Sea sponge farming, whereas, aquaculture of sea sponges may not have been published by anyone in writing ever. We generally avoid descriptive titles whenever there is a name chosen by the world.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking of WP:NOUN and another MOS point, that we should "not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another". Besides, the main focus is aquaculture and not the individual species being cultured. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand how WP:NOUN would favor the one over the other. Certainly, though WP:SINGULAR would be upset by the reversal, since we would never say "Aquaculture of sea sponge". Think about it in running text: X is studying aquaculture of sea sponges vs. X is studying sea sponge aquaculture. Purely from a writer's ear perspective, the latter sounds better. But WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence anyway, where applicable. Regarding "not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another", I don't see how that is applicable at all either. The examples provided for that are to not use "Azerbaijan/Transportation" or "Azerbaijan (transportation)" which are formulations that each suggest that the topic of transportation in Azerbaijan is part of a larger article on the country, rather than the proper title transportation in Azerbaijan, which makes it clear that the topic is about trasnportation in that country, and not part of a larger treatment. The current title of this article does not suffer from any such ambiguity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm... This is totally not relevant to DYK It appears that the renaming (if any) should have an in-depth discussion, so leaving it alone for now would be best. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm fairly heavily involved in article naming issues so it was a natural to comment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree and was going to rename these articles after the DYKs ran their course. They are part of an uncoordinated university project with a sudden influx of often very messy articles – hard to find and try and keep up. There's a lot more that could have been DYKs if there had been coordination and time. I thought renaming the article titles was more a matter for the relevant project than for DYK, and could wait. Should I rename them consistently now? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I will review this shortly. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
