Template:Did you know nominations/Devonshire Lodge: Difference between revisions

Line 78: Line 78:

:::I listed the different ownership (those that are mentioned in the source) in chronological order. This can be played with a bit if you think it makes a difference. ”[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]”[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 10:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

::::Regarding ALT2, I was actually wondering if “future Prime minister” should be mentioned either at the start or at the end, because that’s the hookiest part. However, if either happened, it would break the existing chronological order, so it is up to you. [[User:Narutolovehinata5|Narutolovehinata5]] ([[User talk:Narutolovehinata5|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Narutolovehinata5|contributions]]) 11:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::The only way I can think of doing something like that would be to partially break the chronological ordering. At present I can’t think of any other ordering which results in the desired effect and maintains some sort of logical consistency. Perhaps best to keep it chronological? I could potentially do reverse chronological but that would still end up with the prime minister in the middle. ”[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]”[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 12:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

{{-}}}}<!–Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.–>

Devonshire Lodge

Created by Crisco 1492 (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 746 past nominations.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC).

The article meets the newness and length requirements. I did not find any close paraphrasing. A full QPQ has been completed. The hooks are cited inline and verified in the sources; admittedly, the article uses a referencing that is atypical from what I am used to, but that is not an issue for DYK purposes.

My preferences are ALT1 and ALT2, but they both cannot be approved as currently written: ALT1 could be reworded to make it “hookier” or “exciting”, if you know what I mean (i.e. the searching for the rum tunnel could be reworded somewhat). ALT2 is technically correct according to the source, but also inaccurate and also not directly stated in the article. The article does not exactly say that the demolition was “announced to attract potential buyers”, at least not directly. It might be better to reword the hook as saying that, to attract buyers, they put out a notice claiming it would be demolished (even though they had no plans of doing so, and could not do it anyway). It would be more accurate to the source too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

- Hi Narutolovehinata5. As much as I’d love to paint a picture of him crawling on his hands and knees searching a dusty old cellar for a tunnel, the source doesn’t support it. It simply says that he spent hours searching for the rumoured tunnel with his sister and friends. As for ALT2, omitting context while still reflecting the source is a common practice in writing hooks, and adding that it was impossible for them to legally demolish the structure actually detracts the hookiness (which is strange, given your concerns about ALT1). The fact that this video was meant to attract buyers is already clear from its the phrase “one video”, which links the hook sentence with the previous one, and the video is also mentioned (in less detail) in that sentence’s source which makes the collocation clear.

To put it bluntly, I’m done with peopling for now, so I’ll withdraw this nomination. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Well, I did not mean to say that the “they aren’t allowed to demolish it” fact should be included in ALT2, but rather that it should just be rephrased to make it a bit more obvious that demolishing was never actually on the cards. Something like “to attract buyers, X claimed that the Devonshire Lodge would be demolished?” Not that exact wording, of course, but moreso the thought. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

That’s the thing, the ad framed it as an announcement, complete with an “interview” with a “concerned neighbour” (per source), only to contextualize it after the fact. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I see that the article has been deleted per CSD G7, so I am closing this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I’ll adopt this. If I’ve made any errors in reviving this, can someone please let me know and I’ll fix them. I’ve struck ALT1 and ALT2 which apparently held up a review previously. For QPQ I can offer up Template:Did you know nominations/Timebomb (Kylie Minogue song). TarnishedPath^talk 14:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to continue this considering the nominator did not want it to continue anymore, although since it already has an adopter, it’s already water under the bridge. For what it’s worth, I have to agree with the comments at WP:UNDELETE that supported recreation: the article was already in a good state, and requesting that it be deleted despite others wanting to work on it does indeed arguably fall under OWN, even if the article creator was the only editor at the time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

TarnishedPath^talk 07:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This has been stuck for a while so chiming in again. ALT2 and ALT3 are my preferences, but I think ALT2 would be better if it mentioned “future Canadian prime minister” rather than just “politician”. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

!Narutolovehinata5 ALT2a: … that Devonshire Lodge (pictured) has been owned by a bootlegger, a car dealer, a future Canadian prime minister, a bingo hall proprietor, a pharmacy owner, and a cabinet maker? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20250422030933/https://www.windsorpubliclibrary.com/devonshire-lodge-aka-the-low-martin-house/

I listed the different ownership (those that are mentioned in the source) in chronological order. This can be played with a bit if you think it makes a difference. TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding ALT2, I was actually wondering if “future Prime minister” should be mentioned either at the start or at the end, because that’s the hookiest part. However, if either happened, it would break the existing chronological order, so it is up to you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The only way I can think of doing something like that would be to partially break the chronological ordering. At present I can’t think of any other ordering which results in the desired effect and maintains some sort of logical consistency. Perhaps best to keep it chronological? I could potentially do reverse chronological but that would still end up with the prime minister in the middle. TarnishedPath^talk 12:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Devonshire Lodge

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply