Talk:Bang
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Added to 'other uses' - Bang! a book about the creation of the universe. Spykid99 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
How a about big bang? Ellywa 17:08, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Explaining the 'creation' of the universe seemed innapropriate, so I changed it to beggining - Guest.
this says hang
- An abrupt left turn, in Boston slang; the opposite of this, an abrupt right turn, is a hang
what do they mean --Danlock2 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Have you forgot the song Bang from Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich? 86.56.58.7 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hair trimmed...[edit]
Regarding this edit, and the removal of "the part of the hair overhanging the forehead. Also known as a "fringe" in British English". The reason I added it was to bring it into line with the Fringe article:
Fringe (hair), the part of the hair overhanging the forehead. Also known as "bangs" in American English
and the Bangs (hair) article itself:
Bangs, also known as a fringe
As per WP:BRD, I've started this here.
Cheers. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Both references are unnecessary for disambiguation. I.e., a person looking for "bangs" is not going to need to known that "fringe" is an alternate term for this and vice versa. The additional descriptions in both are unnecessary. older ≠ wiser 15:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hm, why do you assume that? It would seem more likely to me that the opposite is true - a person who does not know what "bangs" are with regard to hair will logically know them by another name - ie "fringe" and vice versa. They will look them up because they don't know what they are.
- WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, but other disambig pages (not least the Fringe disambig itself - as you note) include national variations in describing terms, Jumper for example - and I'm sure others would be just as easy to find. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Did you know nomination[edit]
- 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: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- ... that Fred and Betsy Bang (pictured) were introduced by a 700-pound gorilla called Marmaduke?
- Reviewed: Three Warfares; Timothy S. Matthews
- Comment: The articles were created some time ago but have lately been expanded. Fred has certainly been expanded x5 and Betsy is getting there. They make a natural pair and the story of their first meeting can be read at The Conversation.
5x expanded by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self-nominated at 16:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC).
Fred Bang: Article length is 2,232 chars, but assessed as stub. Needs re-assesing at lest as start. It was expanded at least five-fold, was nominated on due time, and is neutral. It cites sources inline. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports moderate text similarities for four sources. They can be easily reworded. the fact "introduced by a 700-pound gorilla called Marmaduke" is not contained in the article. Betsy Bang: Article's expansion began at 952 chars on 17 Speptember, one week before the DYK nomination. It was 2,886 chars long at the nomination date, which does not meet the five-fold condition. It is assesed as stub, which is not any more. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports moderate text similarities for four sources. They can be easily reworded. The hook fact is cited offline, for which I AGF. It is interesting. Its length is within limit. The image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. It is contained in both articles. QPQ was done. CeeGee 11:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- ?
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - ?
- Interesting:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
I am giving this nomination a second review because (a) time has passed, (b) the nomination template shows almost no progression beyond the first review, and (c) the article Betsy Bang (in my opinion) is unlikely to be expanded sufficiently any time soon. I have therefore taken the liberty of un-bolding the Betsy Bang link, so that this review deals only with Fred Bang. If you agree with my response, then the remaining issues are as follows: (1) ALT0 is fine, but I suggest that we have "Betsy and Fred Bang" so that Fred gets his full name linked. So please could we have an ALT1 identical to ALT0 but with the phrase "Betsy and Fred Bang"? (2) The four plagiarised sentences/phrases are still there - please rephrase them or put them in quotation marks? They are, "in applying marine biology to medical research", "as assistant professor of medicine in 1946. In 1953, he was named chairman of the department of parasitology at the School of", "in the United States Army Medical Corps, he directed research studies on malaria and other tropical diseases in Australia, New Guinea, the Philippines and Japan.", "to Sweden and West Germany to present scientific papers". (3) The hook and its citation are not in the Fred Bang article. Please put them in? Notes: I have accepted your Timothy S. Matthews review for QPQ, so your other review can now be set against another nomination if needed. Also, if you disagree with me un-bolding Betsy Bang, then please accept my apologies and please re-bold that link. However in that case you will need another review of Betsy Bang when the article has been expanded five times. Storye book (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: Please see the above new review. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Storye book: Thanks for the reminder. I was discouraged by what's happened here but may yet regain my enthusiasm. More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: I don't think you need to be discouraged. CeeGee's initial review was helpful and constructive, showing you exactly how to improve the article to DYK standards. There has been no editorial interference on the article page since the DYK nomination date, which is good - you have been left in full control of the article. If there is anything that you don't agree with or understand, or if you need help with anything, please let us (or other editors) know. We are all here to improve WP. You have two interesting articles here, about two important scientists, and any contribution we make to the improvement of that type of article is worthwhile. Keep up the good work. Storye book (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Are you still planning to continue this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
-
Two weeks have passed since the last comment. This nomination appears to have gone stale and could be marked for closure soon if no progress is imminent. Flibirigit (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning. I shall give it more priority. More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Nomination appears to be abandoned. Despite several comments no actual progress has been made. Flibirigit (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I took some further looks but remained discouraged. Issues included:
- 1. Alteration of the original hook to
- ALT1 ... that Fred and Betsy Bang were introduced by a 700-pound (320 kg) gorilla called Marmaduke?
- 2. Deletion of the picture on the grounds that its creative commons licence was non-commercial. As we are not a commercial business, this makes no sense. I have restored the picture as fair use but DYK would still reject this. That makes no sense either.