Talk:Watching paint dry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Watching paint dry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Watching paint dry appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 October 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the British Board of Film Classification was forced to watch paint dry?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Watching paint dry.

Wikipedia

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 25 September 2020 by reviewer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs).

English Language Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Reviewer Note[edit]

I found the mention of showing a film of paint drying to the censors amusing. That is almost enough reason to accept. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting acceptance, which will require history merge, which has been requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that watching paint dry takes 10 hours? Source: Independent
- ALT1:... that a censorship board can be forced to watch paint dry for 10 hours? Source: Independent
- ALT2:... that watching paint dry can be scientifically important? Source: Royal Society of Chemistry

Reviewed: Honey Badger (men's rights)
Comment: With apologies to @Ritchie333:, if he wishes to make his own suggestions or put it in the April Fools set, I will not object

Moved to mainspace by Ritchie333 (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 17:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Personally I'd trim A1 to

ALT1b:... that the British Board of Film Classification had to watch paint dry?

E Eng 03:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 and The C of E: the section on etymology is WP:OR and easily disprovable.[1] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh. E Eng 03:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another from 1952. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: According to @Cbl62:, Newspapers.com got it wrong and that clipping is apparently not from 1946 but from the 80s. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, the initial alternative states that "a censorship board can be forced to watch paint dry"; the statement primarily appears to necessitate revision, as a censorship board was forced to watch paint dry, with the statement that "a censorship board can be forced" remaining particularly stylistically erroneous, within my opinion. SurenGrig07 (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? E Eng 03:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I have made an adjustment to the Etymology section based on the source you have provided. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's still OR. For example, does the source say that the etymology is uncertain? Maybe it's quite certain, but you just haven't run into the linguistic researcher who tracked it down. I suggest you simply drop that section. E Eng 11:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The C of E, This is the source you want. Pascal Treguer is trained linguist and has been cited in several RS, therefore qualifies as an expert. The only thing missing from the Treguer blog source is the LATimes writer's name. Using a primary source for that is acceptable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, goody, that fixes it. Yes, an example from a primary sources is fine as an illustration of something established in a secondary source. E Eng 12:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Warren has been dead for 7 years, so no BLP concerns.[2] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, how could quoting a theater review possibly raise a BLP issue? E Eng 14:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, WP:SPS: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. We are implying Warren may be the source of the phrase. I am just crossing every t and dotting every i for the crazies at ERRORS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call that an overanxious application of the guideline. In any event it would be easily fixed, if the guy were still alive and kicking, to simply omit his name and say, "The earliest dxample found by researcher X was in a 19xx theater review." E Eng 00:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I am not just poking holes. I am doing the review. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: I've updated it with the source provided. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - New enough and long enough. No apparent issues of sourcing or close paraphrasing. EarWig's shows no problems. ALT1, ALT2, and Alt1b are hooky and cited in-line. ALT0 should only be used for APRILFOOLS, as it is technically disingenuous unless we say "watching Paint Drying". I have a slight preference for ALT2 and ALT1b but I also like the "for 10 hours" bit from ALT1.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So badly written[edit]

This is probably one of the worst written (and most pointless) articles I’ve seen in a long time. No decent entomology for the term (just some original research) and a series of stubby paragraphs that may as well be done as bullet points. It feels like the bottom of the barrel has been scraped with this, although there should be a very short explanation of the term and it’s origins (possibly only on the Wiki dictionary). That this is on the front page shows just how poor Wiki can be when people try to hard for some front page validation. - 213.205.194.143 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve it (or log in to improve it). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]