This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Egyptological subjects 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.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting.
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing
the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru articles
Whilst I would not question the integrity of the current entry, all references to this phrase seem to suggest that "a line in the sand" is a concrete, absolute boundary, or reference point that either must not be crossed or must be deliberately crossed.
My understanding, but I seem to have no references to support it, is that " a line drawn in the sand " is quite a different thing. Precisely because of the shifting nature of sand and the ephemeral nature of a line drawn in it, a line drawn in the sand is a boundary or rule, or often a code of behaviour which is rigidly imposed by those who origionally drew the line but is no longer easily seen by those who may inadvertantly "cross the line". It is similar to breaking unwritten rules: it is not that they are simply unwritten. You aren't warned about them in any way, and usually don't find out you have broken one until afterwards, if ever.
Thus.....To draw a line is to say "Thus far and no further"
To "draw a line under" is to say this argument, discussion, subject, event is now closed.
To cross a line is to transgress.
I can see that to draw a line and ask people to choose which side of the line they stand is legitimate.
However, the very essence of drawing a line in the sand is that it will disappear shortly after you drew it, however emphatically you made the gesture , and is therefore much closer to breaking unwritten rules than setting out absolute and arbitrarily chosen ones. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Robinhowell (
talk •
contribs) 10:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)reply
That (the comment by Robinhowell) is exactly my understanding of the original meaning of the phrase, which has obviously come to be roughly equivalent to 'draw a line under'. But it is precisely the addition of 'in the sand' that makes it different. My other issue with this entry is with the examples, none of which appear to be of the phrase in question; not even the Alamo example provides a citation or quotation. These should be removed and replaced with examples of the phrase. I'm currently trying to find earlier examples of the original meaning.
Sneedy (
talk) 05:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Warner cartoon
that's an interesting point. It brings to mind a classic Warner Brothers cartoon in which Yosemite Sam uses his foot to scratch a line in sand and challenges Bugs Bunny to step over it. Bugs does, compelling Sam to draw another line and repeat the challenge. Bugs crosses the new line, of course, forcing Sam to step back and draw another. The process repeats itself until Sam backs himself up and over a cliff.
165.91.64.176 (
talk) 07:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)RKHreply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was no consensus.
@harej 03:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. All similar uses are for titles using an upper case "S" and are already disambiguated.
Station1 (
talk) 05:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. No indication given that the phrase is the primary topic sought by readers entering "line in the sand" in the search box and hitting "Go". --
JHunterJ (
talk) 11:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
There are some metrics for determining primary topic at
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Extremely obvious" isn't one of them, but some of the others might support your proposal. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 12:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the acknowledgment (that others might support my proposal). By "Extremely obvious" I simply my belief was consistent with the policy explicated at
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - I meant I followed precisely the rule you cite. Implied in what you say is the point that there is some "primary topic" which would prohibit the move - or are you just being
academic? --
Ludvikus (
talk) 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose The DAB page is actually named
Line in the Sand and redirects from
Line in the sand so they would both have to be moved/modified, too. Also that DAB is sufficient. Finally, if people write "Line in the sand (phrase)" specifically into the search tool they get here. However the phrase is the primary usage, so there is an opposite argument that is logical and within Wiki guidelines.
Jubilee♫clipman 15:53, 7 October 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
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 section.
Oppose – "Only lowercase usage of this" is not a good rationale for a case-only primarytopic takeover.
Dicklyon (
talk) 06:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. There is no other article using the title "line in the sand". There are four articles using the title "Line in the Sand", and that should remain a dab page, but even if we were to disregard
WP:DIFFCAPS the phrase "line in the sand" would still be the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on the
overwhelming number of pageviews and significance.
Station1 (
talk) 09:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As someone said in some others in this series of "takeovers", DIFFCAPS properly applies when the capitalization scheme in question is very distinctive; it doesn't really work in a case like this. That would leave us with a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument for the move, and I don't think the metaphoric drawing of lines in the sand qualifies, nor does the idiom as such. It just being the original referent is irrelevant. If this were a strong PRIMARYTOPIC case, I would support the move (and am supporting 4 or 5 of the nom's concurrent moves on that basis, while opposing all the rest per the same reasoning Dicklyon provides above and that Gonnym has supplied in most of them, though not here yet. It's not the weakest case of the bunch – "line in the sand" still has a lot of currency as an idiom, but it's a very generic cliché. The concept isn't an encyclopedic topic, and the phrase may not be one either, per
WP:NOTDICT. This just isn't one of those stand-out phrases like
man's best friend or
blessing in disguise, with a rich cultural history that we can encyclopedically cover; it's just a miscellaneous collocation of word, like several other cases I'm opposing (
sea change,
silver lining,
head start, etc.). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support it gets 2,608 views compared with 347 for the other uses of Line in the Sand [
[1]] so even if we ignore DIFFCAPS it still gets over 7.5x the views of the others so its clearly primary. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SMcCandlish and
Dicklyon: do the page views convince you? Even if we assume everyone used lower case this would still be primary. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
No. If you search Google for "line in the sand", the wikipedia page it takes you to is this one, but that doesn't mean everyone who follows is actually looking to get here. Seems highly unlikely, actually; wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Dicklyon (
talk) 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Google isn't case sensitive while we are, if even Google returns the phrase it seems likely its primary and indeed when I Google line in the sand I get the phrase article and results dominated by the phrase (only 1 result on the 1st page of results isn't for the phrase) so it seems that the phrase is the clear primary topic even ignoring case (which we don't). If the phrase gets so many hits and comes up 1st on Google that's telling that its primary even by usage. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 22:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Could you be confusing cause with effect?
Dicklyon (
talk) 22:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Causing what DL just said: you Google the phrase, and Google overwhelmingly draws attention to this page, without providing links to the DAB page, so readers have little choice but to come to this page first. Given the high frequency with which this phrase is used in titles of pop-culture output, I think it's highly unlikely that most people really are coming here looking for a glorified DICDEF about the phrase itself. Part of why this might be happening is lack of a hatnote pointing to the DAB page. I've now added one, and after a while this might cause Google to adjust what it's doing. If the very first link on this page goes to an index of things with bands and TV stations on it, the spider is probably smart enough to realize that when someone looks for "line in the sand TV" they do not mean this phrase page but someone at the DAB page. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Google tends to have a bias towards commercial/popular culture so the fact that Google thinks that this topic is what people want is telling. The article includes "(phrase)" in the title so its unlikely is sending people here because of ambiguity. If I Google "Apple" I get results dominated with the company, not the fruit even though that's at
Apple and the company's at
Apple Inc.. I agree the article does have dicdeff problems but that's not really a major issue for RM. In any case I think the views, (
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) DIFFCAPS (this being the only topic called "Line in the sand" per
WP:PRECISE) and the fact that other uses are likely derived from it seems sensible to have this at the lower case base name. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 21:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Also, someone looking for "line in the sand TV" does not wind up on this page at all. Google directs them to
A Line in the Sand (TV series) and the dab page. Per
WP:NAMB, this article should not need a hatnote if it were not the primary topic. The very fact that a hatnote needed to be added is an indication that this is the primary topic.
Station1 (
talk) 07:37, 6 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Egyptological subjects 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.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting.
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing
the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru articles
Whilst I would not question the integrity of the current entry, all references to this phrase seem to suggest that "a line in the sand" is a concrete, absolute boundary, or reference point that either must not be crossed or must be deliberately crossed.
My understanding, but I seem to have no references to support it, is that " a line drawn in the sand " is quite a different thing. Precisely because of the shifting nature of sand and the ephemeral nature of a line drawn in it, a line drawn in the sand is a boundary or rule, or often a code of behaviour which is rigidly imposed by those who origionally drew the line but is no longer easily seen by those who may inadvertantly "cross the line". It is similar to breaking unwritten rules: it is not that they are simply unwritten. You aren't warned about them in any way, and usually don't find out you have broken one until afterwards, if ever.
Thus.....To draw a line is to say "Thus far and no further"
To "draw a line under" is to say this argument, discussion, subject, event is now closed.
To cross a line is to transgress.
I can see that to draw a line and ask people to choose which side of the line they stand is legitimate.
However, the very essence of drawing a line in the sand is that it will disappear shortly after you drew it, however emphatically you made the gesture , and is therefore much closer to breaking unwritten rules than setting out absolute and arbitrarily chosen ones. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Robinhowell (
talk •
contribs) 10:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)reply
That (the comment by Robinhowell) is exactly my understanding of the original meaning of the phrase, which has obviously come to be roughly equivalent to 'draw a line under'. But it is precisely the addition of 'in the sand' that makes it different. My other issue with this entry is with the examples, none of which appear to be of the phrase in question; not even the Alamo example provides a citation or quotation. These should be removed and replaced with examples of the phrase. I'm currently trying to find earlier examples of the original meaning.
Sneedy (
talk) 05:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Warner cartoon
that's an interesting point. It brings to mind a classic Warner Brothers cartoon in which Yosemite Sam uses his foot to scratch a line in sand and challenges Bugs Bunny to step over it. Bugs does, compelling Sam to draw another line and repeat the challenge. Bugs crosses the new line, of course, forcing Sam to step back and draw another. The process repeats itself until Sam backs himself up and over a cliff.
165.91.64.176 (
talk) 07:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)RKHreply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was no consensus.
@harej 03:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. All similar uses are for titles using an upper case "S" and are already disambiguated.
Station1 (
talk) 05:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. No indication given that the phrase is the primary topic sought by readers entering "line in the sand" in the search box and hitting "Go". --
JHunterJ (
talk) 11:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
There are some metrics for determining primary topic at
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Extremely obvious" isn't one of them, but some of the others might support your proposal. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 12:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the acknowledgment (that others might support my proposal). By "Extremely obvious" I simply my belief was consistent with the policy explicated at
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - I meant I followed precisely the rule you cite. Implied in what you say is the point that there is some "primary topic" which would prohibit the move - or are you just being
academic? --
Ludvikus (
talk) 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose The DAB page is actually named
Line in the Sand and redirects from
Line in the sand so they would both have to be moved/modified, too. Also that DAB is sufficient. Finally, if people write "Line in the sand (phrase)" specifically into the search tool they get here. However the phrase is the primary usage, so there is an opposite argument that is logical and within Wiki guidelines.
Jubilee♫clipman 15:53, 7 October 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
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 section.
Oppose – "Only lowercase usage of this" is not a good rationale for a case-only primarytopic takeover.
Dicklyon (
talk) 06:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. There is no other article using the title "line in the sand". There are four articles using the title "Line in the Sand", and that should remain a dab page, but even if we were to disregard
WP:DIFFCAPS the phrase "line in the sand" would still be the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on the
overwhelming number of pageviews and significance.
Station1 (
talk) 09:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As someone said in some others in this series of "takeovers", DIFFCAPS properly applies when the capitalization scheme in question is very distinctive; it doesn't really work in a case like this. That would leave us with a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument for the move, and I don't think the metaphoric drawing of lines in the sand qualifies, nor does the idiom as such. It just being the original referent is irrelevant. If this were a strong PRIMARYTOPIC case, I would support the move (and am supporting 4 or 5 of the nom's concurrent moves on that basis, while opposing all the rest per the same reasoning Dicklyon provides above and that Gonnym has supplied in most of them, though not here yet. It's not the weakest case of the bunch – "line in the sand" still has a lot of currency as an idiom, but it's a very generic cliché. The concept isn't an encyclopedic topic, and the phrase may not be one either, per
WP:NOTDICT. This just isn't one of those stand-out phrases like
man's best friend or
blessing in disguise, with a rich cultural history that we can encyclopedically cover; it's just a miscellaneous collocation of word, like several other cases I'm opposing (
sea change,
silver lining,
head start, etc.). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support it gets 2,608 views compared with 347 for the other uses of Line in the Sand [
[1]] so even if we ignore DIFFCAPS it still gets over 7.5x the views of the others so its clearly primary. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SMcCandlish and
Dicklyon: do the page views convince you? Even if we assume everyone used lower case this would still be primary. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
No. If you search Google for "line in the sand", the wikipedia page it takes you to is this one, but that doesn't mean everyone who follows is actually looking to get here. Seems highly unlikely, actually; wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Dicklyon (
talk) 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Google isn't case sensitive while we are, if even Google returns the phrase it seems likely its primary and indeed when I Google line in the sand I get the phrase article and results dominated by the phrase (only 1 result on the 1st page of results isn't for the phrase) so it seems that the phrase is the clear primary topic even ignoring case (which we don't). If the phrase gets so many hits and comes up 1st on Google that's telling that its primary even by usage. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 22:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Could you be confusing cause with effect?
Dicklyon (
talk) 22:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Causing what DL just said: you Google the phrase, and Google overwhelmingly draws attention to this page, without providing links to the DAB page, so readers have little choice but to come to this page first. Given the high frequency with which this phrase is used in titles of pop-culture output, I think it's highly unlikely that most people really are coming here looking for a glorified DICDEF about the phrase itself. Part of why this might be happening is lack of a hatnote pointing to the DAB page. I've now added one, and after a while this might cause Google to adjust what it's doing. If the very first link on this page goes to an index of things with bands and TV stations on it, the spider is probably smart enough to realize that when someone looks for "line in the sand TV" they do not mean this phrase page but someone at the DAB page. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Google tends to have a bias towards commercial/popular culture so the fact that Google thinks that this topic is what people want is telling. The article includes "(phrase)" in the title so its unlikely is sending people here because of ambiguity. If I Google "Apple" I get results dominated with the company, not the fruit even though that's at
Apple and the company's at
Apple Inc.. I agree the article does have dicdeff problems but that's not really a major issue for RM. In any case I think the views, (
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) DIFFCAPS (this being the only topic called "Line in the sand" per
WP:PRECISE) and the fact that other uses are likely derived from it seems sensible to have this at the lower case base name. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 21:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Also, someone looking for "line in the sand TV" does not wind up on this page at all. Google directs them to
A Line in the Sand (TV series) and the dab page. Per
WP:NAMB, this article should not need a hatnote if it were not the primary topic. The very fact that a hatnote needed to be added is an indication that this is the primary topic.
Station1 (
talk) 07:37, 6 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.