Talk:Dun dun duuun!

Professional sound production Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction 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.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

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 Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing issues remain and the merge discussion is leaning towards a merge.

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

The Walter variation.

... that no one knows where it came from ... Dun dun duuun? Source: tait 2022
- ALT0a: ... that no one knows where it came from ... Dun dun duuun!?
QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Saumlaki

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 13:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I would argue the requirement for a trailing ? should be relaxed in this example. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the title of the article is "Dun dun duuun!", perhaps the question mark could be replaced with an interrobang (‽). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - ehhh, that implies sarcasm/irony though... we could just leave 'em next to each other. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - TIL there is a thing called a "interrobang". Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added free version of the sound. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review forthcoming Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General eligibility:
New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - n
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - n
Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This article is a great idea and it will be awesome to have the sound on the frontpage (which appears to be licensed fine) but "Does the article contain at least one citation to a reliable source for each paragraph and direct quote?" - right now it doesn't, although there are primary sources which are all youtube links. Maybe these sites can help 1, 2, 3. Also the claim "no one knows where it came from" is not mentioned and cited in the article presently. On the !? thing, I think ALT0a works fine. Mujinga (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Sorry, I did not see this review. A quick look shows every para does indeed have a cite, and I'm not sure I understand the bit about direct quotes (there are none) or primary sources (its a sound). The three links provided in the review are (1) a blog post, (2) talking about the famous Jaws theme (duuuh dun, duuuuuh dun...), and (3) an article about rebuilding a bridge (???). Not sure what to make of this, but seems good as is to me. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga: Is it ready? --evrik ^(talk) 01:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the issues I identified six weeks haven't been solved and now there's a merge discussion raising the same problems at Talk:Sound_effect#Proposed_merge_of_Dun_dun_duuun!_into_Sound_effect Mujinga (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Destructive edits by Escape Orbit

Rather than discussing them in the Talk section, as would be appropriate, user Escape Orbit has removed nearly all of the sources for this article, leaving behind all of the information sourced from them, and littered the article with citation needed flags for what is now arguably plagiarized content. When that edit was reverted, the user immediately reverted that and insisted that non-OR sources were "invitations to indulge in Original Research," which is not a valid reason to remove sources. I contend that this behavior borders on vandalism, but I will not be continuing to engage with this user.

This means that nearly this entire article is now content stolen from other sources without attribution and the article's quality has suffered substantially. If other users feel like reverting this vandalism until the vandal gives up and leaves, I support that decision.

- 165.23.220.100 (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A statement like Its first documented use was in 1942 in CBS Radio's Suspense does need a secondary source, though. This claim can't be verified by simply listening to the original episode itself, as the previous footnote suggested. Belbury (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]