Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/A.C.A.B.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 11:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

A.C.A.B.

(
)
ACAB in Chile
ACAB in Chile
  • ... that the acronym A.C.A.B. is written as a slogan, catchphrase in graffiti, tattoos, and sometimes numerically rendered as "1312"? Terry Victor; Tom Dalzell (2007). The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-134-61534-6.

5x expanded by Evrik (talk). Self-nominated at 05:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

Suggesting some more interesting alt hooks
ALT1: ... that a Spanish woman was arrested for carrying a bag that said A.C.A.B. accompanied by the phrase All Cats Are Beautiful? [1]
ALT2: ... that A.C.A.B. is a slogan used by both racist and anti-racist skinheads? [2]
ALT3: ... that while use of the phrase All Cops Are Bastards dates as far back as 1920, the acronym A.C.A.B. has only been in use since the 1970s? article cites this to Partridge, Eric (1986). A Dictionary of Catch Phrases. Taylor & Francis. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-415-05916-9.
— Wug·a·po·des​ 21:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Personally, I love ALT1. It's sourced, and probably a perfect hook for the quirky slot. — Maile (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Alt 1 is acceptable to me. --evrik (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Date, size, refs, neutrality, expansion, copyvio spotcheck, QPQ etc. all GTG. I'd suggest adding translations to 'variants'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --evrik (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi again. @Evrik: I don't understand how you're figuring the 5x expansion. Even though the Prosecution history was in a list, it was mostly sourced. It seems to me this is more of a 2x expansion. Yoninah (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: On May 28 (1278 characters (211 words)). Currently it is 10,227 characters (1700 words). The text in the "prosecution history" section was converted into paragraphs. However, other sections have been added, like the "In popular culture" and the "Variants" section. There were roughly 1500 characters (300 words) in the "prosecution history" section which, would bring the total count on May 28 to 2800 characters (500 words), including the new sections, there are now 12,500 characters (2050 words). Counting ALL the text, that would mean the article needs another 1500 characters.
I was using the DYK tool when I nominated this. I'm curious, what do you say the character counts are? If needed, I can drop another paragraph or two into this work. --evrik (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The lists were converted into paragraphs, and it was copyedited. I went back and looked at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria, and it says that lists aren't counted as part of the "Prose character count". I think this can go forward. --evrik (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: would you mind commenting here? I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that an extensive and fully-cited list (not just a short series of points) that was converted into prose counts toward a 5x expansion. Yoninah (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, in the past, when nominations have come up short of 5x and had bulleted or table sections that weren't counted, one way we've suggested that the nominator get to 5x is by turning that list or table into prose. Those sections can be fairly extensive, yet not counted by DYKcheck, which is our gold standard (though imperfect). The expansion rules are very careful to talk about prose characters, and lists and tables are not considered prose even if they seemingly contain some. I'd admittedly be skeptical of a nomination that qualified simply by the editing act of removing list formatting, but that's far from the case here: almost 1750 prose characters come from the list and 7000+ completely new prose characters were added beyond that. (Indeed, if that section had been left as a list and nothing moved out of it, the expansion would be from 1278 to around 8500.) My concern at the moment is the article's stability: it was just protected for 14 days yesterday, and I don't think we'd want it to hit the main page just as it loses that protection. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the explanation, BlueMoonset. I understand the logic and am replacing the tick per Piotrus' review. But we will hold off on promoting this until mid-July. Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Can we have it go on DYK on July 13? If it is scheduled to go earlier, I'll request the protection be removed sooner. --evrik (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Evrik: I'm impartial on the date. Do you have a special occasion request for July 13? Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: July 13 was the day before the protection was set to expire. I really don't care about the date ... I just want to be done with the nomination. It can go earlier. Whenever the protection comes off, the silliness will start again. --evrik (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Evrik: I understand. But from DYK's point of view, we have to make sure the article is stable. Let's take a look at it after the protection is removed and see what happens. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • On second thought, should we run it now that it is protected? @BlueMoonset:? Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • yes. --evrik (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I think running it now that it's protected—I think we can assume that it will remain stable for these two weeks—and before that protection expires is a good thing, so it should run no later than July 13. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OK. I looked it over and do not see any citations for the list of translated terms under "Variants". Numerous points under "In popular culture" also need to be sourced. Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Point 1 (Variants):Each of those is taken directly from the corresponding language pages, with the exception of the Polish, which has its own page on the en.wiki. Does this really need to be cited? Point 2 Every line has a citation --evrik (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: I added the cross wiki links. --evrik (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Restoring tick. Yoninah (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/A.C.A.B.&oldid=965819021"