Template:Did you know nominations/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PFHLai (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the original script written by Oliver Stone for Conan the Barbarian featured 10,000 mutants and was called a "total drug fever dream" by the film's director, John Milius?

• Comment: For quick reference, the information and sources (cites) for this hook can be found in the first paragraph of the Scripting section.
• Reviewed: Gerhard Tötemeyer

Created/expanded by Jappalang (talk). Self nom at 01:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not expanded fivefold according to DYKcheck. Yomangani^talk 16:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually he did. Before he edited it, it was 27,617 bytes. Times that by 5 and its 138,085. When Jappalang edited it, it was 149,510 bytes. So that means its a little over 5 times expanded. GamerPro64 20:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

DYKCheck looks at the qualifying prose though, not the raw size. Yomangani^talk 22:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I had thought that an expansion of such a size would have easily exceed by 5x any additions since I last visited the page. I have no issue with disqualifying this hook for DYK due to its shortfall of 5x expansion (although I hope there can be a consensus to run it per IAR as suggested by Wizardman below). Nevertheless, thank you, Yomangani, much for your copy-edits to the early parts of the article. They are much appreciated (I changed back the tense for the verbs of "trio", which is a singular noun according to dictionaries.[1]). Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a collective noun, so is normally treated as a plural for verb agreement unless it is the defining aspect of the item (as in "a pair of shoes"). Yomangani^talk 01:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The prose went from 15k to 71k. That's close enough to 5x that we can IAR it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would we want to ignore the rule in this case when we insist on at least a fivefold expansion on other articles? Yomangani^talk 01:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the expansion itself is bigger than most articles on the site, let alone nearly all articles that come through here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Then we should have a sliding scale for expansions rather than the 5x rule. Anyway, let it through if you think doing so will improve the encyclopedia. Yomangani^talk 01:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• DYK is already coming under fire for "not following consensus" and whatnot. If DYK breaks its own rules, we are just giving more ammunition to its detractors. This is a great expansion, and I agree with the assessment at WikiProject Film that it could make FA. (Good luck with that, btw). However, it is 4.5k chars short of qualifying for DYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  That type of attitude is exactly why I stopped touching DYK and joined the detractors; the always-increasing bureaucratization in areas where it's not needed is ridiculous. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Every part of the main page is bureaucratized to some extent, with politics playing another large part. As I said, it is a great expansion, and more than worthy of FA. However, we should abide to the general consensus regarding what is accepted, and length is one of them. If you would like a third opinion, I could post a request at the discussion page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think in light of the above, it would be best to archive this and save everyone the trouble. Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, in case anybody does want to promote it, everything is fine apart from the 5x expansion. Age, sources, neutrality are OK. No copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing that I can see. Hook is fine (though that section in the article looks to be thin ice for BLP issues). ALT1: that Oliver Stone's Conan the Barbarian was set in a post-apocalyptic world and featured 10,000 mutants? Yomangani^talk 15:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am for running it and ignoring the bean counters. I think the article falls within the spirit of DYK: it may not be 5x expansion by the number of bytes, but it is more than 5x expansion in quality and in depth. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Really people? This is absolutely ridiculous. For large expansions like Jappalang's, we have always IAR'ed them through (assuming they meet the other requirements). Per Yomangani and my reading of the article, this looks good to go. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    • FWIW, my vote would be to use it - I think DYK gains for inclusion of articles like this from time to time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I fold, due to massive consensus. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)