Template:Did you know nominations/Dia dos Namorados
- The following discussion 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: by PumpkinSky talk 22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Dia dos Namorados
[edit]- ... that rather than celebrate February's Valentine's Day, which often conflicts with Brazilian Carnival, Brazilians celebrate Dia dos Namorados in June?
Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 23:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC).
- Reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/MFi Program.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You copied some decent-size chunks of text from Valentine's Day into this article. Since you attributed it properly, this is fine from a copyright/internal policy perspective, but the entire article right now is close enough to the DYK minimum that subtracting the copied content puts it below the minimum. Please expand it a bit more, and let me know when you think you've put enough in — I don't see any other problems, except for citation #4, which isn't to a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Is that a relevant concern since Valentine's Day is not a former DYK and thus all of its content is new to the main page?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes; the rules say that it needs to be new to Wikipedia, not just new to the Main Page. I think Rules 1a and 1b are relevant here: "For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than five days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article. Former redirects, stubs, and other articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles. The length of both the old and new versions of the article is calculated based on prose character count, not word count. Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references; it is calculated using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js or a similar extension." Of course, there's nothing wrong with including the text from another page as long as the article has enough new text, and once I even approved a DYK with text copied from somewhere else — someone had put a huge block of text into one article, and one day later someone else created a new page by cutting out the block of text, so I approved it because the text was only one day old. As far as I can see, however, this text has been on Wikipedia for a good while, so we can't count it toward the minimum. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- With that in mind, is it acceptable to translate text from a foreign language WP?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be a problem; I'm pretty sure that I've seen pages at DYK that are nothing but translations from foreign language articles. The point is that it's new to the English Wikipedia and not simply copied from an external source that's in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Before I go down that road, could you assess the amount of new content now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is also another rule in play here. WP:DYKSG#A5 reads: "If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." So the minimum size may not be 1500 new prose characters, but 5x the size of the text copied from the Valentine's Day article. For example, if those copied chunks total 450 prose characters, the article must be 2250 prose characters in all; if 500, then 2500; and so on. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Can I get a ruling on how much text is considered to be copied from the prior article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is also another rule in play here. WP:DYKSG#A5 reads: "If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." So the minimum size may not be 1500 new prose characters, but 5x the size of the text copied from the Valentine's Day article. For example, if those copied chunks total 450 prose characters, the article must be 2250 prose characters in all; if 500, then 2500; and so on. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Before I go down that road, could you assess the amount of new content now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be a problem; I'm pretty sure that I've seen pages at DYK that are nothing but translations from foreign language articles. The point is that it's new to the English Wikipedia and not simply copied from an external source that's in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- With that in mind, is it acceptable to translate text from a foreign language WP?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes; the rules say that it needs to be new to Wikipedia, not just new to the Main Page. I think Rules 1a and 1b are relevant here: "For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than five days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article. Former redirects, stubs, and other articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles. The length of both the old and new versions of the article is calculated based on prose character count, not word count. Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references; it is calculated using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js or a similar extension." Of course, there's nothing wrong with including the text from another page as long as the article has enough new text, and once I even approved a DYK with text copied from somewhere else — someone had put a huge block of text into one article, and one day later someone else created a new page by cutting out the block of text, so I approved it because the text was only one day old. As far as I can see, however, this text has been on Wikipedia for a good while, so we can't count it toward the minimum. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Follow-up: by my count (which was a bit rough and may have missed some similarities), 496 prose characters of the current 2289 total are introduced from the Valentine's Day article (the large chunk on June 12 wasn't an exact copy, but did duplicate several large phrases), requiring a 5x expansion to 2480 prose characters, or about 200 more than you have now. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have beefed it up a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Follow-up: by my count (which was a bit rough and may have missed some similarities), 496 prose characters of the current 2289 total are introduced from the Valentine's Day article (the large chunk on June 12 wasn't an exact copy, but did duplicate several large phrases), requiring a 5x expansion to 2480 prose characters, or about 200 more than you have now. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I can find no indication of reliability for this or this source; some of the text seems unnecessarily repetitive and redundant, perhaps as a result of requests to pad up the size of this article-- text added should be based on reliable sources, and we shouldn't be saying the same thing repetitively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have eliminated those two sources and as much redundancy as I could find.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)
- Read through all this, but I don't have enough time on my work break to complete a review. I'm off work at 4PM your time, Tony, and I'll try to go through things in more detail then. Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're right at the minimum length. I've not yet checked the sources, which are the only other thing that might hold this up; I'll approve it if the sources are okay. Check back in a little bit. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Again a problem on the sourcing; numbers reflect this revision's citation numbers. #1 is a blog (see the bottom of the page; it's powered by Wordpress); since you're only using it as a source for St Anthony's death, couldn't you find something more solid? #2 and #3 appear to be major media sources, so no problems; both seem to have details you're omitting, so couldn't you add some more text from them? #4 is fine, since it's Google being used as a source for what Google did. #5 is About.com, so it's definitely not a good source. #6 is TIME, so no problems; I can't find the information in the online blurb, but it's plainly truncated, so I'm guessing you drew the information from other parts of the article. #7 is U.S. News & World Report, so no problems. Please find a new source for the information from source #5 or replace it with other information from a reliable source, as well as finding a better source for St Anthony's death. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're right at the minimum length. I've not yet checked the sources, which are the only other thing that might hold this up; I'll approve it if the sources are okay. Check back in a little bit. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Read through all this, but I don't have enough time on my work break to complete a review. I'm off work at 4PM your time, Tony, and I'll try to go through things in more detail then. Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
