Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Dragonmead

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: rejected by Allen3 talk 09:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Dragonmead

[edit]
(
)

5x expanded by 7&6=thirteen (☎), Yunshui (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) at 10:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

  • Urgh. There doesn't appear to be sufficient expansion. In this edit, Sionk removed a large chunk of material which, although the edit summary doesn't mention it, was a copyvio. That left 2086 prose characters. Copyvios are excluded from DYK expansion calculations. Further paring, by Yunshui, brought it down to 897, but unless that was also copyvio material, the prose portion must be included in the calculation, and the starting point for expansion is 2086. It's currently 4969, which would be sufficient only if you can demonstrate that the second chunk of prose removed was a copyvio; otherwise, an expansion to 10,430 would be required. (See rule A4.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment The article was greatly expanded, more than 5X. I did not remove any of the prior text. These were all new improvements and text. We went from 3 references to 37, plus a dozen or so notes. I know the references and notes don't count. But this is all new content.
On February 20, when we started to add to this article at its smallest relevant point it had 761 characters of text. Currently it has 4860 5242 5600 characters of text which is more than 5X expansion.
I concede that the high water mark for the article was 15,908 characters. If that is the relevant measuring point then there was a contraction, not any expansion. I for one do not intend to try to do a 5X expansion to 75,000 characters. I don't know why the prior content was removed, although the edit summaries said something about promotion.
This is rather like dealing with a "imputed income" in a child support case. If that is the benchmark then it doesn't qualify for a DYK.
The relevant rule states: "A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article. Twofold expansion for newly sourced BLPs similarly means from the version prior to the expansion and addition of sources."
I would only urge that the changes were very large. The before and after is clear, and it is 'new content' within the spirit and intent of the rules the expansion is more than enough We went from Point A to Point B As a matter of fact, it was more than a 5X expansion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Given the situation that a sizable portion was block quotes and the majority of the text was a copyvio - this should meet the DYK requirements for expansion. Though, the work certainly covers the majority and with perhaps a bit more work could pass GA and be eligible for DYK anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's simply not how DYK works. The block quotes are not included in the prose count, so they're completely irrelevant. And, as I said above, my calculations were done on the article after the copyvio material was removed. If we didn't have this rule, then any article could easily qualify for a five times expansion: a user or their sockpuppets or meatpuppets could slash the article down to a tiny stub, then the user could come along and expand it. (I've actually seen someone try to do this for a BLP, and they tried to get away with a two times expansion of the resulting stub.) I'm certainly not implying that any such thing happened here; I'm sure the nom was made in good faith. Yes, I hope you go through GA and gain eligibility that way.
    BTW, 7&6=thirteen, your prose counts are incorrect. For example, you list the "smallest relevant point" as 761, but my figure of 897 is the correct one. And you just updated the current size to 5242, but it's actually 5855. I see that you have DYKcheck installed in your monobook.js. Do you use some method other than DYKcheck to determine prose size? Note that if DYKcheck doesn't work for you because you're using a skin other than monobook, you can install DYKcheck in common.js (or move your monobook.js there) and it will work for whatever skin you're using. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Mandarax I was doing this with my word processor. I was doing this using the wordcount function for the text only. I am an archeon and use Corel WordPerfect. The article is bigger than your last count. Much bigger now (although there are a lots of tables, infobox, references and notes which don't count, I know, but all have been created from scratch. I'll try to work out using your suggestion.
I can be back in a few weeks when this goes to GA. We have more references than Budweiser. So if this is too cumbersome I can live with the result. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The nomination is still well short of 5x expansion over a month later (6144 prose characters up from 2086, nearly 3x). Marking for closure as unsuccessful, but it can be renominated when it is listed as a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dragonmead&oldid=655323463"