Template:Did you know nominations/List of pastries

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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Referencing

List of pastries

(

)

... that ladies' navels, young girls' breasts and lips of the beauty are sweet Turkish pastries?

Created/expanded by ACEOREVIVED (talk), Northamerica1000 (talk). Nominated by Colonel Warden (talk) at 17:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

- Obviously the AfD would have to be closed before this passes, but if you had waited it would be out of the 5 day window. Unfortunately the article has only 674 characters by WP:DYKcheck, and it would need to be at 1500 to qualify here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there special rules for lists at DYK? Anyway, the article is 46K and still growing rapidly and so there's a lot more than 1500 bytes of prose. Perhaps the DYKCheck can't handle tables? The AFD seems likely to close as a Keep - we just need to wait for the close. Warden (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I see around 29k. And it's now "Lady's navel". Also, the image is tricky because it can't really be of one thing, but of many it doesn't show at 16px. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Readable prose, per DYK definition, does not include tables. See WP:DYKSG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DYKSG does not actually say that prose in tables is excluded. It says that tables of contents don't count but that's not the issue here. Excluding table prose would be silly because this would encourage reformatting each entry as a section, say, just to satisfy a poorly written script. The common-sense requirement is that there should be substantial amount of new content and we seem to have that here. Warden (talk)

Fair enough, the list contains prose within a table, and I see no reason why that prose shouldn't count; prose is prose. Excluding tables seems to be because most tables are statistical, which isn't the case here. That being said, the list does not contain at least one reference per entry as required by DYKSG. The article seems to rely on references on the listed pastry articles, but many of these are also unreferenced. The list does not adhere to the apparent criteria for inclusion, that being specific types of pastries. The intro says that the five types of pastry are "shortcrust pastry, filo pastry, choux pastry, flaky pastry and puff pastry", but two of the first five claim to be "yeast pastries". Other examples are Coussin de Lyon which contains no pastry, Chokladboll which isn't even cooked, Fig roll which is a cookie (by its own source), Flaky pastry which is a category of pastry listed in the intro, etc.. Many of these are valid types of pastries, but the criteria for inclusion here appears to be that the article links to pastry. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've already been pruning the list of entries which didn't belong and have just looked more closely at the two "yeast pastries". One was a sweet bread which didn't belong - the reference to pastry seems to have been mistranslation from German. In the other case, the reference to yeast seems to have been erroneous. I have merged that entry with the one for baklava as it was just a regional variation. I'll take a look at the other entries and ensure that they all have a reference or are pruned back too. Just give us a day or two please. Warden (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't stress about the time, there is no problem with taking a few days to address issues (it is already showing improvement since I last posted). I've seen several articles sit in the DYK nomination list for 1-2 months recently before being successfully passed, so it won't be kicked out for needing a few days. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get back here when you're ready, so just use the {{DYK?again}} template at that time to let everyone know that the article needs another look. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's not remove all entries from the article that are currently unsourced and are actual pastries, per WP:PRESERVE, just so a snippet from the article can become a DYK. That would be a shame. Rather, just work on adding more reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Referencing issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment, this is probably one of the best list-type articles I've seen. I'm so glad I've been looking at the articles in the DYK queue, they're fascinating!Insomesia (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)