Template:Did you know nominations/Lou surnames
- 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: promoted by — Maile (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Lou (surname 娄), Lou (surname 楼)
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- Reviewed: Stapes, History of the Great Wall of China
Created by Zanhe (talk). Self nominated at 06:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC).
Both articles are new (created in mainspace) and long enough, at 1718 and 1790 bytes. Sources properly cited; ref links working, and shouldn't be any paraphrasing issues, as all sources are in Chinese. Hook is accurate, cited, and, heh, interesting. Cloudchased (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Given the amount of overlap in content between these two articles, one of the two cannot be considered to have 1500 characters of original prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Really? Although item #1 in both articles appears to be largely similar, differences still exist, and although both articles' content appears to be similar at first glance, they are markedly different in some spots (such as Cao versus Ying in item #2 in each article). Cloudchased (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, the two articles do look similar at the first glance, because they are about related topics with some overlapping history. But if you look closely, they only share three identical sentences: two on the basic background of the Qi state, one about Emperor Xiaowen's sinification policy. All other similarities are only in sentence structure, not in substance. Besides, I've always been under the impression that it's okay for related new articles in the same hook to have overlapping content, and have seen a few such hooks promoted before. After all, the content is new and the articles only occupy a single slot on the main page. -Zanhe (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Removing only the substantially identical content still puts both articles well under the 1500-character minimum[1][2]; it's okay to have overlapping content so long as each bolded article meets the minimum requirements without that content, and these don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I disagree with your opinion. If two or more related articles share the same hook, I don't see any reason why content shared between them should not count. That being said, I have no desire to get into an unproductive argument. I've now expanded both articles with new (and unshared) material, and they should now comfortably meet the length requirement even if the shared content is excluded. -Zanhe (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Zanhe's expansion work resolves the concern that Nikkimaria expressed. I also don't entirely agree with Nikkimaria's position on this (I've seen a number of instances in DYK where multiple-article hooks shared some content, and that shared content wasn't deducted from the length requirement), but the expansion improves the articles, so it's all to the good. --Orlady (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
