Template:Did you know nominations/Ted Schmidt
- 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: promoted by MPJ-DK 14:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ted Schmidt
[edit]- ... that Peter Paige originally auditioned for the role of Ted Schmidt in the television show Queer as Folk?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Bickham
- Comment: Hook fact uses a book source and Google has an exact preview of the page with the fact in it here
Created by Raintheone (talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC).
Accept as a 5x expansion; this may not literally be a 5x expansion but a lot of pre-expansion content did not meet our policies and had to be stripped out so have credited it as a 5x expansion based on the reading of "substantive expansion." Everything else, copyvio, hook interest and citability, length, etc. is okay. GTG. (Per decision in ANI a second review is needed.) LavaBaron (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
As noted by LavaBaron above, second review required on Lava Baron's reviews, per WT:DYK LavaBaron's editing restrictions. — Maile (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm confirming most aspects of LavaBaron's review, but I'm unsure about the expansion. There is certainly a major improvement from the original article. My question to LavaBaron is how did the pre-rewrite revisions not meet Wikipedia policies? That will be key to letting this article potentially be promoted. Raymie (t • c) 19:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Raymie By quantitative analysis of byte count it was not a 5x expansion. However, by qualitative assessment I'd be inclined to count it as a 5x expansion as the nom removed or overwrote a large amount of uncited content; I have traditionally invoked WP:IGNOREALLRULES to discount uncited content as a baseline in a 5x expansion, otherwise, one could find an article that consisted of nothing more than random strings of characters and disqualify it if that was deleted and five substantial, referenced paragraphs inserted instead. However, I know not everyone has this interpretative perspective so I'll defer to your judgment on the question. Please don't hesitate to let me know of any further questions. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I certainly understand that on some occasions, an article may merit expansion consideration even if it is not a raw 5x expansion. I had that happen with Jorge Triana Tena. The article had been almost completely rewritten in untranslated Spanish by a well-meaning editor, but I translated and expanded the article slightly above what the old Spanish revision had and much larger over the last English revision. I don't see that sort of reasoning working here, which is unfortunate as this article has indeed improved. Raymie (t • c) 22:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think you make a valid observation. For collaborative reasons I'd usually amend my review at this time as it's not that big of a deal, however, I'm currently obligated to deliver 100% perfect reviews so I'm highly disincentivized to offer any compromise once I've logged and registered a review. I preface what I'm about to say with that so you'll understand this is nothing personal; anyway, I passionately and aggressively disagree with you and re-assert that the uncited content previously present in this article should not be counted toward the pre-improvement character-count total as per our longstanding conventions. This article should be passed and I'm going to go to the wall to see it is. LavaBaron (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate the constraints placed on you, but I would like to have another opinion besides the two of us on this matter, as I'm rather skeptical here. Raymie (t • c) 03:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why this isn't in fact considered a new creation, since the article history indicates that it was moved from userspace to mainspace on July 29, 2016, the same day it was nominated for DYK? I don't understand why 5x is relevant. Articles can sit in userspace for as long as desired—even three years—and still be considered new when moved to mainspace. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that an article moved to mainspace over another was an expansion, but I think I am in error here. "Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage or at articles for creation or in the Draft namespace and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." Obviously, this current iteration started in userspace. While this should be clarified, I will give it a tick. Raymie (t • c) 22:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Raymie, an article moved to mainspace over an extant mainspace article is indeed an expansion for DYK purposes. That isn't relevant here. This article wasn't moved to mainspace over another version of the article because there hadn't been a mainspace article at the time it was moved. The article was started in userspace in 2013 and worked on there for three years. The first appearance of a Ted Schmidt article in mainspace was when it was moved on July 29. (I took a look at the Queer as Folk template and it pointed to the "List of Characters" entry for Ted Schmidt until July 29 of this year, when it switched over to the new-to-mainspace article.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate the constraints placed on you, but I would like to have another opinion besides the two of us on this matter, as I'm rather skeptical here. Raymie (t • c) 03:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think you make a valid observation. For collaborative reasons I'd usually amend my review at this time as it's not that big of a deal, however, I'm currently obligated to deliver 100% perfect reviews so I'm highly disincentivized to offer any compromise once I've logged and registered a review. I preface what I'm about to say with that so you'll understand this is nothing personal; anyway, I passionately and aggressively disagree with you and re-assert that the uncited content previously present in this article should not be counted toward the pre-improvement character-count total as per our longstanding conventions. This article should be passed and I'm going to go to the wall to see it is. LavaBaron (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I certainly understand that on some occasions, an article may merit expansion consideration even if it is not a raw 5x expansion. I had that happen with Jorge Triana Tena. The article had been almost completely rewritten in untranslated Spanish by a well-meaning editor, but I translated and expanded the article slightly above what the old Spanish revision had and much larger over the last English revision. I don't see that sort of reasoning working here, which is unfortunate as this article has indeed improved. Raymie (t • c) 22:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Raymie By quantitative analysis of byte count it was not a 5x expansion. However, by qualitative assessment I'd be inclined to count it as a 5x expansion as the nom removed or overwrote a large amount of uncited content; I have traditionally invoked WP:IGNOREALLRULES to discount uncited content as a baseline in a 5x expansion, otherwise, one could find an article that consisted of nothing more than random strings of characters and disqualify it if that was deleted and five substantial, referenced paragraphs inserted instead. However, I know not everyone has this interpretative perspective so I'll defer to your judgment on the question. Please don't hesitate to let me know of any further questions. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
