Template:Did you know nominations/The Importance of Being Earnest (opera)
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Importance of Being Earnest (opera)
[edit]- ... that an Earnest performance necessitates the rhythmic smashing of forty dinner plates?
- Reviewed: The Angel Hotel, Abergavenny
Created by Smerus (talk). Self-nominated at 20:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
Interesting piece, love the synopsis, could think of several hooks but your choice is the best. Why the article looks like one on a dandy, I will probably never understand. Good sources, offline source accepted AGF. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
More than half of the article's readable prose appears to have been copied from the play article, without attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I read: "The following synopsis is in accordance with the Royal Opera House production, 2016." and understood that as attribution. Copied or not, I can't judge, because I don't have the program. Even without a synopsis, we have 2.5k of prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's not the program that's the issue, it's our article on The Importance of Being Earnest; see DupDet. When we copy from an older Wikipedia article, (a) this must be attributed per WP:CWW, and (b) for the purposes of DYK, the copied text forms the basis for judging a 5x expansion (ie. there must be at least 5x as much original prose). Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I read: "The following synopsis is in accordance with the Royal Opera House production, 2016." and understood that as attribution. Copied or not, I can't judge, because I don't have the program. Even without a synopsis, we have 2.5k of prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I understand better now. If the synopsis is so close, it could perhaps omitted here, referring to the play, only mentioning differences, if any? As mentioned above, the other prose of this new article is long enough for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies I am away on holiday at present, will try to clear this up on my return, including WP:CWW of which I was foolishly ignorant. But as Gerda points out, the article is long enough even if the synopsis is omitted. And it is hardly worthopaedic rewriting a synopsis when an excellent one aleady exists and can be appropriately adapted.Smerus (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Take your time. I think a link to the play's synopsis is your best choice. Rewording is a waste of time, rather give us another opera instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I have now given the attribution to the WP article on the play. Even without the entire synopsis, the article on the opera is more than the length required for a new article (which it is, or was at the time of nomination). [For reference: DYK-eligible text of opera article without text taken from play article is 3421 characters, 573 words]. I can't just give, in the opera article, a reference to the synopsis in the article on the play, as the opera has slightly different incidents, and some musical events, which I have included in my adaption of the synopsis in the opera article. It seems pointless however to rewrite the whole synopsis. In the present circumstances, (with the basis for the synopsis acknowledged and cited), is the article now, in your opinion, now eligible for DYK as a new article? With thanks, Smerus (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, by the rules the answer is no: if an article includes text copied from an older article, it cannot go through DYK as a new article but has to be considered as an expansion of the pre-existing text, and there simply isn't enough content here to qualify for that. That being said, I'd encourage you to seek additional opinions at WT:DYK to see if this case warrants an exception to that rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
To save heartache (following a debate at WT:DYK) I have now rewritten an abbreviated synopsis section which removes all text taken from the article on the play. Hope this is now OK.Smerus (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- teh rulez, teh rulez, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- nice TFA today, btw, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)