Template:Did you know nominations/whiteandgold
- 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 Allen3 talk 10:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Dress (viral phenomenon)
[edit]- ... that neuroscientists believed the opinion of the public that a certain dress was coloured white and gold was a result of chromatic adaptation?
- ALT1:... that "the dress" actually was blue and black?
- ALT2:... that a member of a Scottish folk music group helped spread a dispute surrounding the colour of a dress to Tumblr and beyond?
- Reviewed: Gesomyrmex pulcher
- Comment: We need someone to look at the sources and choose which would be the most accurate article to link this to, phenomenon-wise.
Created by User:DavidK93 (User talk:DavidK93), User:ViperSnake151 (User talk:ViperSnake151), User:6033CloudyRainbowTrail (User talk:6033CloudyRainbowTrail), and User:Nahnah4 (User talk:Nahnah4). Nominated by ViperSnake151 (User talk:ViperSnake151) at 17:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
- Comment: I think this would be great for April Fools Day. Also, ALT2 should read "colour", as this originated in the UK '''tAD''' (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: ViperSnake151, why have you listed this as a self nom, implying you created and expanded the article, when you clearly haven't? You've barely contributed to the prose at all (the only major thing you did was remove a large chunk). The creators should be listed as User:Natg 19 and User:Nahnah4 because the former created it and added significant prose, and the latter also contributed significant prose. You should only be the nominator. These two editors should also be getting credit. I've taken the liberty of amending this for you. (I also corrected your sp in colour mentioned by the editor above). — ₳aron 09:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Um, no. The original article, whiteandgold, ended up getting merged into a differently-titled article about the same subject. But rather than delete the duplicate and merge my original version there (as I repeatedly suggested), they effectively did a cut and paste merge. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Which was the right thing to do.... — ₳aron 09:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Since the articles were merged at an early stage, the major contributors to both articles should get credit. User:DavidK93 and User:6033CloudyRainbowTrail also seem to have made significant contributions. (Histmerges don't work for pages that were developed in parallel at the same time; I've added a tag to the article talk page noting the copied text.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, it's new enough, long enough, within policy, no copyvios detected, QPQ done. All three hooks are within policy and cited, preference for ALT1.- As far as credit, from looking at the histories of both The dress (viral phenomenon) and whiteandgold, I estimate that User:DavidK93 contributed about 6100 bytes, User:ViperSnake151 4900 bytes, User:6033CloudyRainbowTrail 2400 bytes, and User:Nahnah4 1000 bytes. User:Natg 19 did not contribute significant prose, but merely performed the merge from whiteandgold and did some work on references. I've adjusted the credit above to reflect this.
- Good to go. Let's get this on the Main Page quickly because everyone will have forgotten all about this in a few days. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Viper added himself back into the Created by parameter, after I had removed him, because he has not significantly contributed, unlike the others. He should only be a nominator. — ₳aron 08:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Which was the right thing to do.... — ₳aron 09:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Um, no. The original article, whiteandgold, ended up getting merged into a differently-titled article about the same subject. But rather than delete the duplicate and merge my original version there (as I repeatedly suggested), they effectively did a cut and paste merge. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
