Template:Did you know nominations/The Marshall Mathers LP 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Allen3 talk 10:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The Marshall Mathers LP 2, Berzerk (song), Survival (Eminem song)[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Eminem Eminem

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 01:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC).

  • Give me a little bit of time and I'll review these today.... – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Berzerk New article, well sourced, good to go. I converted a couple of bare URLs.
  • Survival Tricky article history, with the article being created and then converted back to a redirect a few times. I don't understand why it was redirected so many times, since by mid-August it did seem to be acceptable for a stub. Anyway, Tony saw that on August 28 and that's when it became a stand-alone article for good. By the time he removed the under construction template, it was above 1500 characters of prose. So this article also gets the
  • Marshall Mathers LP 2 Also little harder to discern based on that edit history, but it was also newly spawned from a redirect and expanded to a sufficient size within the timeframe of the nomination.
  • The hook isn't the most interesting in the world, so a more interesting one may help. I think it's okay to hold until the release date of November 5 if noone objects. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • While the "Berzerk" and The Marshall Mathers LP 2 articles qualify as new, I'm afraid that "Survival" can only be considered an expansion. Although the article was put back to a redirect a number of times, the bulk of the article was already written; indeed, the 806-character version as it was on August 22, 2013, is identical to the version posted by TonyTheTiger six days later, on August 28, 2013, except for the template on the first line. (Earlier versions from August 15—the day the article was begun—and August 16 were 807 characters, according to DYK check.) So August 28 is the day on which the 5x expansion began, and 5x of 807 is version from August 22 is the base from which the expansion has to be counted, and 5x would be 4035 prose characters; the article currently only has 1835 characters. Since much of the original prose has survived intact, or with minor modifications, this can't count as a new article; an additional 2200 prose characters will be required for this article to qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Tony, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you mean the temporary zero-out by Koala on the 25th, then no. If you mean the article as it was left by 67.167.47.228 on the 25th before being zeroed-out, that's also 806 characters. The point is that your article, when you started your expansion on August 28, was identical to these versions: much of the article you ended up with still has the words from these earlier versions. The expansion has to count as starting from them as a base and source, so you need to get to 4035 prose characters for this to be a valid 5x expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes I screwed up my question. There were several dates where 806 or 807 characters of prose were present at this article all of which were zeroed. My question is do I have to use an early one or can I use the article start date of the latest date when it had 806. Is there a rule against that? If not why not use the latest date of reverstion to 806 or 807 from which the prose got zeroed out as the start date? I will not be expanding this text to 4035. So if we can not use a later expansion start date, I'll just take 2 article credits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Tony, it doesn't matter which of those dates you start the 5x expansion from: the baseline would be still be 806 or 807 pre-existing prose characters, and the 5x expansion requirement would still be 4030 or 4035, which you say you won't be doing. The article existed already—it was created on August 15—and it isn't eligible for a "new" 1500 minimum or a zero size. If you withdraw "Survival"—all you need to do is unbold it while leaving it linked in the hook, and remove the relevant DYKmakes—then this is ready to go as a two-article hook, and can be moved to the holding area for November 5. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Isn't it typical to consider an article that is recreated following a AFD, CSD, or PROD as new and wasn't this technically speedied back to zero several times.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've asked Crisco 1492 to post here on that and the other issues, and will go with his more experienced opinion, whatever that might be. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I'm not weighing in here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Why don't we just open it up for another opinion. You and the original reviewer disagree. I thought the original reviewer was correct. You haven't really shown me any rule otherwise. I think we need another opinion from someone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been following this as it's been developing, and I understand the argument against approving "Survival". I would be fine with another reviewer giving their opinion on the matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I came across this by chance. I'm all for running articles on DYK if content has been significantly improved, and for even discounting previous text if it was nothing but trash (I got something like that going on with TopNotch right now). But in this case there is not, in my opinion, enough new content in relation to the content that was kept in the article--in essence, therefore, I agree with BlueMoonset. Sorry Tony. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I made a quick tour of the article histories, and I agree that Berzerk is new for DYK purposes, but Survival is not. The history of the album article is peculiar, but it's reasonable to call it "new" as of 25 August, so it also is new. So I agree with Drmies, who agrees with BlueMoonset. --Orlady (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Restoring Muboshgu's approval tick for the two articles, "Berzerk (song)" and The Marshall Mathers LP 2. Survival was not approved, and the DYKmakes and bolding for it have been removed. Moving to special occasion holding area under November 5 per request above. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not comfortable with putting on MainPage any "featured" links to wikiarticles about commercial products on the day such items become available for purchase. I don't want to see people complain that it's free "frontpage advertising" on Wikipedia promoting these items. (Increasing visibility in the Internet counts as promotion, imho.) Perhaps there should be a discussion on WT:DYK, but it's almost bedtime for me soon, so I won't start a new thread there. I'll stop filling up Prep 3, and let someone else finish the set. --PFHLai (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I started the discussion on WT:DYK#Should the hook on Template:Did you know nominations/The Marshall Mathers LP 2 be promoted on Prep 3 today?, anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I was considering promoting this to a prep-area, but do we need a hook where a fact about the rejected article (Survival) are included? Wouldn't it be better to remove that fact from the hook, to have a hook like my proposal below? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Mentoz86, there's nothing wrong with including an extra fact, and I thought that the Call of Duty: Ghosts tidbit made the hook significantly more interesting. Promoters can always cut down hooks if they want to on the theory that shorter is better, but we've run hooks before where one of the nominated bold articles has been reduced to a regular link when it didn't qualify as new or sufficiently expanded. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Marshall_Mathers_LP_2&oldid=580877594"