Template:Did you know nominations/Beer, Beer, Beer


 * 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 23:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Beer, Beer, Beer

 * ... that Charlie Mopps is the man who invented beer, beer, beer?
 * Reviewed: Operation Diamond Arrow
 * Comment: For April fools day

5x expanded by The C of E (talk). Self nominated at 11:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC).

CoE, you're wrong. Comment: That was an easy review. Thanks! Comment: To be a little bit more verbose, no one appreciates a rules lawyer and Wikipedia already has overarching policy to avoid people ignoring rational application of guidelines. The article is currently 5x from March 8, 2007, which isn't within the last seven days. Comment: We appreciate the work on the article and the hook will be fine for April Fools or when you put it in quotes or change ALT1 to "...was purported to be..." I about your understanding of the rules. If you get it to an actual 5x expansion in the next week or two, I'm sure people would be willing to view it as a single process and let the time requirement slide a little. I'm not sure how much more there is to say though. You'd need quite a bit. Comment: Alternatively, you could shepherd it through the GA process. — Llywelyn II   02:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Hopefully that's easier to understand this time. To crunch the numbers, as of this edit the page had 1500ish valid characters; it now has 2900ish. That's nothing close to 5x and no one is interested in hearing your reasons you think vandalism is a good thing sometimes. I tried to give you two separate outs, but if you're just going to stop up your ears, we can just fail the submission and move on. (I'd rather not; I do appreciate the work.) — Llywelyn II   12:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg A very important DYK requirement which applies every day, including April Fools' Day, is that the hook be true. That hook is absolutely not true, and is not acceptable. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  12:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt1 ... that Charlie Mopps is purportedly the man who invented beer, beer, beer?
 * Alt2 ... that Charlie Mopps is the man who invented beer in song?
 * any of the above acceptable?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk )
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Well, that doesn't matter. I'm afraid this is nowhere near a five times expansion. As of April 1, 2014, the first date of eligibility, the article was 1482 prose characters. In September, a large chunk of text was removed for unexplained reasons, and you just removed some more as unsourced. But the only acceptable reasons for excluding previously existing material from the DYK prose count are for copyright violation or blatant vandalism. The article is currently 1728, which means an additional 5682 prose characters would have to be added to bring it up to the required 7410, which seems extremely unlikely. Sorry. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Where does it say that in the DYK rules? It doesn't say anything like that on WP:WIADYK.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "vandalism" part is actually in the rules; I just added that as being common sense. As for the rest, see WP:DYKSG. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Taking that as read, it seems to say "previously existing article" which to me means before expansion started. I would say OK, the bits I removed should be used in the character count but to use a year old revision seems a bit counterproductive.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "the article as it existed immediately prior to expansion". If we didn't have this rule, there would be nothing to stop people from using sockpuppets to trim articles down to stubs, then returning later for an easy expansion. The article as it appeared in April is obviously a previously existing version of the article, and the rule applies. Of course, in this case, we don't really have to look at "a year old revision"; just four months ago, before that large chunk was inexplicably removed by a user whose first and only edit was that deletion, the prose size was still 1482. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  02:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that nothing was done about the removal of text, probably means that people accepted it as a legitimate reason to be removed. As there was no challenge, I would state that the community accepted the edit to make it the article as it was from then but before I removed a bit more. Thus I still think that it can be run, using the starting point as then but also including the text I removed in the calculation.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'd like to request a second opinion.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The argument about the community accepting the edit because nobody challenged it is fallacious. (For a whole bunch of counterexamples to your argument, see WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.) The edit which removed the material also added "(Please edit this as new information becomes available.)" Nobody removed that, but that certainly doesn't mean that the community accepted that it should be part of an encyclopedia article. Even you didn't accept the removal, because you added some of the information back in your version. And whether or not the edit was accepted by the community is irrelevant; only the removal of copyvios (or vandalism) is relevant. If the removal had been a long time ago and there had been many edits to the article since then by various users, then maybe the article could be considered a stable starting point for expansion. But this was just four months ago, and there were no edits at all to the article between the removal of text and when you started working on it. But yes, we can get another opinion.  M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  20:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. Really?
 * I am not quite sure what the point you're trying to make is. I do not understand the relevance of these comment areas. The article was 551 characters when I started thus requires 2,755 characters to be a 5x expansion. That count has been exceeded, thus there is a 5x expansion .  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Jeez, sorry. I tried to bold it and everything. Let's try it again.
 * * * You * * * Are * * * WRONG * * *
 * * * You * * * Are * * * NOT * * * Correct * * *
 * * * I * * * Am * * * Sorry * * *
 * Symbol possible vote.svg No need to be quite so rude about it. I was referring to the comments "That was an easy review. Thanks etc." I was unsure of your intention.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Snark and feigned confusion over perfectly obvious statements beget more snark, which isn't quite rude—like your pretending not to understand what I said was—but isn't helpful, you're right. For the helpful part, go back and look at the things you ignored last time where I tried to give you ways to move forward with this. Which one interests you? (No, repeating the process until someone pretends this is already 5x isn't an option.) — Llywelyn II   01:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg The C of E, as is made clear in the DYK April Fools rules given on April_Fool%27s_Main_Page/Did_You_Know, The normal "7 day" rule for expansion and nominating is not followed. The article must be created between last April 1st and next March 31st, or have been expanded five times the size it was last April 1st by next March 31st. This exception started in 2006 and has been utilized since. These are special DYK rules for April Fools, and it's clear that this nomination isn't going to make a 5x expansion based on the April 1 start date, since the version current on that day, most recently edited on January 4, 2014, was indeed 1482 prose characters, requiring an expansion to 7410. You'd actually have a better chance for this as a regular hook, since the 7-day rule would apply in that case. According to DYKcheck, the article had 639 prose characters prior to your expansion; you'd need a 5x expansion of these 639 plus any other text restored from previous versions of the article (and there definitely is some reuse), which puts the minimum required at 3195 plus 5x restored material. The article has 2867 prose characters at the moment, which is well short of what you'll need even for a regular nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)