Template:Did you know nominations/Murphy Complex Fire

Murphy Complex Fire

 * ... that the Murphy Complex Fire (pictured) burned 652016 acre of land in 2007 and was the largest wildfire in Idaho since 1910 and the 3rd largest in the USA from 1997-2007?
 * Reviewed: Norwegian butter crisis
 * Comment: a 5x expansion

Created/expanded by PumpkinSky (talk). Self nom at 02:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg 5X expansion on 1 January, hook statements supported by cites, no copyvio or plagiarism detected, prose and hook of suitable length, moderate interest, image is public domain, but does not show well at small size. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're holding it up because of image display? That's not a valid reason. Approve it and make a note about the image. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I refer you to the last criterion under Other:
 * show up well at small size (100 × 100px).
 * This image does not show up well at that size. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason-an image isn't even required. New image crop in place now anyway. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * does this help at all? — Ched : ?  23:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * MIght I suggest that you forget about the image altogether, at the size of 100 x 100 which is what would be shown on the Main page, it conveys no useful information at all. It is just some brown land with partial cloud cover. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest you stop with invalid reason? Just approve it and say you don't recommend it as lead. Holding up approval for this is bogus. Hooks with pictures far worse than this get approved all the time. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Pumpkin has a good point. Prep builders know roughly what to select, and this image would probably never be chosen. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case there would be no issue with removing the image, would there? I am just following the review guidelines, specifically:
 * Consider the relevance of the image to the article and to the hook.
 * The image used doesn't actually convey any information about the fire. It is just a smudge of brown with some cloud cover.
 * Consider the quality of the image, and its clarity at 100 by 100 pixels, the size at which DYK images appear on the Main Page.
 * At size 100 x 100 pixels there is no clarity whatsoever. I note that you seem to be angry that I am reviewing against the published criteria. Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with them. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm upset about is you're enforcing an unenforced rule. I've never seen this hold up an approval before, only from being the lead. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with reality. Reminds me of civility enforcement and a bunch of other unequally enforced stuff on wiki. An the cropped version is better to boot, so you're also inserting personal subjective opinion. Pumpkin Sky   talk  10:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec, twice) I came to say that Crisco seems right: review the article, your judgement of the picture has been heard, let the prep builder decide. Not to accept a picture because of a missing license is a different story, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Either way is the same thing; the image will probably not be used. Personally, when I review hooks there are two things that will not be deal breakers in and of themselves: the quality of the image and the interest factor of the hook. I may suggest improvements, but I won't fail a nomination for either of those two things. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously reading a different set of criteria from those posted at Did you know/Reviewing guide. Sorry, I can't help you, but that image clearly fails those criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As said above: please review the article, finally. Many pictures are not taken although they have no problems, just because more get nominated than can be used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Odd, the rules you state say "Consider the quality of the image, and its clarity at 100 by 100 pixels, the size at which DYK images appear on the Main Page." That does not mean that looking good is a criteria, just that it should be considered and commented on. As a matter of fact, there is an unwritten understanding that even good images may be refused when somebody promotes the hook to prep. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Crisco and Gerda. @JEZ--ever heard of consensus and IAR on wiki? Apparently not. And where do you come off making "consider" into "requireed"? You're in a distinct minority here. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wish to change the reviewing the guidelines, then by all means raise an RfC. Until then I am sticking with what they say, not with what you think is standard procedure here. This problem, of your making, can be easily resolved by dropping the poor quality image from the proposed hook. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This problem can easily be solved by you not twisting something into your own personal view that is contrary to community standards. Pumpkin Sky   talk  10:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a good command of written and spoken English and can understand the guidelines about DYK quite clearly, thank you. I have followed what is written in the guidelines and commented that the image presented in the hook does not meet the standards there, which is why I have not ticked the hook. I am acting in good faith and would appreciate an end to the bickering about this which is a clear cut issue. You may think you understand the meaning of consensus and the "unwritten rules" which you think govern DYK, but until you can cite something that supports your suggestions, I suggest that you drop this. Of course, if you remove the image form the hook, I shall be happy to pass it. As you say, it would never get on the front page anyway, so I really fail to understand what you are complaining about. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you drop it. You're the one in the wrong and if you dont' see it I can't help that. I will not let you browbeat me because over this nor blackmail me. I don't care if it never makes DYK. You're the one bickering and refusing to listen to at least two other people. Pumpkin Sky  talk  17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg This is good to go, although the above bickering isn't nearly as good. I note that the image has been determined to be suitably licensed, but there are questions about its quality for DYK. The person who builds the queue can decide whether or not to use it. Additionally, it might be a good idea to trim the number of factual details in the hook, but all of the details are verified. --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree about the factual details, and note that "USA" should be "US" and "1997-2007" should use an en dash: "1997–2007". I was especially "unhooked" by the use of decimal precision in the square kilometer number (it should be rounded to the nearest whole number), and the "3rd" clause (should be written "third"), which also made it less interesting.
 * ALT1: ... that the 2007 Murphy Complex Fire (pictured) burned 652016 acre of land and was the largest wildfire in Idaho in 97 years? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that this nom needs any more comments, but the metric conversion for acres is usually to hectares rather than km2 (especially for forest fires), so I changed it. The Interior  (Talk) 23:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the hectares abbreviation "ha" is not well known, I have added the link parameter so people can find out what a "ha" is. Article has been similarly adjusted. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Orlady here. Not a good sign when 1 person digs in their heels where multiple editors try to explain something. — Ched :  ?  22:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT is ok with me. I didn't know how to round the convert template. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I felt above that my ability to express myself in English is limited, please help me to more vocabulary: what is "bickering" in German", and what is "uneinsichtig, unbelehrbar und beratungsresistent" in English, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot supply a German equivalent for the verb "to bicker". The online dictionary gives a good definition in English, though. The verb means "To argue about petty and trivial matters." About the rest, I will respond on your talk page. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)