Template:Did you know nominations/Persian art


 * 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Persian art

 * ... that Persian art (example from the Oxus Treasure pictured) begins 7,000 years ago?
 * ALT1 that in 1556 Shah Tahmasp I issued an "Edict of Sincere Repentance" attempting to outlaw music, miniature painting, and other forms of Persian art? (current ref #87) Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jean-Mathieu-Philibert Sérurier


 * Hmm, ALT hooks welcome. I began this in my sandbox by copying sections from various articles on distinct periods/media, as detailed in the history. I have greatly expanded and rewritten it (it is now 58K raw bytes), adding well over 1500 bytes, but not to the extent of 5x the old material. Moved to mainspace on 1 December (replacing a deleted redirect). See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive 119 for a discussion of the "newness" of this. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 17:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article should be treated as newly created, moved to mainspace on December 1, nominated December 7. Long enough for new article, even after excluding copied material. One could read the rules so that the 5x expansion is for existing articles, not new ones. QPQ done. I need more time to review article and image for policy and to suggest alternate hooks. Zeete (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Just realized that earlier redirect was to Arts of Iran, previously named Iranian art, current DYKcheck size of 10743. I am no longer certain that this should be considered new. Also Arts of Iran is now disconnected from Wikidata and other language wikis. Zeete (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As it should be - this article relates more closely to the iw ones (or most of them). Arts of Iran includes music, literature, cinema etc, & is now correctly titled per our usual conventions. I don't really see how this has a bearing on whether this article is new; I think nothing was copied from there. Some of the iw articles also take this form (eg Spanish) and arguably the Wikidata entry should be split, but certainly "art" is the main corresponding en article (eg Italian, Portuguese).  The Germans don't seem to have either. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Thanks for your response. I understand the difference better now.  Noticed the commons category is to Art of Iran, should this be Art of Persia?
 * Ran copyvio. The first entry seems to be the result of copying from Rock relief, should be okay. Others seem to be matching on reference names.
 * Checked image okay.
 * Could you think of a hook that reflects on your newly written material? The original hook is rather general, perhaps something to tie into the armlet. I find ALT1 too detailed. Zeete (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Zeete, I think the rules for 5x expansion are pretty explicitly for all nominated articles (except Good Articles, which only have to be longer than 1500 characters) per WP:DYKSG: If some of the text in a nominated article was copied from another Wikipedia article, and the copied text is more than seven days old, then the copied text must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article. This has always applied to newly created articles and expanded articles alike. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg By that rule, article does not meet 5x. Zeete (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was always clear it was not a 5x - see the top. how did we get on to that? Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, then it was always not eligible. I'm very sorry, but new articles that contain material from pre-existing articles cannot simply count the new material against the 1500 character minimum, but have to not only exceed 1500 characters, but consist of at least 80% new material against no more than 20% pre-existing material. That's how it's been at DYK since before I joined Wikipedia. Well over half of this article is identical to its Wikipedia origins, so it isn't eligible. The only way for such an article to qualify for DYK is by being listed as a Good Article. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt it is true that "Well over half of this article is identical to its Wikipedia origins" as most copied material has been rewritten and and expanded, but whatever. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not one to exaggerate for effect. Duplication detector only lists identical material, and the total of the copied material from the 14 articles mentioned in the edit summaries, ranging in length from 4108-character segments down to 95 (and typically several segments per article), exceeds 26K. I suppose it is possible, even likely, that some material copied from one article existed in another and would show up in more than one duplication lists, but it wouldn't significantly change the result. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)