Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Kalanemi (Ramayana)

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Kalanemi (Ramayana)

edit
(
)
  • Reviewed: Scaly-foot gastropod
  • Comment: the article was split from Kalanemi which is also a new article falling in 7-days new criteria limit.

Created by Dharmadhyaksha (talk). Self-nominated at 06:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC).

  • Comment – Given that the character is not a part of the original epic and is not notable outside the interpolated versions, do you think it's necessary to have a separate article? —Vensatry (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Please refer discussion at Talk:Kalanemi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. —Vensatry (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In Prep 5, DYK Kalanemi, which was created on July 19, 2016, and nominated 21 July 2016 (UTC). The bot review was done that same day, but the human review was done August 9 - 24 by multiple editors.
  • DYK Kalanemi (Ramayana) was spun off verbatim from the other one on July 25, 2016, and with a few smaller edits, but it is mostly text forked from the original article. See Talk:Kalanemi. It has not had a full review.

@Dharmadhyaksha: What that means, is that the bot review done July 21, is now invalid to some degree. The DYK rules state may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article. and also The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles The way I see the rules, the second article is not eligible for DYK.

Feedback from the community? — Maile (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see much duplicated text, though I didn't look that closely. Gatoclass (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not copy and paste. More cut and paste. The editor cut it from the first nominated article, and created a new article by pasting the cut text to it. — Maile (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Was the count considered for the original article or in place when the review was approved? Seems like if the review was done starting August 9 then this was already moved? If that's correct then I have less of a problem with it, especially since the split off was done less than 7 days after article creation and was done after a talk page discussion, not just for the heck of it.  MPJ-DK  16:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Text which is less than seven days old isn't counted if duplicated in another article. The other article should simply have a minimum of 1500 bytes of new text. See supplementary rule A5. Gatoclass (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that the nominator Dharmadhyaksha was acting properly and documenting everything about it. The original nomination, now on the main page, is not in question. But what happened, is that the bot clocked it in as 7684 characters, and it is currently at 4806 characters. So, the original article maintains eligibility. 2953 characters of the other article was pasted into the new article after the bot checked the character count. The current new article is 3539 characters. I guess the question is whether or not the new article should be a 5X expansion, or if we accept the cut and paste as a newly created article. When, in fact, most of it was from the original character count of the first article. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:DYKSG#A5: New text seven days old or less can only count toward the 1500 character minimum in one article; if it is duplicated in other nominated new articles, it is ignored for the purpose of character count. Since the original article is plenty long enough without the moved material (it was fully reviewed on August 9, after the move had occurred), as is this one, and the split occurred six days after the original article was created, then I would expect them both to be eligible as new articles. Is there some reason why this rule would not apply? People looking at Kalanemi, the original article which is at this moment on the main page, will not see any of the moved Kalanemi (Ramayana) material. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A manual count of the size should be done where the repeated text should be removed. If that's not 1500 it should not be passed at the moment, if the count is under 500 characters of new then I say it should be closed completely IMO. But as someone who had to put the work in to ensure "repeated text" is only counted in 1 DYK I fully agree this should not just pass muster. Even if it would qualify timing wise the fact that it was already counted towards another DYK is why we have to look at only the new text.  MPJ-DK  16:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC) (incorrect assumption)

Full review needed. Everything seems to be fine with this as a fork from the other article. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced (as is every paragraph). No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done and image properly licensed. I've learnt something, since I always thought that text copied from another article counted as already existing text that had to be expanded upon x5. Good to go.--Launchballer 08:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have pulled this because while the hook and part of the article states that the story is in the Ramayana, another part of the article states that the story is not in the Ramayana but some other text. The contradiction needs to be resolved before this can be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
ALT proposed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass, has the contradiction been resolved? If it has, I'll call for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in getting back to this, but I've had a lot of distractions lately. I can't look at this again right now, but I will try to come back to it sometime in the next week if nobody else has commented by then. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed for inactivity of old reviewers for this 2 month old nomination! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I can see what Gatoclass was concerned about but there have been some changes since then. It is clear that the term Ramayana refers not to a single text, but can refer to several - see Ramayana (disambiguation). The article now attributes the hook fact as appearing in some of the adaptations, but notes it is not in the original Sanskrit version by Valmiki which is at Ramayana (but note the hat note). I have checked the source and the hook itself is cited inline as required to an acceptable source. Previous reviews (above) have checked other DYK criteria, including copyvio and a QPQ check. ALT1 is good to go. EdChem (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Kalanemi_(Ramayana)&oldid=1019950015"