Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Li surnames

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 12:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Li (surname 李), Li (surname 厉), Li (surname 栗)

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

Chinese character for Li (李)

  • ... that while Li (character pictured), shared by more than 100 million people, is one of the most common surnames in the world, Li and Li are far less common?

5x expanded by Zanhe (talk). Self nominated at 20:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC).

  • I don't believe that these articles are eligible. I believe that history merges should be performed. I don't think recreating from scratch was the correct action.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • These have to be considered expansions of the previously existing articles. As it says at WP:DYKSG#A4: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion." At the moment, only the third article qualifies as a 5x expansion; the first two do not, with the expansion required for Li (surname 李) being to 9370 prose characters from 1674 (it's currently 7620), and for Li (surname 厉) being to 3060 prose characters from 612 (it's currently 2490). BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like I underestimated the amount of work needed to expand the articles. I expanded the second article a bit more, which should now meet the 5x requirement, but more work is still needed for the first one. I'll be travelling for holiday for the next three weeks or so, and will be online only intermittently. I'll have to deal with the issues after I come back. Thanks. -Zanhe (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you please request the history merges at WP:AN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
As long as you can get to this before it is at the top of the DYK nominations queue, I'll consider it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Tony, there is no need for a history merge. This is a split, not a move. Read WP:SPLIT. All that's necessary is attribution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That's okay. I already requested history merges yesterday and they've been performed. I'm now back from holiday (thanks for your patience!) and have expanded the first article. I believe all three should now meet the 5x expansion criteria. -Zanhe (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • However a manual check shows that prior to your improvements begun on November 22, the article was 1674 characters and it is now 9330, which is a 5.57x expansion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Please make sure your references note that they are in foreign languages when appropriate.
Done. -Zanhe (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, is it correct to claim Chinese is a foreign language. Shouldn't the references say Mandarin, Cantonese or what have you.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It's correct. Although Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. differ significantly in speech, there is negligible difference in the written form, as Chinese writing is logographic. -Zanhe (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In each article one citation has the language explanation outside of parentheses. The citation is one that needs to be expanded to do more than provide a link. However, it seems that the publisher is another wiki, which does not seem right.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% sure if I understand your comment correctly. Do you mean the Hundred Family Surnames citation, which links to Wikisource? When referencing out-of-copyright ancient texts (Hundred Family Surnames in this case) I think it's common practice to use Wikisource for reference. But you think that's a problem I can easily replace it with a different source. -Zanhe (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes why is that a WP:RS. Is there an editorial review process at wikisource? Isn't it just a repository of free content? There is a lot of free content that is not RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • All I'm saying is that it's commonly accepted practice to cite Wikisource for freely available old texts. There are even Template:Cite wikisource and at least a dozen other more specialized templates (see Category:Wikisource link templates) that have been created to facilitate citing from Wikisource. But as I said, if you're not comfortable with that, I can replace or supplement them with other sources. -Zanhe (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the Wikisource refs with an article from the Sinology publisher Guoxue. -Zanhe (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Li_surnames&oldid=591554123"