- 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) 06:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Megxit
[[File:|133x150px|The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in 2018 ]]
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in 2018
- ... that The New York Times called Megxit "the new Brexit in a Britain split by age and politics"? New York Times
- ALT1 ... that after only seven days, Megxit had turned into a moneyspinner for online retailers? The Times
- ALT2 ... that Megxit could cost the British economy billions of pounds in lost revenues? NBC News, New York Times
- ALT3 ... that the British Queen choose a hard Megxit in her final agreement with Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (pictured)? The Daily Telegraph, The BBC, The Guardian
Created by Britishfinance (talk). Nominated by Britishfinance (talk) at 12:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC).
- Weak support as I would've preferred to have nominated this article for the "In the news" feature on the Wikipedia:Homepage. I think this "Did You Know?," in this context and/or as it is worded, is very niche-y and sort of "so what!?" That being said, as the #1 trending topic on Twitter, this should be definitely featured in the "In the news" section, I think. Doug Mehus T·C 15:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is not something I would expect to see on the Main Page as a qualifying article. It is an endless barrage of insignificant information, who said what and which newspaper ran which title. There are more paragraphs in the article than there are sentences without quotation marks. I removed a sentence about Trump's opinion, but found it to be like trying to fix a flat tire with a band-aid. The article should be stripped down to what is essential rather than go on and on about why it's called what it's called. Also, not everything anyone anywhere said about it should be quoted. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- The recent AfD of this article "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megxit" shows that there is significant community support for this article, which is understandable, given that it has been covered in depth by almost every WP:RS/P in the world. If we added in every article that only WP:RS/Ps wrote about this affair, we would have an article 5x the current size.
- This event has opened up issues re the structure of the UK monarchy and perceptions of racism (hence "Megxit"); the NYT article above is another example of how notable the highest-grade RS considers this event. The New York Times has now written several full pieces on "Megxit", and the event is only 7 days old.
- As noted at the end of the AfD, even today, just seven days after the event, we have SIGCOV pieces in The New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal on "Megxit". I think this should be worthy of a DYK; it already has significantly greater notability (per volume of high-grade RS SIGCOV pieces), than many other DYKs? Britishfinance (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Let's be honest - the article barely survived the AfD. But that does not matter now. I am not talking about the notability of the topic here. I am talking about the content of the article. It's virtually all about who said what about it and we are quoting everyone who's voiced an opinion: friends, grandmas, politicians who do not care, politicians whom it does not concern, professors with big imagination, foul-mouthed Brexit campaigners, and of course - countless journalists. There are twice as many quotation marks in the article as there are commas. It reads like a teenagers' group chat. Surtsicna (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megxit had 26 Keeps (plus 2 more renames, which are Keeps, giving 28 Keeps) vs. 6 Redirects vs. 5 Deletes. Almost half of the total Redirects/Deletes were the first AfD !votes cast on the day the article was being created; after this first day, we have 28 Keeps vs 6 Redirects/Deletes? That is very unfair to say it "barely survived AfD"? You are not being objective here - both in your analysis of AfD and your comments on the article above? Britishfinance (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. The editors closing AfD discussions do not simply count votes. I do not know how you imagine I could be subjective in my misgivings about the quality of the article. I hope this will be addressed; as it stands now, the substance is lost in the endless quotes. Surtsicna (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- We don't count !votes, but I concur with Britishfinance...it didn't "barely survive AfD." In fact, there's some argument to renaming, but there was absolutely no appetite for deletion. If you want to go ahead and re-nominate it in a month or two, Surtsicna, you're most welcome to try, but I suspect you'll encounter a snow keep. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 01:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- If I went through the AfD arguments, it was shown early on that the article could not be a Delete because the volume of high-grade RS specifically focused on "Megxit" meant that it would always at least be a Redirect; so it was 28 Keeps vs. 6 Redirects. The few Redirects advocating NOTNEWS and TOOSOON were not considered persuasive and/or were shown to be misconstrued. I don't think your comments are fair to the people who have worked on the article – parsing through one of the biggest stories of the last 12 months so ensure that only the highest grade-RS is chronicled (and there is an epic amount of junk and false RS on this topic), is part of what Wikipedia does for readers. IMHO, many Wikipedia current event stories (and this is only 8 days old), use quotes, to ensure the reader is clear on the accepted fact-base of the story. Britishfinance (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Travolta dress is an article you created. It is a very beautiful and well-constructed article (better than what I do), however, it was also DYK'ed and is nowhere near as notable a topic as Megxit (e.g. the Queen did not issue a personal statement on the Travolta dress, and the depth of high-grade RS on it is smaller), and the article itself is full of quotes (almost every paragraph), about what people said regarding the Travolta dress (which makes sense), but that is same for "Megxit? Britishfinance (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Once again, I am not discussing the notability of the topic. I am discussing the quality of the article. The article about the Travolta dress quotes one person, a fashion journalist; in contrast, the article about "Megxit" quotes everyone and their mother. For example, I cannot see how the opinions of Nigel Farage and Donald Trump could be pertinent. Even Boris Johnson does not consider his own opinion to be of much relevance (and yet we quote him too, saying exactly that). Then there are five paragraphs of the etymology behind the term "Megxit". The essence of the matter is lost in all this. Surtsicna (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I also agree with Netwalker3's assessment that far too much of this article is opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I was not discussing notability, I was responding to your comment that the article "barely survived AfD", and I also to your concern that the article used quotes. I wanted to compare your DYK of Travolta dress (which I would have supported), with your objections to Megxit, which I feel is a much stronger DYK candidate; proportionally they have the same number of quotes, and use of quotation marks in the text to convey what others said. I am confused, but I am new to DYK in any event. Britishfinance (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. The editors closing AfD discussions do not simply count votes. I do not know how you imagine I could be subjective in my misgivings about the quality of the article. I hope this will be addressed; as it stands now, the substance is lost in the endless quotes. Surtsicna (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megxit had 26 Keeps (plus 2 more renames, which are Keeps, giving 28 Keeps) vs. 6 Redirects vs. 5 Deletes. Almost half of the total Redirects/Deletes were the first AfD !votes cast on the day the article was being created; after this first day, we have 28 Keeps vs 6 Redirects/Deletes? That is very unfair to say it "barely survived AfD"? You are not being objective here - both in your analysis of AfD and your comments on the article above? Britishfinance (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Let's be honest - the article barely survived the AfD. But that does not matter now. I am not talking about the notability of the topic here. I am talking about the content of the article. It's virtually all about who said what about it and we are quoting everyone who's voiced an opinion: friends, grandmas, politicians who do not care, politicians whom it does not concern, professors with big imagination, foul-mouthed Brexit campaigners, and of course - countless journalists. There are twice as many quotation marks in the article as there are commas. It reads like a teenagers' group chat. Surtsicna (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Alternate Proposal 4 Given the ongoing nature of this, for now, feature Megxit at Portal:Current events such that it gets features in the "Ongoing" section of "In the news..." at Main Page. It's highly topical and this is where it should be. In a year's time or so, it might be worth featuring this article as a featured homepage article as a sort of "On this day..." Doug Mehus T·C 01:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Doug Mehus T·C 01:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think we have both a good DYK here (I think I have given several interesting hooks above?) and an ITN option? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Britishfinance, I'd support that and prefer your Alt 2 option. How's that? Doug Mehus T·C 16:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dmehus, that sounds good to me - I think any of these hooks could work? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Britishfinance, Alt 1 is potentially workable as well, but I think #3 is too tabloid-y and #1 is too...meh/"who cares!?" Doug Mehus T·C 18:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dmehus, I have also updated Alt 3 post the announcements yesterday – now back up by the strongest RS in Britain (incl. the BBC)? Britishfinance (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Britishfinance, Alt 1 is potentially workable as well, but I think #3 is too tabloid-y and #1 is too...meh/"who cares!?" Doug Mehus T·C 18:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dmehus, that sounds good to me - I think any of these hooks could work? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Britishfinance, I'd support that and prefer your Alt 2 option. How's that? Doug Mehus T·C 16:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think we have both a good DYK here (I think I have given several interesting hooks above?) and an ITN option? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The article title is a trivialisation and readers shouldn't be encouraged to think this kind of treatment is worthy of the topic. Deb (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment, but as this nomination is for DYK and not ITN, please familiarize yourself with DYK guidelines before commenting. DYKs are not promoted or rejected on a support/oppose basis as ITN is. Morgan695 (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I need a QPQ so I'll just review this now. Article is long enough and was nominated within 7 days of its creation. Nominator is QPQ exempt (though this is your fifth DYK, so you'll need to start doing QPQs for any subsequent DYK nomination). No pings on Earwigs and no close-paraphrasing. Passing for ALT0 and ALT3 with a preference for ALT3, as ALT1 and ALT2 seem very squishy and vague. Morgan695 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
