Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/70 IWRG DYKs

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Montanabw(talk) 20:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

List of major IWRG shows, IWRG Anniversary Shows, IWRG 5th Anniversary Show, IWRG 6th Anniversary Show, IWRG 7th Anniversary Show, IWRG 8th Anniversary Show, IWRG 10th Anniversary Show, IWRG 20th Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan, Arena Naucalpan 5th Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 15th Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 21st Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 22nd Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 23rd Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 24th Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 25th Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 26th Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 27th Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 29th Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 30th Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 31st Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 32nd Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 36th Anniversary Show, Arena Naucalpan 37th Anniversary Show, 49th Anniversary of Lucha Libre in Estadio de Mexico, 52nd Anniversary of Lucha Libre in Estadio de Mexico, IWRG Caravana de Campeones, Caravana de Campeones (2008), Caravana de Campeones (2009), Caravana de Campeones (2011), Caravana de Campeones (2012), Caravana de Campeones (August 2013), Caravana de Campeones (November 2013), Caravana de Campeones (2014), Caravana de Campeones (2015), El Castillo del Terror (2000), El Castillo del Terror (2002), El Castillo del Terror (2003), El Castillo del Terror (2004), El Castillo del Terror (December 2008), IWRG Festival de las Máscaras, Festival de las Máscaras (2008), Festival de las Máscaras (2009), Festival de las Máscaras (2010), Festival de las Máscaras (2013), Festival de las Máscaras (2016), IWRG Guerra Revolucionaria, Guerra Revolucionaria (2009), Guerra Revolucionaria (2010), Guerra Revolucionaria (2013), IWRG Ruleta de la Muerte, IWRG Ruleta de la Muerte (2009), IWRG Ruleta de la Muerte (2013), IWRG Ruleta de la Muerte (November 2015), Rey del Ring (2008), Rey del Ring (2009), Guerra del Golfo (2005), Guerra del Golfo (2008), Prison Fatal (2000), IWRG Legado Final, Guerra de Familias (2012), IWRG La Gran Cruzada, El Gran Destafio (2009), El Gran Desafío Femenil - Sin Empate, Sin Indulto, El Gran Destafio (2011), IWRG Guerra de Empresas, IWRG Junior de Juniors, IWRG Guerra de Campeones, WRG La Isla, Sin Escape Con Correrás

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

Here is my QPQ list (numbered for easier verification) #1 Ayşegül Pehlivanlar, #2 Aysel Özgan, #3 Çağla Baş, #4 Merv Cowan, #5 David Tod Roy, #6 Radu Budișteanu, #7 Victor Gomoiu, #8 Gheorghe N. Leon, #9 Gheorghe Mihail, #10 Constantin Nicolescu, #11 Vasile Noveanu, #12 Kimsachata (Canchis), #13 Roya Sadat, #14 Alka Sadat, #15 Bondarzewia berkeleyi, #16 Template:Did you know nominations/Ace of Aces (video game), #17 Black-sided hawkfish, #18 Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich, BWV 150, #19 K-25, #20 Ronald B. Moore, #21 Symphony No. 1 (Strauss), #22 Michelle Tisseyre, #23 César Camacho Quiroz, #24 Ingrid Christensen, #25 Tawny-breasted myiobius, #26 Black-tailed myiobius, #27 Whiskered myiobius, #28 Fallout 4: Far Harbor, #29 Setting Sun (horse), #30 White-footed climbing mouse, Southern climbing mouse, #31 Southern climbing mouse, #32 , Coues's climbing mouse, #33 Peruvian climbing mouse, #34 Gardner's climbing mouse, #35 Sarek (Star Trek: The Next Generation), #36 Daredevil (season 2), #37 History of East Texas Normal College, #38 Smacksoft, #39 WRGG-LP, #40 10 (MercyMe album), #41 2016 Sweden riots, #42 The Fade Out, #43 Al-Rahba, #44 Tropical Storm Colin (2016), #45 Pall Mall, London, #46 Fernando de la Rúa, #47 Stonewall National Monument, #48 The Xindi, #49 Dwarf catshark, #50 Boa catshark, #51 Tetrakis(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)borate, #52 Ham and eggs, #53 Thomas Patrick Murray, #54 Agustín Basave Benítez, #55 Berger Kirche, #56 Josi S. Kilpack, #57 Peter Taylor (footballer, born 1928), #58 Amazonian hocicudo, #59 Lothar Zenetti, #60 Wignacourt Aqueduct, #61 Bontadino de Bontadini, #62 Tibetan eared pheasant, #63 Farida Arriany, #64 ARCLIGHT, #65 Bob Bryar, #66 Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service, #67 Green Flake, #68 Mark Bonner, #69 Billie Nipper, #70 Attack on Titan Created by MPJ-DK (talk). Self-nominated at 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

This is vastly too many articles for one DYK, and there is no possible way to include all of them in one DYK sentence without it simply looking ridiculous. The sentence itself is several times too long. Without prejudice against the articles themselves, this should at minimum be split into a number of smaller nominations (perhaps by the type of show) with no more than a few articles per listing. And frankly, the purpose of DYK is to showcase a varied selection of Wikipedia's new and improved content with engaging hooks, rather than showcasing all the new/improved articles on one specific subject. Choosing the best 3-6 of these articles, and giving each of them their own DYK with more interesting hooks, would be a much better way about this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This hook is just as boring as the one in Template:Did you know nominations/1 point player, so supporting Pi's proposal to have less articles per hook. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree that this shouldn't pass as is. The other issues notwithstanding, the length of the hook is 5 times longer than the 200 character limit, and I don't think it justifies an IAR exemption. There's just far too many articles. The difference between this and the other multi-article hooks you mentioned is that they were more than just a list: "did you know dinosaur fossils were found here [list of articles] but not here [list of other articles]" or "These places were given moon rocks but then lost them!" Plus they were all significantly shorter than the proposed hook. I think the longest is the top one about dinosaurs at 670 which is still about 400 characters shorter than the proposed hook. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully and utterly disagree that the dinosaur fossil was "more than just a list", mind boggling that a list of states is okay, but a list of shows is not? Smacks of double standards.  MPJ-DK  00:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
And I respect that we can differ in our interpretation, and understand where it comes from. For what it's worth, despite my opinion that those hooks were more than just a list, had I been aware of their nominations, I likely would have raised the same problems with those ones. Long hooks like those and these do not do the works featured justice. MPJ-DK, You produce outstanding work, and DYK is meant to show off that outstanding work. In my view, this hook does not do you or your work justice which is why I'm opposing. These articles shouldn't be buried in an undistinguished, 70-item-long list; they deserve better than that. I have no opposition to only running one DYK—I think it would be a nice change of pace honestly—but if we're going to do something like that, I would rather it be more of a feature, something more intriguing and suiting of the work than a list. Anyway, I have said my piece, hopefully you'll receive more favorable opinions than mine, and if not I hope you consider breaking them up into more nominations. I sincerely appreciate all this hard work on your part, and I want you to know that you have vastly improved the encyclopedia, regardless of whether these pages get featured or not. So a big thank you on that front. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So considering Both the 52 and 38 DYK hooks follow the same pattern and are both "ridiculous looking" and "boring" I am really having a hard time seeing the point of rejection here, especially slapping the "totally rejected" tag on it just like that? Going through all this work, doing all the DYK reviews for QPQ etc and I get "too long", "too boring" after five minutes?  MPJ-DK  12:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand that a lot of work went into this project, but I too worry about the extremely large hook. It would be such a large hook it would probably be the *only* one that could be reasonably featured on DYK that day. Raymie (t • c) 18:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes it would probably fill out the whole box since it's 10 times as many hooks as the 7 hooks normally listed - I am not seeing why would be a problem? Can you please explain to me why that's a problem as such? It's not like it cannot technically be done (they did it for 52) and if you're worried about crowding other DYKs out it's either 1 hook that's on for one day, replacing six other hooks there would be on there. Or there would be an IWRG hook on the main page for like 70 days straight if I do them invidiually? I see no comments that actually relates to the DYK criteria of being new/expanded, long enough, sourced, well written, free of copyvio and doing the Quid Pro Quo stated at all.  MPJ-DK  21:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Putting this on so it doesn't just get kicked off the page.  MPJ-DK  21:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I also acknowledge the huge amount of work that was put in to writing 70 articles and reviewing 70 QPQs. But I agree with Pi.1415926535, Wugapodes, and Raymie that it is simply too long and will have to be the only hook run that day. It would be far better to divide this hook into smaller multi-hook submissions for the sake of readability and whetting readers' interest. This isn't just a list of topics, but lists within lists – e.g. ''Caravana de Campeones (2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, August 2013, November 2013, 2014, 2015). Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I am still not seeing an actual reason for why it would be bad to have the DYK cover one subject for one period, it'll be less than a day in total. I know it's an extraordinary request, but is Wikipedia really such a conformist place that there is no room for something that's not ordinary?.  MPJ-DK  00:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For one thing, it wouldn't even fit on the main page in the space provided. I'd suggest re-submitting these in small, logical groupings and tell us what they are and why the reader should care. This is a list, not a hook. I will fail this proposal, but I don't think that would invalidate a timely resubmittal of smaller chunks. Montanabw(talk) 03:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I am undoing this close not because I disagree with it (although I do) but because it is factually incorrect as the hook could fit within the DYK slot on the main page. I will add to the discussion at WT:DYK#Largest DYK ever? and will, of course, respect the consensus formed there. I have added the new review icon as there has actually not been a review yet. There is ample precedent for large multi-article hooks and if we are going to reject this, I believe it should be done with consensus from a proper discussion and not semi-unilaterally. EdChem (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, we can discuss. I will note further comments there. Montanabw(talk) 22:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we're at this point now, will resubmit individual DYKs in smaller piece.  MPJ-DK  15:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Per the discussion here that may not actually help if you submit them in small groups. Gatoclass has explained that given the duplication of text, many of the articles will need an additional 1500 *above* the duplicated content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, per nominator's decision, I will close now. That said, this discussion can also be used as a source for questions on timeline for the original nomination should anyone ask. Montanabw(talk) 20:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/70_IWRG_DYKs&oldid=960398463"