Template:Did you know nominations/Bat'leth
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Bat'leth
[edit]( )
Created/expanded by The C of E (talk). Self nom at 21:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Reviewed: CZW World Junior Heavyweight Championship
Two problems with this, I'm afraid. First, almost all of the content seems to be copied and pasted from List of weapons in Star Trek. This falls foul of Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria rule 1a, that DYK content may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article. Second, it seems to be written in a rather "in-universe" style: "Klingon oral history holds ..." - well, no, it doesn't; Klingons don't exist! The bottom line is that the article doesn't meet the DYK criteria and the way it's written is not encyclopedic. If you can resolve these problems, which will require a rewrite and a major expansion of the article, then I'd suggest bringing it back to DYK for a fresh review, but right now it's nowhere near qualifying for DYK. Prioryman (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Unrelated comment: this is awesome. Hope it passes, that is all. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- To Prioryman, I am currently in the process of revamping it as a result. I have removed quite a bit of the canon section and am going to do some more work on it to make sure it is above the 1500 character limit. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll hold on in the meantime. Some pointers: the article is still substantially comprised of existing content - 143 out of 247 words are taken from List of weapons in Star Trek. You can't claim that as part of a new article, since it's not new content, so the applicable rule would be a fivefold expansion of existing content. In other words, the article would have to be a minimum of 715 words, reliably sourced and in encyclopedic style, to qualify as a 5x expansion. If you can do that by Monday (5 days after you started work on the article) then it should be OK. Prioryman (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's 1,500 characters, not a word limit. It is made from an old redirect which has more than expanded the wording in the original redirect. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're right about the character limit (d'oh!). However, the rules are straightforward: "Former redirects, stubs, and other articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles." At the moment about 870 characters out of a total 1,942 characters of prose are copied from the parent article. Per the rules, you can't count the copied content as "new". You'd have to have a total of about 4,350 characters of prose to qualify for a 5x expansion. Prioryman (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm actually struggling to find any more reliable sources so I can't really see how I can get to that much. The only way I can see around that is question, what about if the copied words are changed and/or rearranged? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well... I see what you're getting at, but it wouldn't really be new content, would it? It would just be old content reworded. Prioryman (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Aside of that I'm out of ideas, short of writing a load of waffle or invoking WP:IAR. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, lets see if I can try with the limited sources avaliable. It will be a challenge and I will have to expand a lot of things but I might just be able to do it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Aside of that I'm out of ideas, short of writing a load of waffle or invoking WP:IAR. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well... I see what you're getting at, but it wouldn't really be new content, would it? It would just be old content reworded. Prioryman (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm actually struggling to find any more reliable sources so I can't really see how I can get to that much. The only way I can see around that is question, what about if the copied words are changed and/or rearranged? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're right about the character limit (d'oh!). However, the rules are straightforward: "Former redirects, stubs, and other articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles." At the moment about 870 characters out of a total 1,942 characters of prose are copied from the parent article. Per the rules, you can't count the copied content as "new". You'd have to have a total of about 4,350 characters of prose to qualify for a 5x expansion. Prioryman (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's 1,500 characters, not a word limit. It is made from an old redirect which has more than expanded the wording in the original redirect. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll hold on in the meantime. Some pointers: the article is still substantially comprised of existing content - 143 out of 247 words are taken from List of weapons in Star Trek. You can't claim that as part of a new article, since it's not new content, so the applicable rule would be a fivefold expansion of existing content. In other words, the article would have to be a minimum of 715 words, reliably sourced and in encyclopedic style, to qualify as a 5x expansion. If you can do that by Monday (5 days after you started work on the article) then it should be OK. Prioryman (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- To Prioryman, I am currently in the process of revamping it as a result. I have removed quite a bit of the canon section and am going to do some more work on it to make sure it is above the 1500 character limit. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Never thought I could with the limited sources avaliable, but I've managed somehow to expand it to 4,381 characters! Now to work on the hook, maybe there could be some alternatives.
*Alt1: ... that the Klingon Bat'leth is illegal in New Jersey, Colorado and publicly in the UK?
The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Still not long enough, by my count. Removing headings and reference numbers, I get 1,220 characters for the original 2-paragraph article segment, and 4,356 for the new article; the target by my reckoning is 6,100. However, I believe you have another day to expand it more, so let's see if it can be done! I've given it a fast examination and it seems well written and generally well referenced - there are enough reliable sources in with the IMDb ones. Either hook would be good (and the topic is gold); however, the New Jersey reference does not appear to support the claim made - it says only that a bat'leth was among the items seized in a seizure of weapons, not that it is a forbidden item. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've expanded it a little bit to 4,914, by my count. I suggest you add back some of the in-canon material. There is also a bit more in the sources about the fighting techniques; and there's the mek'leth. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done it. I've done what you suggested and at my count, I've got 6,131 characters in there. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I've removed an "illegal" bring the characters down to 6,123 but why not have this new hook to mull over as well?
- Done it. I've done what you suggested and at my count, I've got 6,131 characters in there. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've expanded it a little bit to 4,914, by my count. I suggest you add back some of the in-canon material. There is also a bit more in the sources about the fighting techniques; and there's the mek'leth. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Alt2: ... that the Klingon bat'leth is illegal in Colorado and publicly in the UK?The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, after doing some further tweaking and referencing I now count 6,292 characters. This is ready for re-review by someone else; I will go shove a couple of the references I added into a format more like the one you established for the article, but I'm now too involved in it to sign off on it. Striking ALT1; I believe either the original hook or ALT2 would be good. And making bat'leth lowercase in both hooks. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Some references need citations. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you mean the IMDB links, reflinks won't fulfill it and I asked Rjwilmsi to run CiteComplete over it and he passed over it. I'm not quite sure what to do with this. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Scratch the above, I've done the citations manually. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- per all discussion above, issues fixed. Good to go! (ALT2) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- ALT2 is highly problematic: both Colorado sources say that the police considered the bat'leth a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, but said nothing about whether it is legal to carry them. Further, the connection between Colorado illegality and the illegality of carrying a bat'leth in public in England (though it is legal to own them) is expressed very poorly in the wording of the hook. That's enough to strike it, which I have done. However,
the original hook is still just fine, and is more interesting than either of the alts were. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)