Template:Did you know nominations/Draupner wave
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Launchballer talk 21:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Draupner wave
- ... that the Draupner wave was the first scientific evidence that rogue waves exist?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Liceu bombing
- Comment: Will do QPQ either later tonight or tomorrow.
EF5 23:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
@EF5, you did not specify a reason for eligibility (newness or 5x expansion). Since this was a split from Rogue wave, it isn't new, and DYKCheck says the split content hasn't been expanded fivefold, so I believe this article is not currently eligible for DYK. As I am still new to DYK reviewing, I am asking for a second opinion to confirm this. Toadspike [Talk] 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, fair warning, WP:QPQ says "Your QPQ review should be made before or at the time of your nomination. A nomination which doesn't include a QPQ (and is not from an exempt nominator) may be closed as "incomplete" without warning." I strongly advise you to have a QPQ ready before any future DYK nominations to remove the risk of such a quickfail. Toadspike [Talk] 14:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- This article is eligible as it was moved to mainspace on 4 January. I'd step on the QPQ though @EF5:.--Launchballer 12:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Will do today, I was waiting till a second-opinion was given. EF5 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Launchballer, are you sure this is eligible? This article was forked from Rogue wave#The 1995 Draupner wave. Its first revision [1] is identical to that section [2] at the time the draft was started. (EF5 has now correctly condensed that section, so this article is no longer a direct duplicate.) WP:DYKSPLIT says "Text that is not original does not count, including text copied from ... other Wikipedia articles. Splits from non-new articles are ineligible, but if the copied text does not exceed one-fifth of the total prose size, the article can be considered eligible as a fivefold expansion of the copied text." (emphasis added) I believe this is unambiguous in requiring a 5x expansion here, which DYKCheck says has not happened. Toadspike [Talk] 16:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- From my perspective, I just think the policy is worded badly. While I do agree it's not a 5x expansion, WP:DYKNEW states
Articles featured at DYK must be new at the time of nomination. For DYK purposes, an article is considered new if, within the last seven days, the article has been created in mainspace from a redlink or redirect; expanded at least fivefold in terms of its prose portion; promoted to good article status; moved from userspace or draftspace into mainspace; or translated from another Wikipedia. Articles that have been re-created from deletion may be considered new
(the "or" being the most important part). It makes it sound like a nomination can fail one criteria (in this case 5x), but still be eligible as it was moved into mainspace within seven days of the nomination. I'm relatively surprised this hasn't been brought up as a wider issue, maybe just because people aren't willing to challenge it; DYKSPLIT and DYKNEW contradict each other, at least from how I see it. EF5 16:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- From my perspective, I just think the policy is worded badly. While I do agree it's not a 5x expansion, WP:DYKNEW states
- This article is eligible as it was moved to mainspace on 4 January. I'd step on the QPQ though @EF5:.--Launchballer 12:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, fair warning, WP:QPQ says "Your QPQ review should be made before or at the time of your nomination. A nomination which doesn't include a QPQ (and is not from an exempt nominator) may be closed as "incomplete" without warning." I strongly advise you to have a QPQ ready before any future DYK nominations to remove the risk of such a quickfail. Toadspike [Talk] 14:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
