Template:Did you know nominations/Independence Day 2
- 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 Rcsprinter123 (report) @ 22:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Independence Day 2[edit]
- ... that the sequel to the 1996 film Independence Day is set to be released on the 20th anniversary of first film?
Moved to mainspace by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self-nominated at 11:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC).
Recently mainspaced, not long enough (see below), neutral, no copyvio found via spot check, no QPQ. Hook doesn't have an immediate ref in article (see 3b). But primarily, the hook is not eligible per WP:DYKR:
czar ⨹ 20:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)If a new article incorporates text copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a pre-existing article.
- @Czar: But it was being created in draft and was mainspaced later. I added half of the content my self in this article, it was expanded more than 5x. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I understand, but even if we use the smaller July 2014 ID1 version as the baseline (which preceded the draft and was copied over in November), the draft was not expanded 5x the length (would need to be at 13k characters and it's at 4.1k). czar ⨹ 12:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Captain Assassin! One of the main problems with this as a nomination, or as a separate article, is that the bulk of the article was copied verbatim from Independence Day (1996 film). Under "Production", the entire first paragraph and half of the second one are identical to the 1996 film article. There's nothing wrong with doing that within Wikipedia, as long as Template:Copied is used as an attribution on the talk pages of both articles. You might want to add the attribution, because it's not on either article. However, because that prose appears in both articles, it would appear to disqualify the newer article for DYK. Please feel free to ask about this on Wikipedia talk:Did you know if you like. — Maile (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Maile66: Thank you. I know it was copied and it still existed on the 1996 film article, but it was supposed to be trimmed after adding the development details to the sequel article. So, would it be better if I shortened the sequel development text in 1996 article? Will it work for DYK then? Everyone knows that we write sequel's development details on the first articles and then cut and paste to the sequel articles. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I understand, but even if we use the smaller July 2014 ID1 version as the baseline (which preceded the draft and was copied over in November), the draft was not expanded 5x the length (would need to be at 13k characters and it's at 4.1k). czar ⨹ 12:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
What's left in the 1996 article doesn't change that the new article is based on content that was already published. It's not even a bad thing, it just means that the article is disqualified for DYK right now. Lots of other stuff in the pipeline. czar ⨹ 12:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)