Template:Did you know nominations/Omnishambles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Allen3 talk 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Omnishambles[edit]

(
)

Created/expanded by Sceptre (talk). Self nom at 17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that this is so recent. Ignoring the original mention it basically dates from Labour Party usage in April and then the anti-Romney twitter thing in July. We need to be careful with neologisms, especially political ones. WP:NEO talks about secondary sources and we have newspaper comment pieces and Collins' new word suggestion. I'd expect this will have gone away in 12 months, it's less than 4 months old. Secretlondon (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the Collins team themselves adding it as a possible new word for the dictionary tips the term into notability. I personally think any neologism that gets non-trivial coverage in SSes for/and consideration to go into a reputable dictionary is potentially notable enough. Tebowing could, itself, be an article, IMO. Sceptre (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Article has recently been tagged by another user with notability template (with neologism as an added problem). Unless circumstances change within the next 7 days or so, this looks unlikely to be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    I believe it does pass the notability requirement for neologisms, being the subject of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources several months apart. Sceptre (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Has there been any such new coverage in the past month? That would help support your assertion and removal of the tag from the article. Absent such evidence, the reviewers here would seem to have their point made for them. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't been checking Wikipedia: yes, there was new coverage preceding the new series of The Thick of It; the merging of satire and the show has been noted by the cast and crew in several sources, with the phrase being one of the most cited instances. I've added a citation to a Digital Spy story. Sceptre (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sceptre: This passes the notability requirement for a neologism. The article cites several articles about the term and its use that were published in WP:RS sources, and my Google search has turned up a bunch more. I'm not wild about the hook. Since I have no previous knowledge of this word, I would find the hook far more interesting if it said something about how this word has been used outside of television:
Both are cool. :) An alternate alternate hook I've just made on the hoof...
  • ALT1 and ALT2 are approved, per Orlady's comments on notability. Article has an "orphan" template on it; suggest that a mention of "omnishambles" and a link therefrom be added to The Thick of It page, so the template can be removed. Original hook isn't as interesting, so has been struck; ALT3 has been struck because at 215 characters it is too long for DYK. Otherwise the article was new when created and has 3398 characters according to DYKcheck, is neutral, hook facts and article facts are cited with inline citations in the necessary places, spotcheck for close paraphrasing found nothing problematic. The sole question is whether the short section on Romney and "Romneyshambles" means this article needs to wait until after the US election, since it's about a candidate and within 30 days of the election, or if it's minor enough not to matter. My thought it that it's minor enough, but I'd like a second opinion before I proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The mention of Romney in the article seems like a non-issue for DYK. It's not the main focus of the article, it isn't included in the hook, and it's not particularly relevant to the upcoming election. Use of this hook on the main page would neither advertise nor endorse nor disparage the candidate. When I first reviewed this, I added a backlink from Neologism, so it's no longer technically an orphan, but I didn't remove the orphan template because I think another backlink is needed. Can somebody with knowledge of the television programme please blend a link into The Thick of It? --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot of recent coverage about applicability to the current political system (well, duh, that's the point of satire). I'll take a shot at something later. Sceptre (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
It's been a week since the above. The article has one more week to acquire the additional backlink. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a link from The Thick of It; I don't know when the link was created. BencherliteTalk 14:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks to have been created by Sceptre a little over ten hours ago. Good catch. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Added a link from another "The Thick of It" article for good measure. BencherliteTalk 14:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT1 and ALT2 approved as per review of 13 October now that orphan template is no longer appropriate (three articles now point to it); political content thought above to be a non-issue in terms of promotion timing. Original hook struck (ALT3 had been struck earlier as overlong). BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Omnishambles&oldid=829241860"