Template:Did you know nominations/Singh v Canada

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: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 03:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Singh v Canada

(

)

... that Singh v Canada led to the country having one of the most liberal and expensive refugee systems? Source: Jan Raska in "Entrenching Refugee Rights in Canada: The 1985 Singh Decision", quote: "While the Singh decision helped make Canada one of the most liberal refugee systems in the world, it also became one of the most expensive to operate."
- ALT1: ... that the anniversary of the Singh v Canada ruling is observed as Refugee Rights Day? Source: Canadian Council for Refugees in "Refugee Rights Day" quote: "Refugee Rights Day is celebrated each year in Canada on April 4th. [...] April 4th is the anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1985 Singh decision.
- ALT1a: ... that 4 April, the anniversary of the Singh v Canada decision, is observed as Refugee Rights Day? (as above)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Henderson Eastman
- Comment: Please hold for special occasion on 4 April, the anniversary of the ruling and Refugee Rights Day (Canada). BTW, Earwig scores are quite high due to proper names and legal terms.

5x expanded by Reidgreg (talk). Self-nominated at 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Singh v Canada; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Interesting article on a court case with consequences, on fine sources, no copyvio obvious. I remember that we have "v." in such titles, - did that change, or should the article be moved? In the article, I'd give "Singh Decision" a bold place in the lead. I think "decision" might be better than "ruling" in ALT1. Perhaps mention April 4 there? Holding for the date makes sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on v versus v. (ahem). I left it at the title it was at when I started editing this article. MOS:LEGAL has examples with either, which don't seem to split over national lines. However, MOS:MISCSHORT states that In law, the usage is "v." or "v", depending on jurisdiction. Articles listed at Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases favour v by 532 to 11. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I added ALT1a with the date and changed to decision, bolded in article (lowercase d per sources). I think I prefer the shorter version without the date but I'm okay with either. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining and the ALT. I am not familiar with Canadian specialties, and just saw that the sources for this article seemed to favour "vs.". I don't mind.

I think our favourite hook is then

ALT1b: ... that the anniversary of the Singh v Canada decision is observed as Refugee Rights Day?

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Reidgreg and Gerda Arendt: Article doesn't seem to have been expanded 5x (2004 --> 7705).--Laun chba ller 08:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I remember that it was really close. This version is where I made the 5× expansion in a single edit, noted as such in the edit summary. It expanded the article 243 → 1215 words (5× exactly) or 1511 → 7702 characters (5.09×). I'm not sure where you're getting 2004 and 7705, I'm not seeing those exact numbers with prosecount.

In the two edits prior to the expansion edit, I removed some material from the older versions of the article which was erroneous, unsourced, or where the same material was repeated in multiple places. I believe this was all legitimate removal of content, and not part of an expansion (since it made the article smaller). I counted the expansion from the low wordcount point after this, when the article was 'clean' and used the edit summary to make it easy for reviewers to check. I hope this doesn't seem like I was 'gaming the system'.

If it is required to further increase the size of the article, could you please give me a specific target word/character count to meet. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I approve it IAR, because it would be nonsense to require the multiplication of bad content. If you want to avoid such things make the article GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, 2004 was this edit per WP:DYKCHECK.--Laun chba ller 18:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the check doesn't realize that unsourced and duplicated parts were removed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This was the version expanded, 1515 chars of prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The 2004-count edit was 12 Feb, which was just outside the 7-day expansion window. So, in other words, if I made those two edits which removed material and then waited seven days before posting the expansion edit, DYKcheck would say it is fine. WP:DYK5X basically says that it's not worth arguing about, and I agree. If it needs further expansion, please let me know ASAP. I can move some of the footnotes up and make it a little more verbose, though I wouldn't necessarily call those improvements. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll promote this.--Laun chba ller 22:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Unpromoted due to set speed changing to two sets per day and the last available prep being 1 April. I haven't put this back to the special occasion holding area as I plan to promote this myself.--Laun chba ller 15:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)