Template:Did you know nominations/Widener Library

Widener Library

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the stacks of Harvard's three-million-volume Widener Library are so labyrinthine that one student "could not enter without feeling that she ought to carry a compass, a sandwich, and a whistle"?

• Reviewed: Australia Renewable Engery Authority

5x expanded by EEng (talk), Hertz1888 (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 03:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC).

• Note I've linked stacks to wiktionary -- this is a sense of the word many readers won't be familiar with, and it just needs a very quick gloss, but there doesn't seem to be an appropriate WP article. I hope no one gets on their high horse about this. EEng (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've created a WP stub, and changed the link to point to that. EEng (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately this article does not currently qualify for DYK because it is insufficiently expanded. On April 21st it was 2326 B and today it is 7985 B, an approximately 3.5x expansion. It also has a number of citation needed and clarification needed tags but that looks like the work of an unhelpful contributor. Who would have thought an article about a library would be controversial? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree on the 2326 but where do you get 7985? I get just over 12500 -- footnotes count, do they not? The {{cn}}s are mine -- I figured I might as well keep developing until someone got around to reviewing. I can get rid of them in a day or two. But again, how do you get 7985? EEng (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It comes from the "Page size" tool on the left side of my screen (I forget where I acquired it) and it does not seem to include the footnotes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but pushing a button on some stupid tool is not a substitute for understanding and applying the rules. Notes are clearly readable prose. EEng (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

EEng, Please open this into an edit window look at the toolbox in the upper right. Do you see DYK Check? That's the standard here on DYK, although others might be using something else. If you add the DYK Check to your skin's .js that puts the DYK Check in your Tools left-hand sidebar. This is how DYK verifies size, expansion, etc. If I pull up the pre-expansion April 21 version of the article, DYK Check tells me it was 2326 characters (0 words) "readable prose size" on that date. The current version of the article is 7961 characters (0 words) "readable prose size" according to that tool. Infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables do no count in size. Footnotes are considered referencing. Eligibility criteria — Maile (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't need help figuring out how to use the tool. The question is whether the tool does the right thing. Sorry, but please show me where anything says footnotes are "referencing" -- we're not talking about footnote citations (e.g. "John Author, A Book on a Subject (2004). p.243.") but substantive, readable prose notes that could, if we wanted, be run into the main article, except that it would be an impossible disorganized pile of text that way. Not many articles have such notes, so it's not surprising the tool has trouble understanding this, but we are not slaves to someone's programming shortcuts. EEng (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it is the tool's design, rather than its precision, that is questionable. Footnotes that (unlike references, infoboxes, etc.) could optionally be incorporated in the text, are very much readable prose. To regard them otherwise penalizes the editor unjustly and deprives the reader of contact with worthy articles. The tool needs redesign; in the meantime human override (as opposed to slavish reliance on the current algorhythm) can suffice. Please apply intelligent human override. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Experienced DYK editor requested in regards to the footnote issue. Per D3 and D6, needing to be fixed - bare URLs in the references; many inline dispute tags for "citation needed" and "better source needed" in the body of the article and in the footnotes. This article otherwise has not yet had a basic review. — Maile (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Although WP:DYKSG does not explicitly mention explanatory footnotes, they are essentially the same class as that which are explicitly excluded. The reader does not need to read the footnotes to understand the article; hence why they are footnotes. The prose of the article is the prose of the article itself, and not additions. Unless a proper 5X expansion can be given, this should be failed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The rules say nothing about what the reader "needs to read to understand the article" -- you're just making that up. As to notes being "essentially the same class as that which are explicitly excluded", here's what's explicitly excluded:

Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references (WP:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria)

block quotes, headers, images and captions, the "See also" section if any, the references section, Table of Contents, edit buttons and all superscript like [6] and [citation needed]. (WP:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Supplementary_article_length_rules)

In what way is a note reading

Sources conflict as to whether the building's style is "Beaux-Arts", "Georgian", 'Hellenistic", or "the austere, formalistic Imperial [or 'Imperial and Classical'] style displayed in the Law School's Langdell Hall and the Medical School quadrangle".

anything like "wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, or references" or "block quotes, headers, images and captions, the 'See also' section, the references section"? Prose is prose.

EEng (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It is extrinsic to the core content of an article (like references and tables) and set aside in a special section which many will overlook (like references). You've already had two reviewers opine that the footnotes do not count, and I doubt there will be many who will support your position. If you want, you can bring this to WT:DYK, or you can expand the article proper. If this is found to not be enough expansion, then this article will be failed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Extrinsic to the core content" -- something else you've just made up. Nonetheless I have better things to do than fight the usual DYK mindlessness. I have therefore run all the notes into the main text. It doesn't read very well, but hey, DYK only counts characters -- article quality doesn't count. Now push your mindless button on your mindless character-counting tool. Let me know when you've done that. EEng (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• First of all, something does not have to be explicitly in the rules for it to be used to disqualify an article from DYK. See WP:DYKSG D13, " To some extent, DYK approval is a subjective process. No amount of studying rules, almost-rules, and precedents will guarantee approval, nor will violating any rule guarantee disapproval. Just because an unfamiliar criterion is not listed does not mean a nomination cannot be disqualified. The subjective decision might depend on an attempt to circumvent the details of the rules, especially if the attempt does not address the underlying purpose of improving the hook and article."

When something is not explicitly in the rules, on Wikipedia one relies on consensus (i.e. per WP:CONSENSUS). By default, this means arguing points and counterpoints in a discussion. You clearly disagree with the judgment I and Cwmhiraeth have given here, hence why I have invited you to bring this to WT:DYK to obtain a wider consensus. Insulting my writing is not going to change my position, nor is implicitly comparing me to a drone.

That being said, even with the footnotes added into the article proper, this can't be passed just yet. There are several citation needed and clarification needed tags (which indicates that the article is considered under-referenced; even if this is promoted to prep, it is just as likely to be "unpromoted"), and the formatting issues I brought up have not been dealt with (the image below the references is dealt with by WP:MOSIM "Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates", and Template:Infobox library implies that thumbnails should not be used by including a specific "caption" parameter) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't insult your writing. I called your judgment into question, which may, perhaps, cause you to rethink it. If not so be it. And there are no formatting issues that you "brought up" -- you're just brining them up now.

That being said, please point to the rule or guideline forbidding a reasonable number of cite-needed or clar-needed tags on non-contentious statements -- if you honestly wish to challenge something per WP:PROVEIT, go ahead and do that; otherwise you seem to be demanding that the article be fully MOS-compliant in every detail, which to my knowledge isn't a requirement of DYK. As to the infobox image, I don't see what in the template doc you're talking about, but the reason I went to the trouble of using {{image}} within the library template was to respect the MOS provision that upright should be used in preference to px-defined fixed image sizes. EEng (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I could have sworn I mentioned this here... maybe I posted the comments elsewhere. Within templates, you can use {{!}} to apply upright without resorting to thumbnail (or leave everything alone and let the default size be used). I didn't add the citation needed tags, check the history, and there is likewise no rule that they are allowed at all (if you want to play that game, fine, let's play). If you don't agree with my review, then ask for a second opinion. Otherwise clean up the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said that you added the cite needed tags -- I added them, mostly on statements already in the article before I started expanding it. They are pedestrian stuff like the building's square footage which can quite happily stay until someone finds a source -- though as I said, if you honestly think one of them's not verifiable, then I won't object to removing it. There's no "game" to play here, but you seem to be saying that unless some rule explicitly allows something, you are free to use it as an objection, and that's ridiculous. Now again, please show me where a reasonable number of cite-needed tags, on an otherwise extremely carefully cited article, is disallowed. The rules say dispute templates shouldn't be present, and that's not the same thing. EEng (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• And you seem to be saying that unless some rule explicitly disallows something, it cannot be used as a point of opposition (which is 180 degrees opposite of what is in DYKSG D13). You will not get a pass from me with citation needed tags. If you wish for a second opinion, please post at WT:DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)