Template:Did you know nominations/Twilight Zone tragedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 PFHLai (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Twilight Zone tragedy[edit]

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 12:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC).

  • Article is new. I haven't used the script, but the length of the article is comfortably over the minimum copied and pasted into Word. I can see no policy violations. Passes earwig test. However, might the article be considered an inappropriate spin-off from Twilight Zone: The Movie? It contains less information that the section it is spun-off from, so is it really a useful addition to Wikipedia? Technically, it may not fit with the guidance about copying content from another article, but should the spirit of that (a five-fold increase in length) be respected? I seek input from other editors. Symbol question.svg
  • Hook is less than 200 characters. It is interesting. The not guilty verdict is cited at the end of the sentence. However, the article text does not clearly introduce the criminal trial in the narrative or explain what the charges were. It just says "the other case...". What other case? Additionally, I query the appropriateness of referring to a serious past accusation like this in a hook where the person is still alive. New hook is OK, but the copy issue has not been fixed. Symbol possible vote.svg
  • Other Has reviewed another article. There is no image. Symbol confirmed.svg
Formerip (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hrmph. This is a new article, not an expansion. Existence of a poorly referenced section in another article shouldn't be a problem, little content was directly moved to this new article, as little could've been verified. Here's an ALT1 without any BLP issues: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
... ALT1: that actor Vic Morrow died in the "Twilight Zone tragedy", a helicopter crash during the filming of Twilight Zone: The Movie?
If this were sent to AfD, I think its a foregone conclusion that it would be merged back. Surely that's problematic for a DYK nomination (?) Formerip (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess you have little experience with either DYKs or AFD. If you want you can send it to AFD, but I predict it would be a waste of time, as I expect a speedy keep. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Flattery will get you nowhere. Formerip (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg We've had some problems recently with hooks involving BLPs on the front page. I suggest we replace this hook with a hook that doesn't reference the guilt or innocence of a living individual. I imagine that this tragedy is old enough now that many readers will not know what it is, so perhaps a hook just explaining what happened? Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess you missed my ALT1 above?

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to ALT1. If the first hook is no longer under consideration, we should strike it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
ALT1 is better, but are there multiple sources that refer to the incident as "Twilight Zone tragedy"? If not, I would suggest linking to the article via "a helicopter crash". Formerip (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
There are: [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure that this information is new? It's already mentioned in The Twilight Zone: The Movie. --George Ho (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't matter. The text is new. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 22 September 2013


Symbol question.svg At AfD. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like snowy keep within just a few hours... the nominator should get WP:TROUTed for not understanding the basics of WP:GNG, and can we move on? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Article created on day of nomination; 2,967 characters; neutral and well cited; 0.0% chance of copyvio found; ALT1 is short enough and does not incite any BLP issues, as well as being cited in the article and the source and definitely interesting; QPQ fine; no image. I italicized Twilight Zone in the hook. Hope that's okay. Good to go! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 17:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can I suggest holding this just a few more days, until the conclusion of the move request? I think there's an expectation that articles featured on the main page should be relatively stable, so I think we should wait until a title has been decided on. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Symbol possible vote.svg Yup. Holding until then. By all other measures, article and hook are ready to go. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 16:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg The concern expressed by several users has not been adequately addressed. This should be treated as an expansion, whether any of the previous material was used or not. Agolib 19:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, and you should stop reviewing DYKs if you cannot understand the rules, and a simple logic that expansion requires previously existing text to be expanded from; when content is new, there's no expansion. Aaargh, can we finally get a competent, experienced reviewer here? This is becoming ridiculous. User:BlueMoonset, would you mind stepping in? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Supplementary guideline A5: "If some of the text were copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." If I understand correctly, Piotrus, you acknowledge that information about the crash was written about in the TZ:TM article, but you did not copy any of this text and instead started fresh when you created the TZt article. Correct? If this is the case, I don't see a problem with A5 and maintain the Symbol possible vote.svg designation until talk of a potential move is resolved... Considering there has been no movement on that front for two days, it soon be time to close there and tick this article as ready to go. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 19:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg The move talk was closed with no consensus to move. The article and hook are now ready to go. Thanks for everyone's work and diligence. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 02:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)