Template:Did you know nominations/History of the function concept

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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Length

History of the function concept edit

(

)

... that as a mathematical term, "function" was first coined by Gottfried Leibniz, in 1673?

Created/expanded by Wvbailey (talk). Nominated by Ayanosh (talk) at 08:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

. The article is exceptionally long and well referenced as a result of a 31 July 2012 split from Function (mathematics) (+52,540). That part isn't new, but over 10 K of new copy has been added. Everything checks out. Good to go. Poeticbent talk 19:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, several paragraphs are completely unsourced or improperly referenced (e.g. random page numbers in the middle of the text without indicating which book the page is from). There are also some formatting issues like one-line paragraphs, external links embedded within prose, random bolding of some words and phrases, bad punctuation and the lack of a lead section. This article should be nowhere near the front page in its current form. Big Dom 19:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

. I'm not a matematician, but User:BigDom's comment got me thinking. Many of the problems with mangled citations and some unsourced paragraphs were a result of a massive cut-and-paste job (+52,540) during the 31 July 2012 split from Function (mathematics). However, since the mother article was NOT new, its reincarnation (as sister article) might not be acceptable here either. Please enlighten me with regard to the notion of newness in this instance, before we get any further... Because, if this article is considered only an expansion beginning with text pasted from the old article on 31 July 2012, than a 5x rule would apply, I mean: 52,540 times five. Poeticbent talk 00:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The DYK rules page says: "articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles." So it seems to me that since the text in the article has just been copied and pasted from another, it would need to be 5x expanded (like you say 52,540 times five) to be eligible. Big Dom 19:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Material moved from an existing article to a new one (or as part of an article split) is not eligible for DYK, and the amount moved is such as to make a 5x expansion—which has not yet been attempted—prohibitive. The only edit of any significance has been to add references that hadn't been moved over with the initial text. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)