The following is an archived discussion of Julius Althaus's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC).
Length
Julius Althaus
edit- ... that Julius Althaus conducted early electrical treatment of patients at King's College Hospital after emigrating to Britain from Germany?
Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Victuallers (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 19:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC).
- Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Bernhard M. Hämmerli
I'm not sure this qualifies for a DYK because it derives so much from that public domain encyclopedia. DYK content is supposed to be newly produced for the nominated article, right? Abyssal (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, material copied from public domain or CC sources is not considered new, and doesn't count toward the 1500 prose character minimum. The article has 2601 prose characters. Do you have reason to believe that over 1101 of those are copied or closely paraphrased from that encyclopedia? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, material copied from public domain or CC sources is not considered new, and doesn't count toward the 1500 prose character minimum.? Two words, the second ends in off.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, material copied from public domain or CC sources is not considered new, and doesn't count toward the 1500 prose character minimum. The article has 2601 prose characters. Do you have reason to believe that over 1101 of those are copied or closely paraphrased from that encyclopedia? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Absent cooperation from nominator regarding a long-standing DYK rule and a civil question on this talk page, I'm closing this. Dr. Blofeld should know better. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- To exempt PD material from DYKs is ridiculous. As for "I should know better": a] I'm intolerant of petty DYK coordinators who act as if we owe something to wikipedia and DYK. b] Lots of my DYKs have been approved containing mostly PD material I could give you a list of tens of my articles which went through DYK with PD material no problems. Does it really matter? Petty as petty can be.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- You say it's ridiculous, which I imagine that means you objected when the rule was put in place, well before my time, but it seems to have been established as a rule nonetheless. If you want to ignore DYK rules that were set up while you were active and before I was, that's your decision. WP:DYK 2b does exist, however: "DYK articles may freely reuse public domain text per Wikipedia's usual policy, with proper attribution. However, because the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content, text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles, and from the x5 expansion count for x5 expanded articles." Since 2b is clear, it's something I look for in my reviews. Having mostly PD material isn't a problem, as long there is sufficient other text that is original content. If you don't like that rule, and get a consensus that it should change, I'll go by the changed rule. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
When was this "rule" invented then? Because I've had DYKs on Isle of Wight manor houses and many more comprised mainly of PD material go through no problems. Rosiestep regularly uses public domain sources too and produces good content. It seems a silly idea to me. Are we to be punished for getting public domain material onto wikipedia. By excluding it you are effectively saying we don't want PD material, when it has proven highly valuable integrated into many of our articles.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, it's from before my time. DYK is, from what I've been able to understand, meant highlight new, original material. If that new material (1500 characters) also comes with PD material, even a lot of PD material that's been integrated with it, it's still worth highlighting; if it's just PD material or has so little original material it can't meet normal DYK minimums, then it isn't eligible. I imagine the idea is that a straightforward transfer of PD material as new articles isn't rewarded under DYK; there needs to be more to an article than PD, and the original portion is set at the usual minimum for new material. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Too bad, you've rejected a perfectly good starter article based on some petty rule.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment its pretty obvious that the article is NOT a pure copy of the PD content. It is better than the PD material and incorporates information from a few OTHER sources too, thus qualifying for a DYK. I tend to agree that the PD rule is a lil' "petty". ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just under 1000 characters of original content. Whether you like the rule or not, we have to live with it for the time being. I should also point out that several of the sources include identical content - ODNB is just an updated version of DNB, and the obit has some of the same very unique phrasing (it's unlikely that two authors came up with things like "gave him opportunities of undertaking" independently) - so the argument of "but there are a few other sources" doesn't hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- If the Dr were to paraphrase the content, he could avoid rejection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)