Template:Did you know nominations/IL Hødd

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

IL Hødd[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Created/expanded by Mentoz86 (talk). Self nom at 23:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  • What about other sports than football? Geschichte (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC) I added some. The club seems to never have had a national champion in athletics, but many able competitors nonetheless: [1]. I positively know that Dimna took over Hødd's entire roster and their stadium a few years ago. Geschichte (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Superb! It never crossed my mind that Hødd had sections for anything other then football, even though its name is "IL". Thanks for the help, athletics is not exactly my strongest area of knowledge :p Mentoz86 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it doesn't look like this article was expanded enough for DYK. Before expansion it was at 1392 prose characters; at the end of 30 November, it was only at 5424. Even subsequent edits haven't brought it up to the 6960 that would be required for a fivefold expansion. This doesn't count the lists of players, but they were present in both versions. Please let me know if I've erred in some way. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • After my count, the pre-expansion version of IL Hødd was 1206 characters, and the current version is 5644, this means I need 400 more characters of prose. Can't believe I miss-calculated, but I've used most of the energy in expanding the other article. 2012 Norwegian Football Cup Final has also been five-fold expanded, but I wanted to wait with it till it was ready, which I believe it is now. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Confirming that 2012 Norwegian Football Cup Final is now at 5x expansion, and that IL Hødd is not quite there yet. As far as I can tell, none of the material in the "Current squad" section, including the notes at top and bottom, should count as prose, even though DYKcheck is counting those two. Once the latter article is brought up to size and fully sourced, it will be time for a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I've expanded Hødd above what I believe is 5x and wrote another article which is related, so I hope it's okei to include that one aswell. And I promise, I'm done with this now, unless there are some issues I need to fix. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll sign off on this one, since Nyland's article is definitely new enough, long enough, and well cited. It's not the most interesting fact, though. How about "... that IL Hødd goalkeeper Ørjan Nyland was signed by Tippeligaen champions Molde after being named man of the match in the 2012 Norwegian Football Cup Final"? --BDD (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely a more interesting hook, but I believe I'd have to add the fact that Nyland was signed by Molde to the two other articles aswell, as the hook-fact should be present in all three articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • All three articles needed reviewing, but as far as I can tell BDD only reviewed the new one. Can BDD confirm just what was reviewed, so we make sure all three articles have been fully reviewed before giving this a final approval tick? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I only reviewed Ørjan Nyland, which is why I only bolded his name in my proposed hook. Only one article needs to qualify for this to go to DYK, and this one qualifies unambiguously. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The point behind a DYK multi-article hook is that all the bolded hooks should be reviewed so they all may be featured, since this is a way of highlighting all of the new (or newly expanded) articles. The original two articles also need to be reviewed here; it isn't fair to Mentoz86 not to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
We may have to agree to disagree. Each article will be linked from the main page, whether its name is bolded or not. Perhaps I'm applying the criteria too strictly, but I didn't find the other articles to be expanded fivefold from the date under which this nomination is listed. I was under the impression that the backlog was such that we don't bend those rules. I'm not as experienced with DYK as you are, so perhaps I'm mistaken. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It's important that all the articles nominated be reviewed, especially as these are the ones originally nominated. I'm not quite sure how you're applying the criteria, but according to WP:DYKcheck, which is a primary way to measure whether articles have achieved 5x expansion, the two other articles have been 5x expanded from November 30 or December 1, both within the five day limit for a December 5 nomination. It has been standard practice for as long as I've been reviewing that if an article comes in under 5x at the time of nomination, as long as it was nominated within the five days, that we allow additional time for the article to be brought up to 5x. If you look around, you'll see many nominations that are being brought into compliance at the present time. What we aren't doing is approving articles that ultimately fall short of 5x even after opportunity is given to bring the article into compliance. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • About Graeme's unattributed table below: I initially placed a comment below the table, asking that it please be translated for people who might want to promote this nomination, since it wasn't clear whether this was actually approved (and with which icon), which of the hooks could be used, etc. I also noted that I find it very hard to read. That comment was signed and posted at 17:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC). However, the comment didn't show up after I posted it: there's something in this table that displaces what comes after it in a transclusion. (Note that a similarly formatted table in the Provinces of Laos nomination is itself displaced into the following transcluded nomination [from the next day!] on T:TDYK, which is very confusing.) As noted above, I'm not convinced this table is a good idea here, though I can see why it might have its uses for a 17-article DYK nomination; I definitely think that until the bugs are worked out it shouldn't be used in other DYK templates like this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not yet approved as not all checks are done. I am still working on the table, and this is the second attempt! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Highlighting BDD's buried ALT proposal above, an expansion of ALT1 to 155 characters, but with all three articles properly bolded:
Since I voted for 10 days for allowing the build of articles, till nomination, IL Hødd passes expansion, 2012 Norwegian Football Cup Final passes expansion, Ørjan Nyland passes newness and infringment not detected. Hook conclusions all need to be redone, in light of alternates. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Graeme, I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "Hook conclusions all need to be redone, in light of alternates." Can you explain what about ALT1 and ALT2 prevents you from approving either or both, and what such a redone conclusion would need to say? I'm happy to adjust as needed, but I'm not sure what you're looking for. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry I am still in the middle of this evaluation. What I meant was in my earlier statement, I mentioned a hook, but did not say which one, and did not consider one of the articles. But now I find no copying problems in any of the three, the alt2 hook is found in Ørjan Nyland and is referenced and confirmed in the Dagbladet reference. Hook is 170 characters, OK for three articles. Good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I appreciate your taking this one on and finishing it up. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/IL_Hødd&oldid=829065327"