- The following 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
2020 Masters (snooker)
- ... that the final of the 2020 Masters was interrupted by a 'whoopee cushion' device? Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/51168579
- ALT1:... that a referee was stung by a wasp at the 2020 Masters? Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/51122685
5x expanded by Lee Vilenski (talk). Self-nominated at 17:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC).
- The article is well written and sourced; the hook is brilliant and accurately cited to BBC Sport. Unfortunately, it's a year old, which disqualifies it for DYK. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: I think it is a five-fold expansion if you check the history. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
(ec) After the expansion, which began on 12 January of this year, it's now 13361 prose characters. Just prior to that, on 15 December, it was 1725, making for a 7.7 times expansion. It looks like it was nominated about a day late, but we may give this user a little "Lee"way. (There may even be some intermediate time within the 7-day limit where there was at least a 5x expansion.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- That makes sense, I counted from 00:00 UTC 13 January, when there were 3,554 bytes of prose, which would require the article to be about 17K now. As I said above, I like the hook and this is only a technical fail per "teh rulez". Yoninah, Valereee - have we got any other options? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: there are plenty of 8-day nominations on the noms page, and an experienced DYK'er can certainly be given some leeway. Please go ahead and review this. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, assuming that, no other issues. The article is clearly long enough, free of copyvios (Earwig reports on a direct quotation from Ronnie O'Sullivan which is a non-issue) and well sourced (I haven't checked all claims but the activity on the article leads me to believe editors are fact checking in real time). The hook is directly cited to a BBC Sports piece which is the subject, so I believe it is suitable to put on the main page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, Ritchie333, I had intended to run this DYK a few days before, created the template, and then promptly didn't post it! The article was at 5x expansion for a few days prior. Thanks for the "Lee"way. ;).
- @Ritchie333: there are plenty of 8-day nominations on the noms page, and an experienced DYK'er can certainly be given some leeway. Please go ahead and review this. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
&sq=Envato&lang=en&file=File:Symbol_redirect_vote_4.svg){kind=small}
&sq=Envato&lang=en&file=File:Symbol_confirmed.svg){kind=small}
- FWIW, I used User:Shubinator/DYKcheck for this, which shows it being ok for the previous 10 days - should this be changed in the script? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- DYKcheck backtracks to when there was less than 5 times the current prose, and reports when that was. It doesn't give any view on whether it's within the correct timeframe. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- no, it does. It'll throw up an error if it's over 10 days, such as "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (364 days) DYKcheck does not account for previous versions with splits or copyright violations." I'm just wondering why it's 10 days, rather than the 7 used for DYK. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's very clear from both sources listed in the article that it was not an actual whoopee cushion, but an electronic fart machine (shockingly, there's no Wikipedia article on those). I've changed the spelling/wording both here and in the article from
[[whoopie cushion]]to'[[whoopee cushion]]' device, as used in both sources. The article didn't say that play was interrupted, so I added that to the article. I also corrected the spelling of "interrupted" in the hook, but if "interupted" is a British spelling, please change that back. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)- For some reason I had it in my head that a fart machine was the same concept as a whoopee cushion, merely updated for the modern age. If I can find sources to cobble together a fart machine article (and indeed, a news search for that term brings back quite a few hits for the 2020 Masters), maybe we could go with that in the hook instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Would probably make for a decent {{R with possibilities}}, or just as a section on the whopper cushion article. I suspect it was more likely an app on a mobile phone, but that's not sourced. I'd be fine whichever wording is more well supported. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- For some reason I had it in my head that a fart machine was the same concept as a whoopee cushion, merely updated for the modern age. If I can find sources to cobble together a fart machine article (and indeed, a news search for that term brings back quite a few hits for the 2020 Masters), maybe we could go with that in the hook instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)