This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sweetheart deal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 January 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
A fact from Sweetheart deal appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 September 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This concept is also common in international politics such as the deals offered by the Soviet Union in 2013 to Ukraine. A second on the geopolitical use of such deals would be very useful since Sweetheart Deals can play an important role in international affairs and conflicts. 71.217.222.96 ( talk) 07:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 18:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
5x expanded by MelanieN ( talk). Self-nominated at 20:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC).
I think we need clarification on what "5X expansion" means, to keep this from being challenged in Prep or Queue, or on the main page.
So, WP:5X says, "Fivefold expansion means at least five times as much prose as the previously existing article – no matter how bad it was ..." Comments, anyone? @ Cwmhiraeth: @ Yoninah: @ BlueMoonset: — Maile ( talk) 23:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise. IMO the expansion count should start from the June 23 version with 1187 characters], which was the highest character count the article achieved, and be expanded 5x from there to qualify. Yoninah ( talk) 23:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, and the key here is "previously existing article". It doesn't say "highest ever previous character count". I'm pretty sure one of my mentors back in the day, Orlady, would have said in this case that enough time had passed that 221 would be the governing number rather than 664. (The 1190 figure supplied by DYKcheck is not on my radar; it was a blip rather than a true addition, with the article being stable before and after that eleven-hour series of additions and subtraction.) If 664 is the number, then 3320 becomes the 5x number, requiring an additional 1443 prose characters over the current 1877. But if consensus is for 221, then a 5x expansion is 1105 prose characters, a number superseded by the DYK minimum of 1500. I'm inclined to the latter view in this case. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@
MelanieN,
Cwmhiraeth,
Yoninah,
BlueMoonset, and
Maile66:
I have to agree with BlueMoonset and his/her reference to ""previously existing article". It doesn't say "highest ever previous character count".
—
A sizeable deletion was made on June 23 by an IP editor, for lack of citations apparently, and the article sat there for more than 3 months before MelanieN's first edit on Aug.31. The article prose size at that point was 221 characters. i.e.readable prose only
—
"Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was "
— By Sept. 1, the date of nomination, the prose size was 1434 characters - and everything was and remains sourced.
— 221 x 5 = 1105. i.e. the required 5 X expansion number, which is far less than 1434. MalanieN clearly expanded the article more than 5X and added sources. The article is good to go IMO. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This article is 100% US-centric and doesn't provide any examples of the subject matter in other parts of the globe. The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 07:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sweetheart deal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 January 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
A fact from Sweetheart deal appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 September 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This concept is also common in international politics such as the deals offered by the Soviet Union in 2013 to Ukraine. A second on the geopolitical use of such deals would be very useful since Sweetheart Deals can play an important role in international affairs and conflicts. 71.217.222.96 ( talk) 07:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 18:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
5x expanded by MelanieN ( talk). Self-nominated at 20:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC).
I think we need clarification on what "5X expansion" means, to keep this from being challenged in Prep or Queue, or on the main page.
So, WP:5X says, "Fivefold expansion means at least five times as much prose as the previously existing article – no matter how bad it was ..." Comments, anyone? @ Cwmhiraeth: @ Yoninah: @ BlueMoonset: — Maile ( talk) 23:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise. IMO the expansion count should start from the June 23 version with 1187 characters], which was the highest character count the article achieved, and be expanded 5x from there to qualify. Yoninah ( talk) 23:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, and the key here is "previously existing article". It doesn't say "highest ever previous character count". I'm pretty sure one of my mentors back in the day, Orlady, would have said in this case that enough time had passed that 221 would be the governing number rather than 664. (The 1190 figure supplied by DYKcheck is not on my radar; it was a blip rather than a true addition, with the article being stable before and after that eleven-hour series of additions and subtraction.) If 664 is the number, then 3320 becomes the 5x number, requiring an additional 1443 prose characters over the current 1877. But if consensus is for 221, then a 5x expansion is 1105 prose characters, a number superseded by the DYK minimum of 1500. I'm inclined to the latter view in this case. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@
MelanieN,
Cwmhiraeth,
Yoninah,
BlueMoonset, and
Maile66:
I have to agree with BlueMoonset and his/her reference to ""previously existing article". It doesn't say "highest ever previous character count".
—
A sizeable deletion was made on June 23 by an IP editor, for lack of citations apparently, and the article sat there for more than 3 months before MelanieN's first edit on Aug.31. The article prose size at that point was 221 characters. i.e.readable prose only
—
"Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was "
— By Sept. 1, the date of nomination, the prose size was 1434 characters - and everything was and remains sourced.
— 221 x 5 = 1105. i.e. the required 5 X expansion number, which is far less than 1434. MalanieN clearly expanded the article more than 5X and added sources. The article is good to go IMO. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This article is 100% US-centric and doesn't provide any examples of the subject matter in other parts of the globe. The Rambling Man ( Staying alive since 2005!) 07:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)