Template:Did you know nominations/The World's Billionaires

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 Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The World's Billionaires

• ... that Bill Gates (pictured) topped Forbes' annual list of the world's billionaires in 2014, after having not topped the list in 2013, 2012, 2011, or 2010?

• Reviewed: Rajani Pandit, Keith Brown (pole vaulter), 2013–14 Ivy League men's basketball season, List of national quality awards, 1992 Troy vs. DeVry men's basketball game, Template:Did you know nominations/Blanche Evans Dean
• Comment: I am working on creating articles for each year's list. Given a little more time, I will continue to add years to the hook with the goal of getting it listed here. So, feel free to be slow in reviewing this. :) Alternatively, I can break it up and pick more diverse facts. More QPQs will be added to the list soon.

The World's Billionaires 5x expanded, all others new articles, by ThaddeusB (talk). Self nominated at 00:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

• This is not a full review, just a comment. The 2014, 2013, and 2012 lists do not qualify as new because they were spun-off of an existing article. For those three to be eligible, they have to be expanded fivefold from the initial version that was copied from the main article. (See 1a) Altamel (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• A common sense exception should apply here. I wrote the text at the main article originally in the five day time frame, realized there would be too much text at the main article once I was done, then moved it to the individual articles. All of the text is new (or was when I nominated it originally, now a couple weeks old) and was written by me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure I can agree with that. The way I interpret the guidelines (and I'm new to reviewing, so I may be wrong) is that text cannot be double counted, since DYK recognizes new content. Even if I were to apply your exception and count 2014, 2013, and 2012 as "new" articles, then their text would have to be excluded from the 5x calculation for the main article, and the main article, in turn, would not have been expanded five times. This is a complicated situation, and you might want to ask a DYK regular for a second opinion. Altamel (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Second opinion: As Altamel notes, the same material from the main article was subsequently moved to the individual articles and expanded there, and can't be counted as new for both. So a new 1500-character year section in the main article cannot count toward the expansion total in the main article and also as part of a new 2500-character year article. The only way all the articles could be used is if the individual years were 5x expanded after they were spun off. I think it could be argued either to use the original article and not the various years, or the individual years but not the main article, given that all the work was done within the five days. In both cases, the same hook could be used, but the bolded articles would vary. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• If I only get one or the other, naturally I would prefer to get credit for the multiple yearly articles instead of the one main article. I would, however like to point out that the main article was 1052 characters before my first edit. It is now 11059 characters. Excluding the 2014/2013/2012 text (which is actually not 100% duplicate), it would still be 6262 characters, a 6X expansion. Anyway, I am OK with not bolding the main article if that is the only way to get credit for the yearly articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• ThaddeusB, thanks. I've unbolded the main article in the hook since it was the only way to handle this to give you credit for the (now five) year articles. That's even more true now that you've added text from the pre-existing 2010 and 2011 articles to the main article—the 3232 new prose characters from them would have had to be increased five-fold, which isn't feasible. At the moment, you have two QPQs; you'll need to supply three more to cover all five year articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Working on QPQs, sorry for the delay. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• My apologies as I got distracted again - I will finish QPQs within the next couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• QPQs done, full review needed. Altamel (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• No, there are four QPQs done, but the nomination requires five. One more QPQ is needed, as ThaddeusB knows. If a full review of this nomination is done in the interim, the tick must be withheld until the fifth QPQ has been completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Five QPQs have been completed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Fifth QPQ was added May 24th. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Apologies to you all. I miscounted, and should have been more careful. This is definitely ready for a full review of all five articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• 5x QPQ good, all articles are new at the time of nomination and the list was increased by 5x at the time of nomination. No close paraphrasing found, ample sources, all it needs is a source for this line: "Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, added $7 billion to his fortune since 2013 and topped the 2014 billionaire list. He has topped the list 15 of the previous 20 years, but was last number one in 2009." The second ref in the article could source most of the sentence but something else is needed for "last number one in 2009". Perhaps a combination of sources from the other articles?--v/r - TP 18:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: now that TParis has bolded the master article in the hook, presumably by an invocation of WP:IAR, a sixth QPQ will be needed. It can be provided by ThaddeusB, or someone else (TParis?) can volunteer one of their own QPQs if they want. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ, I'm not saying you're generally a bad guy (or girl? I don't know), but the rules are generally guidelines and you sticking to them is hindering progress. Besides, the rules arn't clear about if it's one QPQ per article, or one QPQ per hook. This DYK is months overdue, since there is nothing about the DYK itself or the articles themselves that would prevent it and the OP has done plenty of work already, let's get this thing through the pipes.--v/r - TP 05:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• TParis, the rules are very clear on just that point at WP:DYKSG#H4: The consensus is that hook-for-hook reviewing is not acceptable in case of multiple nominations. You must have missed the discussion on WT:DYK in late 2012 that led to the current wording. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• That should be on the main rules page. Regardless, you still haven't addressed the central point. This was nominated in March and has sat in the queue largely untouched. Let's get out moving. So he's one short *shrug* so what? I'm reviewing this nom having not nommed one myself, QPQ met.--v/r - TP 17:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I added a 6th QPQ and a direct reference for the line in question. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Great, QPQ done and hook directly cited. Ready for promotion.--v/r - TP 21:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)