Template:Did you know nominations/Megachile centuncularis
- 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) 11:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Megachile centuncularis[edit]
- ... that the patchwork leafcutter bee makes use of the leaves of roses, lilac and honeysuckle? Source: "Ash, birch, honeysuckle, horse-chestnut, lilac and rose leaves are utilised."
- Reviewed: Petronius Maximus
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 18:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC).
I have a question about the article's history: it was expanded from a stub in August 2015 by Thine Antique Pen [1], but it was reverted by the same user three months later without explanation [2]. Do you have any idea why he did that? I'm not sure if that disqualifies the article for 5x expansion. -Zanhe (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Zanhe: The expansion is from the previous size when the expansion starts, not from some earlier version. I do vaguely remember that in a "Stub competition" for expanding stubs into start class articles, Thine Antique Pen created a large number of expansions using identical text for each. If you look at Megachile catamarcensis and Megachile catulus, you will see that they had similar expansions that were also reversed. There are about 2000 species of Megachile bees so there were plenty of articles to expand in this way! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. If the user was copying identical text to numerous articles, I suppose that should be considered invalid content and not count against the 5x expansion rule. In that case, the article is new enough, long enough, fully referenced. The hook is verified with inline reference. QPQ is done. No copyvio found. Good to go. -Zanhe (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
