Template:Did you know nominations/Justin Bieber on Twitter

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) 14:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber on Twitter, Lady Gaga on Twitter[edit]

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

Bieber vs Gaga on Twitter

Created/expanded by LauraHale (talk). Self nom at 16:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposing hook below.

--Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Length, sourcing and timeliness look good. I prefer this hook, since it doesn't imply that Justin Bieber may not want to unseat Lady Gaga. I'd probably make some redirects that point here, Justin Bieber's twiiter feed, etc. That's not a blocker though. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm 100% happy with alt1. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be great to have an article about Lady Gaga on Twitter in the same DYK; then we can compare pageviews! ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 00:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be hilarious. That said, I love that this article exists. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Second QPQ: Terror Management Theory.

It's new, well sourced, and is within policy. I think this hook is better because it has both Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber in hook, as opposed to only the person coming second. I would prefer a hook which puts the no.1 holder (Lady Gaga) first in prose of the hook, but that isnt a blocker. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


Proposed alts. --LauraHale (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ALT3 orders the celebrities correctly! Love the graph! Good to go.. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
They're new, well sourced, and are within policy. Ideally the graph would be normalised to "% of twitter accounts" or something useful rather than millions, but that's not a blocker. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This needs some (more) serious coypediting. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I find it hard to believe that this is an article and not a paragraph in Bieber's article. Really hard. But if this is to stand, and if it is to be on the front page to advertise our embrace of such content, will someone please copyedit? There's phrasing to be redone even in the paragraphs I just looked at, and lots of little things--incorrect use of templates ("web" instead of "news"), publication names, piped links, italics, incorrect titles (probably filled in by the citation template autofill), repetitive word choice, redundant phrasing, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • What's next? Do we get some DYK's about this guys favorite color...I'll start writing about that major issue right away...MONGO 16:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
      • MONGO, check out K-pop articles, where editors add the fanclub's official colors. (I wish I was kidding.) Seriously, someone please reconsider the opening sentence, "Justin Bieber on Twitter is a celebrity". Drmies (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
        • MONGO scared to look...MONGO 17:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
            • As the tags were randomly placed with out any explanation on the talk page, they were removed. Problem solved with tagging. Well written is not a DYK criteria and the articles are fundamentally not about Bieber or Gaga but about Twitter first and the celebrities second. I understand people do not like Bieber but that should not be a consideration for DYK. --LauraHale (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
              • Sorry, but you've managed to miss all the salient points. "Well-written" is a criterion for everything, especially if it goes in the window. I love Justin Bieber, actually, and read all his Tweets--that has nothing to do with this. And that merge proposal was valid: it's mentioned here, and "here" is found also on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
              • John, thank you for fixing that first sentence--if it's more than a noun I don't really know what to do with it. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Honestly not expecting an image under any circumstance. Removed from article as I understand some people view the image as original research and because frankly, in miniature, it looks like crap and is not useful in the hook. Removed from proposed hook. (Beyond that, only about one in five of my nominations get pictures anyway.) That said, the last time I checked, the merge proposal consensus was working against a merge as the topic if merged would give WP:UNDUE and the sources involved demonstrate independent notability. More than happy to let it run its course for a week to give the discussion time before having the tag removed if consensus works that way. Several people actively patrolling article to make sure it does not have the problems Kony 2012 faced. --LauraHale (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


  • ALT6:... that on Twitter, @ladygaga (pictured) and @justinbieber are the first and second most followed celebrities respectively?
I think this is catchy enough. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Much simpler. I do like these. --LauraHale (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The spelling is "celebrities". :) LadyofShalott 13:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! John Vandenberg (chat) 14:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Whatever happens with the merge discussion, this article is simply not ready. Look at this edit, whose results I've cleaned up a bit: it wasn't grammatically correct English, it wasn't properly formatted (magazine titles should be italicized), and the wikilink was a redirect. The reference should go to the Advertising Age article, but cites a textbook called Advertising Age: The Principles of Advertising and Marketing Communication. The reference should go to this article; if the textbook is cited it should be for what it says, not the title that it mentions. It's things like this that indicate that the article is not ready. I note also that despite my many copyedits the main author hasn't taken the hint to clean this up. So, IMO, . Drmies (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The Ad Age part has been italicized. A reference to the exact article has been added so two citations are now for the article. I'm completely unclear where this article has failed to meet the T:TDYK rules as two different people have checked it against the criteria and passed it. Can you please cite WP:DYKSG and WP:DYK for which rules it does not meet? That way, when I am trying to fix the article (where the current talk page consensus runs oppose to merge or no consensus which will result in no merge), I can clearly understand which rules the article needs to comply with. --LauraHale (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
      • My objection, as should be well-known by now, is that the article is not clean enough, so to speak. Do the DYK rules specify that it ought to be? I don't know. If they don't, they should. But it's not about rules--it's about good writing for something that is nominated for the front page. I've mentioned, in edit summaries (I made plenty of copy edits) and here, the staccato prose, the wikilinking, the errors in citation templates, the caps for some article titles, etc. DYK nominations are turned down routinely or sent through another round of copy editing, and if they're not up to snuff in the eyes of other editors they get turned down. The others you refer to, they are free to disagree, and whoever decides on it, if anyone is in charge, is also free to disagree and to overrule me. I have no special powers here, but I do have an opinion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: this here is where Drmies pretty much says they trimmed an article where the consensus is running against a merge to try to force a merge NOT on the merits of the article but because Drmies does not want to see the article appear as a DYK despite it otherwise meeting all the criteria. --LauraHale (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Funny, I don't see that at all. I think most people will see that I said that the lack of a "As of" template is another reason not to promote this, which is what I think I said. It's quite literal. The article says, "is the second most popular"--meaning that "right now" has acquired some sort of eternal status. We have that template for a good reason. You chose not to reinstate/retain it: that's not a good editorial decision. I get that you resent my involvement with this, and I can't blame you for that, but you could still consider that I might not be wrong about everything. The first paragraph of "Followers and fans", for instance--no matter how you slice it, it's not good prose and it's not even encyclopedic since it's a play-by-play of information that has no lasting value whatsoever.

      But I'm a bit tired of copy editing your article and bickering on this template. If it is considered good enough for DYK by others, fine. I've gotten a bit tired of it anyway; 191 maybe is enough. If you haven't passed me yet, you will in no time since there's plenty of other celebs on Twitter. Charlie Sheen should be next; he's already in this one. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

  • Good to go using ALT6. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • With that picture? We are advertising the most popular Twitter users with a tiny thumbnail of a barchart? I recommend the Gaga photo File:Lady Gaga EuroPride 2011 06.jpg. That's the idea, right? To engage readers? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be fine. Only one article in eight gets a picture. I don't see any problem with using that picture (left). Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • - ALT6 with the Gaga picture. I only hope that this is saved for a day when the image can be used, for user engagement and all that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter&oldid=1021555764"