Template:Did you know nominations/Conflict (process)

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 Allen3 ^talk 11:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Conflict (process)

(

)

... that some conflicts may be beneficial?

Reviewed: Narendra Modi's Google+ Hangout
Comment: If anyone can think of a more interesting hook, feel free to suggest it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Piotrus (talk). Self nom at 18:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I am new to DYK, so a second opinion is required before full review is accepted. CathMontgomery (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment: The DYK text is valid and is in article. CathMontgomery (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I have also added to the article that conflict is beneficial to avoid the error of "Group think". CathMontgomery (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have seen lots of debate about redlink names in articles. Proposed compromise: The 2 redlink BLP names in such a recent article would be better not redlinked while on the main-page for DYK, then can be redlinked again afterwards. I can do this maintenance before and after if anyone agrees with me. Let me know, Thanks. CathMontgomery (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what debate you mention, but the last time I checked, WP:RED was still a policy and recommends having redlinks everywhere. Front page is an exception, but as long as have no red links in the hook, that's fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Piotr is correct. Redlinks are recommended. There's nothing wrong with them whatsoever. Manxruler (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs a new, complete review. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well-referenced, but the lead should define the fields covered more clearly. Some overlap with Social conflict; ultimately a merge, or transfer of some of that here might be better. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)