Template:Did you know nominations/Preparation (principle)
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Preparation (principle)
[edit]- ... that Robert Louis Stevenson's viewpoint was that politics is a profession for which no preparation is necessary?
- Reviewed: Benelux Court of Justice
Created by Doug Coldwell (talk). Self nominated at 11:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC).
There is a merge discussion underway regarding the article, the discussion taking place at Talk:Planning/Archives/2015#Proposed_merge_of_preparation. I get the impression that this "preparation" article was thrown together from odd bits and pieces, a WP:Synthesis of sources, and does not merit its own topic. The merge question should be answered before this article is taken to DYK. If no merge is performed, the SYNTH problem will need to be sorted, most likely through AFD. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Binksternet, Doug, what's happening with this? Is a merge or a deletion LOOOOOMING? Will the article be SAVED? Will RESCUE arrive in time? Who is the MYSTERIOUS Miss Kitka? Belle (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Haha... Classic radio show.
- I think the article "Preparation (principle)" was assembled without looking at sources which would not conform to the idea held by the page creator. As such, the article is a very poor representation of Wikipedia, and I don't think we should tell the world about it by way of DYK. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- In the ongoing discussion there seems to be just one editor that is against the article. The discussion and the sources confirm the idea of the principle of preparation. The article is well written and researched. Most every line is referenced and there is a complete Bibliography of about 2 dozen sources. For example, Ronald M. Shapiro’s book of Dare to Prepare: How to Win Before You Begin (a book I read from cover to cover) is entirely devoted to the principle of preparation. For the objecting editor to say I think the article "Preparation (principle)" was assembled without looking at sources is speculation and an opinion on his part. If one will check out the inline references, it is obvious I have looked at the sources in order to get the information to write on. These principles are not something I dreamt up, but derived for all the various authors in the Bibliography. My reputation I have developed with my 300 DYKs shows I do not just dream up these articles. I get the idea that the objecting editor is suppressing the information by his remark "I don't think we should tell the world about it by way of DYK." It’s not secret information nor guarded by Homeland security. Is the objecting editor then saying its O.K. to tell the world, but not by way of DYK? What's unique about telling the world by DYK? I don't see how exposing it through DYK changes the information in the article. The management principle whereby people get ready for a final product or for a successful experience is not a controversial item, except perhaps for those that don’t prepare for things. Most of the world already knows about it to one degree or another. Rather it is applied by most of the world or some of the world is another issue. The benefits of applying the principle are in the sources I listed in the Bibliography. I get the idea that the objecting editor is conveying his principles of belief by his remark "is a very poor representation of Wikipedia." I thought if there was such a thing as a "representation of Wikipedia" that it was a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project - not what one person feels should be represented as Wikipedia. Even Robert Louis Stevenson acknowledges the principle as I show in the hook line.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Haha... Classic radio show.
- Binksternet, Doug, what's happening with this? Is a merge or a deletion LOOOOOMING? Will the article be SAVED? Will RESCUE arrive in time? Who is the MYSTERIOUS Miss Kitka? Belle (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I propose the discussion of a possible merge be closed and the DYK nomination to continue.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Doug Coldwell, the place to propose that is at the discussion, not here. I didn't see much response to Binksternet's points there; perhaps some of the discussion above could be copied so it's part of the merge/no merge consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Copied this conversation to Talk:Planning with proposal that the merge/no merge should be closed and the DYK nomination to continue.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Doug has completely revised this article taking on many of the points raised (coi ... a few by me). The article is much simpler, more cogent and clearly differentiates this article from Planning. (I removed the merge template). The article is still of sufficient lenngth with enough reliable sources. The hook is hooky and there is no image offered for the hook. No evidence found of paraphrasing and it is very nuetral. So thanks for this. Victuallers (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)