Template talk:DYKrev
Initial notes
[edit]This is a draft of a template proposed by User:Tony1 and taken from his format used at Template talk:DYK and modified slightly by me. Draft text taken from here. Hopefully someone can make it into a workable template. See also Template:DYKreview, which may be helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Carcharoth, thank you very much for organising this. I hope you don't mind that I've moved the title from Template:DYKfullreview to Template:DYKrev, for two reasons: (1) it's good not to imply with the word "full" that "partial" reviews might still be acceptable before main-page exposure, based on the overwhelming result in the RfC on a proper reviewing checklist; and (2) it's a bit shorter, which is nice. Tony (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- There are some issues with it visually. One way to make this easier to glance at would be to substitute dashes for colons. Seeing the linked criteria next to a linked sig without comments isn't easy to scan. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Good point, Viriditas. I'll try it out. Tony (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- There are some issues with it visually. One way to make this easier to glance at would be to substitute dashes for colons. Seeing the linked criteria next to a linked sig without comments isn't easy to scan. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
noincluded
[edit]I went ahead and did this to temporarily disable {{subst:DYKrev}} (which I assume is how this checklist is being added to DYK reviews). WT:DYK is full of complaints about this checklist, and the implementation of it is not so urgent that we need to skip getting feedback on it; the wiki is not going to break if we wait a week for discussion before rolling this out. As it is it's already a hasty implementation of what was a hasty decision in a hastily-performed RfC.
I've also been working on making a checklist to implement the decision of that RfC, and I've had the patience to solicit feedback and listen to suggestions about how people want the checklist to be used. If I can be patient, the makers of this version of the checklist can be patient as well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- In spite of this, I still see Tony pasting the checklist into numerous reviews (e.g. [1]), despite the page full of complaints about it... rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand this disabling business. I paste in the checklist, as required by the RfC which overwhelmingly passed only a few weeks ago, from a separate location. While DYK regulars would like to return to the old system of waving through appallingly bad noms without properly checking them, it is a breach of the community consensus not to include a checklist. Tony (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_69#RfC_proposal:_a_proper_reviewing_checklist is not consensus to include this checklist (in fact, even this checklist is not the same as the checklist you proposed in that RfC). It's consensus to include a checklist. All the wording of the RfC said was "articles must be explicitly passed for these 5 things", it never said "I will put this template on every nomination and everyone must format their review exactly the way I want it." Given that WT:DYK is full of people complaining about your checklist (in spite of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude towards other editors' comments there), your insistence on forcing everyone to use the checklist you like is also a "breach of community consensus".
- On top of that, there is no rule that the decision of every RfC needs to be implemented immediately. All the RfC means is there is consensus to make this happen; it doesn't mean the wiki is going to break it if doesn't happen right now. No one's going to die if we take a few days to actually make a checklist that works.
- Since you are going to go ahead and feel free to keep adding this checklist to new nominations in spite of numerous editors asking you not to, I'll go ahead and feel free to keep removing it. Please don't continue to repeat "but the community insists on it!", because I and other editors have already told you numerous times you are misunderstanding the outcome of that RfC. You don't have consensus to force this version of your checklist on everyone, until you actually ask if there is consensus for it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Almost nothing in your post bears any relationship to the truth. I'm reverting the template. Do NOT remove the template from DYK nominations. Tony (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Would you care to elaborate? I don't think just saying "you're wrong" is an appropriate way to "win" a discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Almost nothing in your post bears any relationship to the truth. I'm reverting the template. Do NOT remove the template from DYK nominations. Tony (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand this disabling business. I paste in the checklist, as required by the RfC which overwhelmingly passed only a few weeks ago, from a separate location. While DYK regulars would like to return to the old system of waving through appallingly bad noms without properly checking them, it is a breach of the community consensus not to include a checklist. Tony (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose this entire thread. This discussion ought not to be taking place in some backwater. Close it and move it to WT:DYK, where more people are likely to get a look in. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)