Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Order of Excellence for Women

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 BorgQueen (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Order of Excellence for Women, Order of Righteous Son of Sudan

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

Created by FuzzyMagma (talk). Self-nominated at 21:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Order of Excellence for Women; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • This is a two-article hook.
    • Order of Excellence for Women: Created on March 16, nominated in time. Article is below 1500 characters of prose. I could include the descriptions in the tables as prose, which would put it over 1500, but it is unsourced.
    • Order of Righteous Son of Sudan: Created on March 16, nominated in time. This article is long enough and sourced. The first paragraph in "Insignia" is unsourced, though.
  • Hook fact is interesting enough. One QPQ is presented, but a two-article hook requires 2 QPQ. Please expand and source the women's article, source that part of the men's article, and provide a second QPQ review. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: added a 2nd QPQ. as for sourcing the description of the badge or the insignia of both Orders, I thought I did not need a reference similar to the plot of a movie or the synopsis of book as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Plot WP:NONFICTION, as the it included in the thing itslef, i.e., the picture of the badge. Hope I am not wrong to assume that FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if we assume that it doesn't need to be sourced along a film plot, the film plot doesn't count to the character count of the article (I believe) and those descriptions shouldn't count to the character count of this article, making it too short. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: would you mind citing the policy as I could not find it in the DYK rules at Wikipedia:Did you know FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
@Muboshgu and FuzzyMagma: To clarify things, it is at WP:DYKSG that states that plot summaries are exempted from the "needs a reference" requirement. As far as I am aware, there is no rule that plot summaries do not count towards the length requirement. I think you're confusing things here: if the summaries are in tables or templates, then yet they are excluded as they don't count as prose, but Plot section do count as prose and thus are counted in article lengths. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: Re-ping due to typo in my original ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. I did confuse it. Content in the table does not count to the character count, and so the women's article is too short. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: it does not count because you are using the script (which excludes tables and itemised prose) not because it does not fulfils the rules of length or any other rules. I can surely take the text outside of the box but it aesthetically does not look right. If you disagree, please then cite the policy that says prose inside tables are to be excluded FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
After re-reviewing DYKSG, I don't see what I thought was there. If this comes up as an issue when it's time to promote this hook into the prep area, we'll talk about it more then. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: issues with refs fixed. Other issues with inline citation were already discussed here FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: BTW the edit you reverted was to format dates. Nothing to do with citations. BorgQueen (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: I undid my undo immediately once I realised my mistake. Sorry FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith and BorgQueen: the hook can change to Khaki green which is a variant, it’s an army fatigues descriptor. The whole idea of the hook is to highlight the using of military colours for men and what is culturally perceived as feminine colour to women, although both recipients are civilians
The broken link can be found in c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sudan#Government works
Anyway, I generally hate to push back if experienced editors are not comfortable with the situation. So! if the hook was declined does that mean I can use the two QPQ somewhere else? 14:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm marking this as rejected. It's not a matter of "we can call it Khaki green". You're looking at the color and making a judgement call as to what the color name is. There should be a WP:RS which says what it is. But, deeper than that, you're looking at the two awards and making a judgement call about the meaning behind why they made each award the color it is. That's WP:OR and/or WP:POV. As for the QPQ issue, I don't know where the rule is written, but I'm pretty sure QPQs from failed noms are not transferable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
deeper than that, you're looking at the two awards and making a judgement call about the meaning behind why they made each award the color it is. what are you taking about! it’s good to be open minded but just keep it inside while doing that. It similar to the sky is blue; are you not familiar with the region we are talking about? Are pretend like this is open to interpretation! What are you talking about!. And this not here or there. It’s a green Khaki unless you are color blind and I want to go forward with this nomination unless you have a a clear reason.
You changed your reasons three times already! Do you have a problem with nomination from these regions? Or you just making up reasons to block this
1st you said not mentioned in the text, then shifted to citation, then the color is not Khaki enough for your and now accusing me of things that does not relate to fact!
Unlike you, I’m from the country and well versed with culture to make that judgement; and even if you don’t like my anecdote then stick to the facts and do your review professionally and don’t just make up things as you ago
I tried to be considered and respectfully but you clearly saw it as something else. What a stupid argument to block a nomination, go any find a new one as this one is not supported any of the policies you have cited!
plus you can reject the hook (if you outlined a problem with it) not the nomination, unless there is a a issue with the article. I can propose hooks until the cow comes and you can reject them but you can’t reject the nomination. How you became responsible of anything here is beyond me but please just do your job! ..FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: Unlike you, I’m from the country and well versed with culture to make that judgement; and even if you don’t like my anecdote then stick to the facts and do your review professionally and don’t just make up things as you ago. Unfortunately, I have to agree with RoySmith here. Even if you are from the country or location a subject is from, using your own opinions as a source for information in an article counts as original research and thus is not allowed. WP:BLUE is not literally about colors, but rather the idea that obvious facts do not necessarily need a source. For what it's worth however, there is disagreement about what colors count and do not count as khaki, so it would be better to have a source and be safe than sorry. This isn't an anti-Sudan bias or an anti-Africa bias, it's a Wikipedia policy and would apply regardless of what country the subject was from. Even if the subject was from the United States and talked about a US subject, original research would still not be accepted even if the article contributor is from the US and can vouch for its authenticity or reliability. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I will reply in points to make my argument more coherent
  • is the sky actually blue? That question might seem pedantic but this what we are discussing here. What is different between green and Khaki green? I did some colour analysis and the ribbon colour is not green. You can do the same. Open the image in Microsoft paint and let paint detect the colour and then compare it to green. It’s not green. But when you say the sky is blue do you do colour analysis to confirm this or you go by perception which has an element of bias. Saying Khaki green or green is both correct and factual but more correct is Khaki green considering the colour that was detected by Microsoft paint. I hope you can sense why I consider latching to my anecdote as the reason for a rejection was as stupid as saying “is the sky actually blue?”. But regardless, it’s Khaki green more than green (as a fact, at least for the picture light setting), and I don’t think I need a reference for what included in the work similar to WP:NONFICTION
  • My argument bias is for moving the goalpost and changing why the nomination was declined 3 times with 3 different reasons that was changed everytime it was challenged. So it need to be addressed within that context. And there is no policy against challenging such a behaviour and question the root of it, wether it’s implicit or explicit bias as I did not see any1 being rejected over Color vision.
  • I can still propose alternative hooks but I want to get to why the current one is being rejected FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Your argument still does not change the fact that you declaring if it is khaki or not still counts as WP:OR. Indeed, doing color analysis by yourself would be a prime example of OR. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Computer monitors are notorious for having poor color rendition. People who actually care about color (artists, printers, professional photographers) use special tools to calibrate their monitors and the room lighting the monitor is being viewed under. If you're not doing that, then you're just guessing. This is why color matching systems like Pantone exist. If you go to a printer and say, "I want green", they'll look at you funny. If you say, "I want Pantone 15-0343", they'll know exactly what you mean. Also, different people perceive the same colors differently. The dress describes a classic example of this. I'm not an expert at military decorations, but I'd be astounded if there wasn't somewhere an official description of what the award looks like, including what color ribbons are used. That's what you should be using as a source for the colors.
I don’t think I agree with you as your definition of WP:OR can include paraphrasing. As for the 2nd reply, is that how you find out it’s green? Glad you settled on this reason. Anyway, it’s a dead end to continue arguing so below is an alternative hook
ALT1'll need a look-over :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
One sentence related to Alt1 needs a citation. --evrik (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Evrik: fixed (the citation at the end of the paragraph was added to the end of the sentence were the tag was put) FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
What about this for Alt2:
  • Alt2 to honor those who help that their country, Sudan has a decoration for both women and men?
Thoughts? --evrik (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually I want to go back to AL0 with a change, ALT3: * ... that Sudan has a separate decoration for women (with a pink ribbon) and men (with a green ribbon)? Same source contains the description which is 1961 Sudanese law that instituted these orders and includes their discerption. All included in the article text and (in case you can’t see it) is referenced FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
ALT3 is not suitable per WP:DYKSG#C9. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: ALT4: * ... that Sudan has a separate decoration for women, with a pink ribbon, and men, with a green ribbon? FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Approving ALT4 only. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I see some rewriting occurred which addressed the main concern. I will probably leave the nomination to another promotor. Bruxton (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Order_of_Excellence_for_Women&oldid=1160980219"