Template:Did you know nominations/Transportation of animals
- 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 Alex ShihTalk 17:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Co-credit to Stalwart111, Northamerica1000 and Mandarax per Drmies
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Transportation of animals
edit- ... that a 400-pound (180 kg) tapir was transported by being sent in the post?
Created by Seal Boxer (talk). Self nominated at 12:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Contibutions by Northamerica1000, Stalwart111 Mandarax, User:202.124.72.1.
Article is not new enough, nor has it undergone a recent 5x expansion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)- Comment - WikiDan61, Hi. I would just like to point out that this article was in the process of going through the procedure for Did You Know and was rejected for reasons that seem unusual to me - namely that I was absent on a WikiBreak. The original nomination was made just after the article was created - are you saying that this beurocracy has caused the article to lose any chance it can have of being part of a Did You know??? Seal Boxer (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - In taking your WikiBreak when you did, you effectively abandoned the prior DYK nomination and so it was closed. This is not the bureaucracy's fault; you are the one who took the break, not the reviewers. The new nomination is invalid because the article is no longer eligible for a DYK nomination. Others may disagree with me -- mine is not the final word on the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Response - Thank you for clarifying. I did not realise that I would have to nurse the article through each step of the nomination. If this nomination is indeed rejected, is there a way to reprise the previous one? Seal Boxer (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Reply Unknown (I'll defer to others who are more familiary with the DYK process), but doubtful. The whole point of the DYK process is to highlight the newest content of the encyclopedia; this article simply no longer counts among that population. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- For reference, the previous nomination was: Template:Did you know nominations/Animal transportation. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- As the person who closed the earlier nomination, at the time I did so it was without a valid hook, and you had not edited for 19 days. We do expect nominators to be around so that, if necessary, they can address issues that come up. You never posted once to the template after making your nomination, despite the many issues that arose prior to the wikibreak. In toto, you were away for over three weeks; your talk page merely said you were taking a short wikibreak. I think it was an appropriate close, and do not believe the original nomination should be reopened; this one is clearly ineligible. However, if one of the even more experienced DYKers such as Crisco1492 or Orlady disagrees with me and wishes to reopen the earlier nomination, they're welcome to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note: "you" in the above paragraph refers to Seal Boxer, not to Mandarax. Sorry for the unclear antecedent. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hooked cited and online, article long enough, etc etc.- I have looked over the DYK rules / supplementary rules and can see nothing relating to nominators' having to 'stick around' to answer queries. Perhaps someone could point me to where it says this, if it isn't there, then I can't see the problem here. There are plenty of people who are registered as DYK helpers who could have amended the article to help it pass, the idea that a reviewer just points out errors when an article sits in mainspace is ludicrous anyhow, mistakes should just be corrected on sight no? This is an important entry and I'm shocked it's taken nearly twelve years to be created. It deserves a place on the main page for that alone. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 15:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hillbillyholiday is correct: the rules do not require the nominator to stick around to shepherd the nomination. But if the original nomination has problems, and neither the original nominator nor any other editor addresses those problems, the nomination will fail from lack of improvement. Since that has happened, and the article has now aged past the point where it is eligible for DYK, I don't believe this second nomination should be allowed to pass. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To hell with the technicalities, I propose we let this one through and clarify the rules to aid future nominators. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 16:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hillbillyholiday is correct: the rules do not require the nominator to stick around to shepherd the nomination. But if the original nomination has problems, and neither the original nominator nor any other editor addresses those problems, the nomination will fail from lack of improvement. Since that has happened, and the article has now aged past the point where it is eligible for DYK, I don't believe this second nomination should be allowed to pass. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Drmies here, who is not easily shocked, nor is he shocked by this since it's not so shocking. Hey BlueMoonset, Mandarax, WikiDan61, Orlady, and other interested parties, how y'all doing? I suppose the rules and guidelines were followed properly; it's nothing more than unfortunate that this happened the way it did. But we can easily set it straight, and I think we should do it--invoking IAR or whatever. Let bygones be bygones, and let's give the new editor a break so they can earn this DYK badge and be celebrated in the warmth of our collaborative project.
I had another look at at the article, made a couple of edits, found a source and tweaked some others and the relevant text. I have only one concern: I don't know if "FEDEX'd" is equivalent to "sent in the post". I propose we change the hook accordingly; see below. Now, much has been done to the article, and if this were to run (and I hope it will since the article is totally cool and the hook wonderful), I propose we give co-credit to Northamerica1000, Stalwart111, IP 202.124.72.1, and the aforementioned Xaradnam. Can we please do this? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that a 400-pound (180 kg) tapir was transported by being FEDEX'd from Florida to Los Angeles?
- Beautifully put, Doc. Have credited the other contributors. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
