Template talk:NewDYKnomination/guide

"...with the newest dates at the top."

I suggest the wording be amended to "The newest date will appear at the top of the listings. Insert your nomination at

• the top
• the bottom

of the list" Not knowing which is prefered, top or bottom, and not seeing it in this paragraph to be amended, I can't fill in the blank.--Wetman (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to the "nominate" section, I'm not sure I see why this addition is necessary. The guide already says to put the nomination at the top of the section:

Go to the appropriate date subsection of the DYK nominations page (this should be the date when you first created the article or when you started expanding it). Edit that section, and paste that template into the top of the section.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments input guide

I would like to suggest a couple of changes to what gets displayed in this area, for the following reasons:

• The issue of mainspace and userspace deserves more prominence. It's amazing how often reviewers get this wrong, so we should encourage nominators as much as possible to clearly state it when an article did get created in userspace first.
• If something is to be held for a special occasion, then it should be created in the special occasion holding area.

At the moment, the entry reads:

If you have any additional comments or explanation to add (such as "article created in my userspace on March 12, moved to mainspace on April 3"), add them in the |comment= field. If not, leave that field blank.

 comment = Please save this nomination for a couple days so it can be on the main page for April Fools Day!

I suggest the following alternative wording:

If you have any additional comments or explanation to add (such as "the source of the hook fact can be found on page 12"), add them in the |comment= field. If not, leave that field blank.

 comment = Article created in my userspace on May 12, moved to mainspace on June 3.

Hence, I've ditched the special occasion holding area example, shifted the userspace issue into the box that stands out more, and introduced a different issue to the text that might well be helpful for the work that reviewers have to do. I hope this makes sense. Schwede66 21:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine, I've made the change. Although, as a slightly nitpicky point: if the source of a fact in the article is located in a specific page of a multi-page document, that information should probably be included in the footnote within the article anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As for your nitpicky point, I agree. Looking at the quality of the average inline referencing, though, you might find that to be the exception. Schwede66 22:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Some amendments

I've added a few things to this template and tested it in my sandbox. Should work all fine, but I thought I'd document here what I've done:

• add BLP expanded to the status tab
• create a new tab for reviewed
• add (pictured) to a few places (the alternate hook and the example template)

Let me know if you have any queries or comments. Schwede66 18:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)