Jump to content

Talk:NCAA Season 7 basketball tournaments

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pending
  • Comment: Will do the QPQ later on. On the hook, some may confuse this with the American NCAA, and that's the hookiness of it. If any this is clarified on the hook, it will lengthen it, and will defeat the hookiness of it. See also this, and this is something I'd push for in similar DYKs moving forward.
Created by Howard the Duck (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 25 past nominations.

Howard the Duck (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Howard the Duck: In case you were not aware: a recent rule change means that QPQs should now be provided at the time of the nomination, and nominations without QPQs are liable to be closed without warning. In addition, as we are currently on backlog mode and you have over 20 nominations, you will need to provide two QPQs instead of the usual one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'm now on mobile so its quite a pain to edit, but I added one of my QPQ reviews. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is new and long enough. I really like the hook (and yes, it did take some link hovering to realize that it wasn't the American NCAA, but I think this is a benefit at DYK), and the sourcing checks out. The rest of the article's sourcing looks good apart from a cn template on the very last results table. One QPQ is done so one more will be needed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: Given that the requirement is for QPQs to be given immediately at the time of the nomination, "later this week" cannot suffice. They need to be done promptly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination, then.
Talk about reducing the backlog.... you guys are doing the reverse. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regrets. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and Howard the Duck: could I donate a QPQ to get this a tick? I can have it done by early this evening. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'd volunteer to go three but I suppose time is of the utmost essence here...
DYK is for noobs, and while I am absolutely not one (LOL), this is certainly not the way to clear out backlogs. Now I understand why there's a backlog, as the pool of contributors had diminished a lot with actions such as this. DYK articles are in the Main Page 8-12 hours on a list. This should not be hard or time sensitive. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QPQ donations should only be done as a last resort. There are times they are acceptable, but for example in cases where a nominator declines to do them then such cases should not be rewarded. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As anyone who'd read the discussion above, I did not decline any QPQ, only that it be done immediately, as what you had stated. WP:QPQ states "Your QPQ review should ideally be made at the time of your nomination"; now, whether that means "immediately" is subject to interpretation.
WP:QPQ does give time limits (see below), but not "immediately"; and the way it is worded gives you enough leeway, as it is not obligatory.
WP:QPQ does mention "unreviewed backlog mode", and mandates someone like me an extra review, but again, it is not time sensitive. You are obligated two reviews, the speed that you do is not suggested to be "immediately", backlog or not.
WP:QPQ does give a time limit of two months; now this should take that long except may be in long drawn out discussions. I guess it won't take that long.
God, I guess WP:QPQ is like WP:UE; everyone misquotes it! Howard the Duck (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misinterpreted the rules, as the two months thing refers not to QPQ, but rather to unpromoted nominations. That means that once a nomination is two months old and has yet to be promoted (or in practice, approved), reviews may (not necessarily must) close the nomination for timing out. As for backlog mode, eligible nominators need to provide two QPQs rather than just one, and given how the rule now is to provide immediate QPQs, the spirit of the rule was that both QPQs have to be given at the same time (or at most as soon as possible), with the usual practice regarding delays applying. Backlog mode has since ended, but that end is not retroactive, meaning nominations that needed it still need the two QPQs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: Donated second QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/John A. Tibbits. @Narutolovehinata5: can I give this a tick myself or should you do it? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm okay with doing even 3 reviews, just not on the timescale being pushed for here. I'd review that article myself if warranted. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: Yeah, I just didn't want this one to "time out" since you did some nice work and you should get to showcase it. Just wanted to play it safe, hope you don't mind me inserting myself past the review itself. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd find another one myself for a third. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the nomination requires two QPQs, and given that HTD said he was no longer going to do the linked QPQ, a second QPQ would need to have been done anyway (and given the circumstances, probably a third). As mentioned above, QPQ donations should generally be a last resort, and perhaps only done in extraordinary circumstances (like for example those NZ multi-candidate hooks where it would have been too time-consuming or impractical for the nominator to do every single required QPQ given time constraints). I understand the spirit of what's being done here and there's always the desire to not waste readers' hard work, but being loose in donating QPQs, or rewarding not following the guidelines, could set dangerous precedents, as well as feeling unfair to other nominations that don't get the same treatment. It's more out of a desire for fairness. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I guess I just don't understand the rush, is all. The guidelines that Howard linked don't seem to indicate any necessity for being "immediate", though of course I may be missing something. I'm not a super big fan of the implication that I am being loose in donating QPQs, since (to my knowledge) this is the first time I've ever done it. I would also hardly characterize Howard as not following the guidelines if the guidelines themselves don't mandate that QPQs are given immediately. At present this nomination has two QPQs, which means it should be good to go right? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For QPQs to count, the review in question has to be completed. Simply claiming an article for review without doing the actual review does not count. The wording was actually let looser than intended, given how there was a bit of an expectation to allow a day delay at most in practice. However, it had been three days since then nomination yet a full QPQ review still had yet to be done. As for "being loose" in donating QPQs, it was intended to be a general statement and not specifically talking about you or this specific nomination. While the guidelines do not outright say "immediate", the discussions that led to the rule change did suggest that immediate QPQs should be done. For context, under the old rules, QPQs had a week-long time limit, after which a nomination could be closed. However, in practice, this led to nominators delaying their QPQs, leading to longer backlogs. The new rules were implemented as part of a larger anti-backlog effort, and the idea was that noms should not be allowed to linger for too long, with QPQ being seen as one way to help weed out the backlog. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect someone to go through discussions. That's why we have guideline pages for this; the guideline encapsulates what was discussed. The guideline says something, then the discussion says another. Common sense dictates the guideline prevails. If you want the results of the discussion codified, then add it to the guideline, not rebutting "oh, but this is actually what was discussed upon, which is not found in actual guideline statements, but trust me on this." That's not how it works. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't even think to check that he'd done it. My bad! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the review to count, there has to be an actual review, not merely saying "I'm reviewing this." Howard the Duck (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an example of where being QPQ police is unhelpful. The change to require stricter QPQ compliance was made to help reviewers by not wasting their time; if a reviewer likes a hook and is fine giving more time for someone to provide a QPQ they should be allowed to. Anyways, as PCN02WPS has donated one QPQ for the nomination, I hereby voluntarily give another QPQ to allow for the nomination to be passed: Template:Did you know nominations/Autoflow. Also, I'm not aware of any requirement that QPQ donations are "only done in extraordinary circumstances." BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interest of compromise, we can probably vacate the closure and give Howard an extra couple of days to complete both QPQs. It doesn't seem fair to allow the nomination to go through without him doing any QPQs by himself and instead relying on donations, but given how he said he was willing to do a review and already claimed a nomination for review, we can probably give him time to do both; the donated QPQs can probably be vacated and saved for other nominations. Cases of miscommunication also led to the current circumstances, so I don't think anyone should take blame for what happened. Given that the Alexander McQueen nomination had yet to actually be reviewed, I've temporarily unlinked it: it can be linked again once the review has been done, to make it clear that the QPQ has been completed. If the QPQs aren't finished after a couple of days or so, then the nomination was given a fair chance already. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NCAA_Season_7_basketball_tournaments&oldid=1262986048"