Template:Did you know nominations/Take-note Debate

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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Take-note Debate

(

)

Chamber of the House of Commons of Canada

... that the Canadian House of Commons holds take-note debates, where the members of Parliament debate a matter of public interest but never put the matter to a vote? Source: "Take-note debate FAQs", CBC News online, April 10, 2006
- ALT1: ... that a take-note debate in the Canadian House of Commons takes its name from the first line of the motion: "That this House takes note of..." followed by an issue to be discussed? Source: "Take-note debate FAQs", CBC News online, April 10, 2006
- ALT2: ... that the Canadian House of Commons held a take-note debate on the discovery of the graves of over 200 Indigenous children near Kamloops Indian Residential School in 2021? Source: CPAC: MPs hold take-note debate on discovery of remains of 215 children in Kamloops – June 1, 2021.
- ALT3: ... that a take-note debate in the Canadian House of Commons is free of party discipline, so members can speak freely on a matter of public interest, before the Cabinet introduces a bill on the subject? Source: "Take-note debate FAQs", CBC News online, April 10, 2006
- Comment: Sorry that this submission is three days late. I had a lot going on "in real life" and let the deadline slip by. I hope it is still sufficiently interesting to be included in DYK. Edited to Add: this is my 3rd DYK, so I didn't review any other article.

Created by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk). Self-nominated at 05:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Thank you, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, for a useful article about parliamentary debates. Yes, the nom was entered several days late, but the article's subject matter is of no less interest for that, so that's OK in my opinion. I have moved the article title to "Take-note debate", i.e. with no capital D, because this is about a type of debate, not a one-off debate with its own special title. Therefore I have changed the article name to lower case in the hooks. I have adjusted the date in ALT2 and the date in the relevant sentence in the article, to correspond with each other. I have checked all the sources, which I believe are all authoritative - and that includes the Youtube one which is the official channel of the reliable News company CPAC. A few issues remaining:

Please use the templates provided, for citations. You will find the forms for those under the "cite" link at the top of the edit box. I have wikified citation 3 for you, in that way, to fill in a citation gap.
~~You have one citation still missing.~~

When the above two issues are resolved, I believe that this nom should be DYK-ready. Storye book (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Admin, please move the title of this template to lower case in line with the article name move, i.e. Take-note Debate → Take-note debate? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments. I have provided two citations for the party discipline issue. One of those sources is rather old, but I will be able to look for a more current one tomorrow.
On the second point, I've not changed the citations to template format, as it is my understanding that there is no obigation to use cite templates, and that once a citation style is established, there is no need to require it be changed to another style; see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#To_be_avoided:

"When an article is already consistent, avoid:

...

adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently;"

I'm not aware of any guideline that changes this for DYK? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. One of the problems with that very simple link-and-label citation style is that, without the prompts provided by the Wiki citation system, or other sophisticated system, things get missed out. One of the worst is citations from 19th-century newspapers, where you need the column number and page number in order to find the relevant section in countries where libraries have hard-to-read, mechanical, microfilm machines, or bound originals - those coloumn/page details are needed and often get missed out without prompts.
Re your citation 6 (Kamloops) it doesn't say it's from YouTube. YouTube citations are not usually encouraged by WP unless they were uploaded by official channels (as yours is). It's always important to make clear the publisher of the material or name of website. So those labels do need to be fairly detailed. I agree with keeping consistency with templates which make citation origins and essential details clear, but when the citations in an article are variable as to clarity, then what is one supposed to be consistent with?
Your use of the link-and-label system is ~~mostly~~ fine, and - my apologies, I should not have asked you to change your citation style - ~~but even you with your skills can leave things out sometimes. So if you could please add "YouTube" to citation 6,~~ I can give the green tick. Storye book (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz for your edits on the article, and for your patience and cooperation with this process. This nom is now good to go, with any of the above ALTs and the image (my own preference is for ALT2 because this is an important and topical matter). Storye book (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Promoting ALT2 to Prep 4, without the image. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)