Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/List of Casualty specials

< 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 Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

List of Casualty specials edit

(
)

Created by Soaper1234 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Invalid status "[[File:Symbo...n.svg|16px]]" - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again"

  • Thank you for your review dawnleelynn. The end of paragraph two and paragraph three are all related to the article and everything is linked in the article. Therefore, it is not necessary for everything to be linked in the lead (as far as I am aware). Also, in response to your comment about ALT1, there is an inline citation for it in the section Under Fire and I thought the table in Specials would make it clear that it is the seventh special episode? Thank you for your help, Soaper1234 - talk 14:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Soaper1234 Hi! I think you did a great job on this DYK overall. This was only my 2nd QPQ so thanks for bearing with me. The article is in great shape. I did get confused on the lead due to some of it being cited and it being three paragraphs, but my bad. I should know better as I have done three list articles myself. It does look like everything in the lead that is not cited inline is cited below. I should note that I missed the episode numbering, because I focused on the second table, which has no episode numbering, and didn't pay as much attention to the first table, which has it. Also, I have decided the episode number not being with the content for the main hook makes it difficult to cite both, and the hook does not need the episode number so I removed the episode number. Or, it could be better to include the episode numbers in the second table too. Lastly, your reference for the alternate hook, #33 is a Wikipedia article that has no mention of Casualty in it. See Inside Soap. It is reference that is used multiple times. I think this is a quick fix, and this nomination could be approved very quickly. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dawnleelynn: Well, you're doing a great job with it! Out of curiosity, what is the second table you've looked at because there is only one table in the article? Reference #33 is not a website reference - it is a offline reference to a magazine. Inside Soap is the magazine title, "Step back in time" is the article title, 14 is the issue number and 20 is the page number. See Template:Cite journal for more information. Hope this all makes sense and let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Soaper1234 - talk 16:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Soaper1234 Thanks! It's really just the one table, but I guess I could see the last section being a table too. Anyway, never mind that. I must be totally missing something, but when I click reference 33, I just go to a main page for the magazine on Wikipedia. [1]. It doesn't work as a source for where it's used in the article, including not for the source for the alternate hook, which I believe is "The webisode was filmed at an Army barracks in Cardiff during Army training." But as it's just for the alternate hook, I'm passing this now. Also, oops, it was the alternate hook where I removed the episode # not the main hook. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dawnleelynn: Thank for passing the nomination. Let me just clear up the issue with the reference for ALT1. The reference links to Inside Soap because it is the magazine that produced the interview. Because the interview is in a magazine, it does not have a URL link. The link to Inside Soap is the same as Reference #34 linking to Digital Spy if that makes sense? Also, just to add, when you mention the second table, do you mean the template at the bottom of the table? Because that is just a navigational template to navigate between related articles (see WP:NAVBOX for more). Thank you, Soaper1234 - talk 17:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Soaper1234: I get it about the table, that is all moot now, we are good. Regarding the reference. you've been here a few more years than I have, so I am going to assume you know WP:NOTSOURCE and you have a valid reason for using another WP article as a source. But I just mention it because it is part of what threw me off. On the other hand, I see why it would be really difficult to find a source for these interviews online that actually show the interview text from 2012, for example. Good luck with the official DYK nominator! :) dawnleelynn(talk) 17:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dawnleelynn: Yes, I suppose it is all moot now you have passed the nomination! However, I have to make it clear (because otherwise it will just bug me) that I haven't used another Wikipedia article as a source. Thank you for everything you've done and I promise I will let you get on with your day now :P Soaper1234 - talk 17:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Did some cleanup, changed the parameter source from n to y. It's fine, I was happy to work on this QPQ as needed. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I have done the QPQ and passed this nom. Was I supposed to pick the hook and, if so, how would I indicate it. If not, this DYK should just wait its turn for the promoter to work on it and that editor will decide the hook, right? This is only my 2nd QPQ, and the first one didn't get to this point as there was an issue with the hooks. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Dawnleelynn: It is a good idea when you give a tick to a nomination that you state which hook you are approving. If there are two or more hooks that meet the DYK criteria, you can state that, or you can indicate a preference for one of them if you wish. If you find one of the hooks unsatisfactory, you can strike that one. Its up to the promoter to promote one of the hooks that you have approved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi dawnleelynn. Just to confuse things some more (sorry!), I've realised that the original hook is wrong. So, I would like to propose:
ALT2: ... that Casualty has filmed 19 special episodes, including the first webisode for a BBC continuing drama?
Could this be put forward for the nomination please? Thank you. Soaper1234 - talk 19:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Right after I pinged you, I saw the time and realized I would be late for an appointment, so here's a very delayed but grateful thank you, I did not know all of it and now I'm clear about what I need to do to finalize the hooks. In fact, I need to do something for this DYK, so I really needed to know it.

@Soaper1234: I have spent some time going over hook ALT1 and the article. I don't think you were getting my message clearly. Citation 33 is going to a Wikipedia article rather than to an external web site. It's not like reference 34, which is going to an external web site. It must be a mistake, as you said previously that no references were going to a Wikipedia article. Here's the citation for reference 33: Ellis, Sarah (7–13 April 2012). "Step back in time". Inside Soap. 2012 (14): 20.> You can see it is going to the WP article Inside Soap. So the other parameters have no affect on it. But here is the reference for the reference 34: Laing, Greg (21 July 2012). "'Casualty' Holby riots episodes - pictures". Digital Spy. Retrieved 8 March 2018. where you can see the it is going to www.digitalspy.com etc... So I'm striking out ALT2 for now. If you feel you want ALT2 considered, if you change the citation to provide an external reference that displays the content backing up the hook, I will consider restoring it, or by that time it might be in the DYK promoter's hands.

Now, as far as the hooks to pass today, you only added the word BBC to your ALT2 hook suggestion, so I added it to the main hook in the template and struck out your ALT2 hook so there would be no confusion. It's OK to slightly change the main hook by adding one word, and I also am fine with approving that change. So, it's all set to go. Please let me know if anything is unclear or you have any issues. Thanks for your patience, today was a busy one. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Dawnleelynn: I think you are confused about #33 which is referring to an article ("Step back in time") in the (7–13 April 2012) edition of a hard-copy print magazine, on page 20. In the citation, the Wikipedia article about the magazine has been wikilinked, but that is irrelevant because it is not the Wikipedia article which is being used as the citation. You haven't got a copy of the magazine so you can accept the facts cited AGF (in good faith). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Cwmhiraeth: That may very well be true. If so, I was confused by there being a link to a Wikipedia article in the citation though. I have used hardcopy books and magazines as references too, but never have I linked to a WP article in the citation when doing so. If so, my bad. Also, the nominator wrote earlier that the reference for 33 was supposedly like 34. And 34 linked to an external source, so I was basing it on that too. However, hopefully Soaper1234 can make it clear tomorrow. I will absolutely remove the strikeout immediately. Thanks for that thought, it was confusing as you said. Most appreciated. Either way, I have learned many new things from this particular DYK so I'm glad I picked it. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 06:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clearing that up for me Cwmhiraeth - you managed to explain it better than me!
      • @Dawnleelynn: When I mentioned Ref #33 being similar to Ref #34, I stated that the link to Inside Soap in #33 was the same as the link to Digital Spy in #34. Regardless, I thank you for passing this DYK nomination and I would be more than happy for you to progress with the original hook (ALT0). All the best for the future :) Soaper1234 - talk 10:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
        • @Soaper1234: Using 33 and 34 to say they are alike does not work. 34 links to an external source. 33 does not and it is a hardcopy source (that also links to a WP article). That's what confused me. I have never seen a hardcopy source that also linked to a WP article before. I just needed to be told it was a hardcopy source. That would have cleared things up right away. I have removed the strikeout. To the promoting editor I prefer the main hook, but ALT1 is also a decent hook. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/List_of_Casualty_specials&oldid=995145081"