Template:Did you know nominations/Shenhui

Shenhui

 * ... that Heze Shenhui (670–762 CE) initiated the conflict between those advocating "sudden" over "gradual" enlightenment in Zen Buddhism?
 * Reviewed: Bouteloua barbata

Created/expanded by Djlayton4 (talk). Self nom at 05:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Without reviewing the hook, I want to suggest that "between those advocating "sudden" vs. "gradual" enlightenment" is tautological. Consider changing "vs." to "and", or "over", or "or". Dahn (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed; changed. DJLayton4 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg 5x expansion verified. Age, length OK. Offline refs AGF. "Over" works better in the hook. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations are missing page numbers required for verification. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is typically not a requirement. I've probably had 20 DYKs and never done this. It's also not a requirement in many peer-reviewed publications. It wouldn't be a bad idea though, although I've never done it and don't know how. DJLayton4 (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't know how to put page numbers in? It is a requirement that the hook fact be verifiable, and without a page number it isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I personally feel it's very nitpicky and arbitrary to have this requirement. It is absolutely verifiable as is. Get the books and look in the index. How is that not verifiable? It might take three minutes more to verify, but saying it's not verifiable is absolute nonsense. You can find all of these occurrences almost as fast as you can if I were to include page numbers. Not verifiable = no refs. I guess it's been too long for this to be a DYK now, but I feel it's rather a shame because it's a good article that I put a lot of time into. I did another one (that I put less work into) around the same time, Yongjia Xuanjue, that had no page numbers in the refs and it made DYK just fine. I wish I had time to figure out how to rework the format for inline page citations and go back through all the refs, but I really don't. Now very few people will see this article because of your arbitrary enforcement of a nonexistent rule/policy. In the future I'll put page numbers in; I think it's useful, but it shouldn't make or break a DYK. DJLayton4 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether you agree or not, page numbers are standard. And why is this back in the noms page after 3 weeks anyway? Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the answer to the question of why this is on the noms page again, see WT:DYK. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Without page numbers, there's no way to verify the statements. Not all books have indicies, and not all indicies list everything that we want them to inclunde, so we can't assume that a book actually contains the information that you say it does if you don't include the page numbers.  For future reference, feel free to use rp: I use it all the time, as it allows me to cite different page numbers in the same publication without clogging up the references section with multiple citations to the same source.  Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So it got restored and we found the same problem. Big surprise. Pumpkin Sky  talk  01:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Two of the sources now have page references. Much of the article is verifiable from the Ferguson book, pages 57-61. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Page numbers have been added throughout using rp. Thanks for the suggestion :-)DJLayton4 (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg All is good now. --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)