Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Notifying nominators on their talk pages

Gatoclass remarked above that "a lot of people don't seem to realize their hooks are being queried and don't return to the suggestions page to try and resolve the problem". I noticed that too, and so began notifying nominators whenever I place a DYK? or DYK?no under their hook. It really doesn't take long - I even made a small template that can be subst'ed in in a few seconds. I'd like to suggest that we all make a habit of doing so to cut down on the number of hooks that die unnoticed by their originators. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to notify nominators you are perfectly welcome to do so. I made a deliberate decision not to do so as I find I already have more than enough to do at DYK, and I don't think it's too much to ask to expect nominators to keep an eye on the progress of their own submissions.
I do occasionally notify a nominator however, but usually only when it's a high quality article that I would really like to see get front page exposure. For run-of-the-mill articles, I generally don't bother. Gatoclass (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, a lot of submissions don't come from expert nominators, and people are less likely to become experts if their first hook drops off the bottom because they didn't realise to come back. I've also been thanked for the practice even by regular DYK contributors, who nevertheless have lots of other things to be checking up on and appreciate the note.
I personally think it's more than worth the extra time, since it takes me about 30 seconds to do so, and I'd encourage other reviewers to do the same. But given that the instructions do suggest coming back to check - and the amount of time I know you already put into DYK! - it's fair enough if you disagree. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines for people commenting on the noms in the first place? You could add a note to the effect of 'consider notifying the author of the article with the following template' there, since it would make the notifications easier. Making anything mandatory would just make less people comment on the noms. - Bobet 09:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Error in archived DYK

The post about "... that shipping company Bastø Fosen operates the most trafficked car ferry route in Norway, from Moss to Halden?" is wrong. The ferry route is between Moss and Horten. I refer to the actual article Bastø Fosen. I reported it on Main Page errors, but it's still there. 2bias (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If the error is in the archive, you can correct it yourself. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Corrected. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 10:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

14 july DYK: Gabriel's Revelation should be removed

What is this... Conservapedia? This DYK assumes not only the existence of Christ but also his Divinity. Why is it in Wikipedia at all, especially on our Main Page? --Carbonrodney (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think saying 'before the birth of Christ' is reasonable even though his existence isn't universally accepted since it's taken on two meanings: the actual, literal birth of Christ, but also 'around 1AD' - and it's used so often even by people who don't accept he existed that saying 'alleged birth' every time seems deeply unnecessary.
As for assuming his Divinity, I really don't see how you can say that having read the article. It doesn't say or even suggest that Jesus rose from the dead (merely that that's a common story, which is hardly a controversial statement), but it does suggest that the "rise from the dead after three days" myth was already established at the time. Surely that casts doubt on claims of Jesus's Divinity, if anything. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Olaf. Looking at the statement now, I don't have any problem with it. I hope someone changed it since my remark (I'm fairly sure it mentioned resurrection/messiah) because otherwise I'm going crazy.
You will find that I removed a fair amount of material from that article. The problem I mentioned here is with the DYK on the main page, which either was or wasn't inappropriate but either way it is fine now. --Carbonrodney (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't remove valid DYK notices from article talkpages, no matter how strongly you feel about an issue. S. Dean Jameson 14:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't my motivation. I thought this had been resolved...--Carbonrodney (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it was changed while on the Main Page - perhaps you were undergoing some sort of divine inspiration? ;) Anyway, glad you're happy with the outcome. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It would have been better to link the hook to Jesus or Jesus of Nazareth (redirect) rather than Christ. But no-one spotted that in time. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fivefold expansion revisited

I was wondering how the magic number of five-fold was arrived at. I have been working Sun Prairie, Wisconsin for the past week, cutting useless stuff and in general, cleaning up the article. I discovered that Georgia O'Keefe was born there, and was able to reliably cite such. However, i cannot submit one of the blossoms of this clean-up because the article has only expanded from 13k to 21k. If the purpose is to to bloat up the article, it might prove counterproductive to our attempts to create a fairly reliable encyclopedia. The five-fold criteria seems to favor new articles over improved ones. Maybe we need to revisit this topic, or at least allow for exceptions (not that mine would be one, but one can always hope ;) ). - Hexhand (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That rule does favor new articles, or old stubs recently expanded, and that is what it is designed to do. DYK is not about featuring old artciles or the most interesting articles; it is about featuring new articles. The fivefold criterion was selected with this in mind. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
As I said, it should also favor greatly improved articles as well. - Hexhand (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your edits on the article, Hexhand, as Sun Prairie is one of many Wisconsin articles on my watchlist. DYK was designed to feature new articles like EncycloPetey has indicated. The best venue for improvements like this is to finish the article and nominate it for Good Article when you're done. Royalbroil 04:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
As has been noted before, given the perennial DYK backlog we don't have time to debate whether a given article has been 'improved' enough - let's leave that to GA and have DYK focus on new articles. Otherwise we're moving towards DYK being simply another rung on the FA/GA ladder, which is not the intention nor is it necessary. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for weighing in on my questions regarding how the fivefold figure was arrived at, and respectfully, I would point out that no one has actually answered it. What if an article expands 4x or 3x or even 2x? Or even no expansion? This fivefold determination seems arbitrary and contrary to encouraging improvement of the encyclopedia. Quantity does not equal quality.
There are plenty of interesting facts in articles that have been edited nicely up to a certain point over a period of time beyond five days, and yet we cannot note the material, it turns DYK into a tool to offer preferential treatment to new articles. That surely cannot be the sole intent of DYK:
"The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles, as a way of thanking the editors who create new content and to encourage other editors to contribute to and improve that article and the encyclopedia."
As evidenced by the Lead on the Project Page, DYK isn't just used to publicize new content, and construing it as such sidesteps our Mission as an encyclopedia. Article content that is greatly expanded articles deserve the same sort of publicity that new articles do. Setting an uneven benchmark for existing articles - fivefold expansion - creates an issue of volume for an article which is not always synonymous with improvement. - Hexhand (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, DYK is a tool for giving preferential treatment to new articles--and there is nothing wrong with that. As Olaf noted, there are other process on Wikipedia (including GA and FA) that give publicity and recognition to vastly improved articles--DYK is not the one and only option. DYK is pointedly designed to serve a smaller niche--namely new articles. While the five-fold criteria seems arbitrary, it serves essentially as a compromise or bridge to allow some articles that have been expanded to such a degree that they are practically new even though they were created more than five days ago. But the basic purpose of DYK is still and will always be to focus on new article creation. You are more likely to see the five fold criteria disregarded and only brand new articles featured on DYK before you will see it "weakened" to allow more older but improved articles. As long as there are other avenues in Wikipedia like FA & GA that give recognition for improving existing articles, there really is no need to further dilute DYK's purpose and turn it into something that it is not. AgneCheese/Wine 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That seems a somewhat different take on DYK than is evidenced on the project page. If you really feel that that should be the sole thrust of DYK, maybe note that, so as to avoid confusion. - Hexhand (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking to the actual DYK?

Is it possible to link to the actual DYK by any chance? For example, if I wanted to include a link on my userpage to a DYK I put forward, is there any way of doing that? Also, for the article talk page, instead of just

A fact from List of Blue Peter presenters appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8 July 2008.

, "A fact" could be pipe-linked to the actual DYK. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You could look at the way I keep track of them on my user page, with a small icon and text idnetifying the date, but I only do this for the ones I wrote or substantially rewrote. Another user uses a banner-style approach. There is no way to link to the "actual" DYK, unless you link to a particular earlier version of the DYK template. This is possible if you go into the edit history for the template and select the desired old version by clicking on its date/time stamp. You can then use the full URL like this. But, as you can see, this includes all the housekeeping messages and other parts of the template that do not appear on the Main Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll go with your version, which is close to how I've listed my FL and FA stuff. It'd still be nice to link to the actual DYK on the article talk page, though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

More on DYK stats

With help from BorgQueen and others, we completed the list of top viewed June DYKs and have begun one for July. If anyone wants to view the lists or help with the July list (or May), you can take a look at [[1]]. (The top 10 for June are included below.) Cbl62 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Image DYK views DYK hook
Veena Malik File:Veena Malik at the red carpet event for the Lux Style Awards.jpg 16,100 ...that Pakistani actress Veena Malik (pictured) was a part of a news story surrounding a nude photo shoot?
Hook changed after 1-1/2 hours on the main page to:
... that Pakistani actress Veena Malik (pictured) has emerged as one of the leading women on Pakistani television with her abilities in improvisational mimicry?
Cushion plant 14,100 ...that cushion plants (example pictured), which grow extremely slowly, can live for up to 350 years?
Operation Noble Eagle 12,900 ... that as part of Operation Noble Eagle (service badge pictured), Canada provided air defense protection for the Super Bowl XL?
12 basic principles of animation 12,300 ... that "squash and stretch" (example pictured) is considered the most important of the 12 basic principles of animation?
Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany 12,200 ... that the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history was launched in Nazi Germany?
Human feet on British Columbia beaches 11,500 ... that five detached human feet have been discovered on British Columbian beaches since August 2007, with no confirmed explanation?
New Fighter Aircraft program 11,100 ... that the New Fighter Aircraft program selected the CF-18 Hornet (pictured) for the Canadian Forces Air Command when attempts to purchase Iran's fleet of F-14 Tomcats failed?
Siamese method 10,800 ... that the Siamese method (example pictured) is a simple method for creating magic squares, which was brought to France in 1688 following Simon de la Loubère's embassy to Siam?
Subpersonalities 10,300 ... that average people use subpersonalities to allow them to cope with certain types of psychosocial situations?
Murphy drip 10,200 ... that administering a strong solution of coffee through the rectum by means of a Murphy drip was alleged to have been a treatment for shock at the Battle of Midway?
Subpersonalites? Detached human feet? Murphy drips?
Not exactly the most edifying topics, are they? Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just a cynic, but the least surprising fact is definitely that the hook about nude pictures got the most views. Vickser (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no way to go back beyond December 2007 is there? Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You'd have to ask the writer of the program which counts the stats, but from memory I think his program relies on stats that have only been compiled from 12/07. Gatoclass (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately the data have only been compiled since December 2007. Henrik's site uses these stats compiled by somebody in Latvia. Another slight annoyance is that odd days are occasionally missed off the stats: I see that 1 June 2008 and 1 July 2008 are absent, for example. (Unhappily, one of my church hooks was up on 1st July...!) I'll do some updates to the table this lunchtime (i.e. now). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I knew that Veena Malik with picture would be highly popular, which is why I chose it for the pictured slot. Looks like I was right; a pretty woman on the internet means hits.--Bedford Pray 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure there are going to be lots of hits for guns and sex, but I was actually pleasantly surprised by the variety of topics that got huge numbers of hooks. Things like the cushion plant getting 14,000 views. Or principles of animation? Cbl62 (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction

Hi - I noticed my DYK suggestion was moved to Template:Did you know/Next update (thanks!). However, the accepted hook was only part of the original suggestion, and now the phrasing of the hook is a bit weird. Could someone make a small change from

to

Thanks! --Jiuguang (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting of hooks

I have recently had a couple of complaints about hooks being copyedited by updaters on their way to the front page. Since I believe it is quite impractical, given the time constraints at DYK, to try and consult with nominators over every alteration, and to avoid future misunderstandings, I have added the following caveat to the instructions on the suggestions page, as follows:

Please note that hooks are subject without notice to copyediting as they move to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. In particular, hooks will be shortened if they are deemed too long: the 200-character limit is an outside limit not a recommended length. Also, watch the suggestions page to ensure that no issues have been raised about your hook, because if you do not respond to issues raised your hook may not be featured at all. Gatoclass (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

About half the hooks lack a space after the ellipsis (the ...) when they are first submitted. I can find, fix, find, fix them at a speed of about one every 2 seconds. If I had to write a note every time, that would take about 5 times longer to write a note on the DYK page, about 40 times longer to write a note on the submitter's talk page, or 150 times longer if I had to get permission before making each edit. The latter options in particular probably wouldn't be worth bothering with, although inconsistent ellipsis spacing does get complaints when it happens. Art LaPella (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on infoboxes, refs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Results: Proposal for formatted references passed. Proposal for mandatory infoboxes on NRHP articles failed, with a recommendation to leave said decision to the NRHP Wikiproject. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to get some consensus on infoboxes and references that have been raised on the suggestions page and above in sections like "DYK is rotten, drop the bad NRHP articles", if only to give doncram and Bedford less to argue about.

Infoboxes

I would therefore like to propose, firstly, that we make it mandatory to include NRHP infoboxes on NRHP articles. I don't see any reason why we should not do so, given that 99% of these articles appear to have an NRHP infobox. If there is a consensus to remove the infobox after the article has appeared on DYK, then it's fine to have it removed, but in order to ensure a reasonable standard of attractiveness they should have an infobox whilst being featured on the front page.

Support

  1. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    Wizardman 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC) The opposers make some good points.
  3. --Dincher (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Lvklock (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Vickser (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. AgneCheese/Wine 16:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC) While I can see more merit to the second proposal, this one is WP:CREEP-overbroad. Is DYK really going make to a specific requirement that is only applicable to a very limit, singular set of articles? Where would that stop? Are we going to come up with specific rules that relate only to military history articles, biographies, music articles, etc? It would be an entirely different discussion if we were talking about requiring infobox on every article that could use one. It is this troubling scope and isolation of the NRHP articles that concerns me about this proposal. AgneCheese/Wine 16:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, we might expand it in future. I already have an informal rule of my own that I won't promote a ship article unless it has a ship infobox. But in the case of NRHP articles in particular, we get a huge number of nominations for these, so I think this is a special case. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We allow Start class articles on DYK, they don't have to be Cs or Bs. Forcing infoboxes will encourage people not to bother writing new articles that would require them, thus hurting Wikipedia. Plus, we'd be feeding the trolls.--Bedford Pray 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Too much instruction creep. If a new rule of this type is needed, I prospect of which I am not fully convinced, it would be better handled by a rule requiring compliance with appropriate Wikiproject standards, and then having the Wikiproject create a requirement for a specific template in article under their scope. --Allen3 talk 23:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. No. No mandatory infoboxes. Infoboxes can benefit some articles, and NRHPs are possibly among them, but there are numerous editors who oppose infoboxes for entirely sensible reasons. It's instruction creep. Allow an article on DYK -- if you feel it later needs an infobox you may add it. The most important aspects for DYK in my opinion are readability, interest, references, and verifiability. Antandrus (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose DYK is supposed to be for new articles, which can still need work to get them into ideal form. There is no need to require infoboxes. That would only help discourage creation of new articles. If anything, the DYK can alert other editors to the article and they can add the infobox if necessary. And not all projects require - or even allow - infoboxes. It would be unfair and inefficient to require the already overworked people who work on DYK to know which articles are "supposed" to have one and which aren't when determining whether to approve an article for DYK. (unsigned message posted by User:Rlendog
  6. Oppose Ban all infoboxes I say. Speaking from bad experiences with Infoboxes that even contradict the article, I agree that they are instruction creep, intrusive, redundand, you name them. Doug Weller (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. I have to agree that this seems rather like instruction creep, I don't think DYK needs a rule on this, if an article meets the other standards then it should be fine, we should be free to have infoboxes or not have them as the case may be. Davewild (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, it seems there are a number of opposes to this. Perhaps my poll was a tad ill-considered but I wanted to try and get a quick resolution to at least this part of the dispute between doncram and Bedford, as I feel it's becoming disruptive to DYK. As an alternative, I would like to adopt Allen3's suggestion above that DYK articles must comply with the standards adopted by the relevant Wikiproject. So for example, because Wikiproject Ships has mandated infoboxes, then infoboxes for ship articles submitted to DYK must have the ship infobox. While alternatively, because there is no consensus for composer infoboxes on Wikiproject Composers, there would be no requirement for infoboxes on articles about composers. Would this be a more acceptable proposal? Gatoclass (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
We don't have to be unreasonable about it. AFAIK no ship articles without an infobox have been featured on DYK while I've been part of it, because if I see one I add the infobox myself and then just leave a note to the person concerned that next time they should include such an infobox.
I just want to ensure that reasonable standards are maintained and that DYK doesn't end up as a battleground between users, and it seems to me the best way to do that is to get a community consensus on these issues so that the sniping between you and doncram on the suggestions page and elsewhere can as far as possible be avoided. Which would surely be to your benefit as well as everyone else's. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What would be more beneficial is if people like Doncram are not encouraged to harass other users, which sadly this poll is likely to do.--Bedford Pray 05:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved in the dispute with you and doncram because I don't know who is responsible for it. Certainly he has been rude to you and appears to be taking a particular interest in your submissions, but then I don't know the full history between you two. However, I would have thought that you would welcome the chance to resolve some of the outstanding issues between you two, which these proposals should hopefully achieve one way or the other. Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  • While I am supporting this in it's current incarnation, I think I'd prefer wording that said something along the lines of "DYK articles should have infoboxes and images where appropriate. A specific example is NRHP articles, which must have an infobox while they are being featured on DYK." I think we do want to make a hard limit on NRHP articles since we do get so many of them, but I think making a general rule encouraging the use of images and info boxes would be worthwhile. Vickser (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It occured to me that if the NRHP project assessment guideline were tweaked so that articles without infoboxes were stubs, this would be a more elegant solution. Stubs are not eliglible for DYK, so problem solved. I think it would also avoid DYK instruction creep and as a member of the NRHP WikiProject, I think it would be a reasonable requirement for Start status. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
      • That certainly sounds reasonable. Of course it only applies to the one Wikiproject, but even if we do adopt a general guideline I don't see that this in addition would hurt. Are you planning to suggest it to WP:NRHP? Olaf Davis | Talk 18:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I think Ruhrfisch's idea is fabulous. We should try to avoid instruction creep as much as we can here at DYK and for a problem that is specific to one set of articles, going to the Wikiproject that covers them makes perfect sense. AgneCheese/Wine 20:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well rather than make a new DYK rule, it is simply asking the relevant wiki projects to tighten their own assessments of stub vs start class to include infoboxes. If an article without an infobox is still considered a stub in the eyes of WP:NRHP then it is easy for DYK to just simply enforce the standing "no stub rule" without having to create a special "Infobox require if you meet the following caveats....". AgneCheese/Wine 09:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh okay then, we'll handball it to the NRHP Wikiproject. I'm happy to do so as it saves me trying to persuade all you recalcitrants here at DYK ;) Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Revised infobox proposal

Okay, in light of some of the objections above, let me try a revised proposal. I propose that, in regards to infoboxes, DYK adopt whatever system is in place for the relevant wikiproject. So for example, because Wikiproject Ships has mandatory ship infoboxes, so do we. But since Wikiproject Composers doesn't have mandatory composer infoboxes, neither do we. It seems to me only sensible that we adopt whatever consensus has already been hammered out at the relevant Wikiprojects, since the people involved are generally those who have thought most deeply about the issues. Can we get consensus for that much at least?

Support

  1. Gatoclass (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Lvklock (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I still don't see how this will be workable. Are editors submitting new articles supposed to be familiar with all the WikiProjects, and the guidelines within those WikiProjects, that the article could possibly fall under? For example, I am a moderately experienced editor at this point but if yesterday I had become interested in a ship, and decided to write an article about it, I would not have even known that there was a WikiProject Ships, let alone what the guidelines are. More importantly, will the DYK reviewers be required to be familiar with all the possible WikiProjects that the article can fall under? What if an article falls under multiple projects, some that require infoboxes, some that don't, and others that discourage them? What if the guidelines for a particular WikiProject are ambiguous? For exampe, I work a lot on the Primate project. There, some articles (say an article about a species or subspecies) that get infoboxes, and others (say an article about a particular famous gorilla) do not. And some species articles may also fall under other projects (say, WikiProject Africa) where an infobox is not necessarily required. Will DYK reviewers (and editors) need to be familiar with all these nuances? And in any case, this is a problem with its own solution. The DYK would help insure that other members of the affected project see the article, facilitating their quickly fixing any infobox issues. Say someone submitted a new article about a primate subspecies that otherwise qualifies for DYK but didn't have an infobox (whether because the editor didn't know to include one, or because the editor didn't know how, or even because the editor was too lazy or even spiteful). I would want that article to be on DYK so that I or one of my fellow project members would be most likely to see it, and then we could add the infobox ourselves. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    I see your points. The multiple projects is tricky. I know ships and NRHP usually include both, with one perhaps stripped of redundant info, but I also believe there are projects between which there is conflict over infoboxes. I'd say that multiple projects could be an exception to the guideline. As far as reviewers, I know that ships and NRHP routinely have people around DYK who are likely to catch them. I'd say it was up to a project to review for their articles if it were important to them.
    I think the inexperienced editor might be handled as Gatoclass said with the supplying of an infobox and a note mentioning the need for it in any future article on the subject. On the other hand, suppose someone became an experienced primate editor, but refused to add infoboxes to the many articles they submitted to DYK. Thus, you would be forced to repeatedly clean up after them or have articles from your project featured without meeting the project requirements. I believe that is the crux of this matter. Is it an important enough issue to address? Lvklock (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    The problem with a possible exception for multiple projects is that you don't always know all the projects that an article might fall under - both the editor and the DYK reviewer. If this proposal is solely to address a few specific projects, such as NRHP or ships, that have specific guidelins and always have a lot of people around DYK I suppose this could work. But there are hundreds of Wikiprojects over all and I don't think this could work as a general rule/guideline. And what would really be accomplished anyway? In most cases, an editor who is active in a project will generally comply with that project's guidelines with respect to infoboxes and anything else. The editors who don't are generally going to be those unfamiliar with the guidelines of a project he/she may not know exists or is applicable. We seem to be trying to address a few exceptions with an overarching guideline that will impact many other people and possibly have unintended consequences (fewer DYK submissions, fewer new articles, more time spent by overworked DYK reviewers to ascertain whether a missing infobox was necessary or not, more confusion over the guidelines that should be applied for a given submission). Rlendog (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    For articles for which it is unclear which Wikiproject is most relevant, we don't have to have a policy. This proposal is intended only for those articles that clearly fall under the auspices of one particular Wikiproject, such as Wikiproject Ships or Wikiproject Composers. But I think what we could do is draw up a list matching particular article types with particular Wikiprojects, as necessary, to avoid ambiguity. And it's not a matter of rejecting submissions by noobs because they didn't have an infobox - it's just a matter of gradually educating the regular contributors about the nuances. Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Many article are under the umbrella of 2 or 3 WikiProjects, and some could be under more. An historic building may be under a City WP, a state WP, WP NRHP, Architecture WP, and who knows what else.--Bedford Pray 17:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - something like Historic Columbia River Highway or Pulaski Skyway works better with a road/bridge infobox than an NHRP one. --NE2 19:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Reference section

The second issue is with regards to formatting of references. I don't want to enforce this issue too tightly as novice editors often don't know how to do this, however I see no reason why experienced editors shouldn't format their references properly. Therefore I propose that anyone who has at least half a dozen DYKs to their credit is obliged to submit articles with a properly formatted reference section, ie no bare urls.

Support

  1. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC) (this will have to be made clear in the rules)
    I don't think we need to make it too formal, just give people a nudge once they start becoming regular contributors. Other than that, I think a few words in Art LaPella's "Unwritten Rules" page should suffice. Gatoclass (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Wizardman 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. --Dincher (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. AgneCheese/Wine 16:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC) I would support a brief mention in the "Unwritten Rules".
  6. BorgQueen (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Lvklock (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Vickser (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Formatting references at the time they are introduced is a simple clerical task that every experienced editor should be expected to perform. It also saves countless hours of effort trying to determine what the base url pointed to after an external webpage changes. --Allen3 talk 23:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Yes but only if it is kept strictly to experienced contributors and that people are helped to follow this where needed. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Good idea. I agree with Gatoclass above that we don't need to make a formal rule along the lines of "If you have X DYKs then you must do this", just mention it to people once they become sufficiently 'regular' and then start expecting them to keep it up. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support, as long as not enforced obsessively, per comment below. Although if bare urls and page numbers are the real issue, it may be better to just state the proposal as "no bare urls" for website citations, and "page numbers required" for book citations. Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support, as per comments from Rlendog @ #13 above. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. It's easy for the mildly experienced editor, especially if the unwritten rules were to mention that a cite button can be added to the toolbar in the user preferences on the "Gadgets" menu by checking the "refTools" box in the editing gadgets section. (You're welcome to anyone who didn't know about it!) Royalbroil 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. Established editors really should not be avoiding any best practice. --JayHenry (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  18. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Some websites have no good way to reference them. Once again, it just discourages people from DYK and feeds the trolls.--Bedford Pray 21:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Not trying to be picky, but I am not sure what you mean by "Some websites have no good way to reference them". When using {{cite web}}, you only need to specify its title, url, accessdate, if the name of the author or the publication date is not available. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Some have unclear titles. Also, this policy discriminates against those that have proven to be fruitful, and in the long term encourages trolling.--Bedford Pray 07:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. Comment Not sure whether to support or oppose. Is there an official defintion of a "properly formatted reference section" for each possible type of reference? I can see requiring the hook reference to meet certain requirements, if they are well defined, but I am not sure it makes sense to require the whole article to meet this requirement within the 5 day DYK period. That could just discourage editors from including additional references at all. (unsigned message posted by User:Rlendog)
I don't see why that should occur, it takes about ten seconds to format a bare url into a more appropriate form. Surely that is not going to discourage anyone from submitting articles. Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
That is fine for urls - if the user knows about the cite web template and knows what information is required here (which seems to be about the same as the cite web template except accessdate), which newer user may not. But what about journals, books and other sources? I am not sure myself what is "required", although admittedly it doesn't seem overbearing since I have not run into any disputes over my references. But still, what would the requirements be and how would they be communicated? Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
We're not going to be obsessive about it. Just as long as references are neatly formatted and give basic info like name of article/book, name of author where appropriate, name of source etc, I think that will probably be sufficient. What we don't want, basically, is bare urls. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If we don't require page numbers for books from the start, we may never get them from that particular editor. I keep running into cases where there is no page number and the editor is no longer active or had the book from the library (and it isn't unusual when I find the book to discover there are problems). Doug Weller (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

5x expansion

How is it counted? Are references/infoboxes included? Or just looking at expansion of readable prose? For example, a stub before expansion was 1000 bytes long (readable prose - 900 bytes, categories & stub templates - 100 bytes). After expansion it's 6000 bytes long, but 2600 bytes went for references, templates, etc. So readable prose increased from 900 bytes to 3400, which is just for 4x expansion, but the article itself expanded 6x. Does that qualify as 5x expansion for DYK? Renata (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Only the main text is counted, so infoboxes and picture captions are not counted.--Bedford Pray 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Correct, so that would be 4x. This is covered in the previously Unwritten Rules, which are now linked from Template talk:Did you know#Instructions. Art LaPella (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be moved to written rules? Right now the "fivefold expansion" criteria is vague and confused my thoroughly, and I see I am not the only one. Maybe an example should be provided? Renata (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is what the written rules currently say: "Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)." What part of this is vague? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What is vague is that "fivefold" expansion doesn't say whether it means five times the whole article or five times the prose portion, as defined for the 1,500 character rule. That's why I included it in my Unwritten Rules.
It was only yesterday when I added a link from the written rules to the (previously) Unwritten Rules. I first listed some of them here weeks ago and there was no comment then, nor was there any earlier interest in writing down things known only to Did You Know insiders, so I don't know if there is any consensus for a further step of integrating the rules together. For one thing, I don't even know if those are the real precedents – hence my question marks and questions. For another thing, if there is suddenly a consensus for integrating the rules – whatever they are – we should integrate all 3 sets of rules: Wikipedia:Did you know#The DYK Rules, Template talk:Did you know#Instructions and User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules. Art LaPella (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The Rules seem intended as criteria for selecting and judging an article as candidate. The Instructions seem more guidelines for creating the hook, such as selecting images, format, crediting the author/nominator, etc., all of which has nothing to do woith whether or not the candidate article acceptable. So, I would argue rather for a clearer distinction between the Rules and the Instructions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want to put instructions to administrators at the Rules, and instructions to hook and article authors at Instructions, that would work as well as anything. Wherever we put them, those 2 sets of instructions should indeed be kept plainly separate, because avoiding confusion helps understanding. As it is, regardless of original intent, the instructions to authors are in both places. They weren't even linked together until I provided the link! This resulted in conflicting rules when one set of rules got changed without changing the other set. Art LaPella (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
There are also a couple of inconsistencies between the two sets of rules - e.g. 'must be inline-cited' vs 'preferably inline cited'. This was brought up a while back, but it turned out there wasn't a clear consensus on which version to adopt so we continued with the distinctly unideal status quo. If I can find the time this evening or tomorrow I may produce a proposed rewrite of the rules which includes those of Art LaPella's which should really become actually-written-rules and put it up for consideration. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The "preferably" bit has to go. Hooks must be cited, no ifs or buts. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. The previous discussion on this was here, and having re-read it it actually looks like the meat of the disagreement was about whether non-hook facts in the article need inline cites, and I'd misremembered the lack of consensus. I've just changed the "preferably" in Template talk:Did you know now to agree with the "must" in Wikipedia:Did you know. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Olaf, I've been meaning to get around to that for ages :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
As a fairly inexperienced DYK nominator (my third is in the system at present), I've fallen foul of the scatter of different rules and instructions. Wikipedia:Did_You_Know#Selection_criteria says "more than 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)", as does Template_talk:Did_you_know#Instructions, but User:Art_LaPella/Unwritten_rules reveals the rule to be "The prose portion of the article, which must be 1500 characters, excludes block quotes, headers, images and captions, the "See also" section if any, and edit buttons, but includes reference link numbers like [6].". It makes a big difference to some shortish articles with quotes, like Muphry's law! Could the complete set of hurdles please be assembled in one place, rather than one having to follow a small link to "further details" from the bottom of one (but not the other) of the two current listings of requirements? PamD (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been meaning to do something like for a while (see my comment above at 10:22, 9 July) but have been busy at work lately. What I was thinking of was collecting everything into seperate sections on the DYK rules, instructions for submitters, instructions for reviewers, and instructions for update builders: at present they're sort of conflated, besides the slight inconsistencies and repetition between pages. Unfortunately this project at work shows no sign of lightening up so it may still be a while. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, sounds very useful! Good luck. PamD (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK is rotten, drop the bad NRHP articles

I note a currently displayed DYK is yet another NRHP nominated by Bedford. Frankly, although in wikipedia i work mostly on NRHPs, I think there are too many of them in DYK and I think that the DYK process is rotten, for not weeding out the unworthy ones.

The currently displayed one is: "... that an owner of the DeForest Skinner House was once the youngest railroad director in the United States?". I had the article on my watchlist already, and noticed that an IP editor added "stub" tag to the article, reverted by Bedford without explanation. It's not illustrated, its sole reference is poorly described, its sole reference is a promotional piece (the NRHP nomination form) which is not unbiased. It is a stub, and I don't think it's right that the author of the article is reverting a comment like that. The revert is hardly worth mentioning on its own, but it falls in a pattern of Bedford's combative and/or dismissive reverts of other edits and rejection of others' comments about his articles.

DYK regulars may note that I previously commented--i think very mildly--on what i perceived to be poor referencing in several of Bedford's previous articles. I suggested that he provide more than bare URLs in his references. I note that he has cumulatively received a huge amount of feedback on his NHRP DYK articles, including by my suggestions and direct edits of many of his past articles, and by many others' edits and comments. In response to my recent comments, he has gone on a binge to generate more articles on NRHPs, now with a commitment that he has himself acknowledged to shortchange the articles in that respect (of using bare URLs only), as well leaving off the NRHP infobox that could easily be added. He also ignores repeated feedback on his previous articles, such as noting that the date of NRHP listing needs to be supported, in his generating new articles according to his formula. And he has been abusive and irrational.

Upon Bedford's request, Daniel Case, another NRHP writer, rescued a couple of Bedford's nominations that i had commented about which then every other DYK editor had left to languish until the past due date. Until they had reached the past due date, Bedford's responses to me were at best taunts, and he was exceedingly foul and uncivil on his talk page in response to others' comments, and to one followup comment of mine there.

Daniel, whose work i do very much respect, suggested that i not review Bedford's articles as, being an NRHP writer myself, he suggested it could be a conflict of interest. This does not make sense to me and/or is inconsistent with his promoting Bedford's articles. I don't think it is COI for me to say that a) there are too many NRHP articles, and b) the worserly ones oughta get rejected.

And Daniel suggested that he would fix up Bedford's submissions. Others, including myself, have before fixed up his submissions. But my patience is worn, and in any event Daniel is not stepping in to fix up all the submissions in Bedford's pipeline. Vickser kindly stepped in on this DYK to fix up the reference a little bit, but I believe Vickser is not a NRHP regular and at any rate the reference is severely deficient, lacking author and date of preparation and other particulars that are usual in NRHP nomination references (and covered in some detail in draft wp:NRHPMOS). It is arguable to say that the current DYK article is plagiarized, in that it merely regurgitates material written by its author who is not adequately credited, in that she is not named anywhere in the article.

I don't recall saying I would fix his articles, just that I might try. I have a lot of other things to do.

Don, taking into account all you've said on this thread, why haven't you raised a similar objection to my submissions, some of which got to DYK barely over 1,500 characters and used only the nomination as a source (Farmer's and Manufacturer's Bank, for one, which you actually sent me a nice note on). What's different about Bedford's as opposed to mine? Without nomination documents as sources, there is sometimes nothing else to explain why a property is on the Register, and I'm not going to fault Bedford for that (his attitude in response to this is another thing, though). Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

First I should clarify for others that I do not argue against including and using the NRHP inventory/nomination documents. To the contrary, as Daniel knows i recommend strongly that editors of NRHP articles find and use those documents, and I have invested many many thousands of edits to adding those sources to the majority of the 2,442 articles on NRHPs that are also NHLs, as well as adding them to other NRHPs. I developed reference formatting styles for those which i described in the draft wp:NRHPMOS. I also built up a set of state-specific tips for finding NRHP documents which is included in the resources section of wp:NRHP. On the other hand, I recognize that while this NRHP document is a great source for some facts, it also is a promotional document and its quality varies. There are several differences between your example and Bedford's:
1. Your article Farmer's and Manufacturer's Bank includes a really nice picture that you took (which is what i commented about). It is another source in the article, using the exception to No Original Research that we allow for photos.
2. In April when you nominated your article, I wasn't then browsing the DYK nominations as I have done more frequently since, along with getting started in making DYK nominations occasionally myself. However, your nomination: "...that the former Farmer's and Manufacturer's Bank is the only commercial Greek Revival building in Poughkeepsie?" is actually supported by the photo (which shows what kind of architecture the building is) and implicitly by your visit and local knowledge as you have done numerous other NRHP articles about the area.
3. Your response to another editor's comments on that DYK nomination was polite and substantial; you created a redirect that the other editor desired and the other editor eventually agreed that your responses were "reasonable". See "Articles created/expanded on April 7, within this April 11 version of Template Talk:DYK.
4. With you, I have specifically discussed finding and using NRHP references for New York State sites and how to format them with you before, and your article reflected the reference format for NYS NRHPs that we worked out together.
5. And you were polite and responsive in that discussion, like other discussions that we have had, contributing to my believing that you care about the articles and you give serious consideration to others' comments. You and I have some differences of opinion over minor issues in what is the best presentation (e.g., I add the day-month-year date of NRHP listing; you prefer just year), but I think we both believe each of us is trying to do what we believe is best for wikipedia and its readers. This is in contrast to Bedford's treatment of me and others who have edited or commented on his articles, which I experience and note tends to be dismissive and abusive.
6. From prior interactions, I believe that you keep all or many of your articles on your watchlist, and continue to note and respond, directly and indirectly, to feedback that you receive from other edits. This is in contrast to the impression i get of Bedford's practices, which appear to be drive-by DYK medal-scoring, with disregard for the articles and with rejection of others' feedback. I have been friendly and helpful on DYK articles with Bedford, including suggesting to him a number of his Civil War theme ones from new articles I was creating on NHLs in South Carolina and Virginia and elsewhere. I eventually noticed that when i commented on Talk pages of these DYKs-in-progress, Bedford would discuss or respond by edits to the articles, but only up to the point the DYK medal was awarded, and thereafter would not notice or would not respond. I eventually got frustrated with attempting to fix up his bare URL references on some of those articles, especially when i found some of his statements in articles were not supported by the references, and I noted non-responsiveness on his part to my related questions and comments. His behaviors and my cumulative experience working with him on articles tend to make me doubt the accuracy of his work going forward, in contrast to my experience working with you which makes me believe the accuracy of what you state in your articles. doncram (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It offends me that Bedford's articles, which I regard as poor, should be featured on the Mainpage of wikipedia, and that he should be able to persist in rude behavior towards me and others. I think that DYK exposure should be used to showcase good work, and to deliver recognition and feedback to editors who will use that feedback positively.

There are about 80,000 NRHPs out there, all with accessible NRHP nomination documents, and they do not deserve front page mention for DYK medal hunters following the formula of regurgitating 1501 characters, slapping on a bad URL reference to this one promotional document, and composing a hook of 200 or less characters. doncram (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to need some time to fully digest, look up the history, etc before really commenting, but I just wanted to go ahead and confirm that I am definitely not a regular at the NRHP Wikiproject and dealt solely with the articles from the perspective of the DYK criteria. I apologize for not following the NRHP MoS on those references, if I'd known it existed I would've tried using it. It was just a good faith attempt to make things less messy and more readable, and sincere apologies if I ended up stepping on any toes.
At this point, the only thing I know I very strongly agree that a whole bunch of citations to one blank url PDF without page numbers probably shouldn't count for DYK? standards. Vickser (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Doncram just doesn't like his tantrums being ignored. As long as there is a reference, that is all that matters. Plus, I have not been tagging them for WP:NRHP, as Doncram has insisted on making that a bad thing.--Bedford Pray 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, I think at the very least you should clean up your references properly. Bare URL's look very untidy and I don't think it's too much to ask for nominators to go to the little bit of extra effort to format them properly. In fact, I've been considering proposing making properly formatted refs a requirement for DYK, the only reason I haven't done so is because users are bound to misinterpret it one way or another. But I think perhaps it's time we made it an informal requirement, because I see no reason to feature untidy articles on the front page when such problems are easily fixed with a little bit of extra effort. Gatoclass (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure my posting here is a bit of a rant. That does not mean that my arguments are invalid. Bedford's arguing "As long as there is a reference", any reference, is emphasizing that he is abusing the situation here in DYK, in which some hard and fast rules have been adopted to make things work, but which do not address the spirit of what DYK can be, and is for most participants.

Okay, now Bedford has placed his own questionable (and questioned) hook onto the Mainpage, in 2nd position, with its arguably plagiarized article that he authored, and he has awarded himself a DYK medal for this. I see that another editor did attach a "signoff" to the hook which was in the overdue section of Template talk:Did you know, but i think it should not have been signed off on. I don't know if Bedford violated explicit rules in putting his controversial DYK onto the Mainpage, but i note he sure seized the opportunity to put his DYK into prominent view, and it appears unseemly to me.

The hook is " ... that an Indianapolis architect was sent to Château de Malmaison to replicate a copy of it in Indianapolis' Washington Park neighborhood?" which is based solely on the promotional NRHP nomination document. I did not entirely follow the evolution of this new hook for the article, but saw that it was questioned in the article talk page and in Template talk:Did you know. I think it would have been appropriate for Bedford to have withdrawn his nomination for this after the hook was questioned, rather than adapting it to this claim. The hook first claimed that the architect had been sent by the owner to France, which was appropriately questioned as probably being a vain family story. The revised claim just states he was sent to France, which is vague.

I further do argue that the article is plagiarized. It relies upon one source and the referencing does not give adequate credit to the author, in that it does not even name the author, as is the standard in NRHP document referencing. Bedford has repeated his commitment to do bad referencing in NRHP articles and others are not choosing to step in and fix up his nominations.

Bedford dismissed my comment above, and blamed me, oddly, in the discussion of Washington Park Historic District at Template Talk, although i had not commented there. I just don't think this DYK reflects well on wikipedia. doncram (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It was obvious what the cause to his effect was. *rolls eyes*. You're just having diarrhea of the keyboard in order to justify your own self-worth.--Bedford Pray 02:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Doncram, I think you misunderstand the purpose of DYK. It is about featuring new articles that meet certain minimum standards. It is not about featuring "good" articles; that is what WP:GA is about. Now if an article has only a single reference source, that does not disqualify it from being used in DYK. That said, a good article should indeed accumulate references from a variety of sources to become more credible, but that is not the purview of DYK. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As I already said however, I do think there are certain minimum standards that can and should be adhered to. We don't have to accept unformatted bare references when the problem is easily rectified, nor should we accept articles without an infobox that are of the kind that would normally take one. I won't, for example, promote a ship article that doesn't have a ship infobox, and I don't see why an NRHP article should be any different. On those two issues at least, I think doncram has a point. Gatoclass (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't apply the infobox requirement to other areas - the top visual arts & many architecture editors strongly dislike their use in many contexts, and it is Wikiproject Visual arts policy that their use should always be decided on a case by case basis. Please bear that in mind. Other projects have similar views. On the specific issue I have some sympathy with doncram, and people should certainly not add their own articles to the update - did this happen? Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know some infoboxes are controversial - that's why I said "articles...of a kind that would normally take one", ie, for which a given infobox is an accepted standard, like the ship infoboxes.
I'm not sure what the situation is with NRHP infoboxes, but I've had the strong impression that they are an accepted standard on articles about NRHP structures. If that is not the case, fine, but if it is then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that such articles submitted to DYK should have the infobox. Gatoclass (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
We generally prefer them; and personally as an active NRHP editor I strongly feel that infoboxes should be used in every article that merits one (many other entries on the Register, like lighthouses and religious buildings, have infoboxes specific to them). But I understand and accept other people's positions ... Joseph Priestley House made FA and the two editors tried different versions of the infobox but ultimately decided the article was better off without one.
No, it did not happen; doncram is just wanting to make an ass of himself. Someone else promoted it, and when I did the last DYK update, it was already there. I'm still waiting for someone to give me the official credit for it.--Bedford Pray 03:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
What had caught my attention was Bedford awarding the DYK to the article in this edit and then i saw it was he who put it onto the Wikipedia mainpage in this edit. I thought that in removing the DYK from the next update section in this edit, Bedford had awarded the DYK to himself, but I see now, lower down within that edit titled "CLEAR except COI entry", that he left the last posting of DYK to his own talkpage to be performed by another editor. Gatoclass has since done that in this edit.
Before that, Thingg gave a verified sign in this edit after editing the article itself with this edit titled "clarify refs". And i see now that it was BorgQueen who removed the discussion and moved the DYK to the next update in this edit in the Template talk page and these edits in the update page, placing the DYK in 2nd position.
I apologize for having misinterpreted what happened here in the exact sequencing, in particular for incorrectly assessing that Bedford not BorgQueen had moved the DYK to the next update and put it into 2nd position. After that, Bedford was indeed involved in the processing of the DYK, although the DYK system has evolved so that the very last "official credit" is awarded by another editor, to preserve appearances on the DYK collector's Talk page. doncram (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I also note that User:Elkman has a web page here which allows anyone to generate a NRHP infobox in less than a minute. I only learned of it recently, but it is quite useful, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Too new to be in Elkman's system; besides, as I am no longer a member of WP NRHP (due to doncram), I am not obligated to do a NRHP infobox, or place that WP's banner on the article's talk page, or list it as one of the new NRHP articles on the corresponding page.--Bedford Pray 03:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That response disregards what is best for the article and wikipedia readers. In previous discussion Bedford implied that he could not do an infobox as it was not available in the Elkman generator. As Bedford is well aware, and i have pointed out previously, it would be easy to prepare an infobox for the new listing. Bedford always used to include an infobox, and has pretty much acknowledged that he is leaving it out as part of some kind of punishment to me for having commented on his bare URLs. In a prior discussion in Template Talk, when i commented that he seemed to have shortshrifted 3 articles that way, Bedford pointed out that, no, he had deliberately shortshrifted 8 of them.
Yet another deliberate omission on Bedford's part in this and other articles is to omit reference to the new listings source; the asserted NRHP listing date is not and cannot be supported by the one reference (the nomination) in the article. Bedford is well aware of that, and has easily put in the appropriate reference when DYKs in progress were fact-tagged on that point. I feel that experienced DYK developers such as Bedford should show some respect for the cumulative feedback of others about their articles, and should deliver better work than a minimum standard applicable for new DYK contributors who have not received extensive feedback. doncram (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Doncram on this point. Bedford, you sound kind of petty here. "I'm not obligated to do these things, so I'm not going to, even though they should be done for the article." Whether or not you are part of the NRHP WikiProject is immaterial to doing what's right. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
You put words in my mouth. If being petty is to be redefined to mean standing up for myself and not let myself get walked upon, then so be it.--Bedford Pray 03:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism, whistleblowers, and threats

Articles on DYK by User:Wilhelmina Will are essentially copied from other websites with the same word usage, only rearranged or changing an adjective to adverb, using a pronoun here and there, moving clauses back and forth, but otherwise, using each sentence in the order from the article, with no processing of information or anything. Lee Holdridge is a good example of an article one of my colleagues smugly pointed out to me as Wikipedia's DYK response to my problems with plagiarism. Will doesn't always rearrange that well, either. Some of her articles are also wrongly copied, like she claimed a mountain was in New Mexico, when it was in California.

Again, these DYK award contests are giving out awards for all the wrong reasons, as I suspected when I first saw the problem, and as no one was willing to admit to me. DYK is giving out awards and praise to people for creating articles in a ridiculously short amount of time, in an amount of time that can't be met, and isn't being met. This user is not writing or creating these articles--she's merely rearranging the words of other people's articles, possibly copyrighted by other people. I can't even get the facts straight for a taxobox in 5 days, much less a well-written (and written by me, not someone else) article in 5 days, or even a sloppily written article. It takes time to research and write well. It takes more than five days to produce a short, accurate, factual article, that isn't the mere rearranging of someone else's research and writing.

And DYK editors are not doing this in five days: they are not writing these articles, they are copying them from the web. Wilhelmina Will is getting her DYK awards from other people's writing, just like other DYK editors whose articles I have criticized for the same thing. She's just rearranging a word here, a phrase there. That would make writing plant articles much easier if that is the Wikipedia standard: find a short article, copy and past, move a word around in a sentence here and there, change an adverb to an adjective, a name to a pronoun and vice-versa. And much easier to get them on DYK to meet the five days.

There is no intention to do anything about this, I know, other than attack me as usual. It is disgusting to see this on Wikipedia, on the main page, day after day, framed and up front for all to see, as if it is worthy of advertising, of glorifying, of celebrating, of showing off. It's not. Anyone can copy and steal and rearrange a few words from the web. It does not require an "editor," what Wikipedia writers call themselves. Any one can do it.

Don't worry, I won't discuss this issue. It has been made clear to me what DYK editors care about: the brownie buttons.

--Blechnic (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. DYK awards encourage bad articles. It's embarrassing and it seems impossible to do anything about it. Doug Weller (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. We will take care to check out Wilhelmina's submissions more carefully from this point. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I thought you quit (striking through per later reconsideration and apology). Anyway, as the reviewer of the Holdridge article, I checked merely the cited source to see that the information was accurately cited. If I had noticed any too-similar text, I would have held up the nom over that and insisted on a rewrite (I have done this). I didn't; not there.

Since you brought this up, I will watch for it in future submissions from that editor. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this is sufficient. --Blechnic (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another largely plagiarized article of hers. Bette Sussman In addition her sources are sometimes bad links, or they don't say what she claims, or she has misinterpreted what they say. I've looked at about half a dozen of her articles, and I'm a bit tired of deleting content, asking for sources, removing spam links. --Blechnic (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree that that article is "largely plagiarized". She has clearly made an effort to put the information in her own words. There is only one sentence there that is clearly plagiarized, which is: "She played on Curry's Fearless album and also embarked on her first major world tour with him."
The only thing that really bothers me about that article is that there is some info there that isn't included in the source. However, that may have come from info in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections that she didn't bother to cite. Gatoclass (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Not too accurate. She takes every line, uses the same words, rearranges a word here and there, then moves on to the next line, changes a noun to a pronoun or vice versa. This would have earned me an F in school for plagiarizing.
Like with other editors who have been plagiarizing works for DYK, there bigger problems with her editing, namely she is putting incorrect information in articles. If you wonder about information that is not sourced, consider that her sourced information is not supported by her sources.
For example, on her article on Ctenochelys said they were crown group sea turtles based on a reference that is about their not being crown group sea turtles. A fact from this article appeared on DYK. Was the fact on DYK as inaccurately dealt with by this editor as her knowledge of crown groups?
The biggest concern, in my opinion, with these plagiarizing editors, is that they are sloppy in other areas. Bogus links and fake facts abound. Everyone here is so dismissive of these concerns about plagiarism. This isn't going to look good in the long run, though, that you knew about these problem editors and that you fought against learning about more of them. And there are more. Plagiarization is just one way to be sloppy and quick and meet that 5-day deadline and get your next DYK award! --Blechnic (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I cannot agree with your description of her article. She had rearranged the text to a sufficient extent that it was quite difficult for me to locate the source of the information in the cited article. Now maybe someone somewhere might regard putting the same or similar information in your own words as plagiarism, but that isn't the definition we use here.
As for mistakes - sure there are mistakes. This is Wikipedia, which everyone knows is not a reliable source. There are countless articles in truly horrendous shape. But the idea is that eventually someone with more of a clue comes along and fixes them. Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Having looked over Bette Sussman I also disagree that it's largely plagiarized: the changing in wording, ordering and so on are significant enough that it's really not the same document in my opinion. That's not to say that we're not taking your accusations seriously. We may disagree on examples but we're still grateful to you for pinpointing potential (and actual) violations of copyright or inaccuracies.
As far as inaccurate statements outside the hook fact go, those will continue to appear in DYK articles up until the day DYK becomes GA - just as they do among all articles which aren't GA or FA status. I really don't think that they're sufficiently widespread - or sufficiently more common in DYK than elsewhere - to justify the kind of radical change to DYK it would take to weed them all out. We stamp on bad articles when they're brought to our attention, but make no claim to check every detail of every page we feature. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of inaccurate statements in GAs, and I wouldn't be too surprised to find some in FAs as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Definitely. Espeecailly the older ones. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What the ...?

"that Wanda Hjort Heger showed up uninvited every week at the gate of Sachsenhausen during WWII with two jars of potato salad for the Norwegian prisoners?"

Since when have visitors been invited to concentration camps? Invited weekly? huh? --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that she was uninvited doesn't imply that anyone else was. I can say "my cat climbs on my bed uninvited every morning" even though I don't invite anyone else to climb on it. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The Nazis used to invite the Red Cross to places like Theresienstadt to put an outside stamp of legitimacy on the Potemkin village nature of the system. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the emphasis on the uninvited, which I couldn't find in the source, by the way. Maybe someone can link me to that in the source? If it's in the Norwegian I can get it translated, no problem. I did that other article in Norwegian with some help from a friend, or you can translate it for me. That was the hook. If she wasn't the only one uninvited who turned up, what's the big deal, what's interesting about it? What your cat does isn't on the main page. --Blechnic (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The cat didn't risk the wrath of Nazis. Just to approach a concentration camp sounds dangerous, especially if you're trying to feed enemies of the state, and perhaps save their lives. Art LaPella (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This again ignores the incredibly silly emphasis on "uninvited." Does it say she was uninvited? Is this really so unusual that it should be highlighted? That she risked her life, probably, is one thing, but to reduce it to the silly exclamation that she showed up "uninvited with potato salad," was, well, completely silly. And I bet it's not in the source. And that's kinda the point, not your cat. --Blechnic (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with that. Without the "uninvited", one might easily assume that she was simply under contract to provide food or other services to the Nazis or their prisoners. The "uninvited" emphasizes that this is something she did on her own initiative, and at considerable personal risk. Gatoclass (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course my cat is not on the Main Page - I was demonstrating that the word 'uninvited' doesn't necessarily carry the connotation you seemed to be ascribing to it. In any event, Gato makes a very valid argument above for the inclusion of the word. As pertains to the Norwegian source, I suggest you contact the article's author with queries about the exact wording. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but there was nothing intriguing about someone not being invited to a place where almost no one is invited. It just looked silly. --Blechnic (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that it looked silly, but since it's off the Main Page now it's probably not worth arguing about any more. Thanks for bringing it up anyway! Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 15:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Gato = cat, yes, funny and nice wordplay by Olaf. :) doncram (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh - so it does! Would you believe I don't speak a word of Spanish? Olaf Davis | Talk 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thou protesteth too mucheth. Sorry for calling so much attention u must denieth iteth. doncram (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK and stubs

I have been noticing in some of the DYKs issued over last month that many of these articles have stub attachments to them. Most of these articles, clearly meet the other DYK requirements in terms of length, hook, inline citations, etc., but violate the DYK criteria with having a stub in them which the criteria state that it should not have. Why are we not reviewing the article more closely to make certain that they have no stubs? Just a thought. Chris (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they are clearly past stub status, then we should be removing them while we review the articles and hook. Simple enough, but overlooked I guess. Wizardman 23:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • When reviewing I can't recall approving an article that was marked as a stub. Theoretically, when reviewing if you run into a stub tag, my understanding is that the appropriate action is either removing the tag (if you feel the tag's not needed) or responding on the review page that, while it does meet the 1500 char minimum, we can request articles be expanded further and that as we don't feature stubs, the article needs to be expanded until the stub tag is no longer necessary. In short, you should never be checking off an article that has a stub tag. That said, it is possible that one can review a 1700 char article, think it's good and check it off, and a later editor can come along and feel that it's deserving of a stub tag, and there's not much we can do about that. Since the definition of stub can be fluid from editor to editor, what's a stub to one can be DYK ready to another. Vickser (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
From WP:STUB:"A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information." This strictly should not include any article meeting the DYK criteria, but if the subject is very large I suppose a tag might be legitimately added (examples anyone?). Generally the tags should just be removed - there is I think a tendency to over-use the tag. I have sometimes done an expansion & forgot to do this before nominating & someone else has done it for me. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As a related issue, I've observed how some articles are "gaming the system" a bit to get onto DYK. An editor will make a short article based only a single reference, will pad it out with a bunch of trivia, deliberately leave off the stub tag, and submit it for DYK. So to reviewers, I'd recommend checking for these, such as ensuring that an article has more than one source. If not, stub tag it, cross it off the DYK list, and move on. --Elonka 17:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a couple of common-sense exceptions to this, for example the Dictionary of National Biography for relatively obscure figures about whom you can write a decently complete article from that source alone (the only other sources, in many cases, would be microfiche copies of theses and dissertations many decades old, if you're lucky). In my area of expertise, the comprehensive 29-volume New Grove has the same function as the DNB. Often to find a second or third source you need to go to quite old publications in another language (not that this is impossible -- I do it sometimes). Antandrus (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK failure

I think that it is a failure when a currently displayed DYK article, once posted on the Mainpage of wikipedia, immediately attracts contradiction and removal from the article, so that the claimed hook is no longer supported. In this edit an IP editor stripped the central claim of the article on Friend to Friend Masonic Memorial, with edit summary "(remove unsourced reference to "the Masonic cry of distress" - please provide proof that such a thing exists, or that it was uttered in this instance)". The IP editor is justified in my view, along lines i had previously stated at the article's talk page. I suspect the IP editor just reacted to the hook and the article, not to my statement there, however. doncram (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It was probably your IP. Anyways, I made another cite, so you lost this battle. It's a shame you can't contribute to Wikipedia, and instead must harass those that do.--Bedford Pray 21:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I specifically distanced myself from that IP, so I interpret you to be implying that i am lying. Also, I note that I "lost" and you secured the DYK medal for yourself, by trumping up a worse hook than the 3rd alternative, then appealing to the talk page of an editor unaware of your recent actions to come save you quickly, with further insults directed towards me in that appeal. I don't think that is a victory to be proud of, and given the quality of the article and the hook I think it was a loss for DYK. doncram (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you two please keep this on your talk pages, or seek dispute resolution? Thanks. - Bobet 10:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal - that up to 2 dyk hooks can be from articles recently (<5 days) elected to GA status

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Archiving per Casliper's request. Vickser (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I know this was talked about on and off a few times over the past few months and I scanned back through the archives a bit - did anyone ever get round to actually proposing this?

I figured that a proposal that up to 2 dyk hooks can be from articles recently (<5 days) elected to GA status is a good one because:

  • New articles are quite often pretty obscure these days. Of the loads I have had on the main page, very few have had substantive content enlargement - not something I am too fussed about really (I may try and make some more straightforward ones - geography and botany are areas where there are alot of stubs or redlinks which are pretty well-known but I digress...). Thus, for maximum article enlargement, maybe newly promoted GAs are a good bet - articles substantially improved by maybe not wuite FA comprehensive or whatever.
  • It gets recognition for GAs on main page.
  • Some less obscure hooks maybe, so maybe greater anon IP involvement (?)
  • Thus continues to improve quality content.

If this has already gone down let me know otherwise shall we start a poll here? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I guess you checked the archives but I was pretty sure I saw a discussion about this very topic not that long ago and the consensus was not to do this. I think that, especially over time, we will have more and more new articles to choose from in a potential-DYK pool, such that the quality of those selected for T:DYK (from new articles and stubs alone) will only improve over time. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I actually think that over time we will eventually have fewer hooks as the encyclopedia grows and more topics become already covered. But that will be a long time ahead and till then, I really can't see a justification for giving up DYK slots to GAs at the expense of bumping off new and 5x expanded articles from the front page. Additionally, (but a bit on a tangent) there is a lack of community consensus on how exactly GA is viewed. There is a fair segment of the community who believe that the GA quality is inconsistent and that the process has inherent flaws that shouldn't be prominently featured. Look at how many times the proposal to put the little green plus sign up in the top corner of articles has failed to gain any consensus. I think if this proposal was taken off the DYK page to Village Pump, you would see a larger view of the community's division on the GA process. All in all, I think there is more cons than pros to involving DYK with GA. AgneCheese/Wine 07:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: the previous discussion is here, though that too refers to an even earlier one. The more recent one I've linked is talking about allowing improved as well as expanded articles in DYK, including GA as one example of the former. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    OK, sorry about that. Shall we just close and archive this one then? I am not fussed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On archiving

Well, the previous discussion was by no means a consensus against the idea - there seemed to be a reasonable amount of support before the talk dried up. So I wouldn't necessarily feel compelled to archive this if you don't want to: your call though. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I just put up the archive box because Calisber's requested it, and since he was the proposer and no one else supported, I didn't see an issue closing it up. If people do want to re-discuss the proposal, or if Calisber would like it reopened, I have no objections whatsoever to removing the archive box. Vickser (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stages of growth model

I'm not sure why this article is a DYK. It was created over |three years ago and doesn't meet the five day improvement requirement. Any ideas. --Patrick (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been nominated because it was only recently marked as a stub and has since been improved. Its technical ineligibility was noted, but the nominator complained that DYK was not intended to be a bureaucracy with rigid rules. I have mixed feelings about this: I'm all for rules not being rigid, but they shouldn't be ignored completely. Something that's this far afield should be reserved for GA. It's not rules for the sake of rules. The guidelines exist so that not all improved content is eligible and the project swamped more than it already is. --JayHenry (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I also object to whoever decided to throw aside the rules in this case. While, yes, we should use common sense, and if something has had a 4.95 expansion in the past five day but is an amazing article to the extent that I couldn't think of another word to add, sure, I'm all for fudging that 4.95 is almost 5. I don't think the rules should have been bent in this case since it really didn't meet the spirit of what DYK is supposed to feature: i.e., new or greatly expanded. Vickser (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's a link to the full discussion: T:TDYK#July 25 (under the Military Sociology hook). Other exceptional factors 1) rarity of sociology topics 2) rewarding a group of new editors as part of a classroom education project 3) that the new editors would have technically complied if they'd done it in a sandbox instead of gradually developing the article over a couple of days. That doesn't bother me as much as it did at first glance. --JayHenry (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Like JayHenry I was initially dubious, but the exceptional factors he quotes above convinced me to drop my objection. If giving out a few DYKs will persuade one of those students to keep editing and become a productive Wikipedian (which is a large part of the point of DYK), I think the bending of the rules was worth it. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

An article for a certain date

I am currently working on an article for Jonathan Adler, head judge on the show Top Design. I am aiming for a September 4th DYK. Is it possible or feasible to get it featured on that date? If so, would a good hook be ...Jonathan Adler is the head judge of Top Design, which premieres tonight? (I am guessing no for that one haha). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd hold up until a week prior to when you want it on the front page before creating the article. We have done specific date requests in the past, like for Christmas or Saint Patrick's Day. I currently have a request for one of my articles to be sued today between 1600-1900 UTC, which mean it should be used not this upcoming update in a hour, but the one after that. Just make sure it's obvious when you want it used.--Bedford Pray 07:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do, I am working on it in my userspace. Thanks a lot for your help.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Tonight is this morning on the opposite side of the world, so I think you mean "tonight in the U.S." Art LaPella (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Expired Line Question

So, I just tried moving the expired line up to July 27 since it looked like no one did it yesterday, and it got reverted [2]. Since I'm still relatively new around here at DYK, could someone clarify when exactly the expired line should get moved up? I was under the impression that it there was a 5 day limit, and Aug 1, July 31, July 30, July 29, and July 28 is 5 days, with July 27 being #6. Are we actually supposed to have six days above the line and am I just being confused? I'd like to know so in the future I'll be able to appopriately move the expiring tag. Vickser (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea is five full days, because the sixth day is not yet complete it isn't counted. Therefore there should always be six dates above the expiry line. Gatoclass (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks! Vickser (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK photo policy clarification

I don't know if this may already be covered in formal or written-but-informal DYK rules, but could people comment on two photo policy questions that come up in recent DYK nominations:

  • Q1. Is it okay or not to include yourself or loved ones in pictures of subjects of articles nominated for DYK?
  • Q2. Is it okay or not to employ non-standard copyright licenses in DYK pictures, when the DYK nominator or other who took the photo could simply choose to release the photo under Creative Commons, GFDL, and/or other standard license?

My view, expressed about one photo that put was up for discussion by other editors on both points:

Let's be clear: The photo is unacceptable for DYK. This is an encyclopedia and it is unprofessional for DYK to feature pictures of DYK wikipedians or their loved ones. Also, the purpose of wikipedia is to put forth free content and DYK should not put forth photos under non-standard licenses, just as it should not include copyrighted photos under "fair use" arguments. As with use of other copyrighted images, it is inappropriate to use a photo with an idiosyncratic copyright, when it should be possible to obtain a photo that is free content under a standard license. Obviously, it would be possible to obtain a free content photo if the DYK nominator would release it under Creative Commons / GFDL / etc. We are supposed to set a model for free content under standard licenses, not for creating unhelpful variations.

In a recent discussion, it was mentioned that "BorgQueen is known for cropping images to use on DYK", i think to address the issue of self-images, and I think that is a good model. It was also mentioned by a DYK nominator "I know of no policy sayin g this is bad or good." Can others clarify what the policy is, or create one by consensus, please? doncram (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Q1, I do not think it's ok to include yourself or loved ones in pics. My personal policy is to never post any recognizable picture of a person, whether I know them or not. At an unrecognizable distance, I wouldn't worry about walk thru people, but in general I keep my place pics people free.
Regarding Q2, I don't know to much about licenses, but I do know that I have been puzzled about how to use a picture taken by a friend or family member that they are willing to have used. I wish there were clear guidelines for that circumstance. Lvklock (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Doncram's purposes for this argument are obviously disingenuous, but still it's an issue worth haggling. The image, Image:Gettysburg Mason Memorial.JPG was the only one I could find for it, and cropping it seemed to harm the image more than help it. If this or images with similar problems are again posted, we need some consensus.--Bedford Pray 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I definitely agree that we should try and avoid putting pictures of ourselves on DYK - if for no other reason, then to avoid "even the appearance of a conflict of interest" as the rules (wisely) advise. Second, in this particular instance I don't see that cropping the image does it much damage. Other things being equal I'd probably keep the size as it is, but I think the slight change is worth the loss of the 'distraction' (sorry to call you that, Bedford!). Thirdly and finally, I don't see that the statement "Doncram's purposes for this argument are obviously disingenuous" is likely to have any effect more productive than distracting him and others from what we all seem to agree is something we need to discuss. Let's stick to the issue at hand. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the question about written rules, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest mentions "personal or semi-personal photos". On the other hand, it doesn't say how personal a photo is if the main subject is something else. On the third hand, just because we can't find something prohibited in writing doesn't prove it's OK. Art LaPella (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should generally avoid it on DYK but no absolute prohibition is needed. There are some instances where it'd probably be okay, like if someone wanted to do a DYK on Ugg boots and uploaded a good picture of their own foot in a pair of Uggs, I think that'd be okay. Also it's not as if the inclusion of this particular image had self-promotional intent, which would be a separate and serious issue. --JayHenry (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We've had people take pictures of their own semen and posted it on Wikipedia, so there has been some very personal photos on here.--Bedford Pray 00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of neither boots nor semen are recognizable as an individual. Therefore, I'd have no problem with them. Lvklock (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to see semen pictures on DYK :) --JayHenry (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know one guy who uploaded his own wedding photo and nominated himself for Featured Picture (without disclosing that he was nominating his own mug). (It was unanimously rejected). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that no attempt was made to keep secret who was in the picture in question that started this discussion.--Bedford Pray 01:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Right. You beat me to saying that with an edit conflict. Whatever we decide, we shouldn't make a big fuss about it. Art LaPella (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
When I made the original comment, it was because I recognized the pic as Bedford from his talk page, so obviously he wasn't trying to hide anything. I have no desire to fuss, just like to know what's what for the future. Lvklock (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's clear that Bedford didn't do anything at all below board here. So, does that sound like a consensus for "try to avoid identifiable images of editors or their loved ones", or something similar? Olaf Davis | Talk 12:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably for the best. Once this is settled, we can finally use that hook (without picture), and delete the rest of that days hooks, as the others are unusable. Besides, we might have another issue to discuss, considering the most recent update and the subject matter.--Bedford Pray 12:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, let's say that Q1 is at consensus, and someone should put that into, at least, the written "informal rules" which is somewhere around here. Q2 has not been addressed, is important in my view, and is raised by at least two photos in the DYK nomination pipeline.

A further issue is whether DYK should feature articles that feature problematic photos, even if those photos are not part of the explicit DYK nomination to appear on the main page.

I don't like to lengthen this discussion, but my attention span for addressing the same issue on other nominations in the pipeline is also short, and I would like for this to be resolved more fully. So,

  • Q3. Is it okay or not for DYK to feature articles that include photos of DYK wikipedians or loved ones (even though the photo is not part of the DYK nomination)?
  • Q4. Is it okay or not for DYK to feature articles that include photos employing non-standard copyright licenses, when the DYK nominator or other who took the photos could simply choose to release the photos under Creative Commons, GFDL, and/or other standard license (even though the photo is not part of the DYK nomination)?

My views are that it is not okay in either case, that we can and ought to set a better standard. I commented at T:TDYK on a recent article (in part paraphrasing a comment by Art LaPella above) as follows:

The article itself features a photo with two issues: it features a DYK wikipedian, and it is not a free content contribution according to a standard license. These are issues of professionalism and are relevant in considering whether the article should be featured in DYK.... (And) even if a photo like the one in this article is not yet explicitly prohibited in writing, a) that doesn't mean that it is okay to feature the photo here in DYK and b) that does not mean that it is okay to feature the article (which itself features the photo).

Verification that Q1 is resolved, and new comments on Q2, Q3, Q4 would be most appreciated. doncram (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos of buildings are often enhanced by a discreetly placed human figure for scale, & this will often be the uploader or friend, though the individual will often hardly be distinguishable. I see no harm in this - the Bedford photo almost meets this but perhaps not quite. I agree with JH on the "Ugg boot exception" & am rather reluctant to impose requirements on the whole article. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
About Q1 and Q3, I have concern too over m:instruction creep. However, perhaps a clear rule is possible and necessary here, at least for a guideline. I don't want to be faced with multiple tests of DYK wikipedians inserting themselves in closer and closer views, in successive DYK nominations. Why not take multiple pictures of a given tourist site when strangers are in the view, instead. If the person is needed for faraway scale, the stranger should not be recognizable. Or if there are no strangers available and having a human in the picture is so important for scale reasons, take a pic with and without yourself in the view, offer them both in your DYK nomination, and let someone else decide whether the pic with you in it is sufficiently better that it justifies going against the guideline. doncram (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Late example of my point just above - the person here is very useful for scale on this building (which is historically very important). No doubt a friend etc, but I'm ok with this. A remote site with no passers-by I imagine. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency: new/expanded

Template:Did you know says that only new articles can be included. WP:DYK says expanded articles are also valid. Can someone make this consistent? I can't 'cuz the template is locked. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think that matters. The template page is not where you go to read about how to contribute to DYK. Anyone who reads the rules or suggestions pages will quickly discover it is also for recently expanded articles. Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It matters to me, who just made the mistake of trusting the template to be accurate. You might not feel like fixing it; I'll find someone else who does. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, alright then, since you insist, I have altered the text. It probably doesn't hurt to have a consistent description on DYK pages. I was just a bit concerned it would make the messagebox look untidy, that's all. Gatoclass (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to ban editor from DYK until she gets the facts figure out: encyclopedia first

I have proposed on AN/I that User:Wilhelmina Will be banned from contributing to DYK until she figures out that an accurate encyclopedia article is more important than her DYK countitis.[3] Please discuss at AN/I, whatever your opinion is, the specific issue about this user, although feel free to discuss what should be done about incidents like this in the future. I think it would be nice if there were a clear set of guidelines. Not understanding the awards race on Wikipedia, I can't relate that well. --Blechnic (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, you've posted this at 3 different places. I think it is a little excessive. I suggest possibly cooling down a bit. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I am seeing both sides. I think some aren't as bad as they seem. My biggest problem is using so-called "leet speak". I can sympathize with trying to get to 1500 characters, but she needs to learn to bloviate better. Also, 5000? I have the fifth-most of anyone ever in DYK creation, and I'm only at 152, and the highest is only 206. It is long before she needs to bother getting to 5000, which would take at least a dozen years to do. She isn't even on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. --Bedford Pray 05:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Tinkleheimer, I posted in numerous places, on a couple of user talk pages, including hers, but, like here, I requested the discussion about her take place at only one of these locations, namely AN/I, and issues concerning DYK policy be discussed here. Please go ahead and actually read the posts.
Thanks for reposting your project page comment here, Bedford. Number 4 was not used as an example of a personal attack, rather it was her admission that she was doing it solely for the purpose of upping her count without any consideration of the quality of the edit or of the substance of the reversion. The reversion was to one of her least inaccurate edits in that particular article though. I don't know anything about the list of Wikipedians by number of DYK, but not suprised to find, like the award page, that it exists, but when I challenged that something of the sort exists no one would admit it. She might have a dozen years mapped out. --Blechnic (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to give benefit of the doubt, but her very quick archiving of active talk about the problem is not a good sign. As ANI is untrustworthy, I'd rather we deal with the problem here. I say don't ban her from having DYK articles, but instead that she can not self-nom until five contributory articles of hers have been on the front page. That way we do not discourage new articles from her, but do insist on trustworthy articles. Also, no more leet speak. Sometimes other editors need a rebuke (deletionists, for example) but "Revolting" just isn't a viable term.--Bedford Pray 06:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

She has been given the benefit of the doubt, over and over. However, no harm in my opinion in trying it again. Here's her response to the leet speak NPA warning, by the way.[4]
I don't quite follow what you intend, but I do think it would have to involve her actively coming here and debating your proposal or agreeing to it in some way. The problem with the plagiarism issue was partially that it got no response from her other than lame warning for me to stay away from her. She ignored the concerns.
Although AN/I can be untrustworthy because of the tendency for drama to attract far too much attention and serious issues which impact encyclopedia content to be ignored it's still a community voice. Still, outline it, invite her here, and I don't think anyone will disagree too much with giving her one more chance. I won't. --Blechnic (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have requested at AN/I that the community ban against User:Wilhelmina Will continuing to nominate at DYK be enforced. She ignored all responsibility for including misinformation in Wikipedia articles and made clear that her sole purpose for DYK is not to improve Wikipedia with new articles, but to gain awards. In fact, when it came right down to it, a fake fact, misinformation, misinterpretations on Wikipedia or Wilhelmina Will's awards for these bad articles, her awards won and she made edits to get an article on DYK under any circumstances.

DYK may not be about the best of Wikipedia, as one of its admins pointed out to me, but I don't think you're in the running to be the worst of Wikipedia, either. Editors who are striving for the latter, and have no intention of changing their goals of crap for awards, have no place contributing anywhere to Wikipedia, much less being rewarded for it.[5] --Blechnic (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I believe a consensus to ban from DYK was made here Fritzpoll (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be AN/I making a decision that strongly affects DYK process, without consulting DYK editors, most of whom, quite likely, stay way from AN/I. I see no support shown here for Blechnic's proposal to topic ban WW from DYK, and the AN/I report by Blechnic set up a highly biased environment for consideration of the topic ban. There was no emergency, and creating a topic ban does not require the use of admin tools; normally, if editors have established a local consensus, and an editor then violates it, then there could be, for an egregious violation (not merely a content issue), a notice to AN/I in order to obtain enforcement of a decided ban.

I've interpreted that, nevertheless, the ban exists and is in place, but I would also argue that if the ban is discussed here, and there is a consensus against the ban, it should clearly be considered lifted, and I'm pretty sure that Fritzpoll would support that. He has stated elsewhere that this was not a disruptive editor, and those who have reviewed the charges that Blechnic has made against the quality of her article work -- which is really almost totally irrelevant here, what if an article did bad work 99% of the time bu twrote a good article, would the bad edits mean that the good article couldn't be considered? -- and have found this editor to be a good editor, creating generally acceptable content. Not perfect content, but that's what we have a wiki for. Got a problem with an article? Fix it. There is no article ban on WW, there is only a ban on nominations to DYK, and nothing preventing others from nominating her articles as they see fit. And if someone wants to change that, well, the whole process is open. The community, however, has very clearly spoken: Wilhelmina Will is a productive editor, she is not disruptive, and no credible allegations have been made that the quality of her work is below normal. And from my personal observations, they are quite a bit above normal. Shouldn't that have been a bit obvious with 28 successful DYK nominations? --Abd (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to comment in detail on this business, but I just wanted to say this: Blechnic informed us above that he was requesting a ban at AN/I, and linked to the thread; and Fritzpoll subsequently linked to the consensus that had been achieved there. We had plenty of opportunity to comment at either point, so I don't think it's fair to say that the decision was made 'without consulting DYK editors'. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
AN/I is not part of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, and many editors, from negative experience, stay away from AN/I. It is not a place, generally, to calmly discuss matters. I agree, Blechnic notified those who watch this page that there was an AN/I report. Comments made here were not in favor of a ban of any kind. The alleged problems took place in editing articles, not in nominating them, so, in fact, a topic ban on the nomination page was utterly inappropriate, if she was misbehaving in editing articles, then remedies for such misbehavior were appropriate and banning nomination was merely striking at her motives, not at preventing the allegedly harmful conduct. But there was no significant support for banning her from articles space, where the alleged offenses had taken place. Narrow topic bans are rather easily decided on AN/I, I think that there are quite a few editors who think that, if an editor is too attached to some topic, it couldn't harm to ask them to refrain from editing articles on that for a time, so getting a topic ban at AN/I is relatively easy; but these editors frequently don't take the necessary time to really consider the background, they are simply trying to stop more traffic from filling up AN/I. That's why it is important for a consensus to be found here. If there is a consensus here, then it could be argued that it supersedes the AN/I decision, but it would also be very easy to go back to AN/I for confirmation that the ban was lifted. Hence, I'm suggesting, we should have the discussion here that we should have had here in the first place, so I'll start a section later today, assuming I have time. Or anyone can do it. The topic would be simple: does it help the project if WW is banned from DYK nominations? I want to know what editors experienced with DYK think about this! --Abd (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My nomination of DYK previously nominated by banned user

There may be some confusion over a nomination I made earlier today. User:Wilhelmina Will is under a topic ban from making nominations here, based on an AN/I discussion some days ago. My opinion is that the ban was improper and ill-considered; however, the user has not challenged the ban, nor have I, yet, and it stands. But the ban does not extend to articles created by her, and all attempts to argue for a block of this user (i.e., for preventing her from creating or editing articles) have been promptly rejected. This was not, in the judgment of User:Fritzpoll, who is essentially the primary administrator "supervising" the ban, a disruptive user.

Because I became aware that her nomination here, some days ago, of Jamie Howarth, put up when she was apparently unaware of the ban (nobody had notified her), was reverted on the basis of the ban, and was never considered on the merits, and because it is legitimate to restore legitimate edits of a banned user (the one restoring them takes responsibility for them), I undid the revert. However, User:Gatoclass reverted that, saying that we would need to find consensus first. Given that no issue has been raised, that I know of, requiring some new consensus, I'm puzzled. Because of the time, the article's eligibility expires, I'm seeking a determination on the merits, the user behavior is irrelevant to that; any editor is allowed to nominate an article, and I'm using my right to do that in order to obtain that determination. Because I restored the previous edit by WW, and because I left her signature in it, and merely appended mine as a kind of endorsement, the ban issue may have become confused with the content issue, and I apologize for that. So I have now renominated simply with my own name, and I also condensed the DYK text a bit.

It is unfortunate that user behavior issues have inserted themselves into DYK decisions. The article and the DYK text should stand or fall on its merits, even if the original came from a totally banned editor, and it is well established that any editor in good standing may restore content provided originally by a banned editor, by taking responsibility for it, as I have done. There is no article ban on WW, only a ban against nominating here, so I have taken an article she created, edited it a bit, as have others, and I have now nominated it here. Pretty simple. Thanks.... --Abd (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion your actions are proper and the DYK should stand and fall on its own merits, regardless of the topic ban. The topic ban does not prevent other editors from nominating WW's articles. In fact, one of the suggestions that some supported for lifting the topic ban would be for 5 of WW's creations to be nominated by other editors and accepted for DYK. So certainly those that supported this version of the ban must believe it is appropriate for other editors to nominate WW's articles for DYK. In fact, I have been considering nominating the article she created on Jillian Clare. I have held off so far due to avoid adding fuel to the fire that still seems to raging, but I may yet nominate it before its deadline expires. Rlendog (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It's important to note that none of the allegations against WW involved abuse at the nomination page. Further, when examined, most of the charges have nothing to do with the DYK process itself, and if she wrote bad articles, well, wouldn't it be great if editors who write bad articles would nominate them for DYK so we could know about them? (My point is that most bad editors don't call attention to their articles like that.) AN/I, because of its transiency and an abundance of editors who pop in with snap judgments -- which is what one expects in dealing with emergencies -- was a very poor place to first of all, identify if there was a problem worth doing anyting about, and, second, what an appropriate remedy would be, if it isn't "block." Topic bans are often considered a good solution at AN/I, and people vote for them regularly if they see any signs of abuse. Most editors there, though, don't look much deeper than the charges being made, and will often simply assume that the charges are correct and balanced. All that was required here, with respect to WW, was a warning. "Don't revert an edit just because of the word count." And, really, if we warn like that, we should simultaneously encourage. (And we should also look at the rules here about word count. If an article is eligible at one revision, and it is improved by condensing it, isn't it a bit strange to therefore make it ineligible? Wouldn't this create a motive for preserving wordiness, just as appears to have happened?) I think that, in fact, articles are eligible below the word count limit, but their chances of actually being used drop. But this is a separate topic and should be addressed specifically.)
Many irrelevancies got wrapped into the package at AN/I. For example, it's clear that WW developed a strong aversion for Blechnic. Reviewing the history, it's not hard to understand why. Where she erred, though, was in expressing this aversion in an edit summary, using leetspeak. It wasn't actually a personal attack, because it was a description of her personal response, but it was uncivil. And when she was confronted with it, she lied, I assume she was embarrassed, I've seen other editors, much older, do the same thing. Lying, however, isn't a blockable offense, not a lie like that, and the original summary was no more uncivil -- less uncivil, actually -- than what was being said about her by the other party. She did not pursue and taunt. She did not cause consequential disruption.
It appears that what she most wants to do is just quietly create articles -- a lot of them -- and get some DYK points. Since she is already good at this (28 successful nominations at last count), I presume that if she continues it, she will get really good at it. Her stated goal is high, perhaps insanely high. But she should be encouraged and guided, not rejected and despised. It is possible she could reach her goal, if DYK process and results are altered slightly. Her affair brought DYK to my attention, it's a part of the project that I'd not examined in detail, since I almost never look at the main page. I'm becoming fond of it, and think it could be extended, i.e., that there could be extended DYK. If we want to encourage good DYK nominations, all good nominations should be used, somewhere, it shouldn't depend on what else was up for usage that day. I think the five day limit is too tight, etc. -- it makes sense for the current conditions, don't get me wrong. But five days discriminates unreasonably against articles that grow more slowly, and thus creates some level of bias against more careful editing.
As I mentioned, it seems she is a bit reclusive, she often simply archives friendly comments without response. AN/I went against her largely because she didn't participate there, and may not have even read it. Again, it is very easy to understand this, and it was a mistake to treat her as an offender on the basis that she didn't defend herself. She has clearly not repeated behavior that she was warned about, so it isn't that she disregards the warnings and advice. I think the ban was inappropriate and harmful, with no benefit to the project at all, hence I will be asking for it to be lifted, even without her participation.
Blechnic has some material he added to his Talk page[6] that writes about "women on Wikipedia require out-of-process knights in shining armor to protect them." He's totally missed the point. I did not intervene in this because WW was a woman. Take a look at my history, I specialize, to some degree, in interventions where I see an editor being treated unfairly. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. I had no connection to GoRight, I simply came across some wikilawyering he was doing to prevent an RfC from being considered, intervened to fix that, and then, against my better judgment, perhaps, I actually read the RfC and found that he was being railroaded.
When I first commented on this situation, as consolation on WW's Talk page -- many editors bail when faced with what came up against her -- I had no idea she was only 16 years old. I will admit, though, that when I discovered this, the intense attack on her became more emotionally charged for me. But I don't think I'd have acted differently if I'd found that she was 64 instead of 16, or a man pretending to be a girl, that would all, actually, be irrelevant. And what really got me involved was when Blechnic essentially attacked her for talking with me, taking it, once again, to AN/I, with wikilawyering to make it seem that it would be some kind of offense if I nominated an article of hers.
Why is the above relevant here? I think it is important to establish the background of this ban. It was unfair from beginning to end, and was part of a vendetta on the part of one editor, with little support from others who knew the context. Above, there was no support shown for the ban, here, where the ban was to be applied. Isn't that a bit odd in itself? Support for the ban has often come from those who simply considered it reasonable that if there was a problem -- and they seem to have assumed that there was, after all, why would there be such complaint if there were no problem? -- then some kind of probation or temporary ban or something like that would be reasonable. And they are correct, in theory. Except that there wasn't a problem in the first place. She wasn't proposing hordes of inappropriate articles. She was creating articles that were accepted. It's not that there were no problems at all, it is that the problems were minor. And they weren't taking place here. Blechnic, I must conclude, wanted her topic-banned here as a punishment for what she had allegedly done elsewhere. And that nasty little motive must be exposed, punishment is alien to the Wikipedia culture, but individual editors can and do develop and pursue grudges. (And not to punish him, either, but to prevent further damage.) A protective motive would have sought other remedies, but he was striking at what he thought would hurt her most, interfering with her goal. So I came along and, instead of challenging the ban, I bypassed it. I'm happy to nominate articles that she creates. It would be better, though, if editors with more DYK experience would do it, I'm sure I'm more likely to make mistakes, at least at first. She doesn't even have to ask.
It would be nice, though, if someone would look at the pending Aug 1 nomination, verify its eligibility, it's feeling a little neglected, there, at the bottom of the list. Still, I've done what I could do, and I certainly don't plan to make a habit of mentioning pending nominations here..... --Abd (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope that the Aug. 1 nomination gets evaluated on its own merits. But I think your summary is leaving out some important points. The leetspeak remark to Blechnic, and even the padding the article leading up to the episode, was not the main reason for the ban. It was perhaps the straw the broke the camel's back. The main problem was that WW had been submitting DYK nominations for articles she created which had plagarism problems. After being confronted about that, she tried to adjust by making small editing changes to the text she was copying, but unfortunately in several instances at least she misunderstood her source and the editing changes she made created errors in the articles.
In a way I suppose it is better that this is done in a DYK nominated article, because then the issue is more likely to come to light quickly rather than remain hidden. But in a way it is worse. The DYK checkers really only check for DYK requirements (i.e., length, hook reference) and that the hook's reference supports the hook. They do not have time or expertise to check all the submissions for potential copyvios and for accuracy, outside of the hook. So an article can easily pass through the DYK screen with these problems, and then we have a link to the copyvio or erroneous article sitting on the main page. This has really been what Blechnic has been crusading against.
So the issue seemed to be (and maybe actually was) that the desire for DYKs was encouraging WW to create and nominate these problematic articles, often on subjects she did not seem to unuderstand. By banning her from nominating her own articles, it removed the incentive to create articles with these problems just for the sake of increasing her DYK total. And if another editor nominated her articles, presumably they would check for copyvios and accuracy before nominating, reducing the likelihood of such issues being linked to the main page.
WW does seem to be a talented and motivated editor, and I hope the DYK ban can be lifted quickly. But from my point of view I would first want some acknowledgement from her that she understands that she needs to be more careful to avoid copyvios and to understannd what she is writing about to avoid major inaccuracies. And, as I stated above, in the meantime I am strongly considering nominating her Jillian Clare article, so she can still continue accumulating DYK credits even while the ban stands - as long as the articles she creates avoid these problems and have adequate length without padding just for the sake of DYK eligibility (in the case of Jillian Clare I think the article was too short but I found content to add that I think gets it up to DYK length). Rlendog (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
One more point. I suspect that the recent drama over User:CarolSpears worked to WW's disadvantage in the ANI case. A lot of the issues seemed similar - possible plagarism and apparent disregard for accuracy in DYK articles, snide remarks to critics, ignoring the ANI thread (although I think the latter is perfectly understandable). If it weren't for all the trouble the CarolSpears situation caused (with many ANI threads), still fresh in people's memories, I suspect people would have been felt urgency to move this situation quickly through ANI. Unfortunately for WW, her timing was bad (IIRC, in one of the CarolSpears ANI threads, Blechnic mentioned that there was another user, Wilhelmina Will, with a similar MO. Rlendog (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Researching what happened in a case like this has taken many hours, and I didn't get to the previous issues, the copyvio problem. What was happening was that Blechnic was throwing everything he could find at her reputation. He was asked by User:Sandstein during the AN/I report that resulted in the topic ban for evidence of copyvio problems -- and some diffs were provided ... but they didn't show copyvio problems and, in fact, one of them was to the edit mentioned above, which showed no evidence re WW at all, but merely a claim that WW was like CarolSpears, describing some conspiracy to vandalize Wikipeda. I looked at (though not completely) the evidence available to those who !voted in the AN/I poll, and what I saw was that the evidence was inadequate to support the charges and the remedy. From what Rlendog now says, here, there was a different problem, one that is indeed more serious. Possibly, that is, I can't be sure without researching it and given how much exaggeration has gone on, I'm not taking anything for granted. All I know is that Blechnic was asked about copyvio and came up with nothing but his own claim. So he's gone to his Talk page and is compiling copyvio problems. One, so far. And it turns out that this was an article WW found in the Sandbox, asked an admin about -- I've checked this, it's true -- and then used, without checking, apparently, for copyvio. It was a short statement, exactly found on a web site. But ... which came first, the Wikipedia article or the web site? Probably the web site. But I haven't checked that, it's been fixed, and this was seven months ago. The big mistake that WW made was in her edits to Mesodermochelys and, by that time, she was seriously under attack from Blechnic. A number of editors voting for a topic ban explicitly stated that they were taking Blechnic or another editor at their word. At which point we must remember that Blechnic has been blocked twice, for incivility and harassment, in May. It was very plain that this was a crusade by Blechnic against WW, and a number of editors commented on that, but their voices were drowned out, it's one of the problems with AN/I, it's famous for this happening. In any case, looking into all this, I realized that the AN/I case actually did not formally determine a topic ban. I've advised WW to continue to assume that there is a ban, but there is currently a fatal flaw in the process.
The AN/I report was never closed. When a community process suggests a ban or some remedy to be enforced by the administrative tools, it is always "closed" by an administrator who takes responsibility for notifying the sanctioned person, and for implmenting any warnings or blocks that are to be applied. Then, if someone wants to challenge the decision, or modify it, this admin is the standing "judge" to whom one appeals, and any other admin attempting to undo the sanction is strongly advised to negotiate this with the acting administrator. But there was no acting administrator. That's why WW was never notified of the ban. We do not make decisions by vote. When there is no standing sanction, we do lots of stuff simply because we agree. But a topic ban requires some monitor or supervisor, some specific decision (like an AfD if the decision is Delete), and the way these decisions are made is always -- ArbComm excepted -- by a single administrator who steps in and makes the decision. Those voting for the ban may have assumed that the closing admin would take this on. And thus the unclarity about the ban period or other terms would be decided by the closing admin, who could then decide that conditions had been satisfied, etc. The ban may be supported by a community consensus, but the actual decision -- and therefore the right to reverse the decision -- is made by an administrator, who can, and not uncommonly does, disregard even a strong majority decision, where the admin finds the arguments defective or the remedy improper.
When Blechnic went to AN/I and complained that WW had violated the ban by nominating an article, Fritzpoll eventually notified WW, and he had also made a comment here about the ban. But he stated it passively, and described himself to WW as "merely the messenger," which, if he were the closing administrator actually making the decision, from the arguments presented, would have been deceptive. Somehow, this whole aspect escaped notice. Nobody took responsibility for deciding to ban WW. And if nobody has taken responsibility, the ban doesn't exist. I've asked Fritzpoll to clarify. So far, no response. But if he decides to go ahead and make the ban decision, and affirms the ban, taking responsibility for it, then we can appeal to him for it to be lifted, or for conditions to be set, or whatever. I'm sure he will be fair. And he could also decide that there is no reason for a ban, because problem behavior, such as it was, has not continued. --Abd (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to Abd's request, and both affirmed and taken responsibility for the ban. I believe that the community wants to see WW create good, unplagiarised articles that she can merrily submit to DYK. The problem is with copyright violations, and fundamental inaccuracies caused by editing in areas that she doesn't understand in order to achieve some kind of DYK status, and since these, for want of a better word, threaten the integrity of the encyclopedia (and possible legal implications), the topic ban should stay in effect until there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there will be no recurrence. My bar for this is quite low, though I will probably invite the community to comment again for the un-ban, albeit at a more appropriate venue than AN/I. Any questions, bang them over to my talkpage. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnics of using support/oppose votes by non-DYK admins

I've witnessed a non-DYK editor who used the oppose symbol, objecting to DYKing an article. That editor is not involved with the DYK system, he just wanted to voice his objection to the perceived POV in the DYK. Yet I would think the use of the image by him could be seen by others as "oh, this DYK was considered and rejected by a DYK admin". Should we restrict the use of the images? Who can accept and promote DYKs, anyway? If we don't have any rules on that, perhaps we should write one down... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My impression was that anybody can comment with or without symbols, but nobody has to honor a comment or symbol if it doesn't make any sense. The alternative would require a bureaucracy to police unauthorized symbol use, as if there weren't enough other details to check. Whether others agree or not, there should be an Unwritten Rule about it, since this issue has come up before. I think you meant "Ethics" not "Ethnics". Art LaPella (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that DYK admins haven't stuck together in the past encouraged this nonsense. Solidarity is necessary anymore.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 05:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The images aren't intended to convey anything official: they're just a handy way to summarise someone's decision on an article so a person scanning down the list can easily pick out which have been commented on and what the gist was. If someone previously inexperienced with DYK uses the oppose symbol when it's unwarranted it's likely to be checked by a regular anyway - I often glance over hooks that have been turned down (by anyone) to see if they can be saved, so if someone started opposing without understanding the rules it would get picked up.
As with many things that get brought up on this page, I think any problem is with how 'outsiders' perceive DYK as working: it's true that someone with no knowledge of the project might assume the image means something official. More generally, lots of editors talk about 'DYK admins' as though that meant something more special than people with the ability to update the protected template, and sometimes it's clear they think that only admins can approve or select hooks. Perhaps the rules could stand more emphasis on the fact that anyone can do any part of the process except the bits requiring admin tools - but then how many people read through the whole ruleset if they're not thinking of becoming a DYK regular anyway? Olaf Davis | Talk 13:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
There's not much more I can add to Olaf and Art's great responses. I do think there should be more clarification on the "Unwritten Rules" that anyone can assist in reviewing hooks. The regulars can easily spot a new face and "double check" there reviews so their is little harm. The more help, and higher likelihood of an "outsider" becoming a "regular" is always a plus and we should try to encourage that by making participation in reviewing seem more open and less bureaucratic. (BTW, I'm not an admin. Just a regular editor) AgneCheese/Wine 18:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_29&oldid=1137408898"