Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 75

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77→Archive 80

U.S./non-U.S. hooks

A perhaps inconsequential question before I head to bed . . . At the top of each prep page is a note saying: "Since on average about 50% of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have roughly half the hooks in any given update on U.S. topics. Thanks." Does anyone know whether this is still so? My impression is that the relative number of U.S. hooks has declined, for whatever reason(s). Of course, the prep I clicked on to get the wording currently has 4½ U.S.-focused hooks, so I could be wrong . . . Yngvadottir (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

While there can be significant day-to-day fluctuations, it is still true that over time roughly half of all submissions deal with U.S. related topics. The reason for this simple: a little over half of Wikipedia's traffic comes from the U.S. and contributors tend to write about topics they know. --Allen3 talk 22:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
More statistically, 29 U.S. hooks and 35 non-U.S. hooks in the last 10 archive files. Art LaPella (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to say

I think the DYK team are doing a fine job. I find that I continually return here to find the same people up to their OLD TRICKS of looking after the Wikipedia project. Why is it that I have to be only person who turns up here and notices that despite doing a tricky job to the best of your ability you are getting little respect or admiration. At Wikimania Jimmy was talking about retaining editors. DYK is still retaining editors - just. Well done. Some of us count your successes. I do admire your ability to perservere and I hope one day you will return to your previous productivity of encouraging new editors and articles. Victuallers (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I second Victuallers' comments. I just submitted my first DYK, and as I watch the process, it is apparent that a lot of important, but tedious work goes into the daily preparations. Editors that do that day in and day out are really doing some yeoman's work. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a logical problem there, Victuallers ... you know about the editors you've retained.(recorded in embarrassing detail). Do you remember those you've lost? Humor me ... name five of them. More to the point, do you think it's good for Wikipedia that at least a third of top DYKers are persons who have created hundreds of copyvios? Many folks have long felt that DYK should be a good training ground for new editors-- instead, it became a bad training ground for experienced editors. Recently, that has begun to turn around, but if history proves correct, the lesson doesn't stick long. With better accountability, hopefully it can become a place where new editors learn Wikipedia policy more quickly, egregiously offensive editors are detected before they create hundreds of copyvios, and embarrassing mainpage BLP debacles and displays of inaccurate information end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea where you get your figure of 'at least a third' of top DKYers being responsible for 'hundreds of copyvios'. Looking at the top thirty, I find it pretty hard to believe that 10 or more of them are routinely producing large numbers of copyvios - apart from Billy Hathorn of course. If that's not what you mean, then what on earth do you mean? Mikenorton (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
As to Sandy's question about people we have lost (since July): BarkingMoon, Francium12, Khazar, Nvvchar, and Rd232 (reasons unrelated to DYK) have all left the project while Ericoides has announced that changes to DYK will cause him to no longer participate. Others that have not been seen at DYK for some time include Cmadler, Editorofthewiki, and Panyd (probably unrelated to anything on-Wiki). --Allen3 talk 00:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Lots of folks have left DYK, most of us more quietly than others. I've been much happier since ditching all this drama and returning to content creation and gnoming. I recently wrote an article where a radio station was kept off the air by killer bees and didn't once consider putting it up, just to avoid getting sucked back into the drama here. - Dravecky (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
A sad situation. DYK didn't used to be a venue for drama -- except the occasional excitement when an update was late or a 'bot quit working. I am aware of several additional contributors who have given up, although at this moment I don't remember who they are. --Orlady (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in to say thank you to all the people who keep this process moving. Writers, such as myself, do appreciate this a lot, even if we don't say it every time :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I owe some thanks, too. I can't be the easiest person to work with - I have very eclectic interests, many of them recondite, I think my articles tend to run long, and it takes me ages to do a quid pro quo review because I have limited time and want to do it well. And I still don't think of myself as a "regular" here for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I don't do any of the heavy lifting. But others do, and those whose articles I review are almost unfailingly a delight to work with and I've actually "met" some nice people in this corner of Wikipedia. The articles are often fun to read, too. All I feel I can do is try to support DYK by continuing to submit an article from time to time, but those who do a lot more than that deserve gratitude. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
A nice chorus of thanks I like to be part of. Thanks to those who keep DYK running! Thanks to those who improved it by installing the review templates! Thanks that the bad weather we talked about seems more or less over, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
If I was one who looked for consensus (and I am) then I'd say you have it here. Nearly everyone thinks that you do a great job. In my opinion the top DYKer is PFHLai with over 1,000 articles to his name (before he stopped counting). Now he has put over 1,000 articles on the front page, we ought to take his/her work as a model instead of listening to people who think they have something important to say. DYK was intended to highlight a variety of new articles and show what our new editors were creating. (As we see above we are having good new articles not even put forward to be seen by our 400m users) It wasn't intended to be a place where you came to get shouted at and told what a load of recidivists you are. There are lots of people who no longer make mistakes on this project, luckily a few sturdy editors are ploughing on. You should not feel you are part of Wikipedia's original sin (mistakes are an essential part of doing stuff) Very well done.... you should go to wiki-heaven Victuallers (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It's important to say thank you and we probably don't do it often enough. In case you don't know, Template:The DYK Medal is one way of thanking an individual DYK contributor. Schwede66 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. But one thing I like around DYK is how several users help each other and "teach" each other, without expecting any reward, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Pangani River (prep 3)

A reputation is normally associated with a qualitative or quantitative perception, not a medical concept. What does it mean to say that a settlement has a reputation for fevers? Did it have a reputation for healers who could cure fevers? Did it have a high incidence of fevers? Did it have specific, unique fevers? Was this reputation well founded? Has it been rebutted? The hook is uninformative, and the reader will remain uninformed by the article. Kevin McE (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the phrasing, and it's more neutral than calling the place fever-ridden, which is undoubtedly what was meant. However, when looking at the article (which I gave a little copyedit) I did notice one issue: Pangani the settlement is referred to in text and hook as a village, but in picture captions as a town. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If it is beyond doubt that it means fever-ridden (it seems most likely, but far from clear, to me), then it should be made clear. Perhaps had a high incidence of fevers, although that still leaves many questions that are unaddressed (Which fevers? When? How were they diminished?). Our article on the settlement describes it as a town, and there is a photo there from which you can draw your own conclusion as to the extent of the place: outside historical considerations specific to national definitions, there is no strict distinction. The unreferenced population figure given is 8,000. The article on the town/village says nothing about the fevers: it seems odd that an article that is only marginally about the place offers a claim absent on the subject's own page. Kevin McE (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The hook is referenced to an 1878 book, which estimates the population at 2,000. The reviewer suggested an alternate hook on grounds of interest: "... that the Pangani River (pictured) was probably Ptolemy's Rhaptus?" I see the interest as only marginally greater, but the alt emphasizes the target article and avoids the problem that the info is out of date and negative. I'm going to boldly make the change and change the mentions in the article to clarify it's now a town. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I can't, it's now a Queue. Will however change the article mentions. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a note left on my talk page so I'm adding a comment. IMHO, both hooks have an element of interest so whichever the promoter prefers is fine with me. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't wait for me

There are several nominations on the noms page that currently seem to be in suspense, apparently waiting for me to continue my review (or, rather, follow up on earlier reviews). I'm very preoccupied with real life right now, so please don't wait for me. Someone else should pick up the review. (And regardless of my current status, I contend that no one WP:OWNs a DYK review.) --Orlady (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone else could please pick up on the noms for Offshore aquaculture, Octopus aquaculture, Toni Leviste, Flagler Hospital, and Bill Smith (fell runner), both the nominators who are waiting for followup reviews and I would be grateful. At the moment, I can't pay attention long enough to finish a DYK review... --Orlady (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I did offshore aquaculture yesterday. I'll contact Epipelagic to get his/her feedback on the suggested hooks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Prep 3

... that boiling oil is one of the usable weapons in the upcoming video game Chivalry: Medieval Warfare? All phrases like "in the upcoming video game" imply an advert. I think we should avoid this on the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The article also is rather advert-like. Too bad -- I have always been a big fan of boiling oil... --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I moved it back to the noms page for further consideration. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for expedited movement of hook

Hello everyone, TonyTheTiger has requested that the hook for his nomination The Litigators at Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators be shown on the mainpage on 25 October. Could somebody give some feedback and if possible promote the hook? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've promoted this one to Prep 3. —Bruce1eetalk 12:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's a request for Template:Did you know nominations/City Mall, Christchurch to appear on Saturday, 29 October. There's still some work that can be done on the article (as outlined on the article's talk page, which I will work on before Saturday), but it's certainly mainpage ready. Schwede66 17:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that Saturday isn't that far away, could somebody please help out with a review? Schwede66 04:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Reviewed, minor questions. Hint: there is an unreviewed Bach cantata which should appear even before that Saturday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda. Much appreciated. Have tried to clarify your query. I hope that somebody will get onto that piece of music soon. :) Schwede66 07:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

“Microalgae” (plural)

One item asks: “Did you know that microalgae is used widely in aquaculture and is now cultured itself in hatcheries?” The word “algae” is the plural form of the word “alga”, so the question should be “Did you know that micro algae are used widely in aquaculture and are now cultured themselves in hatcheries?”
—Wavelength (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The article uses "algae" as both a plural and a singular, in different places. While "algae" literally is a plural, in my experience it is often used as a singular too in everyday language (see, e.g., [1], [2]). Also, it seems to me that the hook (and most of the associated article) are referring to "microalgae" as a mass noun rather than as a collection of many individual alga, so I don't mind the way it's worded. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Martensen (Prep 1)

The claim here is rather self-congratulatory, and is entirely based on the subject's own witness. No independent observers means only first-hand sources: not appropriate for a claim that promotes his professional cause. Kevin McE (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've changed it to "... that Robert Martensen has received note for his criticism of end-of-life care in the United States?" and redirected discussion over here. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that the creator of the article is very active in this sort of subject, as evidenced by their userpage. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Why yes I am, thanks for noticing. I agree with the change though. Jesanj (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if this hook is better for All Souls' Day than for Halloween. --PFHLai (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree that it is better for All Souls' Day than for Halloween. With the approval of James Kidd (prospector) hook a suitable replacement is available so I have swapped the hooks. --Allen3 talk 22:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
On that Kidd hook, "Ghost Trial of the Century" was a saying in th press, but not the title of a work, so it should be in inverted commas rather than italics. Kevin McE (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want Martensen to be on All Souls' Day, that is Wednesday, so it would have to be in Prep 1 or Prep 2, not Prep 3, which is scheduled for Tuesday morning. Kevin McE (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just moved it back to P1. --PFHLai (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Halloween

Hey! Sorry if I'm being a little dense here, but are we using 2 Queues for Halloween or 3? I notice that it's Halloween in 3 queues in different countries but I don't know if we are. I'm sure there are some other articles we could add to a third queue (I've got a few up my sleeve and I'm sure others do too). PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was looking to do 2 updates for the following reasons:
  1. DYK has been running at 2 updates/day for the last few weeks. While it is not a difficult task to change the update frequency, it is generally best if the change is made only if there is need and reason.
  2. Wikipedia utilizes Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). While it is true that there will be 3 updates where a part of the world will be entirely in October 31, and 2 others with fractional coverage of the date, only 2 updates will align with the time zone used by the project.
  3. Despite Halloween hooks being collected in the special occasions holding area for close to two months, it required a search through the nominations page to find enough approved hooks to build the current 2 sets. Even if we assume availability of knowledgeable admins to move an additional set to the queues and to adjust the update frequency there is still just a little over 24 hours to create seven new articles, find reviewers to verify the hooks, and build another set. This seems to be a very optimistic schedule given DYK's current staffing levels.
If you have a couple of macabre hooks that would work for All Saint's Day, that would be an entirely different discussion. --Allen3 talk 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Why on earth would we have a complete set of Hallowe'en themed hooks? Did we do that for Christmas? Easter? America Independence? Diwali? Eid? Why does anyone feel the need to promote this "festival" to such an extent? Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I like Halloween! So shoot me :P
Sound reasoning Allen3. Will just keep plugging away over at the paranormal corner of WP and will submit when I've got something nice. No need to rush. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
What Panyd neglected to mention is that she has an already-approved hook which would be appropriate: James Kidd (prospector). I would support adding this to one of the Halloween sets (we've had plenty of eight-hooks sets before) or replacing the Robert Martensen hook in Prep 1, which doesn't seem Halloween-y to me at all. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
(Psst... Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Morphsuits still needs review for DYK. Pretty please? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
History: last year we had five sets of only Halloween hooks, four on one calendar day, the last one following, with one Bach cantata in between, and I was asked if I was aware of that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I wasn't aware of that either. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Grounds for Divorce (united states law)

I just wanted to let you know that all corrections were made on grounds for divorce (united states law)page. The citation box was removed.--Nas132 (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Accountability

Kudos to Found5dollar for recognizing and attempting to fix the main page error in DYK (it looks like a good faith mistake that we shouldn't expect to be picked up by DYK review [3]), but in looking further into this:

  1. The documentation of the nompage parameter (name of the file) at {{DYK talk}} is incorrect (meaning it took me a long time to find the actual DYK subpage, via the usual tedious history search of the DYK nominations talk page).
  2. Why was the nompage parameter dropped from the bot's talk page update? The idea was for anyone to be able to locate and review the nomination page without having to decipher the mess of pages at DYK.

Are we already moving backwards on the accountability improvements that were instituted recently? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

99% of the time the link to the nomination page shows up fine; the |nompage= parameter is only needed when the title of the nomination page is different from the title of the article itself (usually because someone misspelled the article name during nomination or moved the article after it was nominated—the former is what happened here). I don't know enough about bot coding to make sure the DYK bot carries over the |nompage= from the nomination page itself to {{DYK talk}}, and Shubinator has been very busy lately so I guess he hasn't gotten a chance to make it work yet.
In any case, this is not an intentional attempt to "hide" anything, as you suggested. It's very rude to make accusations like that, especially when you know nothing about how the bots and templates work. I would appreciate it if you stopped doing that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, I don't know what you mean by "the documentation is incorrect". Are you referring to the description at Template:DYK talk/doc? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer (trying to sort that one without speaking bot coding was impossible). By documentation incorrect, I meant that the file name for the DYK nomination subpage that I eventually found was not the same as the file name mentioned in the template documentation. BTW, a question is not an accusation: relax. Do you want me to continue to ask nice questions, or are you after a self-fulfilling prophecy (if we beat up enough on anyone who asks a question, we can guarantee rudeness will prevail here?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
You can split hairs all you want about whether it was a "question" or "accusation"; you know as well as I it was a snarky comment with no justification. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must take at least partial blame for the link not appearing on the talk page. The subpage had the wrong case, which I corrected in three places, but I neglected to add the subpage parameter to {{DYKmake}}. I apologize for my oversight. I also reviewed the article. Thank you, Sandy, for pointing out that a reviewer shouldn't be expected to find such problems. As a matter of fact, I had added an existing source as inline refs immediately following the DYK facts. That source, from the highly respected William Safire, columnist for The New York Times and a witness to the events depicted, certainly seemed an extremely reliable source. I haven't seen the new source, but if it contradicts other sources, I'm not sure which should be believed. Whether Henry Wilson actually used the desk or not, the hook could be changed to:
... that Richard Nixon chose the Wilson desk as his Oval Office desk because he believed it was used by Woodrow Wilson, but he was later told that it was used by Henry Wilson, Vice President under Ulysses S. Grant?
Or it could be further altered to question the factuality of what Nixon was told. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so here is what happened. A user with out a username (it was 209.137.134.61) pointed out on the talk page of Wilson desk that the dates of when the desk was in use do not include the time that Henry Wilson was Vice President. Now every reliable source I could find stated that the desk was used by Henry Wilson and Nixon mistakenly thought it was used by Woodrow Wilson. After more investigating I found here [4], on the US Senate's website, information that the desk used in the Vice President's Senate office, therefore the Wilson desk, was purchased by Garret Augustus Hobart, who was a Vice President after Henry Wilson died in office. This makes it impossible for Wilson to have used the desk. The alt suggested above by Mandarax works, but it will take me a long time to rework the article with the now corrected facts in place, and I have to head back to work. I am fine with whatever consensus is reached.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Good effort, a good faith mistake that is being addressed as quickly as feasible (which should be the, ahem, norm), and thanks for the explanation of why the nom wasn't linked-- makes sense! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for speedy review

Could someone possibly review Jeruk Purut Cemetery in time for Halloween? Sorry for the rush; I just finished touching up the article yesterday. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Another speedy review request

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Morphsuits

Can anyone review the Morphsuits article? It's been unreviewed since I nominated it on October 21. They're oddball lycra costumes, one of the biggest selling costumes this Halloween season, apparently, having been popular for some time now, but now peaking into the mainstream in North America. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Another review request, for 2 Nov

I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Valentina Babor as a homage to Liszt to appear close to his birthday, that is past. It occured to me that the hook might pay homage to the other composer mentioned, whose birthday is 2 November, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Long bold - now in prep1

"... that the music a person hears in childhood may affect that person's musical cognition as an adult?" Almost all is bold in that hook, I think it's misleading and doesn't give me as a reader a clue what the article is about, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How's this? rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Better, but I still don't see what "affect that person's musical cognition as an adult" has to do with culture in music cognition? I personally think that article title is not clear to start with, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Walt Greenwood (Q6)

One does not "lead in losses". He may have had more losses than any other pitcher: that is not holding a lead. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Page view statistics

Is there something wrong with the page view numbers for DYK? I had a DYK on 25 October (Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.4), and when I checked it, it had eight views that day. The lead hook Patriot's Park had 11 views. It's a similar story on 24 October. Is there a technical glitch somewhere? Manxruler (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The service has been up and down for a while now. Sometimes it's the pageview stats tool (http://stats.grok.se), sometimes it's the data source (http://dammit.lt/wikistats/). See User talk:Henrik. —Bruce1eetalk 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Then I guess we shall never know the statistics for those days? Manxruler (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Often stats for missing days are recovered – keep checking every few days! —Bruce1eetalk 12:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not working at all for some articles.[5] Unless you use this: [6] from the History page. AlbertBowes (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, you guys. I'll check the statistics once in a while, just to see if the numbers have been recovered. Manxruler (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Is it allowed to have more than two DYKs nominated at a time? HurricaneFan25 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I think there are four to six I've written that have been nominated on the page. :/ Not sure on their status. :( --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean, not sure about their status. I guess you have the templates on your watchlist and would see any change. Unfortunately, there is not much change, I also have several unreviewed noms, including one which I had hoped to see today. (Hint for prep builders: this week's Bach cantata BWV 5 IS approved.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I nominated one article that was reviewed on 27 October, and another that was reviewed on 1 November, but they have not moved on. So it is not just a matter of reviews. Another nominated on 27 October has yet to be reviewed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:DYK#How a DYK suggestion makes its way to the main page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

New nomination system leads to errors

I was poking about on the list looking for articles to review when I noticed that several that I had added to the queue were missing. This was for the same reason as the thread above. I'm not sure, but I believe this might have happened with Course Setting Bomb Sight, which would be sad given both the work that I put into it, and that it was "the most important bombsight of the war".

Having gone through the process now, I have to say that I find it to be onerous. You have to flip through several pages and make your edits in the right order or it just fails, falling into a blackhole. Is there any reason this could not be further automated. When you use the nominations box, it appears everything is being automated, which is why I failed to follow through.

It's not automated, but why not? Would it not be possible to add all new noms automatically to a holding list at the bottom of the page? This would at least ensure they wouldn't simply disappear.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The instructions are written very clearly, in multiple places, even in a big pink box that you can't miss (which appears every time you nominate an article). People have managed to nominate articles successfully hundreds of times. This system is, to the best of my knowledge, almost exactly the same as the AFD system which has been in place by years and used by thousands of editors.
The process is quite simple and, to be frank, it is you nominators' responsibility to read and follow the instructions. You shouldn't think you're "entitled" to a DYK even if you can't be bothered to follow the instructions; if you want your work to be on DYK, take a moment to read the instructions like everyone else. I'm sick of seeing the system get blamed for peoples' own laziness. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, see User talk:DumbBOT#Using DumbBOT for DYK? and User talk:Shubinator#Another thing.... regarding automatic transclusions. It is possible to do with a bot, although someone will have to make (or edit) a bot to do it and that takes time. In the meantime, I really don't think "read the instructions" is too much to ask; nominations are not complicated. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Perhaps I don't understand the question. The transclusion of a template to the nominations can't be automatic because the day of creation is considered crucial to decide if a nom was made in time. What do you mean by "disappear". Was it there and is no longer? Which thread above do you mean? The one directly above mentions noms which are there, but unreviewed, no talk about "disappearing", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Gerda, by "disappearing" I mean that if one does not navigate back to the main page and manually edit it correctly, the new nomination does not appear anywhere that reviewers will see it. If you scroll up on this page you will note that a user has managed to miss a number of DYK's because of this, and I have too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the instructions are big and pink - and also on the wrong page. As soon as one uses the tool to make the new nomination, the instructions disappear from the screen. So that's one problem we can easily fix, I suspect.
My suggestion is to also automatically create a placeholder template on the main nominations page. This could be in well-known location, say the "Automatically created links" section, or some such. Doing so would ensure that this vital step is not missed. A 'bot could then look for any entry in this section that was posted more than xxx days ago (say two) and post a message on the nom's talk page indicating that they have forgotten to complete the process.
For all the invective about "is that too much to ask", I would simply ask the same question... is it too much to ask that an automated tool be provide to make sure the nom process is properly followed? Clearly this is a problem that people are having, so why not fix it, especially if the fix appears so simple? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Maury, the instructions do not disappear. When you use the tool to make the nomination, this is the first thing you see.
As for your suggestion, I'm not really sure what you're asking for. I don't know what you mean by "automatically created links" or "a placeholder template". As for having a bot patrol for un-transcluded nominations, see the links I provided above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Those links point to exactly what I'm talking about… but they're a portion of a year old. Has anything happened? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
What the heck is "a portion of a year old"? They're from a couple months ago. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I just tried it several times, and I do not see the message you link to. That's because, as is often the case these days, there's so much verbiage between the top of the page and the editor box that when the cursor appears in the editor the top of the screen is scrolled right off the screen. That's doubly surprising considering I'm on a very very large monitor. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

When you create a new page using the form, Template:T:TDYK/editintro is always shown. If you're not seeing that message, then you are not using the box. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Maury isn't lying. I just tested the nomination template, and that pink box has scrolled FAR above the top of my screen by the time I get down to the nomination form. I suppose if a person is editing with an iPad or some other vertical-format screen, the pink box might still be visible, but most of still use horizontal-format devices.
It is not sufficient by itself to resolve the problem, but my less-vertical-real-estate version of the review instructions is still available at User:Orlady/DYK review criteria for use in the nomination template. --Orlady (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why it matters that the pink box is not visible "by the time I get to the nomination form". The point is, you see it before you get there. You do see it, don't you? rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I just updated the editnotice so the review criteria don't show up when posting a new nomination. Now you can see the pink warning and the edit window in the same screen. Please note that this in no way changes the fact that nominators are responsible for reading the instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Now it's worse. Stop and think about the process for a second… from the main nom page the user enters their new page name and hits a button. On the screen that appears they have to enter some data, and save the page. Then they have to navigate back to the nom page and enter additional data. Right? Have I misunderstood the process?
So right now the message containing the data that I need to complete the process appears before I start the process, and then again before I hit save on the new nomination. But it would seem the only logical place for the information to appear is on the screen that appears after you save the new nom. Is that possible? And how about a "click here" button that takes them into the right page in edit mode? After all, I suspect that most users will want to cut-n-paste the lengthy and complex string instead of typing it by hand, so presenting it right at the point where they are actually going to carry out the action seems like the right thing to do. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I seem not to understand. The process is clear. To transclude your nomination you only need its name - which you will find on your watchlist, in case you forgot to copy it. I don't see the problem, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Maury, you can copy the string that you need to paste before you save the nomination; you can even open T:TDYK in a separate window and paste the stuff before you save the edit (as explained at User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2). This is not complicated, hundreds of nominators have done it here and thousands have done the same thing at AFD.
Anyway, I don't understand how the change I made yesterday makes it "worse". The change I made did not in any way affect the stuff you're complaining about.
What you are asking for (having a special message appear after you save the edit) is not possible without greatly complicating the process. I have a better suggestion: just read the instructions. I have already spent a lot of time and effort making the process as simple and clear as possible, and it's not my responsibility to make your DYK nominate itself for you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We had some evidence after the new process was instituted that some people, especially newbies, were having difficulty remembering to transclude their nominations. Rjanag, I saw you leaving such people notes that they hadn't completed the process, so you were evidently patrolling to check. That was very nice of you; maybe some of us should start adding that to our patrolling activities. I will if I can figure out how :-) Also remembering to transclude has clearly been tripping up some experienced people; and despite a warning box there, it trips people up at AfD, too. My only suggestion would be to add to the pink box, "You might want to copy this string now ready to paste it in in the last step." Because that's what the rest of us are usually doing. Unless anyone thinks that would be considered condescending. It's true that it's not very much more complicated than the old process, but it's also true that people are forgetting to transclude - and that DYK needs submissions, of all kinds. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The way I patrolled was by individually checking every new nom; that was just for the first day or so after instituting the new system. It would not be feasible to do that for the long term. The only feasible way to do this sort of "patrolling" is with a bot; I already left links to those discussions above, no one is stopping any of you from pinging either of those editors and seeing if they can work on that task. But that still doesn't change the fact that nominators are responsible for reading the instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK hook citation question

The hook for DYK for an article has to be cited in the article, not only on the page, I think? I had a DYK using a hook that was not mentioned/explained in the article, but later removed it. I'm wondering if it would be allowable to submit an article for DYK with a hook that is cited on the DYK nom page but not in the article? Thanks. (BTW, the hook has been changed at Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Cindy (1959) to be supported by a ref in an article.) Thanks! HurricaneFan25 | talk 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See the DYK rules. The hook has to be cited in the article, of course. Putting citations on the nom page is pointless, because readers read the article, not the nom page. Articles are the point of the encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing DYK submissions

I've submitted 7 DYKs, each with a matching review, since mid-September and can't find any of them in the archives or any queue, even the ones from only a week ago. What's going on here? I can provide the names of the nominations if necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you created the nominations but did not add them to Template talk:Did you know, since your last edit to Template talk:Did you know was on 7 September. The individual nomination templates need to be transcluded to that page, under the date when the article was created or expanded. If you have some good noms, I think we should make an exception to the 5-day rule for transcluding them. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
(EC – removed my duplicated info) See step III of Template talk:Did you know#How to post a new nomination. None of the following, starting from August 31, were ever reviewed, because no one knew they were there:
MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
D'oh! OK, I feel like an idiot for not fully reading the instructions because of the template creating the new page for the nom. Yes, all the noms were good. Just let me know when I should move them over if y'all need to do something special for the oldest noms to accommodate them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
You might as well withdraw the ones before HMS Anne; they are too old for DYK now. As for the new ones, you should complete all steps of the nomination as soon as possible if you want them to be reviewed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Why? They met the criteria at the time that they were submitted, and the fact that they did can still be verified from their histories. I screwed up, I admit it. But that doesn't mean that they can't still be reviewed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The nomination isn't completed until all steps are completed (including posting the nomination at T:TDYK). Thus, these nominations were completed today, making many of them more than a month old at "the time they were submitted" (they were not properly submitted until today).
Let me explain my point of view a little more. One of the DYK criteria is that articles must be "new" (which means recently created or expanded). There is a reason for this: the view of the community currently is that DYK shouldn't be a random collection of facts, it should be a showcase for new content. It has a meaning to readers (on the main page it says, "From Wikipedia's newest content"). Any time someone asks for an exception for their article, asks to add a new category of non-new things to DYK, etc., that meaning is undermined--from the reader's point of view, DYK becomes less and less a showcase of new content and more and more a collection of random stuff. I don't think DYK should be forced to undermine its mission and modify its own criteria every time someone fails to read the rules. I also don't think it's fair to ask reviewers to bend over backwards to accommodate a nominator's mistake.
I'm sorry you didn't complete the nomination properly, but that's not really the fault of anyone at DYK. You obviously found the instructions (since you started the nomination, and the box you filled in to create those nomination pages is part of the instructions). It's not anyone else's fault that you didn't read them and complete your nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Huh, can't say that I've ever implied that it was anyone's fault but my own, much less anyone here at DYK, so there's no need to be defensive about that. If y'all (as a collective) want to be as legalistic as Rjanag is above, that's certainly your right. I just think that it's pretty stupid to deny my noms because I made an innocent mistake, but that's just me (and I am certainly biased in my own favor). A triumph of pettifoggery if you will.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I would accept the noms going at least as far back as "Harvester." Plenty of other noms from the same time frame are still active on the noms page. DYK has lost far too many contributors lately due to various forms of mostly-petty nitpickery; we need to get back in the mode of being tolerant of one another. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Orlady, it was just a mistake, nothing that needs punishment, and the content of the articles should be made known, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Honest mistake. We need more ship DYKs anyway. Manxruler (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Gerda, I was never suggesting "punishment"; like I said at length, the articles don't meet the DYK criteria anymore because the nominator didn't bother to follow the clear instructions. I'm glad I took all that time to explain my point of view, just to have people ignore my explanation and accuse me of being a pettifogger or trying to "punish" nominators. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I picked the wrong word. Please find a more suitable term for the disappointment of someone who worked hard on good information and reviews but just missed a point in the instructions. This might have happened to me easily. - Rules are useful, but I think we might be open for an exception here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Since we seem to have made the jump from discussion to voting, I should point out that another user has expressed concern about passing these nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Was the concerned user aware of the special circumstances at play here? Manxruler (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
What special circumstances? A nominator neglected his responsibility to read the instructions; this is no different than when people nominate articles that are ineligible because they haven't been expanded or things like that (again, it's people not reading and following the instructions). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that the user did the transclusion of a few nominations correctly, including one on September 7. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
So it's not a problem with the system...the system obviously isn't too complicated, if he was able to figure it out then. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Mandarax's example does change the question somewhat. Manxruler (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
As a new process, it's easy to forget to make the transclusion after filling out the template, even if you've done it correctly at times. Until it becomes ingrained, that step is easy to overlook, even after following it a couple of times. Rlendog (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that I created the nom pages themselves within the specified time limits, but failed to transclude them in a timely manner. So, in at least one sense, I did indeed meet the time limits. Y'all will have to decide which is more important, the date of transclusion or of creation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of including them "in line" at their original dates and see if you find a reviewer for one or the other who makes the exception? (I would - if only I knew a little bit about ships.) - I made the same mistake myself, but noticed. And I noticed at least one other making the same mistake. The system is good, the instructions are good, but the mind is so happy having assembled the template that the transclusion is easily forgotten. Perhaps a reminder at the end of the template would be a good idea? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
They are ineligible, so there's no point "including them". As for "a reminder", there is already one; in addition to the instructions (which the nominator is responsible for reading), there is this big pink notice at the top of every nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
As you say: at the top. Once you finish the nom, you forgot the top, oops, not you, but I did, and so I would have mercy with others who fail, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A case for WP:IAR. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Why? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion, noting a virtually identical case at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Nixon Foundation, from which further support can probably be inferred. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion at least back to Harvester (per Orlady), as this is clearly an innocent mistake in applying the new nomination process. I've done that myself, although I caught my mistake in time. I'd go back to Harvester per D9 of the supplementary rules, which leave room for nominations of that vintage even if the delay was not due to a simple error like this. Rlendog (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The nomination process is not "new", it's been around over 3 months, during which time the nominator has nominated multiple articles (several of them successfully). I never said the nominator's failure here wasn't an innocent mistake; it was clearly a mistake, but that doesn't mean the nominator should be exempt from the normal criteria because he wasn't able to follow simple instructions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Even the normal criteria allow for an article to be approved "if it was created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations. The articles in question from Harverster on satisfy this. I don't think we are debating whether or not it was an innocent mistake, I just think that this is the appropriate remedy for this innocent mistake, rather than rejecting all the articles in question. We know the articles were created in time, the nomination template was created in time, the nominator forgot a step (which is still fairly new, and was newer then). I don't know that we should go back earlier than the oldest date listed listed in the nominations at the time, but I don't see why shouldn't permit the ones whose nominations were completed within that time frame. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange-sounding hook

The lead hook in DYK sounds a bit strange. Shouldn't there be a "which"?

In addition, I didn't understand the picture's relevance immediately; that might have to be elaborated a bit.

HurricaneFan25 14:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems perfectly OK to me, and tighter than your needlessly wordy alternative. Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Halloween (2)

Someone should cover the Halloween event in the Signpost, I wasn't actively involved and see no staging area, so I think it would be easier for someone who know's what going on to write a short blurb =). Cheers, ResMar 02:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Prep 2, copyvio on deck

  1. Folks here have asked me to notify in advance, so I hope this one won't hit the mainpage. Church of St Michael, Alnham is in prep area 2, has copyvio issues, also has noticeable copyedit needs, received what looks like scanty review, and the principal author has numerous DYKs indicated on talk, so all may need a closer look. (Yes, I'm aware many of the sources used are public domain-- I checked the others.) I suggest that with a large number of fast DYKs, the author's other DYKs should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Ronnie Robinson (roller derby) reliability of sources and failed verification (if sources are not reliable, how is expansion criteria met?) Scanty review, author's talk page indicates at least 50 DYKs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you indicate what the copyvio issues are, so people know what to look at? Regarding whether or not the sources are public domain, that doesn't matter, PD sources can still be plagiarized. Regarding copyedit issues, that also doesn't matter, as "brilliant prose" is not a DYK criterion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting that you've taken the time to look at my talk page, but didn't actually contact me about your concerns. I have no idea what you mean by "failed verification (if sources are not reliable, how is expansion criteria met?)". What "failed verification"? What "expansion criteria", beyond the obvious fact that the article is of the correct length? With regard to the website you flag as a potentially unreliable source, clearly there's a discussion to be had as to whether it meets criteria (text by someone very active online in writing about roller derby but unpublished, website edited by another author occasionally quoted in press but again unpublished). I certainly wouldn't rely on it for anything controversial, but none of the material it is used to cite is in any way controversial. I have no control over the type of review given; if you have different views on the type of reviews which should be given, I suggest you get involved somewhat earlier in the process. Warofdreams talk 03:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
"Failed verification" means the fact being claimed in the article doesn't actually appear in the source. I haven't looked at the article so I don't have any comment as to whether or not this is the case. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh gosh, I hate to say this, but the Church of St Michael, Alnham article is full of very close paraphrasing (and had footnote numbers still in there from copying; I just removed those). For example from this page of the cited source, the source wording is:
... are several quaint tablets and moss-grown gravestones, denoting the burial places of those who, during the last two centuries, were the "indwellers" of this remote hill parish.
compared to the article text:
there are several tablets and moss-grown gravestones, denoting the burial places of past generations of those who, during the 16th and 17th centuries, were the residents of this remote hill parish.
That's from an 1870 book, but it still seems to be terribly close to the original wording not to be presented as a quotation. Also I cannot find the source of the following: "The church restorers of the 1700s inserted a few sash windows, and in some minor matters otherwise impaired its integrity. Elements from 16th-17th century work include a porch and doorway. A strong roof was added circa 1840." I was wondering about the integrity passage, which I reworded for sense, and I am just not sure where that material is taken from in the cited source. I'll drop the creator a line, but I do think the issue needs resolving of whether we can slightly reword public domain sources this way. And I think the article needs page references; it's drawing in multiple pages of some of these books. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hold your horses. We may copy/paste a text from a PD source without quotes provided the source is clearly mentioned. There is no need for rephrasing (though old texts often need rephrasing because of the style). We may also copy/paste a copyrighted text, if referenced, but then indeed we need quote marks, and the quote should not be excessively long. Materialscientist (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Said before: sometimes the way a source says something is the best way, and the closer you stay to that, the closer you are to being right (to avoid the word truth). The above is an example, imho, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
MS, where does this rule come from? If it is Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, well, that's only an essay. We may legally quote from PD sources without double quotes, but it is certainly not ethically right to do so without the proper attribution. Proper attribution in this case would be a notice like "this article incorporates text from ABC which is in the Public Domain." Without this notice, the article is IMHO not good enough to appear on the main page. --Pgallert (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It is unfair to require from DYK contributors to follow one's personal ethical norms. I do not know a guideline or policy which requires a notice you mention. It is also not very obvious how to add such note for a short article, which uses text from 5 PD sources (and their number might change I guess), without confusion - "this article incorporates text from several sources which are in the Public Domain"? - no, it is probably copyedited beyond recognition by the time you read it. I can only think of something like "version xxx of this article incorporates text from several Public Domain sources". Materialscientist (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's not my private ethical norm but that of the set of all scientists on this planet, that should be a few million people. But apart from that, proper attribution in this case is to attribute the source of the idea and the source of the wording. For a detailed explanation you might (or might not) want to read my essay, but the gist of it is that placing a footnote after a paragraph without double quotes only acknowledges the idea, but not the wording. To add the clause that "this article might contain text from", adds the acknowledgment of the wording. This cannot be left out. Hope this clarifies the issue. Brgds, --Pgallert (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Please understand that we can't enforce what we believe is right, before it becomes a WP policy or guideline. You can't possibly speak for all scientists of this planet, but I can assure your that the attribution and paraphrasing practices in scientific publishing are miles away from what you suggest above - just a reality check. Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm taking some time to give all this a review. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio on main page even after previous notification

Not a public domain source, and it's not a matter of "personal ethical norms"-- it's an example of yet another leading DYKer cutting-and-pasting to create hundreds of DYKs, which then receive scanty review because the editor is known at DYK (and that's how DYK let other editors slip through the cracks until it was discovered they had created hundreds). Reviewers should locate these here, because for me to retype the text from Google books is tedious, and they're right there. I indicated when I made the post that I had looked at articles other than PD. I've typed a couple samples-- there are others. It should also be noted that a violation of copyright is not "just plagiarism" or "just a matter of ethics"-- it's both plagiarism and copyright violation.

  • Article: Church of St Michael, Alnham
  • Source Pevsner, Nikolaus; Grundy, John; McCombie, Grace; Peter Ryder, Humphrey Welfare (11 March 1992). Northumberland. Yale University Press. pp. 128, 129–. ISBN 978-0-300-09638-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=kClO7NOfvsIC&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false
  • Article: The font, dated 1664, is a small bowl, octagonal in shape with a moulded profile in the Gothic tradition,
  • Source: Dated 1664, octagonal, small bowl with a moulded profile, still meant to be in the Gothic tradition

Structure copied, a few words varied here and there:

  • Article: Building features include a Bell-Cot, a lower chancel with a porch on the south side, and a 3-bay arcade on the north side.
  • Source: Nave with Bell-cot, lower chancel, transepts, and S porch. A N aisle was pulled down, but the three-bay arcade can still be seen on the north side.

On the reliable sources issue, DYK required a minimum number of characters or expansion-- expanding articles from non-reliable sources shouldn't count, and questions of dubious reliability should be brought to WP:RSN (this one hasn't, and hobby or fansites are rarely reliable).

That one of these articles is over-quoted and has noticeable prose and grammar issues, and the other uses non-reliable sources and has text that fails verification, indicates that even in spite of lower volume here, reviews are still not being conducted and scantily reviewed text is being featured on the main page.

Who plans to remove these from the mainpage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a relief to me that many of you find the wording taken from out-of-copyright sources to be acceptable. That was what I had found. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time parsing your post (perhaps it's sarcasm, unsure?) but many of us don't. One of the problems with so much cutting and pasting is that editors who do that to create hundreds of DYKs often forget or never learn how to actually write, so that copyvio or plagiarism grows under our eyes and goes undetected at DYK. The top DYKers list shows a high proportion of editors who cut-and-paste, violate copyright, and commit plagiarism. But the real problem is how long it goes undetected at DYK, leading in many cases to hundreds of copyvio or plagiarized or poorly sourced stubs that will never be cleaned up (when in fact, DYK is the perfect place to catch these problems early and educate editors).

The frequency of this problem at DYK seems to come from several factors: 1) once an editor is established at DYK, their work receives scanty reviews; 2) some regulars at DYK support cut-and-paste from PD or don't understand copyvio; 3) too much volume goes through here; 4) once some editors get the endorphin high of getting quick cut-and-paste work featured on the mainpage, they seem to become addicted and their norms may slip, etc.

If folks can't rephrase from sources, and if DYK doesn't have enough resources to correctly review, they should at least not be having the content featured on the mainpage. History has shown that when the light stops shining on the problems, they resurface quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I too am concerned about the blatant plagiarism in the Church of St Michael, Alnham, which any competent reviewer ought to have spotted immediately. Are there any competent DYK reviewers? Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This reads like you just volunteered. Welcome to the team. --Pgallert (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Then you read it wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
@TheLight, there is another problem you at FAC might have solved somehow: Wikipedia:Plagiarism has it totally wrong in many places, and is only a guideline, not a policy. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is worse, and only an essay. Wikipedia:Plagiarism, again only a guideline and not policy, is superfluous because it is a corollary of WP:NOR and WP:RS. Multiple discussions about each of these pages ended with "no consensus", as it always happens if too many uninvolved people enter a chat. Could you maybe let your light shine once more and explain how you enforce no-close-paraphrasing at FAC? --Pgallert (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Rather straightforwardly; any reviewers who spot it will flag up their concerns, and if they remain unaddressed will likely oppose the article's promotion. The problem DYK has is in its very DNA, the misguided need to fill as many main page slots as possible per unit time. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
User:TheLight appears not to have posted since 2006, but you might want to ping him or her. He wants to be your friend, but he may have gone cooking, brewing, woodworking, sailing, boating, swimming, diving, or mad, so I doubt he'll answer your question. Here is some helpful reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, both of you. I do not need to be convinced, as I detest plagiarised work. But up a few paragraphs you'll find people saying that they have the right to plagiarise if it is from a PD source... DYK is not a kingdom where one editor says "I don't like it", and that's it. If there is no proper policy to back it up, it won't happen at DYK. Maybe a notice at WP:NOT would open some sets of eyes, reading something like In many ways, WP does not attempt to be a serious encyclopedia. --Pgallert (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ronnie Robinson sources

Given that you haven't raised the source for Ronnie Robinson (roller derby) at WP:RSN or responded to my comments on it earlier, I assume that you're not too concerned about it. If you decide to raise it at WP:RSN or elsewhere, I'll be very happy to join in discussion on it. The "text that fails verification" was rapidly dealt with, and was already sourced - it was just a matter of another editor introducing some additional references which made it a little unclear. I do hope that you're not still going to advocate removing it from the main page! Warofdreams talk 15:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It's apparent to me that the source isn't reliable-- it's up to you to justify why you think it is. The concern here is that the minimum expansion or character count isn't enforced because no one even checks whether text is based on reliable sources (and no, I don't have time to pursue each example myself). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe, as stated above, that it is sufficiently reliable for its purpose. Given that you're the only person who has objected to it, this is the first time you've said that you believe it is apparent that it's not reliable, rather than raising a query about its reliability, and you haven't raised it anywhere but here, I'll regard that as an end to that matter. Obviously, as I say, I'm happy to discuss at an appropriate venue if you decide to raise it, but if you don't have time for the matter, it's hardly incumbent on me to raise your concerns elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 15:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look at the burden at WP:V, then see WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB-- your approach is unhelpful, so if you decide not to do the work that most certainly is incumbent upon you if you continue sourcing text to a hobby site, then by all means expect me to oppose any DYK nominations from you. It would be so much easier on all of us if you instead read our policies and inquired at RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I am familiar with those policies, thank you (although I can't see how WP:SELFPUB is relevant here - I think you may need to read it). I do like it when editors have a helpful attitude, and I take a very dim view of editors who expect others to do their work for them. I've addressed your concerns about the reliability; if you remain unhappy, it's your prerogative to take it elsewhere - it most certainly is not my responsibility to raise your issues elsewhere. I sincerely hope that you are joking when you state you would oppose any DYK nominations from an editor because you disagree with them over one particular source - that kind of WP:POINTy action should be laughed out of Wikipedia. Warofdreams talk 15:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I did you a favor in also linking SELFPUB on the chance that the hobby site has been used in that person's article (I haven't checked). I suppose that if you take pride in your work, you would want to assure that you are using reliable sources. If you don't, I'll add it to my list of Work To Do Someday ... I'll also add you to a list that won't be specified here, enough to say that I respect editors who take pride in complying with policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave you to it. Warofdreams talk 16:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
And I'll remember your diligence. Wasn't that hard? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Another recent sample

The penultimate DYK from the same editor above:

  • Article: Ratih Hardjono
  • Text:
    • Furthermore, she was also unpopular with clerics within the Nahdlatul Ulama, a Muslim organisation which is the President's political power base, because the clerics disputed her claims that an eminent 19th century Muslim guru was her ancestor.
  • Source: Indonesia news, which may itself be a copyvio of an Autralian news source, which means we should not be linking to it):
    • She also stirred opposition inside the Muslim organisation Nahdlatul Ulama, which is the President's political powerbase, where clerics disputed her claims that she was descended from an eminent 19th-century Muslim' holy man ...

See the text around the bolded text-- a few words changed, structure copied. Same sentence structure-- same to similar wording. If I only have to go back one DYK to find similar, are reviews here slacking off again? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the editor in question is User:Rosiestep. Warofdreams talk 16:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That was actually added by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) with this edit. Regarding the source itself, according to Article 14 of the Indonesian copyright law:

    There shall be no violation of copyright for the
    c. repetition, either in whole or in part, of news from a news agency, broadcasting organization, and newspaper or any other resources, provided that the source thereof shall be fully cited.

So from an Indonesian legal perspective that is fine and dandy, as news is essentially CC-BY according to Indonesian copyright law. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
We're talking about Australian Financial Review. And regardless of who added the text, it was approved and passed to the main page after Ohconfuscious added the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The penultimate DYK from the same editor above:" -- i.e. if OhC added the text, it cannot be blamed on Rosie; you may want to double-check the accusations. Regarding the AFR, we can remove the URL. I should have double checked the source material, like you should have checked who had made the additions before accusing an editor. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And the one who reviewed was...? That is a concern to bring to the editor directly, not WT:DYK. Not to raise a point, but funny how you dropped the whole "penultimate DYK from [Rosiestep]" thing after it was shown that she did not do the deed; an apology would be nice once in a while. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Aren't you a gem. Perhaps you could understand that the issue is not the editor as much as it is the faulty process and that some editor's noms aren't reviewed. I haven't dropped anything, DYK still put another cut-and-paste on the mainpage no matter who added the text, and in fact am quite encouraged that for perhaps the first time in DYK history, we see a nominator who indicates she will do her best to clean up. As for apology, maybe we could see one from the regulars of DYK who so enjoy shooting messengers rather than cleaning house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Back one more

Going to the next prior DYK from the same nominator, we see an example of the difficulty of rephrasing facts (the words are juggled and changed only ever-so-slightly, and the meaning may have been changed-- it is assumed that "in the area" means all of Washington DC when in fact, the area refers to 18th St and New York Avenue according to the source)

This is another problem independent of but related to the ever so slight juggling of words, indicating why DYKs should be correctly reviewed for accurate rephrasing in our own words. Perhaps there are other sources that clarify if "Washington DC area" is used correctly here, as we understand that term today? I've found concerns in three out of the last three DYKs by this author: the point is, what kind of review goes into DYKs, which are featured on our mainpage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My review. Mea culpa.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I generally can't find those subpages, so didn't know it was your review ... didn't mean to single anyone out, just went back through that editor's most recent DYKs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
In general, every article contains such "mistakes" and WT:DYK is not a venue to correct them. Sandy, bring such issues to the talk page of relevant articles or be bold and fix the articles. Please do not penalize imperfection. Materialscientist (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That is an absurd suggestion: plagiarism and copyvio are repeat systemic problems at DYK, and reviewers should do something about it here. On article talk, they won't even know about. This one is an instance of changed meaning in addition to the cut-and-paste. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hold on. (i) You're saying that an editor should be punished for mentioning one geographic area whereas you believe the source means another geographic area. I'm saying you should discuss such issues at the article talk, and you call this absurd. (ii) Sorry, I'm not seeing an evidence of copy/paste above. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
You perchance are an admin-- I don't think in terms of "punishing"-- I think in terms of "educating". The notion of punishing someone seems to come from your imagination: I'm concerned that DYK fails to review articles and encourages cut-and-pasted editing (and every example on this page is a) likely due to cut and paste editing and b) escaped review). Raising the repeat failures of DYK on article talk will not prevent another of the repeat offenders in the upper echelons of DYK, nor educate other reviewers about what they're missing and what they should be checking for-- they won't even see it (and you can check your archives here for several -- one of Daniel Case's-- that was raised on talk, was a false and unverified hook, and ran on the mainpage anyway and went uncorrected for days or weeks in spite of discussion on talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Another on deck

Another in the queue, which considering the above, should be reviewed:

  • Article: St Cuthbert's Church, Elsdon
  • Text in our article is not a complete sentence (suggestive of copy pasting too fast) -- is anyone reading DYK nominations?
    • The present building dating to about the year 1400, most of the construction is 14th century.

I'm unable to read the source because the type is too small, but suggest someone check the queue about to go up, since it's apparent that reviews are again lacking at DYK, and admins should not be putting unreviewed content on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some work is needed with whatever processes are putting FA material on the front page, too; today's latest gem of engaging, even brilliant prose is "A separate handheld game was made separately..." Oh dear. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Shall I scream in denial and shoot the messenger and claim that FAC is perfect and do nothing to address the issues? Oh no, that would be DYK, not FAC. Text was not there in the version that was promoted three-and-a-half years ago, BTW, which does not mean that prose reviews at FAC don't ever miss things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Query on deck

Is there a mistake here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  • The two wordings are stating the same thing. The specimens in scientific collections are composed of partial carapaces and are missing the appendages. The source is not saying the (the authors) do not know if the appendages are preserved, they are using common scientific grammar for "the bits never fossilized".--Kevmin § 19:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation, Kevmin ...
  • Exactly (here, 'preserved' = 'fossilized'). Though (our) article wording could have been clearer on this. This relatively minor point is precisely the sort of thing that should be raised with the author of the Wikipedia article, rather than being brought here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Another in nominations

Come on, folks, we need to get back to real reviews here:

This one is waaay too obvious, and not hard to rephrase, so what is our excuse? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In light of these events, I have requested a contributor copyright investigation here. HurricaneFan25 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have opened a CCI until the editor in question had responded and given some indication of whether she would fix them, but YMMV. Honestly, the CCI people are busy enough that I don't like to bother them until we know if the editor in question will make a good faith effort to clean them up, and the problem here is not one editor, but the failure of the process (DYK) to screen for copyvio, which allows editors to keep doing the same and thinking it's OK. It's a systemic process failure, so I don't see the point in starting an investigation on any given editor if we don't yet even know if she's willing to go back and clean up her articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a note that Hurricanefan25 has (wisely in my view) commented out, for now, the CCI that he requested earlier. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, but unaware if Rosiestep has made any motions towards going back and reviewing her work. (CCIs aren't going anywhere anyway because they're too overworked over there, which is why educating DYKers is a better approach than MaterialScientist's desire to "punish".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I responded on this page last night that I was reviewing the comments on this page, the articles themselves, and the sources. Being singled out for copyvio, close paraphrasing, and plagarism is an uncomfortable event; I did not think that's the case. Starting today, I'll do what it takes to fix what needs fixing, and to not repeat a problem. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
That's encouraging, Rosiestep; this happens often, DYK should be a good place for first catching these issues and educating editors, and all that is needed is for editors to go back and review their work and try to be more aware. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Actual examples of rewrites

I've read the above and the (other sections below), and what is missing here is examples and discussion of actual rewriting, which IMO are crucial to getting people on the same page here (agreeing on how to handle and review matters like this). I'm not going to post the entire text here, but I posted to Sandy's talk page here. I think that in future when such examples are raised, at least one example should include a rewrite to show people how to move away from source text to something that is acceptable to most people. There are several ways this can be done, but the only way to really get experience with that is to actually attempt it yourself and discuss with others. So hopefully that can be done more here when this comes up again. Carcharoth (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

[7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me for quoting in full what you said there, but I think it is important that those working on this page see this:

"If you have time to teach people to rewrite, by all means do so ... such examples at DYK might be helpful. I'm concerned with teaching people to review nominations, and avoiding repeat offenses at the cut-and-paste playground that is DYK." SandyGeorgia 13:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, but I stand by what I've said previously, that this is only part of the solution. Unless someone (or a group of people) take it on themselves to actually discuss examples, you will end up with: (a) people continuing to disagree (in some cases legitimately) over where the line is drawn, and thus learning precisely nothing from the arguments (thus in effect wasting the time you are spending doing this); and (b) some (conservative or inexperienced) reviewers will err too far in the direction of caution, with legitimate text being criticized and unnecessarily rewritten, with the consequent harm that can do (in reality it is a balancing act). The only way to avoid this (IMO) is discussion. As an example, see what Johnbod said here (at your talk page). That is a very useful point he made there, and that would have been lost with your more brusque approach. What it essentially comes down to is knowing your sources well and treating them sympathetically (in the sense of knowing when to summarise and when to use detail). This is not an easy skill to acquire, but is something that you have to explain to people. Reviewing without including that element of (brief) education is, IMO, next to useless. You don't have to spend ages on it, but there is a world of difference between a quick, spot-check review and a slightly longer, more thoughtful discussion. If the number of DYKs needs to be reduced to allow more thoughtful reviews, then that should happen. Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Many of us have been saying for a very long time that a volume reduction is needed until a capacity for thorough review and knowledge of policy is demonstrated-- nothing new there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Uh huh. But to really make a difference, there needs to be a different approach to the "point out a few examples every so often" one that you use. Rather than do spot checks, why not (in parallel) review everything in the DYK queue for a whole week? The 'sporadic spot checks' approach clearly isn't working. More is needed. On the basis that one person can't do it all, why not set up a group of people to, independently of the current review process, do a parallel review of every single DYK in the queue for a week? That will give a clearer indication of how many submissions and reviews are OK and how many are not (reviewing everything avoids selection bias). At the end of that week, produce a report and if it is clear that a certain percentage of bad DYKs are slipping through, then you will have an incontrovertible case for the volume to be reduced in order to allow better reviewing. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you frequently weigh in on discussions where you don't know the history? (oops, don't answer that). Are you unaware of just how many editors did exactly that, and that as soon as they turned their backs, it was status quo here within less than a few weeks? Are you aware that they set up reports (of course, DYK regulars weren't happy when accountability was demanded)? Are you completely unaware that the problem here is that we have two or three guardians of the process who deny there's a problem, shoot the messengers no matter how they approach the problem, and enable cut-and-pasting to continue at DYK? Or that we have admins who pass copyvios to the main page, knowing that there are problems in DYK reviewing, because this discussion has gone on for a solid year, and They Don't Care ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware that you think I weigh in on discussions where I don't know the history. That happens more often than you would think in Wikipedia, mainly because it is hard for individuals to get a full overview of what is going on in any particular situation that may involve numerous different editors and multiple pages all over Wikipedia. You may claim to have a better handle on such things, but I don't think you do really (for example, you recently weighed in on a discussion at WT:V and completely misunderstood what was happening there). I've been following and commenting on the current discussions at DYK for several months now, so please don't claim you are the only one to know the history here. I agree in parts with what you've said, but disagreed with other parts of what you've said. I think that some of the examples you've raised of supposed problems have been very poorly chosen, and this has obscured the valid points you were making. I would suggest finding time to really deal with this properly, once and for all. Put all your arguments, with diffs and links to previous discussions, on a single page somewhere, and come up with a way forward that doesn't just involve periodically turning up here and pointing out examples. That is just trying to change things by attrition, and as I said clearly isn't working. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone here read the nominations they promote ?

First, copyvio from Spanish to English is still copyvio, failed verification, but never mind all of that, since not everyone can read the Spanish sources-- did the people approving this DYK even read it? It has basic ce needs throughout (a couple obvious already done by me). I'm curious to know how reviewers here watch for copyvio if they don't read the articles? One of the ways to detect plagiarism and copyvio is by ... ummmm ... reading the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, thanks for this extensive copyedit. Your messages would be easier to understand if you clarify (or avoid using) jargon "failed verification" and provide evidence with any claim of copyright violation you submit here. I still can't really parse your message above. Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Failed verification. Por nada-- el placer es todo mio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Any non-trivial wikipedia article contains unsourced statements, thus linking Template:Failed verification is not an answer :-). Materialscientist (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Old nom

Just came across this unreviewed nom from August:

Unlike the recent complainants, the nominator of this actually did nominate properly, but it seems like it got lost without being reviewed when we transferred from daily subpages to having everything on T:TDYK. So it's our own fault that this was never run. Can it still be reviewed and featured? rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, rʨanaɢ & Crisco 1492. I have completely forgotten about this nom! --PFHLai (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3

St Cuthbert's

Needs an comma after the word England, which, like Northumberland, is a parenthetical commentary on the location of Elsdon.

The Dewarists

There are few, if any, new areas in India, and the musicians do not record in their own genre wherever they are (or if they do, it defeats the stated aim of reflecting the culture of each area. Suggest ... that in each episode of the musical documentary series The Dewarists, musicians visit a different part of India, and record a song in a genre which reflects the local culture? Kevin McE (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

So fixed. Thanks. You may want to try WP:ERRORS next time. --PFHLai (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:Errors is specifically for errors on the main page. These hooks are not yet on the Main Page. The queues and prep areas exist so that errors can be caught before they reach the Main Page, although it is true that most other MP features (TFA, OTD, TFP and TFL; not ITN for fairly obvious reasons) do have 24 hour advance linking to WP:ERRORS. Maybe someone can clarify the history of why DYK does not. Kevin McE (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:ERRORS is the right place, Kevin. We do want to catch errors before they get on MainPage. And you get more admin eyes on that reporting area. Admins not actively involved in DYK have editing rights in the protected areas of DYK and will be able to help fix small things that do not require discussions.
DYK has 6 queues and 4 prep areas. Linking them all individually would take up too much space on WP:ERRORS. Instead, we have a link to the Template:Did you know/Queue in the toolbox there.
Hope this help clarify things a bit. Thanks again for your help in identifying problems on MainPage. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so-- the last series of posts to MAINERRORS was deleted with narry a comment. [8] Leave it there until the DYKs are off the main page, then delete ... well, some of the folks dealing with errors are sometimes the same admins who put them there without review, so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, WP:ERRORS is meant for non-admins to get admins to make small tweaks on MainPage, small errors that do not require much discussion. Reports that no longer apply get removed on a regular basis. Links to get people to join discussions on WT:DYK shouldn't be there. Try Talk:MainPage, where WP:ERRORS is transcluded. --PFHLai (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a great big box at the top of the Queue page that says "To report errors in the queue, please post at WT:DYK" PFHLai's advice directly contradicts this. Kevin McE (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am indeed advising you and everyone to get more eyes from the outside to look at our hooks and help cut down on errors that get on MainPage. For small tweaks (typos, missing commas, etc), WP:ERRORS is fine. It's the debates and discussions that should stay out of WP:ERRORS and be held in WT:DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a bot?

Given that a number of nominations have been found as not having had their transclusions, well, transcluded to T:TDYK recently, perhaps there should be a bot script written that will check new "Template:Did you know nominations/*" pages to see if they are transluded on Template talk:Did you know every X hours and post a message on the nom creator's talk page if not? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag has already placed and renewed a request with botmeister Shubinator. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Shubinator probably won't get to it for at least a couple weeks, as he's busy (understandable, given the amount of stuff he keeps running here), and after that it may take another week or two to get through WP:BRFA. In the meantime, people could try to actually read the instructions when they are nominating, but I won't hold my breath. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hilya

Is there any chance of an expedited review/queuing for Hilya? It would make a good DYK for Eid, which starts on November 6 (see User_talk:Johnbod#Thanks_2). Thanks, --JN466 06:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a 3 day holiday for many, so finishes on Nov 8. We are not generally good at recognising Islamic holidays, of which this is about the biggest. It's now passed Template:Did you know nominations/Hilya. I'll add to special days. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The Hilya hook is now on P4. Pls promoted it to Q3 (for Nov. 8th) as appropriate. --PFHLai (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page update on 6 Nov, at 12:00UTC

Hi! Is there something wrong with the DYK update, it appears that the main page update scheduled for 12:00 UTC today did not go through?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, updated. Materialscientist (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Bot operator has been notified as both DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot seem to have stopped performing as expected. --Allen3 talk 12:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)



  • Both of the bots had connection issues with the Wikimedia servers. DYKUpdateBot had auto-reset itself, and would have completed the next update. I've restarted both bots for good measure. Shubinator (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hooks in queues

A couple grammar and other issues I've spotted.

Marciano Norman (Queue 1)
  • As noted in the article, he was not in a cavalry position when selected to lead the intelligence agency; as such, simple past tense would make more sense (i.e. "the original that Marciano Norman was in the cavalry before becoming head of Indonesia's intelligence agency?" rather than the current "that Marciano Norman had been in the cavalry, and went on to head of Indonesia's intelligence agency?")
Morphsuits (Queue 3)
  • Currently reads "... that aside from the jobs of the business's three founders, all employment for the Morphsuits brand of spandex bodysuits is outsourced?", which is awkward. Perhaps ... that all employment for Morphsuits spandex bodysuits is outsourced except for three positions? or ... that all employment for Morphsuits spandex bodysuits is outsourced aside from the positions of its founders?
Under the Protection of Ka'bah (Queue 2)
  • Seems to have been changed without discussion, to a new phrasing that drains the life out of the hook. Current wording is "... that the costumes for Under the Protection of Ka'Bah, Indonesia's submission to this year's Oscars, were reported to cost as much as an entire locally produced horror movie?", with the text in bold TMI. Could we cut the bold text so it goes "... that the costumes for Under the Protection of Ka'Bah, Indonesia's submission to this year's Oscars, were reported to cost as much as an entire horror movie?"
Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


The Marciano Norman was a mistake by me, in correcting the false impression in the original hook that he went directly from the cavalry to being head of intelligence: suggest simply remove the word of, so that it reads and went on to head Indonesia's intelligence agency.
At about the same time, I made another typo: the Peruvian dam should, of course, say a Canadian, not an Canadian. Sorry
I'd be grateful for correction of those two. Kevin McE (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


All 4 small errors on queue have been fixed as suggested. Thanks for identifying them. --PFHLai (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I need a second opinion...

...on Template:Did you know nominations/Not Afraid. I don't much like it (article and hook), but I think having someone else look at it would be fair. Thanks in advance. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've replied. ResMar 02:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Old nominations awaiting review

There are a number of nominations from 2+ weeks ago that have not received any attention whatsoever. This is no doubt down to many reviewers' tendencies to review the more recent noms rather than searching through to find the oldest unreviewed one. Is there anything that can be done to resolve this?

A bot would be the most obvious solution, but perhaps we could write a template that highlights a nomination that is 7+ days old and does not yet have a review. Not easy though. violet/riga [talk] 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a bot or template. This is a problem with reviewers' behavior, not a problem with the system. If the problem is reviewers ignoring older noms, they should be asked not to do so. Admittedly, this problem has been around for a while so just asking might not work, but I don't see how a bot would help--all that can do is somehow put unreviewed articles more in-people's-face (e.g., by compiling a list of unreviewed noms and putting it at the top of the page), and we can do the same thing by making the reviewing instructions clearer. (A template is out of the question; there's no way to do it unless some more code were added to the nomination page and reviewers forced to mark it off, and I already get more than enough complaints about stuff being too complicated).
Or, as has been discussed a little bit several times before, maybe noms that don't get any attention should just be failed after some time--maybe they're not getting attention because they're not interesting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The template could work but I accept your point about complication. This was inspired by my own nomination not having receiving a review in 2+ weeks, so I can't fully agree with the idea of dropping them - in this case it's more likely because five articles need reviewing and nobody wants to do such work. In other cases maybe you have a point. violet/riga [talk] 19:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think they should be dropped. We're all volunteers, and I for one find evaluating nominations a lengthy and challenging task that's not entirely about interest. I note also that what I see on the nominations page right now is hefty discussion about several older hooks, including the ones that were mistakenly not transcluded until recently, and a certain number of nominations that someone has started responding to but not finished: Orlady mentioned in a section above that she has an attack of off-wiki business and asked for others to finish evaluating nominations she had begun, and I addressed an issue someone had raised with Template:Did you know nominations/Brazil 76-0 Timor-Leste (futsal) but I don't feel competent to review the nomination and the other editor hasn't returned to review it, either. I believe this page is the proper place to periodically note that the "tail" of older noms is getting out of hand or to remind reviewers that they can step in and finish a review, or re-review, and it would generally be good if they did so. As, for example, someone else stepped in at Template:Did you know nominations/Manitoba Hydro Place when I didn't have time to complete the review that day. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
We could always manually update it, but that's extra work... violet/riga [talk] 19:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Manually update what? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
A listing of old nominations that need a review. violet/riga [talk] 21:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That's far too labor-intensive. If you want to do it you're welcome to, but it's not feasible as a long-term solution, and for the reasons I gave above I don't think it's even needed (I'm still not convinced there's any problem that needs solved). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Listing

The following nominations are two weeks old and have not yet been reviewed:

violet/riga [talk] 21:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Q6

I have removed a hook from Q6 for close paraphrasing concerns. As there are currently no hooks in prep to replace it with, I am posting here that another may be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed "that ?" because it wasn't intended for the Main Page, whether we go with 6 hooks or 7. Art LaPella (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
[9]
Resolved
Art LaPella (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Are sources actually being verified?

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi

How was the “Did you know” claim made for this verified? In five minutes the reviewer made a couple of edits and verified the claim. After an inquiry as to what was verified, the reviewer affirmed that “all aspects check out”. But at the time (and since the article was expanded), the link to the source that supports the claim was broken. Here is the version approved: [10] and here was the link given to the source: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Amagi.htm

Yesterday I saw some [citation needed] tags added during the main page appearance, looked at the article and concluded that the source cited at the end of the paragraph likely supported the entire section, clicked on the source http://www.combinedfleet.com/Amagi.htm and got a 404 message. With a little investigation I found that the failed link was due to a capitalization error in the url. I fixed the url, compared the source to the claims, and removed the [citation needed] requests.[11] But as the link to the source did not work beforehand, how could the DYK claim have been verified? And why was the claim made that all aspects were checked?

To be clear, the claim appearing on DYK is a fair summary of the source. But at the time the claim was approved the link to that source was broken. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ref 17 can also be used to verify the claim, I don't know if that's what happened and I would expect to see that mentioned in the review. Only the actual reviewer can answer that question, however, and they may not be watching here. Mikenorton (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Ref 17 does not verify the dates of attacks nor the damage on the cited pages (it does address those on prior pages); 17 is not cited for those facts (16 is), and it is doubtful that the reviewer, who spent but 5 minutes on this review in an hour where he had over 45 edits in a variety of subjects, scrolled through that site in order to find the small section devoted to this ship. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It took me exactly 40 seconds to open it and find the relevant section using the 'find next' option in the pdf. Also you are making a lot of assumptions about another editor's habits - I personally often keep edit windows open for hours while I research stuff and check my watchlist regularly at the same time in other windows or tabs making edits to other pages as I go, I wish I could concentrate on a single thing, but that tends not to happen. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but without actually raising it with the reviewer we will never know. Mikenorton (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I did, indeed, very careful verify the dates mentioned on that. Why there was a problem later, I'm not sure, but since the dates were mentioned I did double-check. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So you verified facts in a paragraph, not by use of the cited (broken) link, but a cite for the next paragraph? Did you notice the broken link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.99.126 (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Time limit?

The top of this talk page says that reform discussions are at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals, but that discussion appears to have died (and all of the reform proposals aren't there).

Somewhere in the last couple of months, another editor (Tony1 IIRC) suggested that there should be a time limit on nominations-- something to the effect that if a nomination hadn't passed by a certain number of days, it should be archived as unsuccessful. I'm unaware how that discussion concluded, but this nomination presents an example for further discussion of that proposal:

It's been up for a month, some issues found, partially corrected, hook conditionally approved, then still more issues found. I hope that instead of shooting the messenger, a discussion will be had about the old time limit proposal. I'm indifferent on whether nominations should be archived after a set number of days, but reviewer time is valuable and DYK is supposed to feature new content: one approach is that it should be archived to respect that reviewers have limited time and the article is no longer new content, while another approach is that by continuing the nomination until the issues are uncovered and corrected, a nominator with many DYKs will be educated and hopefully bring better nominations in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's another example that stayed on the page for 21 days (and evidences progress in detecting coyvio at DYK!):
Should such nominations be removed sooner so that reviewers can better focus on other nominations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Another that went 31 days:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, your second example actually demonstrates a bigger issue than nominations sitting on the nominations page for extended periods of time. If you examine the timestamps in your example you will notice that of the 21 days the nom was open the first 20 were spent waiting for a reviewer to take a first look at the article. Time spent from initial review to final resolution was less than 1½ days.
Historically DYK has tended to fail nominations much quicker than we are currently doing so. The traditional philosophy is that nominators should resolve issues in a timely manner (usually 3 to 7 days with issues dealing with POV or other subjective concerns potentially running longer to allow for proper discussion) but they must be given fair notice of problems before we start the clock. Given the large number of positive contributors who have been driven away from DYK during the last few months, the project's ability to provide the first review or respond to feedback from nominators has been seriously downgraded. The reason for this viewpoint is that DYK is not FAC. While FAC allows, even encourages, article to be run through the submission process multiple times, DYK only allows articles to be nominated once. As a result it is a simple matter of fairness to give nominations a proper hearing during that one shot instead of arbitrarily rejecting contributors' hard work just because we don't get around to looking at it in a timely manner. --Allen3 talk 16:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems logical that if any such proposal were to proceed, the clock wouldn't start until a reviewer had engaged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandy, the clock should not start until a review has actually happened. I have another caveat, though. The clock should not count time spent waiting for a reply from the reviewer after the nominator has replied; too many reviewers disappear after doing their QPQ, and cannot be asked to finish what they started. If the nomination is closed due to no fault from the nominator, that sends the wrong messages. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the low numbers of nominations, thanks to the greatly expanded bureaucracy and hostility toward DYK in general over the last half year, we have no need for a time limit: obviously inappropriate nominations (e.g. copyvios, no chance of sufficient expansion in the time limit) should be removed, and fixable nominations should be given plenty of time to be fixed. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

HKT48 (Prep 2)

The average age of the members of the group is sourced in the article as 13.8 years, but the method of calculation is so mathematically incompetent (can't be bothered typing it all again here, see the article's talk page) that it does not merit main page attention. Do we have an ALT? Frankly, I'm not very happy about giving main page attention to something so promotional of sexualised presentation of pre-teens and early teens at all, but if we must, let's retain at least mathematical dignity. Kevin McE (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have an ALT, but that was not the approved hook. Returned to T:TDYK for now. --PFHLai (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I responded at Talk:HKT48. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Queue 5

Sample from Solamente Tú (album): "The songs are mostly inspired by heartbreak, romantic disillusionment, troubled or failed relationships."
Sample from the source: " ... and prominent country themes (heartbreak, romantic disillusionment, troubled or failed relationships, loneliness, drinking to forget the pain) are also prominent regional Mexican themes."
More importantly, although these words are taken from allmusic.com, they are never cited to allmusic.com, and although the text appears in the lead, it is nowhere in the body of the article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you know this comes from allmusic.com, and not from one of the other 181 sources about "Solamente Tú" that come up in a Google search for the exact phrase "heartbreak, romantic disillusionment, troubled or failed relationships"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you should examine those hits more carefully to understand what's going on there ... so, it's the same deal ... it's not quoted or cited anywhere in the article-- it's just dropped into the lead. Does anyone read these things before they are placed on the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I did some copy-edit in the lead, replacing the original phrase "the songs are mostly inspired by heartbreak, romantic disillusionment, troubled or failed relationships" for something different. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
But the question is why that isn't cited ... which it can be to several sources. See WP:LEAD-- you don't have to cite text in the lead, but you do have to summarize text from the article (where it should be cited) to the lead.

Thanks for the rewording and for responding here, but the concern here is that reviewers aren't reviewing. We can see from the section just above this one that some reviewers are just moving too fast and not really checking nominations at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be precise in your criticism. What you can say based on the datum you've presented is that a single error has occurred, so that there is evidence that the reviewers are not completing their assigned tasks at 100% accuracy. Is an accuracy rate of 100% your personal goal? If so, there are other projects of higher profile on Wikipedia that have failed to achieve this level of accuracy, and your time might be better spent improving those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, more precisely, SandyGeorgia is taking for granted without saying so, that we have read her repeated complaints such as #Accountability, which can be found in great quantity by searching this page or any recent archive for her name. I don't know how valid her endlessly repeated complaint is, but I will note that her specifics are occasionally, but not regularly and categorically, objected to. I will also note that her allies may sometimes prefer to complain without bothering to research such specifics. But one datum isn't the problem. Art LaPella (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Errors and errors and more erras, no one here is perfect. I'm not concerned about the numbers of errors we fail to spot but the number of articles we fail to encourage. Is the major problem on DYK the number of errors, the poor morale or the lack of contributions? Errors are found by editors. Not sure if "the plan" is to get rid of the editors first or the articles. The Perfection we associate with a vacuum awaits anyone who achieves either. The feature article process fails to find every error. Lots of DYK editors used to find errors in lots of new articles and repair them. Some are solving that by whipping the editors and making sure new articles are published without any oversight. Its good to find errors - we don't need this level of public lynching and hand -wringing everytime someone finds an error. Victuallers (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Silly Art, it's apparent several "regulars" posting to this page aren't concerned that DYK is a training ground for cut-and-paste editing and that the review process here is deficient. It's the strangest mentality here, where folks want to "punish" editors, or deny copyvio, or come up with an endless stream of excuses to avoid discussing the fact that problems with copyvio at DYK predominated in the archives here long before I became aware of how bad the problem was. The "plan" is to encourage people here to review articles correctly so that DYK can be the teaching place it should be, where new editors can learn correct editing before they go on to create hundreds of copyvios. @Victuallers, of course no one is perfect and no article is perfect, but that's not an excuse to continue failing to review at one page on Wikipedia where we have a chance of educating new editors early on so they can avoid becoming serial cut-and-pasters like those that predominate the DYK Hall of Fame. Now, y'all can focus on the nominators, who really aren't at fault, if you'd like, but I say the problem is with Koolaid-drinking reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, may I ask you not to throw accusations here or anywhere, at least without providing reliable evidence to back it up, and if thrown, withdraw and/or apologize? Let us start with your message above. How about "Silly Art" and "serial cut-and-pasters like those that predominate the DYK Hall of Fame"? Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
What accusations? What lack of evidence? Shall I retype everything from archives, or can you read them yourself? "Silly Art" refers to "SandyGeorgia is taking for granted ... " SandyGeorgia is doing no such silly thing. Now, back on topic: the problems with DYK are very well documented, have been for years, and yet when I reviewed and found plagiarism over and over (a year ago) on the main page, I was encouraged over and over to bring it here first-- to review articles in prep and queue and raise the issues here first. But lookie there-- see what happens when I do that?

Resistance is futile-- DYK will continue to be a training ground for quick cut-and-paste editing because reviewers don't want to slow down the volume to a point where nominations can be properly reviewed before running on the mainpage. Why is it that the mentality here is that any new article is entitled to mainpage space, no matter the quality, no matter the sourcing, no matter the prose, no matter the lack of paraphrasing, no matter the lack of review? What exactly is the resistance to reviewing articles for compliance with core policies and for elementary grammar? They aren't typically long articles, DYK is a place where we frequently encounter new editors, it has often been pointed out that it's the best place to detect problem editing early on and guide editors towards our policies, yet just a small handful of editors continue to support the status quo. Theoretically, that would be because they value any content-- no matter the quality-- over teaching editors Wikipedia policy early on, so that we don't end up detecting another Billy Hathorn after so many copyvios have been created that we'll never be able to clean them all up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we stay on topic please? We can make a poll, and I bet most would take "Silly Art" as "Art LaPella is silly", or maybe as "what Art LaPella said is silly" how about withdrawing that? We know about Billy, but "serial cut-and-pasters like those that predominate the DYK Hall of Fame" targets a much wider audience of respectable editors. Do you mean what you say, or shall we ignore what you say? Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Rereading, "taking for granted" seems neither unlikely nor hostile (the quote was "We can see from the section just above this one that some reviewers", not "reviewer" singular, which makes it technically false but understandable). Whatever. I think Sandy confused me with Victuallers, who used the word "plan" for instance. I don't believe I have outright denied the substance of her comment above. Rather, I have denied knowing how much rewriting is required to avoid plagiarism, questioned whether any of us really know that, and if not then how does getting moralistic about it help us understand the unknown. Art LaPella (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, Sandy is pulling things together in a single page, as I suggested earlier. That should clarify her views and make it easier to refer to them (when that is finished). But I would encourage others to summarise progress (or lack of it) over the past year or so as well, if they disagree with the opinions of others (and to similarly provide data and links to back up what they are saying), or to collaborate to produce a summary page (if it is too much for one individual to do). My view is that something needs to be done, as the aggravation and problems are not resolving themselves and it is (slowly but demonstrably) affecting things around here. In other words, those saying there has been no progress or insufficient progress need to show that, and those saying things are improving need to show that as well. I'm personally more concerned that since CorenSearchBot stopped working, lots of copyvios were not caught in recent backlogs. There is a recent article at The Signpost (see here) that mentioned the copyright problems that came out of a recent (large) education outreach program in India. It is things like that that people here need to be aware of as well. Carcharoth (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There has been some progress. Rjanag instituted the subpages, so we can at least now determine where to focus our education efforts, and Nikkimaria is catching all of the plagiarism/close paraphrasing/copyvios that are still being approved, while Kevin McE is catching all manner of everything everywhere on the mainpage (not just DYK). But we still don't have accountability at the level of admins posting DYK hooks to the mainpage, and it still doesn't seem that folks are even reading these articles-- which still suggests to me that volume is too high for DYK to serve its most useful purpose-- we don't need new content as much as we need editors who know correct editing, and DYK could be the best training ground for new editors. (I doubt I'll find time to finish that page, because there are just too many-- and the whole problem would go away so simply if folks would just stop denying the problems and start tackling them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
A higher standard of evidence would also help. There is a claim there that a DYK was passed by a reviewer without being checked, but if you look at the section above, you will see that this has been rebutted (I think). Someone needs to check that and remove the false claim if it is indeed false. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC) To be clearer, I'm talking about the inclusion of the bit above concerning Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi at User:SandyGeorgia/Didyouknow before the full facts were in. Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Sigh, you (Sandy) keep ignoring my comments and pretend you know what is right for the project. Efforts of Kevin McE and Nikkimaria are visible, what you miss is that this area has always been more stressful than others, that best editors and reviewers have left the project because of that, and that what you do is overstressing those remained - I am not the first to tell you that. Be sure, you would be treated much nicer if you tried to fix the errors yourself (you can copyedit, can't you), and if not evident how, diplomatically point to a problem, without rushing to blame for it. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I "pretend" ... oh, my, I feel a "silly comment" coming on. No, I don't miss that it's stressful-- of course it is, it's pushing more volume than it can handle. And the best editors I know left because the plagiarism at DYK disgusted them. And there are far too many errors for any one editor to take them all on ... suppose I had to fix every FAC myself? The reviewers need to learn to review, and that is done via accountability. And Carcharoth, you can claim or see or read whatever you'd like, but I suggest that you, um, do your homework first. I have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Well that's the problem isn't it? It is up to the FAC delegates to assign and coordinate the reviews. Whether or not they do the reviews themselves, it is up to the FAC delegates to certify that the reviews have been carried out properly and the articles are front page worthy. And they have to produce a featured article every day. That is what you are demanding that the DYK delegates do, and therefore it is both fair and reasonable to demand that of the FAC delegates. And if they cannot do it, and they cannot seem to do it at the present time, then we need to get a set of FAC delegates who can. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
What "DYK delegates" are you talking about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. Meant the "DYK admins". Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
That's the point, no such thing, any admin can pass a queue to the mainpage. No accountability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
My point about the inclusion of Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi at User:SandyGeorgia/Didyouknow is that it would be sensible to at least wait until the discussion here has concluded before including it at that page. That is reasonable, surely? Bushranger reviewed it and you should at least reply to what he said up there before including a criticism of him on that page. If your work was being criticised, you'd want others to extend you that courtesy, wouldn't you? Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I just don't speak this punishment/criticism/blame language that is the respone to every issue raised with the content and the review process here. This is Wikipedia, right, where our concern is the content, or did I land somewhere else? An uncited hook went on the mainpage (read the DYK rules and the hallowed rule that the hook *must* be cited in the article and present me a diff showing where that occurred). If some of those who are on this adversarial bent of viewing problems with the process in terms of "punishment" or "blame" of individual editors would focus instead on the review process and the content that we're putting on the main page, you might start to see ways to correct the process and "educate" instead of "punish". We look at content on Wikipedia-- everyone makes mistakes (more here because the process encourages cut and paste editing)-- focus on how to fix the process so it doesn't keep happening. Anyone can review, anyone can pass a hook to prep, and then an admin puts it on the mainpage without necessarily having to even glance at the article-- see a problem there? When you have long-time, serial offenders, then worry about this need for "punishment" or "blame"-- open copyright investigations, put restrictions on nominations for repeat offenders, put restrictions on reviewing for sloppy reviewers, whatever is needed when repeat offenders are identified, as in the most recent serial plagiarism case, that was only detected after years because people who didn't regularly review DYK looked at one nom. Short of that, I just don't understand this blame mentality-- it was the process that encouraged the serial plagiarizers because they were never detected or educated-- this need for blame seems to be to deflect from actually adapting the process to something more workable, apparently stemming from the notion that all new or expanded content is entitled to run on the mainpage. I don't understand it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There has always been a system of spotting mistakes and suggesting how to correct them. I don't recall anyone asking to be "educated" - perhaps you could drop that line you keep repeating. As to "blame", there were specific claims of wrongdoing which did not appear so. There were unsupported claims of plagiarism - a blockable offense, mind you - which is why my request not to throw unsupported claims here. Materialscientist (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that your response is framed in terms of "wrongdoing" instead of "lack of review" (you focus on the editor, not the process or content) ... if you don't recall seeing any calls for DYK to "educate" perhaps you can peruse Moonriddengirl's writing on the subject. You will find it in DYK archives, the long ANI subpage, as well as many other places. And plagiarism is a blockable offense when it's repeated in spite of warnings: there's no need to overstate the case for dramatic effect.

So, the discussion here is always diverted away from improving the process (shoot the messenger, deny the documented issues, claim no one ever called for DYK to help educate on plagiarism), and it never seems to relate to what is clearly documented in archives on all of these discussions, nor do the defenders of rewarding cut-and-paste speedy editing with mainpage time ever acknowledge it no matter how well documented. It would be jolly to review DYK next month and find one queue without the recurring issues (non-reliable sources, uncited hooks, hooks unsupported by the citation, copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and nothing done about it-- just a new cast of characters to defend it), or find the Removed hooks declining, or find at least less issues. We are at least seeing less now, since Nikkimaria is catching lots of them, and at least we now have some means of documenting and checking to see if the trend is subsiding, so that is some progress. And we can put to rest that claim from last year that if I would review prep or queue before they went up, that would be appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah! You mean like when Sandy was here making claims of plagiarism that even Moonriddengirl said wasn't? Sandy never did apologise or retract her claim. --LauraHale (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You have a strange way of reading those posts: there's nothing to retract. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The criticism was actually here. Though criticism is too strong a word. Advice is a better word. My point being that Bushranger appears to have responded to that post from you by making the posts here and here. That is not at all clear in the section above, nor on the page in your userspace. This is what I mean about it being difficult to keep track of things across multiple pages. Carcharoth (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you're following the wrong things because you're so worried about blame instead of facts. It's simple-- do you or don't you have a diff where the hook is cited in the article when it was reviewed or when it went on the main page? Stick to the verifiable content facts rather than speculation and blame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a moot point in that story: the IP said that the ref was broken, The Bushranger said he did verify the fact, but can't recall how. If I were in his shoes at that time, I would paste the 404-error link into the wayback machine (a 2-second routine for me) and this would get the correct webpage (because wayback machine also fixes caps problems). Materialscientist (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Why are we going in circles over this small issue from another thread, avoiding the broader issues I've documented? It seems that all paths at T:DYK lead to denials that there's room for improvement rather than discussing ways to educate and improve. It's strange that I should have to do this on this particular talk page, but quoting from the DYK rules (emphasis is original, not inserted by me):

The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it ...

If you did what you said you would do, you would be putting a hook on the mainpage that doesn't comply with DYK's most basic rule (and why on earth would you notice a hook wasn't verified in the article, go elsewhere to verify it, and then still approve the hook without citing the hook?). There is no moot point: do you have a diff showing that the hook met DYK rules at the time it was reviewed? If not, why is this dead horse still being beaten? I just want reviewers to review. Mistakes happen, acknowledge them, move on unless you have a repeat offender (like this sample). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
For whatever little it's worth, while most of my slowdown in contribution (I've never been very prolific) has been due to changes in personal time, I'm willing to state for the record that the atmosphere here makes me extremely reluctant to contribute to DYK nowadays. If I want to submit an article, I'm obliged to do a QPQ review. Fine, that's only fair. I'm reasonably confident I can sport obvious copyvio/plagiarism (e.g., the Victorian-flavored prose in the church article above not in direct quotations). I'm not confident I can spot, say, close paraphrasing from an offline source, and if I miss that and someone else finds it, I'll be touted as an example of a culture-of-copyvio, etc., at DYK.
OK, so maybe the problem is QPQ, and people like me shouldn't be allowed to touch these things, and it should be left in the hands of well-trained reviewers. Fine. Except the way we're "educating" the reviewers, apparently, is to say "You're wrong! Culture of copyvio!" every time someone slips by them. If you're convinced that the regular reviewers are truculent chuckleheads who are failing to check for copyright violations out of spite, then perhaps the 959th repetition will cause the scales to drop from their eyes. If you're open to the possibility that the regulars are well-meaning but doing a poor job, then an explicit effort by people who are good at catching plagiarism to engage them ("This is what made me suspect this, and this is what I looked at to confirm it. Do you see how you could spot this in the future?") would more closely conform to what I would term "education". (And expanding the number of people who are good at spotting copyvio/plagiarism is probably more efficient than trying to dragoon the current people into an increasing quantity of content review.) As it is, all a regular reviewer can expect is to generate a snarky thread here whenever they slip up, which does not seem like a terribly well-designed incentive structure; it bears about as much resemblance to education as Hugh Pigot did to a professor.
I hope the record will show I've contributed to DYK judiciously, when I had a new article I thought might convey something interesting and quirky to the reader (who gets lost a lot in these discussions), and that they haven't been plagiarized or unreliable dreck. But it's just not worth the hassle for me anymore, and I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way. Choess (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Would linking to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing help? Not that I would use it myself; I have always avoided deciding if something is closely paraphrased, or even referenced adequately. Art LaPella (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"Maybe you're following the wrong things", I would like you to look at a few notes on attitude which help(ed) me a lot, thanks Materialscientist, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You don't find Sharktopus's attitude concerning? Some of that might help nominators, reviewers, and prep composers if you could get them to read it, but the problem on this talk page is that when all parties (being other parties who don't support the status quo) "think of ... the project in general" (ie the quality of what we're putting on the mainpage and whether we're enabling poor editing practices), the messenger is shot by the defenders of the status quo at DYK. Done here-- the monthly denial has run its course, but progress is occurring in ever-too-slow bits and pieces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I miss Sharktopus here, too, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Death of Wang Yue (Q2)

It seems inappropriate to give a Christian bibliocentric clichéd name too a proposed Chinese law. The proposal is not, as I read the article, for a China-wide law: it would more accurately be described as a proposal for a bystanders' intervention law in Guangdong, China. Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Good Samaritan law" is a general term for these kinds of laws, it's not just something a Wikipedia editor made up. No one is "giving it a name", just describing what kind of law is being discussed, using a term that readers are likely to understand (unlike "bystanders' intervention law", which as far as I can tell is an ad hoc term and which isn't going to help readers understand what the hook is about). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:NewDYKnomination

When I click the "Create nomination" button, I get a preloaded {{NewDYKnomination}} with many missing parameters, including the necessary |status= parameter. How can the preloaded list of parameters be modified to include this parameter? Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • If I remember correctly, the new/expanded parameter was deprecated as it was felt that reviewers could figure it out themselves. Sound and video are there but almost never used (never seen them used), so they aren't preloaded. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Fussball-Bundesliga clubs eliminated from the DFB-Pokal by amateur sides

This article is currently listed at Preparation area 4. I have corrected several typing/spelling errors but I have marked the article as a candidate for copyedit as some of the tone is not IMHO appropriate; e.g. what does the sentence "From the start, the new match ups Bundesliga versus amateurs, most usually third division clubs, became a source of surprises" in para. 3 actually mean? Phrases such as "Hertha BSC suffered the ultimate humiliation when it lost at home to amateurs . . ." and "Bayern Munich became a reliable source of cup surprises . . . " need re-wording to become more neutral. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed notification template

DYK can get better and accountability here can improve via recordkeeping like at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed, but it could be better if there were a standard template for notifying nominators and reviewers when problems are detected. As far as I can tell, when a reviewer has passed a faulty hook, we don't have any standard, well written, polite way of guiding them towards better reviewing and knowledge of the DYK rules. I'm not the person to write such a thing-- it would be grand if someone could. I'm thinking of something along the lines of {{FAC withdrawn}}. (This was not optimal, and methinks someone here can come up with something that will help improve reviews without offending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a standardized template might cause more offence than it alleviated. I'm seeing more and more invocation of "don't template the regulars," and those subject to QPQ clearly fall under that definition of "regulars." Also there's a whole range of things one might wish to say about someone's review, from "I'm not sure you understood the topic of this article" through "You seem to have had an off day in this instance" to "Please take another look at this nomination; you appear to have missed a lot." Too many variables and gradations for a template, IMO. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Why not something completely neutral then, to the effect of "just letting you know" to have a look at the subpage? There's nothing to bring a reviewer back to the page once it's been approved (unless they keep it watchlisted), so no way to let them know to correct their misses. It should be possible to do it neutrally, and DTTR applies more to warnings, not notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The current template for alerting DYK nominators of any issues is pretty neutral "Hello! Your submission of 'article' at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ", I don't think that I would be offended by something like that. Mikenorton (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Could we not get something similar for inviting reviewers to re-visit, re-engage, or re-review their review? I tried to do it myself from the FAC withdrawn template, but don't speak the language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that something like that could be produced, after discussion of the wording here, but I'm afraid that I don't speak template either. My suggestion would be "Thank you for your review of 'article' at the [link to nomination template|Did You Know nominations page]]. There are still some issues concerning this nomination that may need to be clarified, please respond there as soon as possible". Mikenorton (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mikenorton-- I figured out how to do it by copying from {{FACClosed}} (the FAC withdrawn template was complicated when other processes adopted it, so it has more variables).

Template:DYKReviewNote has one variable for the nom page, which from this:

  • {{subst:DYKReviewNote|African Wildlife Foundation}}

would produce this:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK Nom Florya Atatürk Marine Mansion

User:TonyTheTiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) complaints in relation to my DYK Nom Florya Atatürk Marine Mansion. Can someone help and advise what to do since I am not aware of what is messed up. CeeGee (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I've fixed the mistake you made. For next time, please read the instructions at the top of the page. In short:
  1. Create a subpage using the form at the top (the bar where it says to create the nomination there)
  2. Fill in the automatically generated template. Save
  3. Transclude the nomination by putting {{Did you know nominations/Florya Atatürk Marine Mansion}} or whatever your nomination's title is in the subsection on T:TDYK, at the top of the section. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Joshua_L._Goldberg

Very interesting DYK, but full of spelling and format errors. PumpkinSky talk 12:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to correct some of them. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and the DYK criteria do not include criteria for spelling or formatting. If you believe they should, you should start a poll. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I did fix several of them. SOYOUFIXIT. If you guys want to promote articles with sloppy spelling and formatting, that reflects poorly on you, not me. PumpkinSky talk 15:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, the DYK criteria do not include anything requiring that an article be free of spelling errors. I'm not sure what you mean to accomplish by reporting an article that doesn't meet criteria we don't have, unless you think we should add new criteria. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Poppy Factory

It would be nice to get this on the Main Page for Remembrance Sunday. Does it qualify? What would I need to do? -- Ferma (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I worked the templates out. Anything else to do? Remembrance Sunday is 13 November this year - this coming weekend. -- Ferma (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look and note that the article needs inline citations, at least one per paragraph and one supporting the hook fact at the end of the relevant sentence(s). Mikenorton (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
More general: at the top of the nominations there are three links to detailed instructions, very helpful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Zangar has helped out substantially here, adding some additional information and footnotes.

What can we do to push this through the process for Sunday? -- Ferma (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's now on P4. Pls move to Q1 for Remembrance Sunday on 13 November as appropriate. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Poppy Factory again

I've reviewed and passed the nomination for Poppy Factory. I've suggested an alternate hook but leave the choice between that and the original up to the promoting admin. The creator nominated the article in the hope of its appearing this Sunday, 13 November, as that is when Remembrance Day is observed in the UK. But I haven't moved it to the special occasions area because many Commonwealth countries still observe the original date, 11 November. Is there any way this could be fast-tracked and go up tomorrow? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I second this, just to make sure we get some fast action on this, to put it in for one of the above days. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Since it missed going up today (very short notice, but I thought it was worth asking), I've just moved it to the Special Occasions Holding Area; could whoever assembles the preps that will go up on November 13 please tuck it into one? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I've just added some images. Thirding the requests above for this to go into a queue on Sunday, ideally the one that spans the 11am GMT time-slot when the silence is held on Remembrance Sunday. Today was Armistice Day, which is what was originally (and is still) observed in the UK, with Remembrance Sunday being the Sunday closest to Armistice Day (except when the two fall on the same day). So either is acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It's now on P4. Pls move to Q1 for Remembrance Sunday on 13 November as appropriate. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Old nominations awaiting review - 12 Nov

The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks and have yet to receive a comment:

violet/riga [talk] 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow

Just a query. How did the template nominations grow so big? Simply south...... "time, department skies" for 5 years 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it's so that new reviewers (doing QPQ reviews) will see the criteria. Or maybe it was added there when the gynormous nomination checklist was removed. Either way, it seems to be attempting to address the problem of reminding new editors who review a nomination because of the QPQ requirement to know what they're expected to review and where to find more info. (A simpler solution to the QPQ problem would be to eliminate QPQ reviewing, but that proposal has gone nowhere.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean? What's big? The wikitext? The edit notice? The instructions? rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I meant the area where the nominations were, dating beack as far as the start of October under the Old Discussions section. Normally I'm used to seeing only an extra week. Simply south...... "time, department skies" for 5 years 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a backlog. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Q1

Poppy factory

Use of the indefinite article renders this as a common name, not a proper name, so it shouldn't be capitalised. It might be plausible to have The Poppy Factory, if there is evidence that that abbreviated name is in use (although I don't see such evidence): a Poppy Factory however cannot be correct. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article it is clear that there are two separate places called Poppy Factory, and this is one of them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please don't take an insolent approach. I did look at the article, and there are no places whose name is simply "The Poppy Factory". Furthermore, that is not the point that I made: my point is that the indefinite article is inconsistent with a proper noun. Kevin McE (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Not always. "'Malachi' isn't a weird name! I roomed with a Malachi in college." rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
In this context, it is. Kevin McE (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless the two factories are part a company, i.e, The Poppy Factory, which they don't seem to be, it should be a lower case "f". Truthkeeper (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
But that would imply that the produce of the factory commands a capital letter in its own right. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. There doesn't seem to be a reason for poppy to capitalized. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two factories that produce remembrance poppies, one in England and one in Scotland. Each is commonly called the Poppy Factory (with capitals). -- Ferma (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


Aerial victory

This appears to be an extraordinarily ill-defined term. There is no attempt to define it in the linked article, nor is it explicit in the article on Fraissinet. The article Aerial victory standards of World War I starts with the words During World War I, the national air services involved developed their own methods of assessing and assigning credit for aerial victories. Thus our hook is unclear. Suggest ... that Jean Alfred Fraissinet, who had a part in the destruction of eight German planes during the First World War, was elected to the National Assembly of France in 1958? Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Its meaning seems pretty obvious in the DYK article, Jean Alfred Fraissinet. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
An aerial victory has no universal defined meaning: why use a phrase that is equivocal in preference to one that is explicit and clear? Kevin McE (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone who clicks the article will see quite easily what is being referred to. The point of a DYK hook is to get people to look at the article. There is nothing inaccurate or deliberately misleading in the hook. You may want to take a look at User:Balloonman/DYK hooks. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
One should not have to go investigating to find out what the things in an encyclopaedia mean. That defeats the point of an encyclopaedia. As is clear from Aerial victory standards of World War I, there is a variety of standards that comprise an "aerial victory", and so the hook is ambiguous. What is wrong with a hook that is clear and explicit? Kevin McE (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
From the link: French victory confirmation standards were strict. Credit was given only for the destruction of an enemy aircraft, and the destruction had to be witnessed an independent witness, such as an artillery observer, infantryman, or another pilot. Pretty straightforwards. However, I do see the point, since some of the kills were shared - I've changed the wording to "...credited with eight aerial victories..." including a link to the standards page. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
An improvement, but we still have a phrase (aerial victory) that is not in common usage, linked to an article that doesn't define or explain it. I'd ask again: why use a phrase that is equivocal in preference to one that is explicit and clear? Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
"Aerial victory" is in common useage - the only term more common is "kills" and that would be less explict I'd think. I did try to find a more appropriate link, but Aerial victory doesn't exist, and Shoot Down is something completely different...Flying ace isn't the best link, I'll admit, but it does mention the term in the lede (the actual number of air victories required...) in a fashion that makes it clear how the term is related and what it's referring to, I think. (Also, we don't know that all the kills Fraissinet had were German - it's WP:COMMONSENSE but you can't 100% rule out Austro-Hungarian aircraft.) It also makes it clear that, by his number of aerial victories, Fraissinet was considered a World War One Flying Ace. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The light bulb went off after my last comment there - I made a very slight tweak to the way the link was presented (from eight aerial victories to eight aerial victories), that makes it clearer I think. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that the population within which the phrase has been in common use in the last 60 years or more is negligible, and would not include most main page readers, but whatever... Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
George Spencer

Surely this man's misfortune was that the piglet was thought to look like him. Even if he had fathered the animal, it is not normal to say that a father looks like his young child, but the reverse would be a common observation. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That's overly pedantic - if A looks like B then B looks like A. Reversing the wording would lessen the impact of the hook. There are alternatives on the nomination page if you care to look at those. violet/riga [talk] 15:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not overly pedantic: it is the way the language is used. Trying to twist the language to serve the purposes of a hook is unworthy of an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's pedantic, for the reason violetriga pointed out. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Answer the point that I made, otherwise this is simply a !vote, and we don't do those. Kevin McE (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
If you believe that we can't 'twist' the language then you really don't understand the beauty of the English language. The hook is fine. I await your verdict on the alternatives that were suggested. violet/riga [talk] 17:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Kevin: I simply don't agree that this is twisting language or that it's inconsistent with the way language is used. To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty sure you just go through the queues every day trying to see how many things you can challenge, without stopping to think about whether the hooks are actually problematic. Do you really think this hook is misleading, or are you just challenging it for challenge's sake? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from petty personal prejudices. Yes: I do believe that this hook is problematic, as is the prejudice of some at this talk page that anything that has emerged from the tiny coterie involved in mutual support at T:TDYK has some sort of assumption of preferability. The hook is misleading anyway: even in C17 Connecticut, looking like an animal was not, per se, a capital offence: he was executed because he was believed to have engaged in bestiality. Kevin McE (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
This is not a "personal prejudice". I'm merely pointing out the impression your behavior has given me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Because of the similarity between him and the stillborn animal it was assumed that he committed a crime. He was therefore executed because he looked like a deformed piglet. Shall I now ask a third time for your opinion about the alt hooks or am I just wasting my time? violet/riga [talk] 19:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
He was executed for having committing bestiality and the one-eyed piglet was considered God's proof of the act. This is according to the source. I'd suggest rewriting the hook. Note: I've removed material cited to the source but not in the source and now the hook doesn't match the source (which was being misrepresented) so it should probably be pulled. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that the original wording was wrong because one thing led to the other. However, I have reworded the hook to satisfy the quibble. violet/riga [talk] 19:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Far more accurate: thank you. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that it's on the main page - FYI. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Review the oldest!!!

There is a hook that was nominated on the 10th and is already in a prep area! Meanwhile, there are some two weeks old that have not been touched! I think if people would review from the back, the oldest nomination would be from October 30th or so. That's my two cents. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 03:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Did three of them yesterday on the list of older nominations. Would be nice to see articles moved to the prep area faster so we could see unreviewed ones easier, but sometimes, they get missed. Easy to happen when you get a nomination squished between two noms that have a lot of issues. --LauraHale (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for rule clarification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is that the proposed wording change is rejected. There is unanimous agreement that articles that consist largely of public domain material do not qualify for DYK. There is general (but not unanimous) agreement that short snippets of verbatim text from public domain sources, as in quotations, may be acceptable. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings all, I was wondering if we could clarify current rule 1e, which states "Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience." At Template:Did you know nominations/African Wildlife Foundation, an issue has been raised that this rule does not permit inclusion of any free data, including (in this case) data which consists of less than 25% of the article, whereas the article itself is well over the DYK minimum. From my understanding of the current debate, there are two main positions:

  1. That any and all inclusion of information from free data sources without paraphrasing fails 1e
  2. That inclusion of information from free data sources without paraphrasing is permissible under 1e, provided that the information does not make up the majority of the article and the remaining original text is greater than the minimum length requirements.

As such, in the interest of avoiding further disagreements I humbly request that the community give feedback regarding the spirit of the rule, which currently appears rather ambiguous. Although these are not formal suggestions, if the community decides that position one is the spirit of the rule, then it should be reworded to something similar to "Nominations should be original work (not include any information from free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience." If position two is decided to be closer to the spirit of the rule, then a wording like "Nominations should be original work (not include an abundance of information from free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience", with a supplementary guideline decided by the community as to how much free information is allowed.

Thank you for reading, and I hope we can come to a consensus. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat here what I just wrote in that subpage: we want better content, if it is achieved by proper use of PD texts - fine. We do not want editors to play silly games of removing (or not adding) a PD-based section so that the article passes the DYK check and then re-adding it after - our readers will not benefit from that. Thus we should allow any "abnormal" additions (PD texts or texts from other WP articles) and count the expansion by subtracting them. I believe our current rule of "5x expand whatever you borrow from other WP articles" is also detrimental, for the same reason. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that "play[ing] silly games" is generally a problem, but does that mean we tailor our approach to pander to those who play these games? Your argument on that point seems flawed - should we remove the "no copyvio" rule in case someone removes it just so the article passes and then reinstates it? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a flaw - adding attributed PD text or part of other wikipedia articles does comply with WP policies, adding copyvio does not, no matter the DYK process. Materialscientist (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
And no matter the process involved or its requirements, gaming the system does not comply with WP policies. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Correct, and "my" proposal aims to reduce the chances of it. Please keep in mind that we are discussing DYK policies - general WP policies stay above that and should be regulated and enforced by other means. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
And I argue that that approach is wrong-headed - we shouldn't be relaxing our rules to make deliberately contravening WP policy (gaming) less appealing, we should be addressing gaming through proper channels when it occurs. It is incumbent upon the contributor to not act in bad faith, not on us to remove all temptation. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Crisco, your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the difference between "information from free data sources" and "verbatim copying/very close paraphrasing of free data sources". The former, if properly cited and paraphrased, is unproblematic. The latter is a problem because it is quite clearly not original work, as the rule requires. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This thread aims to decide whether it is a problem - this is entirely up to the project (house rule). The requirement on minimum original text required from a DYK nom remains the same. Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree as to whether or not I am misunderstanding the rules. When I read the rules (present tense), I read them like MSC explained at the nomination page; the content should not exclusively be copied from free information sources. If historically this is what is meant by the rule, then by all means it should be clarified in the rule as written.
The DYK criteria naturally have to fall in line with general Wikipedia policies and guidelines; one of them being that PD or CC-BY/CC-BY-SA text is able to be copied, with attribution. This exists in numerous long standing articles, such as Bone state, and is in accordance with the copyright and plagiarism policies/guidelines. If DYK consensus is that free text should not be accepted in any way, shape or form, that is still within policy; the same holds true if the consensus goes the other way. It is a matter of consensus within the DYK project / community.
Naturally, copyvios and extensive close paraphrasing are beyond the pale and should be addressed with a vengeance. However, for free sources there is quite a bit more leg room. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Adding that does clarify things, as without it your original post was wrong. However, you are incorrect to assert that DYK criteria "naturally have to fall in line" with WP guidelines; we can't contravene policy, obviously, but we can assert higher standards than the policy baseline - and in fact we do so on a number of levels, for example in our minimum length requirement, which is not policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree: DYK is meant to highlight new work. Wikipedia does allow verbatim copies of public domain material that is accurate, neutral, uses modern language, and is properly attributed, formatted and wikified, but we don't want people nominating articles for DYK that are mostly just copies of PD content. On the other hand, editors should be able to nominate articles that include some verbatim PD material if the material is well written and the source is reliable and independent. I would go with the proposed wording, but suggest rather than "does not make up the majority of the article..." it could be "makes up less than 25% of the article..." Aymatth2 (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "DYK is meant to highlight new work" - exactly. Copying PD content is not new work. I apologize if it feels like I'm picking on you here, as your nom was more closely in line with policy than most that include PD text and you've been quite responsive to concerns, but the fact remains that the rules as currently written specify original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • An article assembles, arranges and presents information on a subject. The organization may not be particularly original: on some types of subject we encourage a standard structure that is widely used in other reference works. Some parts may not be very original, for example an alphabetical list of islands in a group: mere facts. Quotations are acceptable within reason. PD material may be reproduced verbatim if properly attributed. To qualify as "new work" for DYK purposes most of the article should be written in the editor's own words. It is not reasonable to insist on 100% if that forces the editor into dodges that detract from the article quality. Crisco is proposing a reasonable clarification. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Exactly. If, for example, we are going to write an article on a US court decision, naturally there will be verbatim copying of PD text. Changing the meaning of what is written even in the slightest will cause it to misrepresent the subject (just like a law, a little semantic change can have big effects). This should not disqualify such articles.
Regarding the extent allowed, I was also considering 25%; however, that will likely require a separate decision if it is decided that the rule means minimal copying of PD text. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of which way this issue is clarified, there's a separate wrinkle to be accounted for in the decision: many reviewers currently do not check all sources for copyvio, close paraphrasing, or reliable sources. (QPQ reviewing may be part of the problem, and there is no template for notifying those reviewers how they may improve, but there is still an alarming amount escaping review-- four to five DYKs shouldn't still be found in one day in queue considering the attention now focused on the problem). Content expansion is sometimes based on non-reliable sources; I don't understand why some reviewers fail to check for that, but neither do I understand why some reviewers don't check all sources for copyvio when it's usually apparent from reading the article.

So by allowing even some portion of PD text, how will we know if the expansion criterion is met when reviewers won't typically do a thorough enough review to check the prose size of PD vs non-PD text? The expansion criterion ia already too easily gamed with non-reliable sources and copyvio/plagiarism/cut-and-paste/close paraphrasing, and reviewers don't always check for these, so how will we also assure they are checking for PD vs non-PD?

To Rjanag, to avoid responding off-topic on the African Wildlife Foundation subpage, cut-and-paste editing of PD text in ship articles (DANFS) is an old problem, well discussed at FAC after the Halloween 2010 FA debacle that followed on the DYK-inspired copyvio concerns. If that has occurred since November 2010, please let me know on my talk which ship FAR you are referring to. FAC can't prevent ship article authors from defending the practice, but without knowing which article you're referring to, it seems that was resolved at FAR from what you say. I don't think that discussion belongs on the African Wildlife Foundation DYK subpage, but the issue at the FAC level is that cut-and-paste content can't be "Wikipedia's best work" and shouldn't be featured on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it was a much bigger problem in Geology FAs that used USGS PD sources, that was a well-accepted practice until November 2010, and to my knowledge, those FAs have been cleaned up since the Halloween debacle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

Selection criterion 1e) in the guideline for this template says "Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience". The first clause can be interpreted as "original, not simply inclusions" or as "no inclusions allowed". The second clause implies that DYK is for readers, not just for editors. If DYK were only for readers, when we found an source of excellent and encyclopedic public domain material we might simply publish their articles with thanks and acknowledgement. But "excellent" is hard to define and allowing articles that simply reproduce public domain material is risky. At the other extreme, prohibiting any verbatim use of material from other sources, even when that is what best serves our readers, may also be unreasonable. Crisco's suggestion attempts to strike a balance. Let's do a straw poll. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"1e) Nominations should be original work (not include an abundance of information from free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience".
  • Support. For reasons stated above. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 'Abundance' is hopelessly vague here and will lead to more arguments. My view of 1e is that it means a new article shouldn't be 100% copied verbatim from older public domain sources (like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica articles and the 1903 DNB articles). Anything other than that requires judgement on the part of the article writer, nominator and reviewer. Some articles benefit from quotes or paraphrasing of freely licensed (or public domain) sources. Others don't. This should be tackled on a case-by-case basis, not generalised. The only general rule of thumb is that articles copied 100% verbatim from a single freely licensed source will need rewriting. Anything else requires discussion, especially if the freely licensed source text is from a modern reliable authority. The current wording is fine. Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support with the caveat that "an abundance" should have a rule of thumb definition, as I suggested above. The suggested 25% above sounds okay, but that's another discussion. I agree completely with Carcharoth insofar as articles which are entirely copied and pasted from PD sources should be ineligible. However, if we do this on a case-by-case basis then we get several respected editors with different interpretations of 1e, arguing about how much is too much. The African Wildlife Foundation nomination shows that this could be a bone of contention between editors, which results in unproductive Mexican standoffs. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - change creates more problems than it solves (will likely expand on this later). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Makes a confusing system more confusing. To open to interpretation for what it means. --LauraHale (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This would not be a simple rule to follow for either nominators or reviewers. There is a case for the inclusion of small amounts of material from PD sources in some articles (assuming that they are properly attributed), but that can be discussed on an individual basis without changing the rule. The aim should be to have no verbatim material at all in my view. Mikenorton (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose on two grounds: Firstly, however much of a problem one thinks it is, it's not the source of information that's the problem, it's the use of wording by others. I would support the first half of the proposal if it were changed from "information" to "wording." Although I think "not include an abundance" could usefully be changed to "not consist for the most part of". I don't think text taken from other sources should count toward the minimum length requirement whether it's in quotation marks or not. Secondly, interest is hopelessly subjective and specifying "a wide audience" makes the problem worse by requiring one to imagine what might interest a hypothetical average person. In any case no such creature exists. Cut it back to "and should be interesting" and let reviewers and nominators fight it out in doubtful cases, which is what already happens anyway. Or if we used to have wording that makes clear that "interesting" does not mean "personally interesting to the reviewer," return to that wording. We have had some hooks at DYK that bored me silly, but I think Tony1's critiques of interestingness revealed nothing so clearly as that his taste differs from others' . . . as I am the first to admit, does mine . . . and that therefore neither of us and by extension none of us can presume to speak for "a wide audience." Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2011 (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.

Female impersonator

I may be the only one who didn't know what a female impersonator is (now last hook prep3). If not I recommend a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I inserted the link. But I must say that you lead a sheltered existence! --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
In German, yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

quid for quo

Ok, I've asked this before, but basically these days, I nominate an article once in awhile so I'm not keeping up with the latest developments - are we still doing Q4Q or did it get scrapped? If it's still in effect, can we please put a notice somewhere in the nomination process which alerts the nominator to that effect (if there is one and I missed it, can we make it more prominent)? Otherwise I'm going to follow the assumption that unless it tells me explicitly and obviously somewhere that Q4Q is still a requirement, it isn't. Volunteer Marek  01:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's still required; see Selection criteria number 5. There shouldn't really be any ambiguity about it, as the nomination template has a line for it: "| reviewed = If you reviewed another article before listing this DYK nomination, put it here. Otherwise leave this blank." What I find odd, though, is that when you leave this line blank, there's nothing prompting a reviewer to check whether a nominator has a QPQ requirement or not. It would be much better, in my opinion, if the template produced one of the possible four outputs:
  • I have reviewed such and such, or
  • I have yet to review another nomination, or
  • I don't have to review another nomination because I have nominated somebody else's article, or
  • I don't have to review another nomination because I have not had 5 DYKs myself.
Just my thoughts; this might well help with the backlog. This might well have been discussed before, but I gave up watching this page a long time ago. Schwede66 03:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
If someone wants to add that feel free to work on it. I won't be on-wiki much for the next several weeks, and even if I am I'm feeling a bit jaded about working on this stuff now. Even if we add such options to the |reviewed= parameter, good luck getting anyone to actually look at the instructions and fill them out properly. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Time between updates

We have 282 noms (104 approved) at the moment, which means we have to reduce the time between updates, perhaps first to 8 hours. I'm going off-line now, and thus don't want to make a rushed change, but I believe it has to be done very soon. Materialscientist (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but we'll need to step up the pace on prep areas and queues! --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree too. Will try to help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Gosh yes, it's way past time for increasing the cycle! I've been on an enforced wikibreak for the last month, looks like there's been a bit of neglect here, that's a shame, I was hoping some new people would have stepped up by now. It really should be a six-hour cycle with nearly 300 submissions, but of course that's going to mean a little more work for updaters. Gatoclass (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
.. this was the reason I haven't changed the cycle yesterday - we had no prepared sets and I couldn't make one. I've changed the cycle from 12 to 8h (not 6 for the same reason - lack of sets) forcing the bot to update now and keep in synch with UTC 0:00 (well, I was a minute late, delaying the bot by 5 min, but he should autoerase this margin soon :-). Materialscientist (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Goodness me, the outstanding submissions stretch right back to October 7! That is really unacceptable. We need to attract some new blood to this project, or get some former contributors to return, we could start by adding a request for assistance to the next Signpost. In the meantime I will try to prepare a few sets and perhaps review some submissions. I haven't done anything today because I've been too busy catching up on various other tasks since getting a net connection back today. Nice to see you at least are still helping out MatSci :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Most of those very old noms are submissions that stayed on the noms page after a reviewer found serious problems (sometimes after somebody else approved them) and while reviewers and nominators continue to try to resolve the issues. This is more common than it used to be, as a result of more rigorous review than existed here historically. It is safe to assume that several of the "approved" noms in the noms count will never make it to the main page, and a higher fraction of the unapproved noms will never get there. --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you really sure?

... that the upcoming commercial video game Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is based on a free game modification? - I'm going with community consensus here. I even had someone move it out of the prep areas yesterday at my behest for being too advertisy/spammy. But are you really sure? Cause if so I will leave it in there. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It does look kind of advertorial to me. I'd probably pull it until there were at least some reviews of the game. Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I've moved it to Prep1 for now awaiting more input. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
This nom has bounced around quite a bit by now: Template:Did you know nominations/Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. There apparently are no reviews of the game, which has not yet been released; the article is mostly about the game's innards and development. Thus, a hook that (1) emphasizes technical aspects of the game and (2) has a minimum of brand names and advert words like "upcoming" seems best. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Excellent solution. I've changed the hook to ALT2 now. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page

Hi, can we move the hook for Help Me Anthea, I'm Infested in Q1 to the last position, as it better fulfils the "funny or quirky hook" suggestion in J3 of the Supplementary guidelines. Also we might want to think about rearranging the other Q hooks, as I don't feel it's that great to end on a hook about concentration camps (even if it is the survival of), as in Q3. Thanks Zangar (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Help Me Anthea, I'm Infested hook is now on the main page. Zangar (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Princeton/Penn (Q3)

When listing them as rivals, it needs to be Princeton and Penn (not or); suggest ...that one or other of men's basketball rivals Princeton and Penn won the Ivy League regular season all but two years between 1963 and 2007? Kevin McE (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. BencherliteTalk 19:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Double Dutch (Q2)

While I would not be surprised to hear that many Dutch singers perform in other languages, is there really any merit in clarifying that a group with an obviously Dutch name who have a Dutch lead singer sing in the national language: Dutch. Kevin McE (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I also removed the wikilink to "melody" in another hook. BencherliteTalk 20:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Formatting...

Ok, I've put this in prep and attempted to mark as promoted but something's not happening...? Template:Did you know nominations/Mexican tea culture. Any ideas? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the third time I've seen this happen. One person tries without any errors and it doesn't work. Another tries and it does. Very odd. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Cas, you didn't subst: it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
aaah, thanks all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of interest, if that's what happened; why did it have the template up the top with subst written in it? I swear these templates have a mind of their own. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 04:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
"subst:" has to be written in the wikitext (the edit window). The "subst:" that you were seeing is something different (it's another template within the main template). To make a long story short, if there are templates inside templates, subst'ing the inner templates doesn't work unless the outer templates are also subst'ed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Christmas-themed articles for DYK

Back in 2009, Mindmatrix posted a list of potential DYK's for Christmas. I found it extremely helpful, and I'm sure others did, so I've gone back to that list to see which articles could still be a good case for expansion for DYK and also to add a few I've found myself. Anyone is free to grab any articles off this list to work on, all I ask is that if you do, please strikethrough the article so that we don't get a couple of separate editors working on them in userspace etc. And of course, feel free to add other suitable articles.

Food related: Sugar plum, Rosette (pastry), Bûche de Noël, Peppermint bark, Szaloncukor, Awwamaat, Banket (food), Bethmännchen, Boiled custard, Bolo Rei, Bread sauce, Bredela, Christmas ham, Rumtopf, Magenbrot - those are just for starters, there are loads in Category:Christmas food

Non food: Père Noël, Old Man Winter, Krampus, Tree topper, Suzy Snowflake, Santa Claus rally, Santa Claws, North Pole depot, North Pole Stream, Reindeer Island, Santa Claus (horse), Schwibbogen, Räuchermann, Pasterka, Operation Christmas Drop, Orphan's Christmas, Mettenschicht, Misa de Gallo, Cavalcade of Magi (actually better for Jan 5), Carol service, Ashen faggot, Jingle bell - those are just a highlight, there are plenty more in Category:Christmas traditions and it's subcategories.

Have fun! Miyagawa (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I plan to add at least two new Bach cantatas for Christmas (3 red links left there). - Hint: the one for next Sunday (BWV 89) appeared already, the one for last Sunday (BWV 98) didn't even receive a review yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Error in Q1

Aussenkehr already appeared on the main page on 15 November 2011. --Pgallert (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaced. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Prep1

... that Nag Hammadi Codex XIII is the only surviving copy of the Trimorphic Protennoia, and early Christian Gnostic text?

Is the and grammatical? And if yes, what does that last phrase mean? --Pgallert (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That should be "an". I'll correct it now. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter Percival (Q6)

Neither of the sources cited in the article specify that the translation was from the King James Bible. I suspect that this would have been what an English Methodist missionary of that era would have used, but it is not for us to surmise. Suggest delete words King James. Kevin McE (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask how you've seen them? Do you own the books? I can't see it so I'm just wondering. It was a case of AGF on the sources and the lead says King James. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Following the links in the article. With Google Books, you don't need to simply AGF, you can check it for yourself. Kevin McE (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added a cite to a ref available in GoogleBooks that makes it clear that the translation was based on the authorised version of 1611 (aka the King James Bible). Mikenorton (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
That reference makes it clearer that the words King James should be removed: "They produced the Jaffna Version, based on the English Authorised Version of 1611 but made from Greek and Hebrew originals, and from Rhenius." Kevin McE (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
OK but could reword it to "to produce a translation of the Bible into Tamil based on the Authorised Version?". Mikenorton (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Why the enthusiasm to bring KJV into it? He was evidently a Greek/Hebrew scholar to some extent: the Jaffna version was a translation, not a translation of a translation. Simply delete the words King James: the hook is still interesting enough. Kevin McE (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
For the record, Google books would only let me look up to page 34 before it said my preview was denied. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Kit Mueller (Q6)

These piranhas were pets in his home: it was a domestic accident, not a school one. Kevin McE (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it should read "that although his high school basketball career was nearly ended by an accident with piranhas, Kit Mueller is second in Princeton basketball history in points and assists?" On a related note, did he kick the aquarium? Somehow his foot went through the glass, and I don't think he would put a tank on the floor or try to stand on one. Froggerlaura (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Done! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Credits

Is the credit bot malfunctioning? The current set has one hook I worked on and another I nominated, but I only got tagged for the first. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is probably a case of human error. The page history for that queue shows only one credit for you. Which article are you missing credit for? --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it was simply a human error. The DYKnom for For the Moment (film) was on the page when it was promoted, but didn't make it to Prep. I've gone ahead and manually taken care of the credit. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Time Running Short on a DYK Special Date Request

Hi, I was hoping to get Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Cottle on to DYK in the next 48 hours. The reviewer expressed 1 concern last week, which I believe I addressed. Could someone take over the review? OCNative (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Special occasions holding area

Question for the technical gurus of DYK: Would it be possible to include the special occasions holding area in the list at Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count‎ and teach the bot to update it so that it would appear on the DYK queue page? This would be helpful for tracking the true number of hooks on the noms page, as well as reminding us to move special occasion hooks to the prep areas. --Orlady (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Queue 1 article up for deletion

Clover Food Lab in Queue 1 has been nominated for deletion. —Bruce1eetalk 05:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. :-) Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Conference India hook

Could someone please take a look at this again? I'm happy to fudge the queues around but I just want to be doubly, triply, not-just-going-by-my-own-judgement sure. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done I don't think this nom is ready to go. --Pgallert (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done Should be fine now. Not the best DYK of all times, though. --Pgallert (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Queue6

I might be wrong here, but it was always my understanding that one of the more developed articles gets picked for the lead position. That wouldn't be true to the Hyde Park-Kenwood Historic District article, which feels quite stubby (in fact, it even displays a stub tag). Schwede66 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I just had another look and the stub tag was gone. Doesn't count as such in my book anyhow. I've never come across that particular rule but would be happy to move another picture up there if it's appropriate. The hook and image were approved though so I don't want to jump the gun. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The stub label was on the talk page, not the article. DYKcheck reports that as a problem. I just now upgraded it to "start". However, I agree that the article is rather lame. There's a wealth of additional information in one of the cited sources regarding the history and signficance of the district. --Orlady (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there was also a stub on the article, and it was still there until I removed it a moment ago. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
@ Panyd - it's not a 'rule', I just understood it as common practice. Schwede66 03:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I asked TonytheTiger to expand it a bit, but he's pretty busy. I'm never sure whether a request for further expansion is grounds to hold back a nom or not. The Interior (Talk) 04:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Rule 2c: "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I moved it down to Prep 4 and asked Tony if he'd be willing for the article to run without the image. That way it wouldn't be the lead. Sound ok to everyone? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So. Much. Sports.

Can we have a few queues where we have two sports hooks? It's just that at the moment there is a giant backlog mostly consisting of sports hooks and I've been loathe to put more than one of them in every prep area (unless anyone else says it's ok!). PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes, if that is the best way to even them out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Wiki Conference India

Hello, Review of this nomination is done. According to hook ...that the three day Wiki Conference India is running from 18th to 20th of November at the University of Mumbai? , it should be on main page either 19th or 20th. So please try to make it ASAP. Thanks in advance. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 19:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's on Q6 now and scheduled to get on MainPage in less than 4 hours. (I didn't do it....) --PFHLai (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This shouldn't have gone on the mainpage. It's brazen by the organizers to use the mainpage to advertise their event, especially as the sources were rather flimsy. There should be a mechanism at DYK to prevent such abuse of DYK that casts doubts about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and resulted in at least one legitimate article not be featured on the mainpage. Pantherskin (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Special occasions timing requires switching hook into Queue 6 or Queue 1

Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Cottle has now been passed and was requested for Nov 18 or the morning of Nov 19, California time (see section a little above). That leaves Queue 6 or Queue 1 and requires an admin to switch it in in place of a hook currently queued up. I've moved it to a special occasions holding area and request the switch be made. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is now on Q1 for the Big Game (football). --PFHLai (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Yngvadottir, for making the request for the switch, and thanks to PFHLai for making the switch. Your work is much appreciated! OCNative (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

2011_Halloween_nor'easter (Q3)

Deliberately ambiguous, to the point of being misleading, in use of phrase "lost power". The article speaks of millions of people having their electricity supply compromised: no encyclopaedic is served by picking out Christie uniquely. We're not a cheap tabloid that relies on puns to form our headlines: let's not do it here. Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I edited it. --Orlady (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Froze-to-Death Mountain (Q4)

"weather can change to snow at any time of year ": not if it is already snowing it can't make such a change. A very odd phraseology that is not in the source. Suggest ... that snowfall is possible at any time of year on Froze-to-Death Mountain? Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I edited it. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Romania articles and December 1

As we speak, I am working hard (and have persuaded others to work hard) on getting some articles on Romania's WWI era ready for DYK, in the hope that they would form a special queue, or even two queues, on December 1. That being Romania's national holiday. I am not saying that we ought to be doing this this way, but it would be nice if I would at least get some comment on that before the articles I create for that purpose are moved to random queues. At this point, Romanian Volunteer Corps in Russia was moved, just like that, to Prep 2: I specified on the nomination page that I would have appreciated it if this went front page on December 1, and the reviewer (User:Piotrus) endorsed that project. But there was no comment, the hook was simply promoted and picked up, to the bottom of a random queue...

Is there any resistance to the concept, or was my request simply not noticed? I would appreciate some feedback, even if you don't move the article back to T:TDYK, so as to know if I and anyone else should bother with the other articles. The T:TDYK line has Gherman Pântea, Samoilă Mârza, Nicolae Fleva, Rodion Markovits, Democratic Union Party (Bukovina), Cathedral of the Unity of the People, Alba Iulia, Nichita Smochină and Ion Theodorescu-Sion. That's in addition to the Volunteer Corps. I have two more articles sandboxed, and will have more ready by December 1 - which should give us two potential all-Romanian queues.

Even if that doesn't happen, to at least have those articles on front page around December 1 would be nice, but in any case I would appreciate some sort of discussion. In fact I would expect it. Dahn (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly; my mistake. I apologise for any offence caused. I reviewed the article, was thoroughly impressed and then took a cursory look over the discussion before moving it. Not something I make a habit of but as I said, thoroughly impressed. It's been moved back to T:TDYK now.
Having said that, can we have a little discussion about (an) all Romanian queue(s)? I'm happy to create a special area for it but am unsure on consensus. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
No offense taken. I was generally puzzled as to whether it was a blunt rejection or a mistake - I would have accepted the former as well, but not without a comment. That said, I would also welcome any little discussion on the subject, to assess or determine consensus. I can easily see that other editors might not appreciate the special queue(s), and I'll gladly accept any ultimate resolution, positive or negative. And there's always the plan B, whereby we just get an assorted mix of Romanian-themed and other articles, but concentrated around Dec 1. (Before you ask: I'm not proposing all of this out of patriotic fervor, but for sheer fun.) Dahn (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I set up a special holding area for December 1. There may not be enough articles for a full "Romania" queue (and that might not be a good idea, regardless), but surely we can feature these hooks on that day. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not it's a good idea, I'll leave other decide, but: we currently have 7 8 9 (listed in my first comment in this section), which I believe is more than enough for one DYK queue. We could end up with enough "material" for two queues (I'm working on two more as we speak). I'm not saying we should, just noting that we could. Dahn (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Is this the consensus, guys? Dahn (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Has my support, was similar also for the French National Holiday 14 July, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
When you say "has my support", do you mean the "one Romania queue" option, or the "higher ratio" option? Dahn (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Both fine with me, slightly prefer a higher ratio, so that more readers get a Romanian feeling that day, as on 14 July (and one archived 15), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Also: could you please consider moving more, if not all, of the aforementioned articles to the December 1 holding area? Regardless of what we do with them, I think having them all in one place will give one the overall perspective on what's already there for the mix. Dahn (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, guys? Dahn (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I've moved it so there are 9 articles in the December 1st holding area. Now, I think having 3 hooks per queue for that day is not unreasonable given that it's a big national holiday but I would advise you not to add more. Anyone have a problem with this? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, I was going to take a break anyway. Three per queue is okay with me. If anyone else wants so submit stuff for this occasion, and their proposals are better, then you can even move some of mine to other days. But the point of my request was to have them all in one place, just so we all have a clear picture of what's in the pool to chose from. Thanks, Dahn (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

November 21

There's a hook scheduled for this date that should probably be moved to the queues? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it to prep area three which means it should be in queue one (08:00am for Los Angeles on the 21st). PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! - The Bushranger One ping only 16:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Q6 issues

Conrad Tao

Putting the age in backets is quite unnecessary. that 17 year old prodigy Conrad Tao... Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Chester College

No reason to capitalise college Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Stefon Jackson

Does the average reader have any idea what UTEP is meant to mean? I very much doubt it. Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Amyema congener

Although the use of exotic in this context is technically correct, it is not the most common meaning of the word, and outside a specialist context, is misleading to the reader. Replace exotic with non-native. Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Regarding Chester College: Don't you mean chapel should not be capitalized? Chester College is the name of the institution, but 'its chapel' is non-specific and should have a small C.
Regarding the mistletoe, why not just cut it? Having 'non-native' pear, peach, and plum trees suggests that the mistletoe doesn't grow on native varieties of the fruit trees, assuming they exist. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Replaced (age 17) with teenage for Conrad Tao hook. Replaced "exotic" with "non-native" as requested. "Chester College" sounds like a proper name to me so I left it capitalized. UTEP is linked so there is no reason to edit it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree with you re: chapel Crisco. But I think "non-native" is the point of the hook and needs to be there. Gatoclass (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I took out the capitilisation as in the context of the sentence it's not a proper noun. Feel free to revert me though. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I gave them all sub-headings so that the issues could be dealt with separately: ho hum. Yes, it was chapel that I intended for de-capitalisation. If it is thought that the name of the university is too long, then a rephrasing should be attempted that avoids it entirely: obscure acronyms are not helpful, and would draw away from the intended featured link. Kevin McE (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Spelling out "Univerity of Texas-El Paso" would not only be taking up a lot of space - it'd also fall foul of WP:COMMONNAME. The university is univerally known as UTEP, especially in the world of sports, which is what the hook is referring to. That said, I've rearranged the hook - is it better now? - The Bushranger One ping only 16:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

October 30 nom needs restoring

I just noticed that, five days ago, someone removed from the queue the hook for Lake of the Woods (Oregon) & Lake of the Woods Ranger Station (because of concerns with the article, after the nom was initially passed) but neglected to restore the entry to the nominations page, where it had been listed under October 30. As a result, for five days, the nom has been invisible to anyone who didn't already know about it. I'm not sure how to get the nomination back onto the nominations page, to enable discussion of it to resume, so I'm requesting that someone with more experience please take care of this. Thanks. SJ Morg (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake – I had the date wrong. It's under October 29. SJ Morg (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo selection in Prep 4

A photo of a person should, as a basic minimum, show their face. The proposed picture of Brendan Burkett fails that most minimal of standards, is not identifiable of him, and features the disability over the person. Disrespectful in the extreme. Kevin McE (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's a very eye-catching photo: one of an obviously very fit man with a prosthetic leg. It's not in the least disrespectful in my view; on the contrary, it vividly illustrates the triumph of an individual over adversity. And I have little doubt that both the photo and the accompanying article will get plenty of hits. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed it back. Sorry, but we have countless leads of old buildings and very few of paralympians, I think the disabled deserve some recognition now and again and I still think it's a dramatic image that IMO looks fine at 100px. Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we give "the disabled some recognition" by having a photo in which the person is totally depersonalised, and therefore unrecognisable. Kevin McE (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
As a side note, an image of Burkett of a similar angle to this one of Terry Fox would be a lot more attractive in the lead. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with the picture. (In fact, without it, a reader looking at the hook might not even know he's disabled at all, and thus would go "ho-hum, another barely notable Olympian." - The Bushranger One ping only 16:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW (which isn't a lot I know), I think it's a fantastic and striking picture which shows a physically fit and healthy man. Now, let's not call a spade a fork, if it weren't for the prosthetic leg it wouldn't be as striking, but it's also a visual metaphor for triumph over a perceived adversity, which is in the spirit of the paralympics themselves. An illustration which shows a disability is not a sign of disrespect. What would be disrespectful would be to deny the man's image simply because a prosthetic leg makes those (supposedly) more able-bodied editors 'uncomfortable'. Would it be nicer to have an image of his face? Perhaps; but then again would it really introduce us to the man's achievements in the same way the current image does? No. Unless someone has a picture of him in the water, swimming, I see no reason why this should be removed. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
"without it, a reader looking at the hook might not even know he's disabled at all"; aside from the word "paralympic", of course. We should be highlighting the person, not the disability. The hook is about his professional achievement: his artificial leg is not germane to that. I would not want to suggest that showing the disability is a sign of disrespect per se, but am adamant that a picture that does not show his face, and therefore could be almost anyone of the same race and physical condition, is depersonalising. Kevin McE (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
"aside from the word "paralympic", of course" - the word didn't jump out at me, and many people won't know what "paralympic" means. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
He just looks like your bog-standard swimmer. Now you can make the argument that that is depersonalising but I would again argue that the "package" as it were, illustrates the following:
  • That he is a swimmer
  • That he is a director of a sports centre
  • That he is a paralympian
It's certainly not dehumanising, which I think would be more of an issue and relates all the relevant information. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Nobody has suggested that it was dehumanising: the concern is that it is depersonalising. The point of a photo in such a context is to identify the person: this picture singularly fails to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_75&oldid=1136061344"