Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78→Archive 80

Buildings, birds, plants, sports

It's getting very hard to put together balanced prep sets (set thread on sports above) because of all the noms on buildings (esp. churches), birds, plants, and sports. Nothing wrong these topics but when they comprise most of the hooks--esp. reviewed hooks, it's hard to put together sets with a wide variety of topics. PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Just so you know, we've agreed to have 2 sports hooks per queue just to get them out of the way. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
*blink* Well, that's a surprise - I never realised there was a "limit" to one sporting hook per queue. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the goal is not to overload a set with any one topic, not just sports.PumpkinSky talk 02:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I think part of it is a deep reluctance by DYK regulars to tackle BLP and Biography topics due to the extreme backlash that happens from certain non-DYK users.--Kevmin § 02:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I can appreciate that. FYI, Panyd just move a new long article on sapphires to prep1 as lead hook. But we don't get gem articles very often, but it's certainly a not-everyday DYK ;-) PumpkinSky talk 02:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a chronic problem. There have been time periods when the "surpluses" were of biographical articles about politicians, articles about wine, articles about ships, etc., etc. I attribute this to the fact that, at any given time, there is at least one contributor generating a large number of articles about a particular topic -- and submitting them all here. That's good. However, it's a reason to assemble hook sets from different parts of the noms page (to sample different clusters of activity), and it's a reason to dig for good new articles whose creators aren't submitting them here. --Orlady (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Feldon Church (Q2)

Was there any particular reason for the unusual construction England's Feldon Church? It is not in any meaningful way part of national infrastructure or in national ownership, nor does it represent the country. Suggest the far more common ... that Feldon Church, in Northumberland, England, ... or (my preference, because the name of a church is its dedication, not its location) ... that the Church of St Michael and All Angels, Felton, Northumberland, England, .... If this makes the hook lengthy, the clause about the date of the chantry is irrelevant to the main hook and could be deleted. Kevin McE (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree; it is very peculiar. Speaking as a regular writer of church articles, my favoured construction would be ... that St Michael and All Angels' Church in Felton, Northumberland ..., followed by Kevin's first suggestion (... that Felton Church ...). "England" could be omitted. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Done! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Langwieder See

Lußsee, now in prep2, reads:

  • ... that Lußsee, once voted the cleanest lake in Munich, was originally an excavation pit from which more than 2,000,000 cubic metres of gravel were excavated for the construction of a nearby highway?
Several comments. I dont like meeting first a strange word with no explanation that it is a lake. It comes with a link to more than one lake, hard to find it in that article. The hook is long, why have excavation twice? I miss (pictured), hard to place, because the picture shows a state in between excavation and full lake, attempt to solve a few:
Looks good to me! I've changed it, but remember, you can be bold and change it too when it's in a prep area! People can always revert and discuss if it's an issue. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I was bold before for smaller changes in prep, but this seemed such a major thing that I wanted to discuss it first. (Also I know the feeling of seeing a hook changed without a warning.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough with 2-sports-hooks in each set

It's time to suspend the current practice of inserting two sports hooks into each set of six. The noms page is becoming depleted of sports hooks! --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Japanese climbing fern (Q6)

The fern is not sentient, and lacks self-awareness. Anything it does, it does inadvertently. I assume the author's intention was to say that it may become an unintended fuel ladder. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Harris Switch Tower (Q5)

For this hook I (ahem) switched in the proposed ALT1 from the nomination, which should have been used as the hook as the original hook ("... that the interlocking at Harris Switch Tower still controls trains in the 1940s?") was so poorly worded as to make no sense. The ALT1 made sense. Did the admin who moved that hook into the queue actually look at it? It would have been horrible if that had made the front page.

Also, a hook that short, about a subject with a specific geographic location, should have that location in it. So I put Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in the hook. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hülfensberg credit?

As stated above (hook older than 2 weeks 19 November), Stuffo and Hülfensberg were a double nom. Somewhere between Template:Did you know nominations/Hülfensberg and the appearance on the Main page (now) the bolding and credit for the mountain got lost, can that be changed please. It can't be changed that the mountain never received a review. I would have approved it if I had noticed that it was missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The hook is no longer on the Main page, and while it was there the Hülfensberg link was never made bold. The appearance of a non-bold link on the Main page does not disqualify an article from DYK, and Hülfensberg should be renominated with a new hook (and an explanation of the apparent lateness – perhaps a link to this discussion). Note that the original nomination was submitted properly, with both articles in bold, and no hook without Hülfensberg in bold was ever suggested. The article was not rejected; it was simply never reviewed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds eminently fair. I'm afraid I am a slow reviewer with limited time; I made time to review Stuffo when I saw its content but had to leave Hülfensberg for someone else. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
New nomination page created: Template:Did you know nominations/Hülfensberg 2. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Review started, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

<--You all are too nice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

K-143 (Kansas highway) (Q6)

I'm afraid we can't use this hook:

... that despite being a four-lane divided highway, K-143 (sign pictured) is not part of the U.S. National Highway System?

This is hardly unique ... many four-lane divided highways all over the United States are not part of the U.S. Highway System, by which I would imagine we also include the interstates (Taconic State Parkway, Ohio State Route 11, Pennsylvania Route 33, New York State Route 17, most of California State Route 99, among others).

As Bencherlite admitted when okaying this hook, he did not have the full expertise to judge whether this was unusual enough to be hook-worthy. Anyone at WP:USRD, if consulted, would have quickly explained this. This isn't DYK, this is DUH.

We will need another hook, if one can be found. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's often a challenge to find a reasonable hook for road articles. I guess we could go with something like " ... that the 4.6-mile (7.6 km) long Kansas highway K-143 is composed of three different pavement types?" But I'm not sure that's any better. Gatoclass (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I know what you mean (of all the road articles I've worked on, I could only find a DYK-worthy hook for Interstate 84 in New York (... that a helicopter once crashed on Interstate 84 in New York, stopping traffic and causing a power outage?)). The roadgeeks try very hard, though, and I think this one might be interesting if rephrased thus:

... that state highway K-143 (shield, pictured) near Salina, Kansas, uses three different types of pavement on its 4.6 miles (7.4 km)? Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your alt reads nicely, I'd go with that one. Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done [1]. Thanks for your help. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Point of information: the hook was approved by The Bushranger, not by me: as is clear from my comment (diff above), I could not say whether the hook was DYK-worthy and left it to those with knowledge of the US highway system to decide. BencherliteTalk 09:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Stray text on noms page

The October 27 section of the noms page is now blank, except for a stray comment that was formerly associated with Template:Did you know nominations/Sha'ab, Israel. I can't find the comment to edit it -- it must be hiding somewhere in Template Limbo! --Orlady (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It was actually in Template:Did you know nominations/Rube DeGroff (a new reviewer wrote below the "Please do not write below this line" line). I moved the comment to its proper place and removed the completed October 27 section. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
But then I wondered, "why did Orlady think it was from the Sha'ab, Israel nomination?" I happened to have a window open which displayed the nominations page prior to the time that hook was moved to Prep, and sure enough, the comment with a user verifying the Rube DeGroff hook was shown at the end of the Sha'ab, Israel hook, making it erroneously appear that the user was verifying the Sha'ab, Israel hook instead. So that hook never did receive final approval. I've undone my removal of the section, and I'll go remove the hook from Prep and restore it as an active nomination. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The plot thickens. I assumed that the review was for this hook, but figured it needed to be verified, so I reviewed the nom myself, decided it was acceptable, and moved it to the queue -- based on my approval. Since someone else was already identified as having approved it, I didn't go in and add a second indication of approval, thinking it would be redundant to do so. Now I guess I need to document my approval... --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Point Blank (Q6)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I do believe "is one of several songs [...] that deals" is not proper English. I think it should be "that deal". Dahn (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

George Kelly (Q6)

As I understand the article, he never did play basketball with O'Connell. "However, Kelly had not played in any games at that point. He was removed from the roster and thus avoided suspension by MLB." Nothing therefore happened to him "after playing basketball with" O'Connell. Kevin McE (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the hook is OK. The hook says he was nearly suspended "for playing basketball", not "after playing basketball". Since he ultimately didn't play basketball with O'Connell (at least not on the team), he didn't get suspended for playing basketball with him, but it came close to happening... --Orlady (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
My mistake above. Nevertheless, I think that the hook would very easily give the impression that he did, and so is misleading. He was threatened with suspension had he played with O'Connell. Kevin McE (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I still don't find it misleading, particularly considering that it would appear (from my reading of George Kelly (baseball) and cited sources) that merely associating with Jimmy O'Connell was potential grounds for suspension. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Old nominations awaiting review - 19 Nov

The following articles have been waiting for over two weeks for a review:

I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Samoilă Mârza which I found - to my surprise - under Special occasions. To my understanding only reviewed articles should be there, I would never have looked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

violet/riga [talk] 11:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing DYK

I was going to ask "What happens to older nominations that nobody reviews?", but I see from the previous post that they do not get forgotten and abandoned. It seems to me that since the introduction of the rule requiring self-nominators to review other articles, other Wikipedians have largely stopped reviewing. This is a pity.

You might like to consider requiring self-nominators to review 2 articles for a time until the backlog is largely cleared. This would help, but you really need to get more people reviewing, though how this is to be done I am not sure. I have done a few today, anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

John Thornton Augustine Washington in prep 1 (now Q5)

The hook here is not something that can be supported. Yes, the citations indicate that someone in 1905 decided that this would have been the case were certain assumptions applied to the question, and this thinking was copied by someone in 1951. It is not the consensus of historians, but rather is just something that appeared in a couple of popular magazine articles over a century after the fact based on the whims of the authors. At a minimum it needs qualifiers, but it would be better not to use this at all. Since the US was never a monarchy, it never had rules of inheritance for the title, and this is all alternative history crystal ballism that is of dubious value in the article itself and no value as a DYK hook. Agricolae (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is now in Q5. Someone please replace it so an alternative hook can be developed. (Let em express my concern by analogy. This would be like someone saying, had Al Gore been ruled winner of the 2000 Presidential election, Obama wouldn't now be president. I am sure if you look hard enough you can find a magazine article that makes that argument, but we wouldn't want an entry 'DYK . . . that Barack Obama wouldn't be President had Al Gore won the 2000 election." It would be taking one person's hypothetical counter-factual speculation about alternative historical outcomes and giving it the appearance of undisputed fact. That is basically what this hook is doing.) Agricolae (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I edited the hook to say: ...that it has been suggested that John Thornton Augustine Washington would have succeeded his great uncle George Washington as "king" if the United States had been a monarchy? --Orlady (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Radziwiłł in prep 4

Resolved
 – Thank you to whoever fixed this (preferred hook was swapped in and is now on the main page). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think this hook needs context. That some seemingly random guy called his cousin, some other seemingly random guy, a psychopath just leaves me saying, 'Huh? so what?' I think it would be better to at least give some idea where, when or in what circumstances it happened, such that someone being called a psychopath by his cousin isn't just one of the typical thing that happens every year around the Thanksgiving table. Agricolae (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It would help, for a start, if the text "and Radziwiłł's family black sheep" were replaced with the more meaningful "and the Radziwiłł family's black sheep". I've also noted that the discussion about this nomination, preferred an alternative hook to this one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
FTR: I replaced it in the queue with the other hook that was preferred during the nom discussion. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien Hannover

I should be happy, that finally this went to prep (2) "... that piano students of Karl-Heinz Kämmerling at the Mozarteum and the Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien Hannover won more than 100 prizes at piano competitions?" - But I would prefer to have it pictured, it's a university, not a small church for a change, and the photographer went out of his way to take a better picture, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please consider the lead picture: on the Main page just a highway, in the article a terrible accident. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Many more image hooks are nominated than can be used in the image slot, so we need to choose, and I think we need to aim for visual impact and topical variety. Also, sometimes an image is particularly relevant for illustrating the hook. Someone else (I haven't looked to see who) picked the highway for the image slot. It's not a beautiful image, but it provides variety, and it is visually interesting at 100px. Honestly, the Hochschule images lacked visual impact, and they aren't particularly helpful in illustrating the hook. Therefore, I decided to push the hook to the prep area without an image. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It's now in Q1. I think I would prefer the Hochschule hook (even without a pic) in a different slot. The highway pic is not illustrating the topic - the accident - at all, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Last question: do we need a crash as a lead on the 1st Sunday in Advent? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Tamar-Tavy estuary (Q6)

The avocet is not particularly uncommon (whatever that undefinable term means): it is listed by the IUCN as "of least concern". I'm not sure how wp:commonname and wp:engvar apply to bird species, but in the UK, this species is virtually never called the Pied Avocet, but merely the Avocet. Kevin McE (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that it should just be 'Avocet' in the UK. As to 'uncommon', it is amber listed in the UK, so uncommon there I think, I've seen it referred to as 'scarce' and 'rare' as well. I've just noticed that 'uncommon' is the word used in source #7 (referring to the area's SSSI status) in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Its on the main page now, but I will note that the Pied Avocet is named in compliance with the WP:Birds naming guidelines which is to use the formal common name designated by the International Ornithological Congress.--Kevmin § 11:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough about the naming of the article, I just think that it would have been better as 'Avocet' in this UK-based hook, I thought that it was some really unusual bird species when I first saw it. Mikenorton (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reflections of a returning reviewer

Hello all. I recently started reviewing DYK's again, not having done so since last spring. A couple of impressions:

The new Nom sub-pages:

Excellent work on getting these going. They make watchlisting a review feasible, and provide a good record. A definite improvement.

The focus on close paraphrase:

Now, I realize that this is a contentious issue, and I don't bring this up just to instigate another heated debate here. I'm looking for a way to improve the current situation. So, first, I agree that copy/paste articles have no place here. They need to be weeded out, and their authors admonished. Close paraphrase is a bit more complicated. Many of our writers do not come from academic backgrounds. Their understanding of what constitutes a "good" paraphrase, and what is close and "bad", isn't always strong. But I am seeing an insistence in the reviews of a complete absence of any closeness at all. This would be appropriate for GA/FA review, where most contributors do have academic experience and understand the vagaries of C.P.

So what to do? I have no wish for us to just let the egregious close paraphrasing slide. If an author has copy/pasted and pulled out the thesaurus in a attempt to hide it, this is not original work and should not be rewarded. These cases should be sent to the copyright team. But most of the cases I've run across are more nuanced than this. We need to discuss what to do with these cases.

The "DYK Removed" page

I recently became aware of this page, then noticed with no small amount of embarrassment that three of my recent reviews are listed here. One of these, Károly Ferenczy was an egregious case, and I'm glad it was caught. But the other two fall into the nuanced category, imo. Anyways, I bring this up to determine the point of the page (is it a "Wall of Shame", intended to guilt people into reviewing better? or does it have another purpose I've not yet divined?) and note that, for this reviewer anyway, it is negative reinforcement. And lacking any positive reinforcement for reviewing DYK's (aside from the odd thank you from a polite nom), I can't see how in practice this is going to improve the quality of reviews. It will simply dis-incentivize what is already a thankless job.

This is probably tl:dr already, so I'll cut it short. Just looking for some feedback on these issues. The Interior (Talk) 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of notes.
  • Close paraphrasing - I actually think we've gotten a lot better with this one. NikkiMaria especially is very good at picking these up and actually working with editors (rather than shaming them about it) to fix the issues. I think they're being dealt with in good faith, though perhaps we should make it clearer when posting what our standards for close paraphrasing are and perhaps link to the duplicator detector for extra support?
  • DYK Removed page - I agree not only with your above statements but also with the idea that we're close to fostering a culture of blame here. Of course there should be accountability when someone has screwed up, but we still need to AGF and try to not highlight editors names in a 'wall of shame'-esque way. There are hundreds of articles to review and if you're prolific you're bound to miss something, that's just a natural error rate, not deliberate negligence. However, I would say that the current system allows us to evaluate the contributions of individual editors, which in turn allows us to teach people when they are consistently erring. This can only be a good thing. We just have to be nice about it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

See my general response below on the alleged "shaming", but on copyvio, not practical to just leave it to the copyvio folks. First, there aren't enough of them, they simply can't deal with it all and those resources should be reserved for the worst cases; and second, why open a CCI (investigation) on someone who has only offended once-- that is really overkill, and would be damaging, and generally education is all that is needed. See MRG's piece at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05/Opinion essay. There is nothing about detecting close paraphrasing and copyvio that can't be handled by most reviewers with less than 10 minutes, and educating offenders is best done on the first occurrence, without opening a big embarrassing investigation after they've gone on to create hundreds of copyvios, which is the history of several of the hall of fame DYKers. If DYK reviewers really got serious about detecting copyvio et al (rather than leaving all of the work to Nikkimaria), I suspect it could turn its reputation around in under a month, and really be a great first stop for educating new editors in how to become better editors all round. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Sandy and I think NikkiMaria's model of doing things is one that we should all be emulating. However, how do we make that happen? Lots of us aren't as good at ferreting out close paraphrasing, and some people (though not I) disagree with Nikki's stringent standards. So a good way to go forward would be to set out clear standards as to what qualifies as close paraphrasing and why. You or Nikki would be best qualified to do that as it stands.
On another point, I don't think it's fair to insinuate DYKers aren't serious about detecting copyvio. I think many DYKers are either new editors with no idea how to look for them or old-hands with different standards to yourself or Nikki. Let's assume good faith please? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not the best person to help lay out rough guidelines-- probably Moonriddengirl would be willing to work on that, you might ping her. The reason I probably can't help is that it's hard for me to understand what stops others from seeing it-- I read the article, read the source, see the problems, and I think that's the same approach Nikkimaria takes, so since others don't seem to understand that method, I'm not sure I can provide any helpful guidance. I do suggest pinging in Moonriddengirl if folks are serious enough now to put some guidelines in place here-- but I also see the problem of instruction creep if you do that, since that is already becoming a complaint here-- so maybe MRG could be enticed to put a general guideline somewhere else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy I feel the exact same way about blatant advertising, but you can't win over hearts and minds with abrasiveness and not all of us are as talented in that area as either of you. Thank you for the suggestion, I've mentioned it down the bottom for consensus gathering. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't speak to the actual intentions of Tony1, SandyGeorgia, and Nikkimaria, but I can speak to their effect on me. I feel that the the personal integrity, intelligence, competence, and other personal qualities of DYK contributors and reviewers have been under persistent attack. The page Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Removed appears to me to be intended as a Hall of Shame for DYK reviewers (disclosure: after I discovered that page I did list a few items there in a good-faith effort to document quality control, but it does not appear to me to be serving any useful purpose) and the drama over items like Template:Did you know nominations/Dominica tea culture appears to be aimed at convincing people like me to either or both (1) crawl away in shame or (2) devote our time to activities that will be more satisfying than this has become. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Orlady, you've brought up some excellent issues and I do think there are wounds that need to be healed but on the other hand I think Sandy just made an excellent case for why she gets frustrated. That seems to me to be a very different thing from deliberately shaming people. If we can all agree that neither Sandy, Tony1 and Nikki nor the DYK community are acting in bad faith then we can move on to actually improve things here. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Wiki, just like everyone and everyone else, reaps what it sows. You treat people like crap, you get crap back. PumpkinSky talk 19:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Or! And this might be a crazy idea, you can be the better person and extend an olive branch and move on. That requires cooperation on both sides but it's always worth a shot. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Even better the other side does so, but I have already learned wiki is hopelessly broken and steadily goes more downhill. DYK issues are a mere reflection of larger symptoms. Just take a look thisaway>WT:RFA. PumpkinSky talk 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't make anyone do anything, so that's up to Sandy et. all if they feel others have been needlessly hurt. However, one problem at a time please! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, doorbell rang, unexpected guests. @Orlady, I just can't think in terms of keeping a record of removals or archivals as being a cause for shame, since the culture of FAC is so different from that. Wikipedia is supposed to work on openness (although I've noticed increasingly more and more lately that WMF folks and others gravitate towards IRC, off-Wiki maillists, meetups-- other places where those views aren't clearly debated in the public eye, which is the only way I operate), and FAC has always had an archive of nominations that don't succeed, which lends to accountability and openness. If the "Removed" page is viewed as a cause for shame, then so is apparently Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations and everything done at WP:FAR. If folks are shamed or embarrassed at having their work reviewed, Wikipedia would be a very hard place for them to be and probably not a good fit, because that is exactly what Wikipedia is-- or is supposed to be-- about. We improve by having our work reviewed by others, and DYK is-- or can be-- a first port of call on educating new editors on Wikipedia policies. I sincerely hope no one has felt unnecessarily hurt by debating these issues, which should not be personalized (in particular I've noted your good work, so no offense was intended), but I'd also say that when you have multiple cases of repeat offenders that aren't dealt with, so that the cleanup chore can never happen and places a burden on the few copyvio people, then maybe those people (hundreds of DYKs later) do warrant whatever shame they may feel if they decide not to clean up after themselves. Personally, I think the highest level of respect goes to someone who recognizes they may need to learn more about close paraphrasing so they can write better articles, and just sets about doing that-- I don't see the discovery of close paraphrasing or copyvio issues as a cause for shame. To me, the cause for shame is that it was allowed to go on for so long here, and a very small handful of folks here resisted all efforts to improve the situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed, considering the large volume of DYKs and the short duration of their appearance on the main page, I can't see the purpose of maintaining a record for posterity of (for example), the fact that Template:Did you know nominations/Mexican tea culture was removed from the prep area on November 10 (and approved by Casliber a few days later, after repairs were made to the article) or that Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Harvester (H19) was pulled from the prep area due to contention about how much an article creator should be penalized for not successfully navigating the confusing process of transcluding a nomination. IMO, the effort that goes into creating the record exceeds the value of the record that is created. --Orlady (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
If you are opposed to recordkeeping, and there is no "buck stops here" directorate at DYK, then what is your proposal for avoiding another Billy Hathorn and others like him? DYK let that go on for years, until hundreds of copyvios were created (surely over several thousand in the top five DYKers); it's not fair that others have to clean up those copyvios, and there's no reason that he and others should have been able to be such long-time serial offenders except that there were no records and there was no one willing or able to say "enough". What's your alternate proposal? The participants change here so often, how is anyone to know if there's another repeat offender carving out a slot at the top of DYK's hall of fame? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't opening a CCI on the serial offender be the best path? Our mandate here isn't to root out serial problems, but vet articles for a main page appearance. Dealing with a unrepentant copyviolator is something best suited to a CCI/Topic ban. As you say, there's a revolving door here (as with the rest of WP).The Interior (Talk) 03:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The Interior, I'm not sure if you've been following lately (by that I mean, the last year and a half). DYK wasn't (apparently) even aware of the number of serial offenders it continued to put on the mainpage until others came over and told them. Hence, the need for records. You can't open a CCI when you don't even know of or acknowledge a problem, and since there is no "directorate" here-- in fact, since the participants change so often but the serial offenders continue-- how do you know when you have one if you have no records, no accountability, and no one in charge? The history has been, someone shows up at RFA mentioning their number of DYKs, outsiders (to DYK) look at their DYKs, see a problem, look at the history, see it's long-standing; or, someone new to DYK reviews a DYK, sees a problem, (that's how Hathorn was detected), others looks at the history, realizes it's been going on for years and no one here did a thing about it (because there was denial or lack of knowledge of copyvio). And we don't open a CCI for one or two offenses-- that's a waste of time. We open a CCI when there's a history-- for that, records help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I've (sort-of) been following the discussions here, with difficulty. There's been a lot of text! I'm afraid I still disagree with the position that DYK/Removed is the best way to solve the problem of serial violators. BTW, was there a discussion on DYK/Removed specifically that you recall? I can't seem to find it. As to other solutions - thinkin' on it. The Interior (Talk) 04:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The comparison of DYK/Removed to a the general archive system used by the other peer review processes is something we should look at. The "archived nominations" page for FA is neutrally worded, to start. It's not an attempt to root out endemic problems, but simply an archive. I've had a GA declined, and found the report a great resource for when I had time to get it up to a pass. However, DYK/Removed is not a general archive of failed nominations. It's a bit different. I'll be the first to admit I fall on the oversensitive side, so maybe I should just ignore it, and try to improve my close-paraphrase-spotting abilities. But I thought we should discuss it. These are the feelings of someone whose reviews are on the list, perhaps we could move toward a more neutral archiving system.

As to turning things around, I think we are making progress. But we have to work together to achieve something. I'm a bit worried that Nikkimaria's efforts are unsustainable, she's putting a lot of work in. When she returns something to the noms page, it often happens that the review is left up to her, so that she has six or seven rewrites to look at on a given day. She's sort of alone on a lot of reviews.

So maybe two things to look at would be: Resources for Writers: A collection of links to a) give them a reasonably-worded definition of what constitutes a close paraphrase, and b) a re-writing guide to let them know a straightforward way of improving their article. Resources for Reviewers: I know Nikkimaria has a good page of advice, and there are several tools. These could be transcluded on the nom sub-page to help out reviewers. It would be great if people like Nm could be a resource for reviewers to got to, rather than a "last line of defence" type role, which seems to be the case now.

So, sorry for bringing "shame" into the conversation, we should quickly move beyond it. The Interior (Talk) 02:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"DYK Removed" is not similar to the archiving of failed GAs and FAs. Firstly, every DYK nom now has its own template that survives forever, similar to an AfD, so a permanent record of the nomination would exist without this page. Secondly, as it is currently constituted, the "DYK Removed" page lists only those DYK noms that were reviewed, approved, moved into a prep area or queue, then pulled out and returned to the noms page. It does not include the many other noms that are reviewed and rejected for various reasons. Thus, the page does not document all failed noms; it documents only those cases where someone has second-guessed the reviewers. Thirdly, while a failed GA or FA is likely to be renominated someday, at which time the earlier record has value, it is exceedingly rare for a failed DYK to be eligible at some time in the distant future -- and anyway, most noms that get pulled from the queues end up being re-approved. Accordingly, it looks to me like the "DYK Removed" page exists mainly as a hall of shame for reviewers. As someone who has reviewed far more DYKs than I ever submitted myself, and who often wades in to try to resolve issues with noms that have been problematic, I consider the shaming of reviewers to be a significant disincentive to my continuing to contribute.
As for resources for writers and reviewers, it seems to me that this exists already in the form of pages like Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and related pages. It's not obvious that there's a need for additional DYK-specific resources for this purpose. --Orlady (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about those situations where an author/nominator says, "okay, you've found some close paraphrasing. What do I do know?". I think a lot of us just don't have the time to give a detailed explanation of what needs to be done. The links would help there. My experience with linking WP:Close paraphrasing to people is the digital equivalent of blank stares. Re: DYK/Removed - agree. The Interior (Talk) 04:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that DYK/Removed is at all a "Hall of Shame" - I mean, if it was like "OMG user X missed the hugely obvious cut-and-paste section in this article, they're a terrible reviewer" I would understand, but the page is fairly neutral, and doesn't even name the reviewers involved, it's just a link to the nom page. I would compare it not to the FAC archive, but rather to the FAR archive: some noms are fixed and readded to queues (as was pointed out above), while others aren't. The reason I created the page was to address the concern about accountability raised by some commenters, not to shame reviewers. I'm sure we all understand that everyone makes mistakes, the point is that we should learn from our mistakes and move towards fixing the problems. If there's a consensus that something beyond WP:Close paraphrasing or similar is needed to explain the problem, I'd be happy to contribute to writing such a page. I already have a guide to reviewing for close paraphrasing and plagiarism. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your guide is a good resource and I benefited from reading it. We should link to it more prominently. I think the reason some reviewers (or at least Orlady and I) are reacting negatively towards this particular archive is because it emphasizes that these articles were approved, then found wanting by another editor. If we wanted a special archive to serve the purpose mentioned by Sandy above, it would have to include all the articles caught at the reviewing stage - those failed, withdrawn or rewritten.
We have to make sure that DYK is attractive place for editors with reviewing skills. I'm worried about the scenario where we don't have enough quality reviewers, more problematic stuff hits the main page, complaints rise, more people leave, general badness. Maybe I'm making too much of this, but I thought I'd put it out there. The Interior (Talk) 03:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Reflections of a long-time user

Hi all. You know me - I'm a current arbitrator and have been hanging around Wikipedia since about 2005. I work for one of the local Wikimedia chapters. I only ever write DYKs - the subjects I write about do not have the sources available to turn them into a GA, let alone a FA. A perfect example of this is HMS Glitter or HMS Richard Bacon - the closest I have ever got to GA is Fishery Protection Squadron, which was the result of a week, full time, spent at the British Library, researching everything they had on the subject.

My latest article is HMS Porcupine (G93). I was pleasantly surprised to see that it's eligible for DYK, which is unusual for articles I write. This is what happened after I decided to nominate it for DYK:

  1. I went to WP:DYK to nominate it.
  2. I spent about 20 minutes looking for a way to nominate it.
  3. I gave up and went to sleep.
  4. After sleeping, waking up, chilling out, then settling back down to editing, I tried to renominate it.
  5. I spent another 15 minutes looking for a way to nominate it.
  6. I called Panyd (talk · contribs) over (she lives with me) to help.
  7. I filled in the template as requested, posted it somewhere in the depths of a project somewhere, and now I sit back and wait, I guess?

Is there any chance we could just have a big button that says "Nominate this article for DYK"? At present, it's needlessly complex: there are complex rules, complex templates, and complex requirements that seem to be filtering over from the FA process. My suggestion, I suppose, is quite simple: let's make DYK less like FA, and more like the Upload Wizard. Or at least make it less like FA - if I was a new user, or even if I didn't have Panyd around to help, I would have given up on nominating it at all. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that things have gotten overly complicated for DYK recently. It's also harder to get DYK's than it used to be a few months ago. If it's become more complicated and harder for seasoned editors, imagine what it's like for newer editors? SarahStierch (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
And on a related note - it's gotten to be such a pain (so to say), that I basically don't nominate my new or expanded articles anymore (and I am proud of my contributions!). SarahStierch (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about a big button, but we have a large step-by-step guide which is conveniently highlighted in yellow: Template talk:Did you know#Instructions for nominators. The difficult part for me, in the very beginning, was remembering what talk page it's on, of the several dealing with DYK (and once I did, I just typed T:TDYK). Dahn (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You can thank the FA crowd for that. They had a push going here to "raise the standards" this summer and early fall because they felt DYKs weren't up to par, in their eyes. They almost got DYK kicked off the main page. Perhaps DYK was not up to par, perhaps it was. But the end result was that DYKs are far harder to get now.PumpkinSky talk 18:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I see. I think that was one thing that was special about DYKs. While I only have a few good articles under my belt, I liked DYK because it allowed contributors of all experience levels and skill levels to share their work - and frankly, DYK's are more interesting usually than the article of the day material. It's also a nice way to reward users who contribute, but perhaps aren't able to spend the time and dedication to writing FA's. It's disappointing that things have become so strict (and a bit degrading for those of us who don't write FA's!). SarahStierch (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
What happened to the gender gap, where we ditzy women supposedly are chased off because we can't figure out the markup because we're so stupid and helpless, yet Panyd can and Cavalry can't? Just kidding, but not really-- that gross generalization and the whole "gender gap" nonsense isn't funny.

Um, no, Pumpkin, the "FA crowd" didn't push to "raise the standards"; many editors simply wanted core policies, and particularly copyright issues on the mainpage, respected. Many editors over the years objected to the extensive cut-and-paste copyvio plagiarism et al that DYK fed along with the problems of non-reliable sources, Moonridden girl long ago pointed out that DYK would be the best place for early education of editors who go on to become serial offenders, and whomever came up with the complicated templates and all that mess, that can't be blamed on any imaginary "FA crowd". All that was expected was that DYK would stop enabling plagiarism, cut-and-paste editing, copyvio (which predominates in the list of those with the most DYKs, because it was easy to cut-and-paste and get a DYK-- fortunately, that is no longer the case). There is no "shaming" in educating-- that's in the eyes of the beholder. Anyone who can't see their errors and improve upon their reviews perhaps shouldn't be reviewing anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Sandy, that is exactly what the FA crowd did. I recall threads where Tony et al were viewed as turning DYK into mini FAs, but that's old water. I find it very hard to learn all of wiki's rules. They are strewn all over and as soon as you make an edit people act like you're a buffoon if you don't know all the rules. It seems especially hard for people to learn about where the line is with copying, paraphrasing, plaigiarism, vs original researche, etc. I've also seen threads where old time users say we treat newbies like crap and the wiki culture is not as much fun as it used to be because of all the powerful cliques. The first post to my talk page was a slam, not a welcome. No wonder it's so hard to recruit and keep people. PumpkinSky talk 18:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Do re-read those threads and see just how often I disagreed with Tony1, before you roll that bunk on to the imaginary "FA crowd". Yes, it is hard to learn everything on Wikipedia, but the need to learn about copyvio has reached crisis proportions, and I don't share Tony1's emphasis on other matters, which are less important. On the other hand, in the past we saw so many DYKs with basic spelling and grammar errors, that one had to wonder if the reviewer even read the article or made sure that it was reliably sourced-- that was the level of my concern. I do think that having a subpage for each nomination has helped, but the complexity of the way the DYK pages are set up has long been a nightmare, so I don't think any of the recent changes can be blamed for how difficult this process is (even if I didn't agree with those big checklisted templates, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
My last comment (I hope) on this...Tony1 and his supporters, and he had them, did as much if not more harm than good to DYK. I'm not at all convinced it was a net benefit. PumpkinSky talk 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I gotta disagree-- increasing respect for what DYK puts on the mainpage can only help it become better and attract more worthy articles and editors, even if that turnaround may take time; it has been weeks since I've seen a DYK problem on the mainpage, when historically every single queue had multiple egregious issues. Patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
"attract more worthy articles and editors" - I wasn't aware we measured the worth of individual editors by how good their DYKs are... The Cavalry (Message me) 19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Would you prefer that its Hall of Fame continued to be lined with editors who are serial cut-and-paste offenders? Or the mainpage be graced with non-reliably sourced expansions and non-notable topics? Or would you prefer that the mainpage be graced with articles that represent core policies (aka worthy). Being smartaleck isn't the way to advance mutual goals-- that being, a better DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I was not being a smart alec - I was being sincere. I would much prefer that DYK be something that anyone can do, after just 15 or 20 mainspace edits. I don't want cut-and-paste offenders, no: I think it is quite obvious that I do not want that. I am quite willing, however, to let non-notable topics, and articles with only a few sources (obviously not BLPs) appear on the mainpage, as long as it encourages new contributors to edit and fix those articles. We're a work in progress, and quality is not the only thing that matters - especially when it comes to new articles. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
It isn't at all obvious that you want anything other than to make it easier for you to nominate your latest opus at DYK by being offered a big yellow button. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
That is indeed a large part of what I want: to be able to nominate something for DYK by pressing a big yellow button, yes. DYK should be easier; not harder. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, with all due respect and as someone who is working closely on gender gap issues, no one honestly thinks women specifically are being driven off by the markup (though many think the public as a whole are). There is however a gross difference in educating whilst assuming good faith of those who are attempting to write well and being wholly abrasive towards them. Also, just because Sarah is here doesn't mean that snide comments about the gender gap have any relevance whatsoever. Similarly, changes were made by consensus, not simply by one 'crowd'. If there are problems with the outcome of these changes, why don't we change some more? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for making a joke in the face of the obvious irony of you having to help Cavalry, but we're not here to discuss the alleged "gender gap". Anyway, long before the changes were instituted here, I could never decipher this page-- the subpages have helped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a little off wikipedia but maybe we can make it a little like Wookieepedia's Comprehensive Articles? DYK's would pretty much fit in that area, with a few modifications. --Kangaroopowah 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving onward

So, concensus from this five minute chat seems to be that DYK needs standards relaxing, and needs to be a bit more new-user friendly. What can we do to make it friendlier to new users that's relatively simple to do? The Cavalry (Message me) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Which consensus would that be? Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, that response ranks right up there among the most irresponsible I've seen recently. Surely a former arb and WMF employee has a better grasp on how consensus works on Wikipedia than a 5-minute flyover? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, everyone but SandyGeorgia above seems to think that we need to open things up a bit, and make the place friendlier to newbies. That's not a binding concensus, but it's enough of one to start brainstorming how we can open things up. Also: I'm not a WMF employee, and I'm still an arb. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You presume too much grashopper. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Malleus: I did not mean to say that there was a binding concensus to shoot the FA writers. I meant to say that everyone in the above section, except, it seemed, SandyGeorgia, thinks we should be discussing how to open up DYK to new users by relaxing things and being a bit nicer. I know that 4-1 or 5-1 is not really a proper concensus, but I thought it was enough to start brainstorming. Please report me to the relevant noticeboard for a good hiding if you think I'm being a bit presumptuous! (NB: Not sarcasm - I am just trying to lighten the situation) :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 20:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching the conversation without participating, and must place myself on SandyGeorgia 's side here. Yes, things are now a bit difficult, and I think some users have been put off nominating and reviewing because of complexity and the risk of being accused of copyright violations, or of missing copyright violations. But, that is something we definitely need to cut out across Wikipedia: not just on FA/GA articles, but right across the board, including stubs and new articles. Anything that is accessed from the main page is of particular focus, and is effectively a "showpiece" for Wikipedia, so extra care clearly needs to be taken for these articles. So yes, it might be a drag, and it ruffles a few feathers, but I think it is part of the process needed to ensure that Wikipedia gets taken seriously. Harrias talk 19:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I think i've been influenced by Sue's talk at the WMUK board meeting: it's being discussed on WR, and you can see it yourselves at http://bambuser.com/channel/pigsonthewing/broadcast/2140682. She makes an awful lot of good points. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
@Harrias after ec: The benefits of cleaning up the cut-and-paste issues at DYK extend beyond increased respect for the mainpage and better education of editors. The problems at DYK first came to my attention via RFA, and if DYK continues on the recent trend of becoming a better "quality" place (and I'm sorry that WMF and Sue Gardner don't seem to endorse the need to better address the problems at DYK), then DYKs at RFA can mean something, and the upward ripple effect can also extend to RFA. Win-win-win: less copyvio on the mainpage, less editors being trained at DYK to cut-and-paste, more editors being able to take their DYK successes to RFA. And in the long run, better editors more likely to move beyond DYK to GA, maybe even FA, rather than churning out hundreds of copyvios for DYK that will never get corrected because we don't have enough resources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
She makes some good points, but mostly ill-considered empty rhetoric. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I can be pretty assured when I say 'no one is on the side of having copyright violations in DYK'. Sandy just made the excellent suggestion above that we consult MoonRiddenGirl on some helpful guidelines that we could then form consensus around, as 'what is close paraphrasing?' seems to be an issue that is coming up a lot. What do we all think? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I would personally very much welcome that, I have no problems with my own writing (until someone tells me otherwise of course), but it's knowing where to draw the line with fairly close paraphrasing when reviewing that I find difficult, also how we cope with use of PD material and things like that. Mikenorton (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
She probably already has something written somewhere-- I haven't perused the various pages recently. Just ask her :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
3 edit conflicts later ;) Well Harrias, that's why I suggested a modification of wookieepedia's comprehensive articles. They still have to be good but they're no harder to write than a paper for school or a report for work. That in itself cuts out most of the bad articles there are. This would ensure good work but it can be done by anyone. Secondly, if you have only FAs on the main page that might scare new users because they'll think that they have to be able to writ articles like that on their first effort and in the process losing potential contributors. Wikipedia, like life, isn't about the best, it's (in this case) about having a balance between really well written and not very well written articles. Ideally all the articles would be FA class but the simple fact is that they aren't. And since they aren't why don't we showcase articles that are good a.k.a DYKs or "Comprehensive Articles" to show that Wikipedia isn't all about FAs. You've got to remember, in movie credits the producer, not the actors are first. That's not the best metaphor ;) but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make. --Kangaroopowah 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Your argument would carry a lot more weight with me if GAs weren't excluded from the main page. And the truth is that very many DYKs are nowhere near what any rational person could plausibly describe as "good". Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Kangaroopower; I was by no means saying that DYK pages should be FAs. A short article, such as most DYKs are can avoid copyright violations, and meet standards of good writing while still being well short of FA standard. I think defining "Comprehensive Articles" on Wikipedia would be much more difficult than on a Star Wars wiki: there you can know with reasonable certainty that a short article is comprehensive: here that is far from the case: another source might exist that you don't have, or something may change. Also, there are a fair number of very short Good articles already, so I don't think that there is much stopping short article gaining GA status. Harrias talk 21:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(Reset Indent) Here's the thing, many good articles that are short were by no means created and approved for being GA status in one day which stops them from being put into consideration for DYKs. Secondly as for the copyright thing well many new users just cut and paste content from other sources. The main point I'm trying to get to is that we obviously, after being an encyclopedia, want to draw new editors. To do so we also ned to show that while we have quality standards, we don't expect every single article to fall through them. No to the comprehensive article part. Here's what I think is good about it. If you have an editor who's trying to provide as many encycylopedic articles as possible while not spending too much time on them then seeing an articlle being pput up to Comprehensive status would make them happy. A quick look at WP:GA shows that the criteria in itself would be mostly fine for COmprehensive articles but with some improvements. Here's what I'm thinking.

  • Well-written:
    • it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections and layout
  • Factually accurate and verifiable:
    • it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics,or counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged,
    • it contains little to no original research.
  • Contains little to no bias in writing
  • Contains at least one infobox with at least one image
  • Is 500 words to 1500 words long

Having these would, I feel, bring more interest to DYKs because along with having them on the main page they would have a comprehensive topicon which would stay. This is by no means a complete list but rather a basis for a change to the DYK system. --Kangaroopowah 22:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What are the issues?

So first things to discuss, what are the issues? So far, we can all agree that close paraphrasing is a big issue. But what other issues do people think should be addressed? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been a real crack down on close paraphrasing. In my opinion, people are much more likely at the moment to incorrectly imply this out of fear that failure to point out any questionable thing will be worse than letting it pass. There are a limited ways to word some things, and you'll get a string of inappropriate paraphrasing accusations because five words matching. There isn't enough training for reviewers as to what this is, how to deal with it, and when you can have words matching. I earned a Masters of Science in Education in Instructional Technology from Northern Illinois University in May 2005. Try to reword that basic biographical information in a sentence with out having http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ suggest it might be paraphrasing. When doing that rewording, be sure to be accurate in the degree I earned, where I earned it and when I earned it. I've seen a few of these types of accusations on DYK since a few people decamped on DYK. Speaking as a contributor who wants to be as factually accurate as possible while avoiding committing inappropriate paraphrasing, understanding how incredibly damaging an accusation can be on multiple levels even if proven false, this is probably the scariest part of the DYK process if you understand what is going on. If you want higher quality contributors, the paraphrasing witch hunt will scare off the more expert knowledge contributors (writing higher quality content) who become susceptible to accusations because of information like "Masters of Science in Education in Instructional Technology from Northern Illinois University in May 2005" having limited ways to reword. --LauraHale (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I think great strides have been made on dealing with close paraphrasing, plagiarism, etc, to the point that I'm no longer as concerned about what DYK is putting on the mainpage (as I have been for over a year), but my concern is that Nikkimaria is too often the one holding the ball and checking what's in queue-- what happens if she moves on? I have long made the argument that for sustainable improvements to happen at DYK, the person passing the queue to the mainpage has to be somehow responsible for at least having a look at the queue they're putting on the mainpage. Via what mechanism that might happen is not for me to say (directorate, panel of admins, whatever), but there is no "the buck stops here" here, and I fear that without it, as soon as those regularly watching for copyvio turn their backs for a moment, it will again come back (that has been the historical trend). DYK will always get an influx of new editors, so how can you make the improvements sustainable if the current crop of folks working here move along? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Clear guidelines. I would actually advocate having an automated system much like the WP:Article wizard that gives people a succint summary of what is expected of them when they post something, I just don't have the technical skill to implement it and we don't have the policies to put in it yet. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
For a long time, I believe there was agreement among project participants regarding the "DYK rules," although the rules aren't exactly streamlined or easy to see in one place, and the collection of "rules" has grown recently, so that the rules now occupy three separate pages...
A few months back some templates were introduced to guide DYK review, in what is best described as one of numerous failed experiments intended to address real or perceived problems in DYK). The templates did not work out well (unless the goal was to discourage participation in DYK). They were replaced with a streamlined list of DYK rules that appears above the edit window when one is reviewing a DYK nom: Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations. For a while it also displayed when a new nomination was created, but that didn't work out because it prevented nominators from finding the instructions for transcluding nominations (not that it's easy now, to judge from Cavalry's experience).
That "review criteria" list in the edit notice would be a good place to document the rules. The edit notice didn't get much discussion before it was created. I am not a fan of it; I think it occupies too much vertical real estate on the page (on most of the computers I use, it fills the vertical display, so I can't see it when I'm reviewing a nom) and I don't think it communicates the rules as effectively or completely as it could. I've created an alternate version of the edit notice at User:Orlady/DYK review criteria. At the time I created it, DYK participants were too "talked out" to discuss yet another proposal for changes, but maybe we could discuss it now. --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
So Moonriddengirl is too busy to help, but perhaps we can cannabilise Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing into a shorter versino with specific DYK examples; perhaps then linking to the full page for reference? Just an idea... PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that if somebody's able to work with me, I'd be happy to help, but I am pretty swamped at the moment. :) Please ping me at my talk page if you want to collaborate on this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How do we fix the issues?

I've just pinged Moonriddengirl to ask for her input on making guidelines for what qualifies as close paraphrasing. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite serious about this suggestion - what do you think? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! Can it have a big yellow button? The Cavalry (Message me) 01:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
No big yellow buttons! I am serious! Also, as a lady of little technical knowledge I have asked here if anyone could help me with a few tweaks I think would raise our quality. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
This is pretty awesome, I'm impressed. It's also aesthetically pleasant, which is powerful when attracting new contributors. Perhaps a proposal can be developed on meta for technical folks to lend a hand. I do think there is a larger community that enjoys DYK but isn't familiar with the process that should be informed about this. Since it's not just the experienced users we're trying to help out here. Great start! SarahStierch (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You said it all, great user-friendly start! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Visibility

I would like to interject with another issue related to ease of use: the visibility of DYK's. Maybe my experience is unusual, but I was not aware of DYK's until I had created almost twenty articles and greatly expanded several others. A mechanism allowing editors to create a DYK nomination using a "big yellow button" would also inform them that DYK's exist. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Volume

OK. Timeout, here. I'm not entirely happy with the "new culture" at DYK, of which more later, maybe, but has anyone actually sat down and thought about what it would mean to have a big button to send new articles to DYK? To have people with 15 to 20 mainspace edits nominating their articles? That means that DYK would be absorbing some significant proportion of the total volume of NPP. Let that sink in.

That kind of volume would smash the current setup like an egg on granite, close scrutiny or no close scrutiny. IMO, if you're going to have some kind of "send to DYK" button, integrate it somehow into NPP. (Of course, that's also experience a conflict between what the WMF wants and what the people actually doing the work want.) If the patrollers use it judiciously when they see an article that's not just decently sourced, but actually strikes them as interesting and worth a little attention, that's more likely to give a workable volume and high quality of nominations than if we just go around encouraging everyone to self-nominate. Besides, I think it would be very encouraging to new editors to become aware of DYK with a message that says, in essence, "I find your article interesting; maybe it should enjoy a little time of the front page." Choess (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd also hate to see a button that encouraged new contributors to submit every brand-new article to DYK. Even for an excellent article, a DYK nomination requires some thought and creativity, and a lot of new articles don't come close to qualifying. However, the current procedures would benefit from some major simplification, as indicated by the number of experienced contributors who have been unable to successfully complete the process over the last 3 months. Let's think of the "big button" as a metaphor for the kind of simpler process we need to devise... --Orlady (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed to both of the above. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree. Scroll down to "Recently declined" in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions to see what would be coming through if big "submit now" buttons were available for brand new editors. Click on a few at random and see what you get. Having "15 to 20 mainspace edits" does not move them on much further. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really advocating a big yellow button, but something should be done to increase the visibility of DYK's. The main reason that I didn't know about DYK's is that I hardly ever visit the main WP page. It would be nice if editors invited contributors to self-nominate, but is that really going to happen? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, at WP:AfC it is often suggested to new editors that they should nominate their articles - although more normally that means helping them to get the article ready and nominate it, rather than expecting them to do everything themselves.
If you think it's a good idea, why not help out? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I got "recruited" to DYK after another user (I think it was Alansohn) nominated a couple of my articles for DYK, and I got that little notice that encourages submissions. I imagine that many other contributors were initiated in much the same fashion. Candidly, I expect that very few articles that start at WP:AfC are good candidates, as most AfC contributors are still pretty low on the Wikipedia learning curve. However, some gems do emerge from AfC, and reviewers of AfCs should be encouraged to nominate at DYK if they encounter a contribution that meets the criteria (or can be made to meet the criteria with assistance). --Orlady (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Some writers might want to look at examples of DYK articles in addition to studying abstract rules. I recently enjoyed collaborations on DYK articles (all not "mine") and find their results examplary:

Deleting an article and then recreating it

Suppose there is an article on a subject (say, Shoe). And say the article is mostly unsourced and very poorly written. So I develop a well-written and sourced article in my userpsace and then replace it one day. But the length of prose in both the previously poorly written article and the newly well written article is roughly the same. Does this qualify for DYK?

  • If no: then an editor may try to get around that by deleting large-chunks of the poorly sourced article (which is legitimate under WP:V) until it is very small. Then (after at least 5 days) the editor would "expand" the existing small article (by 5-fold or more) by copying and pasting it from his user space to the mainspace. While satisfying the DYK criteria for "newness", this would be contrary to the spirit of WP:Preserve and deprives readers of information (however poor) during the 5-day+ period.
  • If yes: then there arises the problem of determining how much of the content is new. That is not easily determined even if you are author, let alone if you are trying to evaluate a DYK entry for "newness".

VR talk 06:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

First let me understand the question. You don't mean "deleting" but shrinking and expanding, right? I don't understand the "5-days"-part. A situation as described needs an exception anyway, and if that is agreed on before the replacement, I don't see a need to wait 5 days. But the way to reach such an agreement needs to be discussed. - It might be easier to write a new article on a related topic, say Boot, and mention Shoe in a hook on Boot. Shoe will be noticed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes I mean shrinking and expanding. Please note that I mean this very specifically in the context of DYK. Consider the following: say Shoe was an unsourced article 2,000 words long. On Oct 1, the unsourced material was removed, and it was shrunk to 300 words. It remained in this state until Oct 20 when it was expanded to a well-sourced article comprising of 2,500 words. Thus on Oct 21, one can claim that Shoe underwent a 5-fold expansion in the last 5 days. (Hence the need to wait 5 days or longer). Does that make the scenario clearer?VR talk 06:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently the only justification for deleting part of an article before expanding it is a clear copyright violation. As to whether this should also include clear original research or synthesis is another question. What it doesn't include is poorly written stuff, even if it's unsourced. If you replace that it's a (welcome) improvement, but not an expansion. That's my understanding. Mikenorton (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, you're right: it doesn't include poorly written, but sourced, material. But I do think it is legitimate under WP:V and WP:NOR to delete unsourced material or original research if it has been tagged long enough. So what happens when an article is shrunk and then expanded 5-fold (with respect to the shrunken state, not the pre-shrunken state)? Does that count as sufficient an expansion to merit a DYK entry?VR talk 06:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Winter, five windows(Q5)

No disrespect intended to our Canadian brethren, but I don't think that CBC has sufficient worldwide recognition to bear placing as an unexplained abbreviation. Kevin McE (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. Non-abbreviated version would come out as 165 chars., so should be doable. The Interior (Talk) 01:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Old nominations awaiting review - 26 Nov

The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks. I thought we might have a smaller list this week but it's quite a long one...

Waiting queue is too long

I don't mind anything up to two weeks, but I've found the waiting queue to now be ridiculous long. Michał Radziwiłł Rudy took nearly 4 weeks to appear on the main page during which time I have practically forgotten I had created. Sorry but I think 4 weeks is silly, I think a two week period would be much more appropriate. Is there anything we can do about this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it takes too long for all submissions, that would mean too many nominations are being submitted for the rate they're going onto the main page - which rather contradicts the suggestions above that it needs to be easier to nominate an article.
The other possibility is that reviewers are tending to pick nominations they find appealing to them personally, leaving some nominations ignored for weeks. I think this is being addressed further up this page by a number of people trying to deal with older nominations rather than leaving them to languish. I imagine they would appreciate any help! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Since the number of updates per day changed from 2 to 3, because of the increase in nominations, the number of reviews has not really kept up and the aren't enough reviewed and passed hooks available to fill the full set of empty prep and queue slots right now. This is in part a reaction to increased rigour in the review process, which makes them take longer, and partly because some reviewers are put off by the risk of being 'named and shamed'. I'm not against taking responsibility for my own reviews but there must be ways of doing things that don't include a DYK/removed list. Mikenorton (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that articles should be checked for plagiarism but 4 weeks is way too long. The whole point of DYK was to showcase wikipedias most recent articles..We've since had almost 30,000 new articles in that time... I don't see why it should take 4 weeks. 2 weeks is surely long enough.. Honestly I had virtually forgotten about the nomination and it hitting the front page so late takes away the point in it in nominating from my perspective.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Erm, and when was the last time that you contributed to the review of a DYK nom? It is generally inadvisable for people who don't bother to help with the review process to criticize the volunteers for not working hard enough. Are you aware that the QPQ rule is still in effect? --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not criticising the volunteers for not working hard enough. Rather i'm saying there is a way in which plagiarism and any serious issues can be checked without demanding a lot of time from reviewers using a script and scan so all nominated articles would automatically undergo a scan for copyvios. Articles then would only need to be briefly checked before hitting the main page as the tools in place should pick up on anything really problematic. 4 weeks is bleedin ridiculous it really is. The process should be made more efficient so no extra time than present is needed to review articles but they go through more more quickly and effectively. As for searching for my last review, really, have you nothing else better to do? What I would suggest actually is a waiting queue of something like 3 days and if the article still has problems after review then they are excluded and only those articles with no issues go through. You could restart the DYK setup to work with only 3 days of most recent articles and then post them on the main page. Say I nominated an article tonight. Then a reviewer tomorrow or the day after would review and after checking with the initial scan for plagiarism then permit it for posting on the main page. It would just make far more sense to shorten the queue and focus on the recent nominations. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Formakin House (Q6)

Miller's Tower, not Millers Tower, per source. Kevin McE (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Source" probably means this newspaper article. Is that preferable to the article which says "Millers Tower", and sources saying "Millers House" here and here? Normal grammar says use the apostrophe, place names like Pikes Peak often lose the apostrophe, but this isn't really a place name ... Oh, I give up. Art LaPella (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Well the Millers House ((sic) is a different building, and the article cannot be taken as a contradiction of the source that it claims to draw upon. Where there is inconsistency in the sources (although I don't think there is in this case), I would strongly suggest that the benefit of the doubt go with the more grammatical version. Kevin McE (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Kevin. The newspaper article is a source supporting the hook fact. An apostrophe should be added to both the hook and the article, unless reliable sources emerge which specify the tower's name without an apostrophe.
  • In any case, this is a quirky hook which should be moved into the final position of the set. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

LSU vs Alabama (Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3)

No evidence offered in the article as to why, or by whom, this game of considered the "Game of the Century" (ridiculous hyperbole that should have no place in an encyclopaedia, and surely cannot be determined for another 89 years). Vast majority of readers will have little idea what version of football this refers to, and even less idea of what LSU is meant to refer to? Kevin McE (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: missed that sentence in the article: adds to the spuriousness of the title that it was being given even before the game was played. Added "so-called" to the article, to try to clarify that it is no more than journalistic excess. Kevin McE (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • One familiar with American sports would probably need to weigh in as to how proper "game of the century" may be. I'm Canadian, but I despise sports of all sorts; as such, I have no clue how often the hyperbole is used. According to our article, the 20th century had 8 or 9 "Games of the Century" so... Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominations for 1 December

Wonderful progress was made concerning older nominations (see above). Several articles were nominated for 1 December, Romanian National Holiday. Some are already in the Special occasions section, but not yet reviewed:

They need attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering how do we reconcile having Romanian related DYKs with the following: "Try to avoid country- and topic-centrism. Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia with a global audience. No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue, and no more than one is even better."
Is it that each batch of DYKs on Dec 1 will contain no more than 2 DYKs related to the Romanian National Holiday?VR talk 06:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to each and all! Three a day is fine by me, and I'm sure the same goes for the other editor who contributed, but who is inactive at the moment. Dahn (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the hooks are currently in the queue to go up some time on 1 December. I added a 7th hook to the prep areas for that day so that the Romanian hooks would not be quite so dominant, but Nikkimaria apparently has decided that 6 is the maximum number of hooks in each set, as she moved some of the hooks out of those sets. (Eight hooks used to be the standard, with four DYKs daily, and sometimes we went up to 9 hooks when the nomination volume was high...) --Orlady (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Some of the Romania related hooks are not exactly related to the day and could appear a little later, imo. Some of the articles I saw are stunningly detailed, and the average reader might enjoy them more spread out a bit. Just please don't forget that there also two for 2 Dec, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Old nominations awaiting review - 29 Nov

And these are the nominations that have been listed for two weeks and haven't received a review yet. Note also that it's worth trawling through the old nominations to check those that have been reviewed, but may be stagnating for one reason or another.

The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks.

November 12
November 13
November 14
November 15

It would be nice to get this down to no more than a week, but let's not get ahead of ourselves! Harrias talk 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to close this nomination?

Is it safe to close this November 15 nomination as failed- Template:Did you know nominations/Dynamic quartz recrystallization? SL93 (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks failed to me, but in situations like this it's fine to just wait for someone else to come along and close it. It protects you from being accused of being unfair, and leaving the nomination on T:TDYK for another day or two doesn't hurt anything. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping the writer would step up and finish the job, but has not done so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hook for You are the Apple of My Eye

The wrong hook was used for the article You Are the Apple of My Eye in Prep 2. The one that was verified is "... that You Are the Apple of My Eye grossed more than NT$20 million before its official release date in Taiwan?" (See Template:Did you know nominations/You Are the Apple of My Eye). Thanks!

It appears to me from the nomination page -- and the page history -- that both hooks were approved. What's the problem? --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
If that hook were to replace the one in the queue, WP:CURRENCY would mandate some changes. Kevin McE (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for appearing problematic, but I believe that the first hook sounds more interesting and would get more views. And would "... that You Are the Apple of My Eye grossed more than $20 million New Taiwan Dollars (approx. US$660,000 as at November 2011) before its official release date in Taiwan?" solve the problem that was highlighted?--Lionratz (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Otium

Could I get a second (or third and fourth?!) opinion on this one? I've read through the article, and the arguments on the talk page in depth, and am still struggling with the nomination. On the one hand, I'm inclined to reject it: the sheer amount of the article that has been contested at one stage or another implies to me that there are issues. But on the other hand, reading it; there is little I can argue with. The article may not be the best written, but that isn't the most major issue here, and I would say that the standard is good enough for DYK. There is no evidence of copyvio or close paraphrasing, though the article does use a lot of quotes. Most of the talk page issues revolve around claims of "dubious-ness" – without access to the offline sources, I have no way of verifying this. At the moment the page has gone reasonably quiet, but I'm worried that if it is approved, there may be fireworks on the page again by the time it reaches the main page. I'm inclined to reject it, on the basis of the concerns and the risk of it being a hotbed of activity while on the home page, but I would really appreciate another editor having a look over it and weighing in with their opinion: I'll warn any volunteers though, there is a fair bit to wade through! Harrias talk 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I read the article and talk page along with the article history yesterday. What I saw seems to be primarily one editor taking exceptions but I believe a compromise was reached and his conditions seem satisfied. You're right, there is a fair bit to wade through. Good thing it was done in my leisure time. ;)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Joe Riley (One Life to Live)

I don't understand why this article is in DYK right now if all the sources are primary and are basically One Live to Live summaries. I don't see how this article meets our guidelines on fiction? I saw the nomination page and it was an concern. Can this be pulled? Thanks Secret account 01:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK did not update, queues empty

No update to main page. Queues are empty. Two prep sets are full. Admins-stroke! stroke! PumpkinSky talk 00:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

C. A. Patrides

This nomination had multiple issues of close paraphrasing raised on November 24th, following which the nominator said that he had re-written the sections concerned (and the entire article) to remove any possible further close paraphrasing. The nominator then went away and canvassed another editor to approve the nomination, specifically asking them to say (their quotes) "It's been rewritten, and I'm AGFing the off-line stuff, per WP:AGF".

The canvassed editor duly approved the nomination, although using an account "RetiredUser12459780" instead of the account at which they had been canvassed. They did not mention the fact that they had been approached, in their review.

Nikkimaria, who discovered the bulk of the copyright issues originally, confirmed that the sources she re-checked "appear to be fixed".

Given the previous copyright concerns, and then the extreme lengths taken by the nominator (quote above) to get the status of the off-line sources accepted as "good faith", I suggest that this should not go on the main page until the off-line sources have been independently checked. I requested copies of the relevant Milton Quarterly articles from my library yesterday, and hope they will arrive this week. It's possible that others can get access to the relevant material even faster, or already have - if the offline sources have already been independently checked, that's fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This was pretty funny. :D
Let's see here.
  • On the left hand, Demiurge1000 has worried about the C. A. Patrides article, and provided a very selective quotation---a bad habit of his---and not only of his.
  • On the right hand, I, TCO, Nikkimaria, and SandyGeorgia have had a thorough discussion, which clarified that it would have been better for TCO to state, "reviewed at the request of KW". It seems that TCO, Nikkimaria, Sasha, and my writing-partner all read the Milton Quarterly
  • So DYK balanced the "looks good for a DYK" judgment of TCO, Nikkimaria, etc., against Demiurge1000's latest prattle about my editing. Of course, Demiurge1000's request for delaying C.A. Patrides failed!
A pity that nobody suggested that Demiurge go easier on a first-time DYK editor.
As I wrote, Demiurge's quotation is selective and again a misrepresentation. What did he leave out? After a long discussion, TCO's direct question was whether he should treat this like a Good Article review or was DYK-status lower than GA review. Essentially, I said he could either AGF the off-line references (AGF being a policy ...) and approve the article, or I could mail him the .pdf files and do a more thorough review. TCO is not the only writer to suggest that the article is near GA status.
This was hardly "[writers] gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses, evil minds that plot destruction, of Patrides who never wasted his time on deconstruction"---one of the best songs on Paranoid.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

the article is fine. I looked it over as described. Don't feel any need to add some special disclaimer to my comments. You all can take that or leave it. Oh...and go read the talk page if you don't think I read the sources and the article. (Personal attack removed), doubting me. Sheesh. this place is so gotcha lame. Just get over it and run the thing. I knew there would be some little attempt at me...and just left the window open anyway, cause I really don't care if someone on this site calls me a liar. I know very, very few of you would do it to my face.TCO (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Gosh TCO, your posts get a bit Internet Tough Guy when you hang out with your "friend" who edits Wikipedia while drunk. You big sweetie ;)
(By the way, the article went on, and off, the Main Page, days ago.)
KW, you're not a "first-time DYK editor" by any means; your userpage is plastered with DYK articles you've got onto the Main Page - nearly twenty of them. It's mess-ups like this one that lead some editors to assume that DYK is just a poorly supervised outlet for people who are determined to get their material up there over and over again, as fast as possible. DYK having that unfair reputation does not help things, and it's also unfair to the people who put time and effort into keeping it running, and the editors using it for its intended purpose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Demiurge1000,
Stop stalking my edits, unless you want to stick to removing spaces between periods and footnotes, which may be your best contributions on WP.
As you know, but ignored in another example of spewing half truths, the original author of C. A. Patrides was new to DYK, and you have made the newbie's experience very unpleasant. You should have just written a short note to the new editor or to me, while putting a hold on the article, rather than ending with a nasty aside.
As a familiar to User:Worm That Turned, you should be more concerned about WTT's DYKs, which pushed a falsehood that BLTs caused the price of pork to rise. I cleaned up his article on the Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival, and I should wish you to clean up the rest of his articles, which don't seem any better.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
KW, it's not "stalking" your edits to discuss concerns about close paraphrasing in an article. We don't want plagiarism or copyright violations linked from Wikipedia's main page, and there is nothing wrong with any editor assisting in making sure that doesn't happen. In your case in particular, the RfC/U about your editing covered concerns about your understanding of copyright as it affects Wikipedia, and that's a cause for concern that justifies further scrutiny.
I've had no contact whatsoever with "the original author of C. A. Patrides", so I don't believe I made anything a "very unpleasant" experience for them. (Nor would I describe them as a "newbie", incidentally.) One way to make DYK a better experience for new editors, would be not to nominate their articles for DYK without at least doing basic checks for close paraphrasing against the online source on which most of the original article was based.
I don't have expertise on the subject of pork prices, but if you have an outstanding concern in that regard, then you should consider dispute resolution. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Another aspect is that what's happened here, in combination with similar previous instances, suggests that people who have concerns about an "approved" hook should remove it from the prep areas themselves, in order to make sure that discussion happens here. Unfortunately, that may not promote calm collaborative editing at DYK, but if it's the only way to ensure proper discussion, then it's necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS reminder (plea?)

Please, folks, try to remember WP:MEDRS when reviewing articles here-- we shouldn't put medical claims on the mainpage that aren't sourced to reliable medical sources. Template:Did you know nominations/Argentine tea culture-- this one hasn't made it to the mainpage, and I haven't yet looked into what medical sources say on the statement, but it prompted me to again ask reviewers here to be aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS Porcupine in Prep 1

This hook is factually erroneous. The article never says the ship was recommissioned as HMS Pork and HMS Pine. Rather it says that the two parts were known informally as HMS Pork, and . . . HMS Pine. The ship(s) was recommissioned, but no claim is made in the article that it was under these nicknames. Agricolae (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria has fixed it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I've gone back to the original hook after clarifying the article to show that they were indeed recommissioned under those names. violet/riga [talk] 09:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
And yet the article is again talking about Porcupine afterwards. If they were recommissioned as separate ships there no longer was a Porcupine to be again recommissioned and then broken up (and the vessel from that point became two vessels, and should be spoken of in plural). While we're at it, the hook is grammatically problematic, in that there could only be two halves if it was split in two, rather than just nearly - there is a step missing here, of the RN completing the job of the torpedo. Agricolae (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

church - mosque - when?

I admit being confused by (now in prep 1) "... that in the 16th-century the Church of St. Mary of Constantinople in Istanbul was the center of a quarter mainly inhabited by Italians deported from the city of Caffa (pictured) in Crimea?"

The article looks like one about a church, takes you to a mosque, the name of the church appears only much later, the (pretty) picture shows neither a church nor a mosque and is from a different place altogether, - that is a bit too much for my taste, even if it is correct, - it probably is but I don't have the time to find out. I looked for the nomination on the article's talk, but there is no link. - Well, I recently had a picture of university not taken, also of a major opera house. - But of a major church yesterday, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • At the time the building was a church dedicated to Saint Mary of Constantinople (section, Ottoman age). In 1640 it was turned into a mosque. Therefore, the building of the event in the hook was a church (hence what is written in the hook), later becoming a mosque (hence the article title). It wasn't that uncommon, considering the Hagia Sophia also went through such a change. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Crisco! BTW, all the buildings in Constantinople/Istanbul mentioned in the Template at the end the article underwent such a transformation. This is the reason why in Turkish they are called Kilise-Camiler ("Church-Mosques"). Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This doesn't work without changing the hook, which says the picture is of Caffa. It is a little deceptive to call that a picture of the church, as I doubt the church had a minaret, and that is about all that is visible, the rest of the structure having been largely destroyed by the fire. It might be more appropriate to bump it out of the primary (illustrated) position. Agricolae (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The word "pictured" was moved. Perhaps the minarett along with the church name gives the right impression of the changes. "Pictured" doesn't imply "pictured in the 16th century", right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Newness

One of the criteria for inclusion of an article in DYK is newness, defined as being within 5 days of creation or the start of expansion. I have marked 2 articles nominated for November 23rd as not "new" enough, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek and Garret Hobart. Both were not nominated until December 1st and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek was first edited by the nominator on 17th November with the expansion starting on 21st November. Do these articles qualify for DYK? How strictly do you apply the rules? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Wehwalt is right that it is sometimes allowed. However, it is generally when we have a lack of nominations that it is allowed. Hobart is late by 3 days, so not overly late; however, the nominator has numerous DYKs under his/her belt, and as such should probably know better. I think Gerda has things under control at the Pilgrim nomination. For Hobart, it is essentially up to you (DYKSG D9). Which weighs more heavily, good article on an important subject, or the three days delay? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is a lot more worthwhile than many which make it onto DYK, so I gave it the go ahead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Early in my involvement with DYK, the standard advice was that if the date was still displayed on the noms page when a nom was submitted, we would generally let it slide. Of course, that was back before we had the current situation of numerous seemingly interminable reviews and re-reviews! However, I don't think there was ever any question that we'd tolerate a good nom for a 10-day-old article if the creation date was still displayed on the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Pilgrim is now fine by size and date (more than 5* the size of 28 Nov), no "let slide" necessary for that one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I nominated Pilgrim, but I've just now come across this discussion. Truthfully, I haven't nominated a DYK in more than a year, so I'm fairly rusty. Thanks to Cwmhiraeth and Gerda for taking an interest, and helping me through. I'll be sure to pay more attention to the timing for my next nom, promise. Oh, and isn't it interesting that the two articles being discussed are most probably future FAs? We star collectors just love causing trouble. ;) María (yllosubmarine) 21:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, should have Gus Hobart there by the end of the year. It's just waiting in line to fill my statutory slot. As we throw largesse from our royal barge, Queen Maria and yo.  :) --Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I approved Pilgrim - my pleasure - but would like someone to look at the pic license, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

How to close DYKs

I promoted 3 DYKs and rejected 1 DYK by copying and pasting from a passed nomination and a closed nomination. How do I close nominations correctly? SL93 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You just need to change the template at the top of the nomination where applicable per these instructions: Template talk:Did you know#Instructions_for_other_editors. Harrison49 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't copy and paste other nominations. That's a good way to cause errors. There are clear instructions (which Harrison49 linked above). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Chimes, Uxbridge

I am not sure how to handle this - Template:Did you know nominations/The Chimes, Uxbridge. The problem is that the creator brought in content from a different article into it. The article would not be long enough without that content. The creator asked about if the content from the other article was removed. It seems to without the content, it wouldn't be long enough. Can someone take a look? SL93 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As the creator, I can say that if the content is removed, I could most likely replace it. What is the best course of action? Harrison49 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
You can remove the content and replace it with something else to fit the DYK size. Then someone else or myself will review it. SL93 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll get on to it. Thanks for your help. Harrison49 (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw Poll on potential technical developments

Hey there! Although I know there is by no means a general consensus on this, I want to get this DYK wizard idea working at least in my userspace so we can all test it. Here are my two primary goals in creating this:

  1. To increase the ease of submitting a nomination to DYK and reviewing DYKs
    This is something that lots of people have brought up as an issue. I hope that this wizard will allow people ease-of-use when submitting a nomination but also when reviewing one. I want it to lay out all guidelines and policies clearly and allow all editors ease of access to tools which can help them along the way. This includes the tools I will mention below.
  2. To create additional but sensible barriers to submitting/reviewing a DYK hook
    This seems contradictory but think about it. If we have all of our criteria set out plainly and easily at the point of submission/review, then it will be harder for people to make mistakes (or so the thinking goes). The more barriers and checkpoints between creating an article and submitting it there are, the less likely people are to overlook something as simple as Is my article long enough?. The path an editor takes through the wizard should also helpfully point them in the direction of how to fix their mistakes, which should reduce the "culture of shame" some people feel is hanging around here.

Proposition and Poll

  1. To add the DYK checker tool to the global monobook or by another means make it so that users can run it in a fashion which doesn't require monobook manipulation. This will allow new editors and those less technically inclined to make very basic checks of their articles before submitting them, which should drastically reduce the number of articles submitted which do not even meet our basic criteria.
  2. To add a functionality on wiki which would allow users to input data into the duplication detector on-wiki, then take them to the site to run the script, thus reducing the number of clicks required to run a duplication check which a wealth of experience has shown would increase user interaction with the tool. This again should reduce the number of close paraphrasing incidences (though not totally eliminate them) and thus reduce the number of articles submitted. This will by no means fix any systemic copyvio or close paraphrasing issues on-wiki but it will help ensure that articles with these issues are not prominently featured on the front page. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment on this - Duplication Detector is designed to compare an article against a single given document that one suspects it was copied from. It does not locate such documents - this is done either by people or by scripts like Earwig's tool, which is currently down for the same reason as CorenBot, due to changes in Google's automated request policies. However, if you do manually identify a source document, it is easy to create a suitable link to Duplication Detector using {{dupdet}}. Dcoetzee 01:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    Right, shall include that. Thank you. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 02:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Vote and commentary

  1. Support as proposer PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support: Certainly! The DYK process is currently a lot more cumbersome than it should be. Especially for newer users but also for more experienced ones. --KFP (contact - edits) 23:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support - It has to be worth a try, the upload wizard at commons has made uploading images there very straightforward. Mikenorton (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support: A thrust in the right direction, certainly. Would make things easier for reviewers and proposers alike. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  5. Support #2. I'm not sure what #1 is about, I clicked on DYKchecker and saw a pile of code. But I'm not sure what it does, how it's intended to be used, etc. I like the general idea of improving the usability of DYK process, but would need to understand this specific proposal a bit better before I could support. -Pete (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    It's a javascript function that automatically checks whether an article is new or long enough to qualify for DYK. Very basic stuff but unfortunately you have to add it to your monobook. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    Okay, thanks. I think I understand now: the DYKchecker is a useful tool, and uncontroversially so, but without a bit of a technical change, it's difficult for users to install and/or use. So you want to have that technical change made. Have I got it right? -Pete (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    Exacto-mundo! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    OK, changing !vote to full support. Thanks for explaining, it sounds good! -Pete (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support - My only concern is who will be doing the testing, where and who will be developing the tool (beyond your raw start). SarahStierch (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Also thinking about metrics and how they will be measured about this project. SarahStierch (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Sarah, if I understand this right, there is almost no developer time required, it's a pretty simple copy-paste type thing; and it creates a checkbox in user preferences that allows a user to enable the tool. But it would definitely be nice to have this spelled out more clearly in the proposal; I only have this general understanding from having seen similar proposals in the past on Wikisource and other projects. -Pete (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks Pete. I'm generally rather "tech-n00b" when it comes to Wiki things (I had to ask someone what a "monobook" was regarding this). SarahStierch (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  7. Conditional Support - the current way should be kept as well as it requires less Javascript; I generally try and minimize the amount of Javascript I'm running due to poor internet performance here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  8. Support- I like the idea but I have one question. Can we include some of the criteria I had above. I'm fine if it doesn't go through though. --Kangaroopowah 01:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Hey, I think this is going to be a rather long process so I was hoping to break it down into "bite-sized chunks". Would it be ok if your proposals were included at a later date? Probably when we were discussing ground rules for inclusion in DYK? I will get to that once the basics of these mechanisms are compelte. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 02:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  9. Conditional Support. It seems like the most logical implementation would be as a Gadget rather than added to the global JS. You'll need to make a separate proposal at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals in that case, but it shouldn't be too hard to sell if you already have consensus here. Kaldari (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Just to check, Kaldari: presumably people would need to go into their preferences and opt-in before this would work? The Cavalry (Message me) 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    What is the practical difference between being implemented as a Gadget vs. in global javascript? -Pete (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Gadgets have to be manually activated in "My preferences" -> "Gadgets". Most people don't even know they exist. --KFP (contact - edits) 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Apparently it's perfectly feasible for the DYKChecker tool to be made into a button rather than either of these options. I am hopeful. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    So there are 3 options? What are they? (1) javascript something-or-other, (2) gadget (which I think could be either on or off by default, but off probably makes most sense), or (3) a button (where? working how? with what need for technical infrastructure?) I still think a clearer explanation of what is desired would be really helpful. It seems lots of people are supporting -- I'm not sure if they have a lot more technical understanding than I do, or are making assumptions about things that are not spelled out, or what. I think a straightforward description of what is desired would be helpful -- both to developing consensus here, and to informing developers of what they need to do down the road. -Pete (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  10. Support Good idea to try. I currently have the Shuninatot DYKcheck tool as a button and find it very useful. It makes it easy to check for 1500 chars. If we can make checking for plagiarism that simple then it might not only make checking articles but it might even get our lost DYK contributors back if we can check this more easaily. Got to be worth a bit of pain Victuallers (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  11. Support This could be a great thing to have. People like wizard-type interfaces. If people are throwing up their hands when trying to nominate, we should have something like this alongside the "old school" way. I think it's important that any new interface emphasize the expectations on the article, especially regarding copyvio/cp. It's a bit of work putting it together though, and probably beyond my abilities. The Interior (Talk) 01:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  12. Comment - I'm confused about this. Are we !voting on the DYK Wizard idea, or the notion of making tools like DYKCheck and DuplicationDetector more accessible? In principle, I'm in favour of both, but I'm just not clear on exactly what I'm being asked to !vote on here. Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    On the idea making tools like DYKCheck and DuplicationDetector more accessible. I'm finding it a nightmare trying to do it myself and developers like to see some consensus before they do things. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    Okay, well I'm strongly in favour of making tools more accessible, although I always prefer to see a concrete proposal. I know that I myself have been discouraged from reviewing on several occasions recently by the fact that I can't be bothered searching the Wiki to find a link to DuplicationDetector. More transparent processes are always a plus in my view, particularly with a system like DYK which has quite a high learning curve. And please keep working on that Wizard! It looks quite promising at this stage. Gatoclass (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  13. Support. Looks like a good idea that will make it easy for newer editors to contribute. It is consistent with the spirit of WP:BOLD.VR talk 06:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  14. Support and drastically reduce the weighting queue time from 4 weeks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  15. Neutral I don't see what this does that the existing system doesn't. The instructions at T:TDYK#How to post a new nomination are already a bit like a wizard, just without nice curvy buttons (you enter your title in a box, click a button, and it creates a page with most of the nomination already filled in, and instructions for what to do next), and there is an even more dumbed-down version at User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2. (Although even that might not be dumbed-down enough, given the number of times I saw nominators and reviewers failing to follow simple instructions recently.) That set of dumbed-down instructions is prominently linked from T:TDYK#How to post a new nomination, so no one can even get to the nomination stage without seeing it.

    On the other hand, as far as I can tell this proposal doesn't actually change any of the existing procedure; it's essentially just another set of instructions for the existing procedure. Thus, I don't see why it would hurt anything; at the worst, it's redundant. I have no experience making wizards like this so I would take no responsibility in maintaining it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    Oppose Sorry, I thought this was about the nomination wizard. As for the proposals about the javascript tools and stuff, I don't think this is necessary. Both DYKcheck and the duplication detector have clear instructions for use, and this proposal seems like a lot of technical work to solve a problem that could just be solved by people reading instructions (as always, I highly recommend reading instructions when you start something new). If the instructions are hard to find, the solution is to link them more prominently. Plus, DYKcheck and the duplication detector are just aids anyway, they're not mandatory parts of the review process; I know I, for one, use neither (I get page sizes with User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js, and copyvio checks by hand). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  16. Conditional Support. Go ahead and have fun working on this potentially useful tool. Seems rather early to be voting for anything, though. It's hard to decide "whether or not to enact technical changes to DYK tools" without a somewhat polished prototype. --PFHLai (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody kick the update bot, or do we need to do it manually?

DYK didn't update several hours ago, when it was supposed to. This was because the image hadn't been protected yet. This is ultimately my fault -- I've started to believe the people at Commons who have gently suggested that we didn't need to protect images because cascading protection of images at Commons has been working efficiently. (The image is cascade-protected now, but it apparently took more than 8 hours for the cascade-protection to kick in.)

Do we need to update manually, or can somebody kick the bot? --Orlady (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to manually kick the update bot. I'm too scared to try but I have protected the image. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
For the record, you don't need to manually do anything with the bot in these scenarios. The bot will auto-magically figure out that the image is protected, and then update (within 10 minutes of image protection, or whatever else was blocking the bot from updating). Shubinator (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Red goats, pregnant cow

Now in prep 2: Red goats of Kingston (pictured), - what's pictured is only one, while the article says "one of many". Prep 1 has a pictured line on a pregnant cow and her calf, - as long as the animal is pregnant, there is no calf, at least in German. Is that different in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the red goats hook needs to state "(one pictured)". And I suppose with the the pregnant cow hook, to be specific, we need to state that it's an "unborn calf" or that the "calf will be born deformed". I know in general usage in English we can refer to a pregnant mother as carrying "a baby" (even if that may not be the technical definition). Anyway, I'll make the changes now. Zangar (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
For the second one, "can cause fetal deformities" would be another way to say the same thing. "Unborn calf" is kind of awkward. Froggerlaura (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting instructions

I posted this on Allen3's page and he said to ask here. I just moved a DYK hook to a prep area for the first time. In the instructions it says "N13: After adding an entry to a preparation area page, remove it from the suggestions page. Make sure to include the article name, date, nominator, and creator under the "Credits" section to allow others to return it if a dispute arises." at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Preparation_areas. but in T:TDYK#How_to_promote_an_accepted_hook it does not mention removing the article sub page from T:TDYK. Why is this? And can the contradictory instructions be updated? PumpkinSky talk 01:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The instructions at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Preparation_areas are wrong. I will update them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.PumpkinSky talk 01:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for software in DYK

Are Techcrunch and Engadget considered reliable sources for software? SL93 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends very much who wrote the specific part of the site you're wanting to cite, and what kind of content you want to cite - both are multi-author blog-type sites, and some authors will be more reliable than others. The second of the two also explicitly states that it posts rumours and unofficial content, which would be less reliable. You might get a more complete answer by posting more detailed info at WP:RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Another ongoing copyvio problem

Please see User talk:Ratio Scripta (for DYK count) and Talk:The Longford Trust (noting that all of those DYKs went through before Nikkimaria began checking). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Was there meant to be a comment at WT:GAN as well? Choess (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I summarily delisted The Longford Trust from GA status and alerted the GA reviewer to the talk page points I had raised. I'm not sure why an article riddled with copyvios made it through GA just a few days ago but I wasn't going to raise it at WT:GAN; I'm assuming the reviewer had a bad day when checking the references. Sandy saw my post at the GA reviewer's page and left a message here, although the user only has 4 DYK credits and no-one has yet reviewed the other three articles to see if there are copyright problems there too or whether this is a "one-off". I wasn't going to raise it here either, for that reason, but I can see why Sandy did. BencherliteTalk 08:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The reason "Sandy did" was to highlight the value of Nikkimaria's work (since it is so often questioned), besides that the other DYKs need to be checked. Anyone have time to do that (I don't)? GA was already dealt with (without any complaints that I'm aware of). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Harumpf

Resolved

[2]

And for the apparent reason, as I understand it see this, which I previously removed because it was a little strong (I would not restore it had there been a follow up).  Volunteer Marek  07:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Passing. Let's move on and try to reduce the backlog. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Chough

I have twice changed the link to the name of the species (Red legged Chough), and it has now been changed yet again to Cornish Chough, with a piped link, yet again. There is no species, or subspecies, of that name. It the recent case of mention of the Pied Avocet, it was insisted here that the international name is to be used in preference to the local name (if indeed Cornish Chough is used as a local name, it is not a name in widespread use even within the UK). Kevin McE (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, yes I can see this and the hook works when using the name to describe (in essence) Red-billed Choughs in the UK, and is more succinct than saying Cornwall populations of the Red-billed Chough. Bit torn on this one.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This is old business now, but it's still worth explaining myself. Whereas the scientific names for a species is unique and specific (or at least is supposed to be -- changes in nomenclature and taxonomic controversies do occur), a species can have multiple common names, and many species do have multiple common names. While Red-billed Chough appears to be the preferred common name for Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, the same bird is also known as "Chough" or "Cornish Chough", and the name "Cornish Chough" is what was used in the article on which the hook is based. Additionally, the references cited in the article did not use the term "Red-billed." A DYK hook is supposed to reflect what the reader will find in the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This is highly inconsistent. If the article is not following our guidelines, it is the article that should be changed, not the Main Page content. Cornish Chough is not the common name of the species in the UK (where it is generally known as simply as Chough, per British Trust for Ornithology and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), nor is it the name favoured by the International Ornithological Congress, and therefore by WP:BIRDS, Red-billed Chough, which this hook was moved away from three times. The Cornish tourist board is not a competent authority for expertise on the proper name of bird species. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK fact illegally tampered with

A fact from Joseph Saragossi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 December 2011. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know ... that the Arab governor of Safed offered money to persuade rabbi Joseph Saragossi not to leave the town?" Yet the confirmed version was: "that the Arab governor of Safed offered money to persuade Palestinian rabbi Joseph Saragossi not to leave the town?" Why was the "P word" removed by Orlady when she promoted it? [3]. I was shocked that it had been tampered with in transition. That is just not right. Chesdovi (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You've asked Orlady first, of course? <checks your contributions> Oh no, you haven't. Any reason why not? You've notified Orlady that you've raised this issue here? Oh no, you haven't. Any reason why not? Orlady hasn't "illegally" tampered with anything. Editors assembling sets may make alterations and adjustments to hooks as necessary for length or copy-editing improvements. That may be the reason, I don't know: but until you ask Orlady, we won't know, will we? BencherliteTalk 11:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Minor improvements to length or copy-editing, okay, but any other improvements are to be made at the nomination, not afterwards without anyone knowing. Important content from the hook was removed without consent from those involved. Chesdovi (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a court of law and Wikipedia guidelines are not laws. It's not constructive to accuse people of doing something "illegal". rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Post-approval copyediting is sometimes necessary to ensure balance of the presentation on the main page. Also, I note with some curiosity that nowhere in the article is Saragossi defined as being Palestinian. Ergo, the claim that you are upset about is not verified in the article itself. If it was so important, it would have been cited in the article. Resolute 16:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Generally speaking: once a hook is in prep, there is only little time to check back with the author(s) in case of changes. It's a good idea for them (authors) to check what happens in prep, and change themselves if neccessary, everybody can do that. I recently found several minor changes necessary (see above). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Further information: In this instance, Victuallers had already removed the word "Palestinian" from the hook on the nomination page at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Saragossi, Chesdovi had reverted that edit, and Victuallers and Chesdovi had discussed the topic on their user talk pages (User talk:Victuallers#hello nice person and User talk:Chesdovi#Joseph Saragosi). Saragossi was born in Spain, apparently often described as "Sefardi", and connected to Palestine only by the fact that he worked in Safed (in Palestine), which city was specifically named in the hook. Accordingly the word "Palestinian" would not add information value to the hook and could, in fact, detract from its accuracy. It appears to me that the only purpose of calling him a "Palestinian rabbi" in the hook would be to promote the article Palestinian rabbis. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It is within the scope of informational value to accept "Indian cricketer Ibrahim Khaleel" and William Hazlitt, the "influential Irish Unitarian minister" but we are not to be informed of the nationality of the good rabbi, be he Spanish, Sicilian or Palestinian? The governor of Safed can be called "Arab" – but surely that is inaccurate, Safed today being governed by non-Arabs. And if we need not take into account such concern at DYK, surely it could be of unneeded informational value to label the governor Arab, it being known that most, if not all governors in Palestine in the 16th-century were indeed Arab, that is, if we take for granted that the reader knows that Safed is in Palestine. If the "the Lizard Peninsula in Cornwall are a breeding site for the rare Cornish Chough" (there is no infomational value calling them "Cornish" as it is already mentioned they are from Cornwall - much more accurate to use official Red-billed Chough) is okay, why are DYK readers denied the regional identity of Saragossi? It seems Orlady had her own good reasons to remove "Palestinian", but she should have shared her thoughts with us beforehand. It is all the more damning that after discussion and subsequent agreement between two other editors on this very matter, noted by Orlady, the consensus for inclusion is ignored without consultation. The bottom line is: Significant infomation (where the rabbi is from) in the hook was altered unilaterally. What can be done? Chesdovi (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting review for a DYK for an anniversairy

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Wroniec_(book) which I've nomianted on 23 November 2011 is still waiting for a review. I usually don't care about that, but in this case I asked for this to be considered for the December 13th anniversairy, and this is not too far away anymore... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sobottka (Q2)

On a relatively minor point, we do not need to use euphemisms such as that he "lost both his sons": they died, they predeceased him. Many of our readers are not native English speakers, and euphemistic idiom is not encyclopaedic tone.

But more importantly, the factual basis of the hook; Bernhard Subottka died on 20 July 1945, and Fuhlsbüttel had ceased to be a Nazi camp on 3 May, therefore he did not die in a Nazi camp. The final clause seems to fail POV test: are US prisons capitalist prisons? Have UK prisons fluctuated between being centre left prisons and monetarist popularist prisons?

I'm afraid I can only suggest that a total rethink is needed on this one. Maybe that he was condemned to death before going on to work for the government? Kevin McE (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Loading queues - vacancies in prep areas

Hi all, I loaded 3 of 4 prep areas (felt funny loading the last which has one of my own hooks in it :P), so folks can load away.....any other admin is welcome to load the last prep to queue too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As of today, three prep areas are empty, if someone want to load hooks....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

The hook for Pilgrim at Tinker Creek (not my article, I just reviewed the considerable 5* expansion) is now in prep3 - without the picture. Instead another building. We have so few pictures of people, and this is a GA, - I would like to see it pictured, perhaps later, no rush, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I included that without the picture was that firstly, there are relatively few hooks approved to choose from and secondly, the current DYK pcitures a person, as does the next one (tenuously) and prep2, while none of the other prepared queus had a building. Feel free to cut Pilgrim at Tinker Creek and put something else in it's place though. Harrias talk 15:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

George Tchobanoglous

Would somebody with a good idea of the paraphrasing and plaguarism rules have a look at this review please? I don't know enough to make a decision, and it would be nice to get the nomination closed one way or the other given how old it is: Template:Did you know nominations/George Tchobanoglous. Thanks in advance. Harrias talk 17:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at that article a few days back, with the idea that I was going to revise it to eliminate the issues. I found the article frustrating. It's a very superficial gloss-over of his CV, apparently based mostly on repeating the concise (but inherently uninformative) statements about his accomplishments that were included the citations for awards he received. Unfortunately, most of the online content I've found about him is essentially the same. I did find a little bit of meatier information, and I'm working on using it to flesh out the article a bit. --Orlady (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh Father! (Q2)

The last hook has an extraneous comma after "sewn shut". Should be removed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess it can go with two commas or without two commas, but not without one comma. Open for discussion. Materialscientist (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Q6 needs image hook

Q6 is in need of an image hook, preferably before hitting the Main Page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the hook by stealing one from one of the prep areas. Note that anyone who can remove a hook from a queue also should be able to replace the hook that is removed. Regarding removal of an image hook from the main page, the instructions for administrators at WP:DYK state, "If it is the first hook and hence has an associated picture, you must replace it with another hook with a picture." --Orlady (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Orlady. Not only is it good manners to clean up any mess you create (particularly when you use your admin bit to create the mess), but changing approved sets in the DYK queue to unstable configurations has a strong potential for disrupting the normal operation of DYK by stopping or breaking DYKUpdateBot. --Allen3 talk 01:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
When an approved hook set on queue is changed such that the set is no longer suitable to be automatically loaded onto MainPage by the bot, please remove or disrupt {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} at the top of the queue template. Correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC, this will tell the bot to move away from the broken hook set and instead use the next hook set on queue. (If there isn't one on deck, the bot won't put anything new on MainPage. Right?) Let's not allow the bot to accidentally post a broken set on DYK and mess up MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless Shubinator has significantly changed the bot since the last time I read through the source code, DYKUpdateBot will not not skip over the next scheduled queue looking for another queue with a proper {{DYKbotdo}} tag. There are however a number of sanity checks performed on the next scheduled queue that are run starting about 2 hours before an update is performed. One of these checks is ensuring the set image is properly protected. If one of these sanity checks, which include ensuring the set image is protected (a difficult task when no such image exists), fail the bot will normally report an error and refuse to load the problematic set until the problem is corrected. To the best of my knowledge the bot has never attempted to load a set with no image so it is also possible that the bot could crash if the set had not been fixed in time. --Allen3 talk 19:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Correct; the bot will not skip over queues. However, removing {{DYKbotdo}} will stop the bot from updating. If you really want to tell the bot to skip a queue, tweak the queue count. The bot shouldn't crash if it doesn't find an image; during this update the bot hadn't yet been programmed for {{DYK listen}}, so it didn't recognize the file, but updated cleanly. (Having said that, the image/file code has changed a decent bit since then, so let's try to avoid it...) Shubinator (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Pointless title

Am I the only person who wonders what's the point of the rubric "Did you know?" The facts presented are so obscure that no one can be expected to know them. One might as well title this section "Almost nobody knows (and fewer consider it very significant) that..." Mark K. Jensen (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, let's see... because of systemic bias some significant parts of other countries' histories are still not on Wiki. Two recent articles that were just created and are on highly significant topics are Soepomo (one of those who helped write Indonesia's constitution) and Java War (1741-1743) (a war between a joint Chinese-Javanese army against the Dutch causing the fall of a 200-year-old kingdom). Or we can see subjects that, because of systemic bias, are known throughout their own country but have little presence outside of it, such as Ayu Ting Ting and Norman Kamaru... Safe to say that more than "almost nobody" knows about many of these topics, despite DYK being many people's first introduction to the subject. Heck, if it were something that everyone knew, nobody would read it in the first place (compare Premarital sex (2.1k hits) and Muria people (16.1k hits), both of which were in the same hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The phrase "did you know" (both as used here and as commonly used in the Real World) doesn't imply any suggestion that the person already knows the thing. It's just a way of introducing a new fact to someone. Is this phrase really what you're concerned about, or are you just looking for a roundabout way to complain that you don't like the project's content? rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Beat up? - I understand the question as not regarding the wording of the rhetorical device, but regarding the content, the kind of facts. That's what I tried to answer. The facts are good for some, not for others. I have a pictured fact there at the moment which I hope is good for some (not many), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, not to belabor a point, here's what I'm being asked if I know (or knew before I read it here) in the section in question on Dec. 10, 2011: (1) that since its 16th-century closure, Bilsham Chapel (pictured) in West Sussex has been two cottages, a shed and now a house; (2) that between 1887 and 1888 Alexandre Delcommune explored 12,000 kilometres (7,500 mi) of water routes in the Congo Basin; (3) that a 2004 glitch in TriTech emergency-response software rendered Austin, Texas dispatchers unable to locate their patrol cars on the street; (4) that the British destroyer HMS Basilisk evacuated a total of 695 men on 31 May 1940 from Dunkirk before she was sunk by German aircraft the next day; (5) that ablastin, a rat antibody, prevents the parasite Trypanosoma lewisi from reproducing, yet keeps it in adult form; (6) that Hall of Fame pitcher Jack Chesbro received his nickname "Happy Jack" while working in a psychiatric facility. I'm sure these facts are interesting to some and significant to a few others, but what they lack is any of the contextualization that might suggest why someone thinks they are worth other people's time. As it is, five minutes after I've read these facts, I'm back in my previous state of ignorance. My congratulations on those whose memories are better or who can see more deeply than I can how "highly significant" they are. My underlying thought is not to complain but to suggest that this section offers opportunities that are not being exploited very well. Oh, and by the way, I don't feel "beaten up"; thanks to Cynwolfe for the concern! Mark K. Jensen (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You make some good points regarding the DYK set currently on the main page. Several of the hooks in it contain what might appear to be excessively trivial information (particularly numerical information) that detracts from the overall effectiveness of the hooks. This is something that we all need to be attentive to when drafting hooks and assembling hook sets. It's a good idea not to cluster similar hooks together (including hooks that contain numbers), but that's sometimes hard to do. It seems to me that three of these hooks could have been edited to make them seem less trivial and thus more interesting (although the dates I would have trimmed can be a source of interest):

  1. ... that between 1887 and 1888 Alexandre Delcommune explored 12,000 kilometres (7,500 mi) of water routes in the Congo Basin in less than one year?
  2. ... that a 2004 glitch in TriTech emergency-response software rendered Austin, Texas dispatchers unable to locate their patrol cars on the street?
  3. ... that the British destroyer HMS Basilisk evacuated a total of 695 men on 31 May 1940 from Dunkirk before she was sunk by German aircraft the next day?

As for that hook about the rat antibody... Having skimmed the article, I would have preferred a hook that said that Trypanosoma lewisi caused the first confirmed extinction of a mammalian species by a pathogen. --Orlady (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We now have a Pulitzer-Prize winning book which I found good to know, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

1883 Egyptian election (Q1)

Saying that something is vaguely pyramidal is not the same as saying that it is based on the design of a pyramid. Claim not supported by the article. Kevin McE (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The hook is about someone saying it, not about the veracity of the comparison (which I can't verify because the source is offline). Materialscientist (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
But there is a difference between cynical opinion, and objective analysis. If we are dealing with the former, as seems overwhelmingly likely in this case (although I have the same problem in verifying that with absolute certainty), we should make that clear. Compare the phrases The law of coverture has been considered equivalent to equine mammals and Legislation holding a man responsible for his wife's actions lead to the observation that "the law is an ass". Kevin McE (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Crop image in Queue 5

Cropped pic now in place. --PFHLai (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I think that looks much better, especially for illustrating the hook, but also for general attractiveness at thumbnail size. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

slow down?

We have less than 20 reviewed and approved hooks left on T:TDYK. Is it time to slow down the bot and post new hook sets on MainPage at a slower pace? --PFHLai (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I.e. 2 rotations of seven hooks? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Though we have 147 hooks awaiting approval: the problem is the lack of reviews, slowing the process down will just extend the backlog, we need to find a way to get the reviews done, although I concede that if they aren't done, there is little that can be done. I'm going to try and get through a fair few this afternoon, so hopefully we won't need to slow down for a few days yet if we do at all. Harrias talk 12:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The main task is to get some copyediting to distance some of the older candidate articles from sources, or rereviewed after copyediting (or just archive some unsalvageable ones). I'd help but am multitasking like crazy! Might have a crack a bit later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Harrias, the solution is to get more reviews done; slowing the rotation will only make the rotation worse. I'll go review some.PumpkinSky talk 13:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area needs a how-to update

Please see Template:Did_you_know_nominations#Special_occasion_holding_area for a comment with explanation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it, at least in part. However, I didn't remove the disgruntled user's note -- there may be some additional improvements needed. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice

I have noticed that the nomination pages (Template:Did you know nominations/article) have an edit notice when edited, with a summary of the things to check when doing the review. There is a line at the end that says "You may notify the nominator of problems with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}". Is it possible to change the edit notice to replace "Article" (which is a static word, the same for all nominations) with the name of the nominated article, so that people using that code can simply copy and paste it? Cambalachero (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

To my understanding the notification of the nominator is less important now that each individual nomination can be watched. For my last reviews I planned to notify nominators in case nothing happened in 3 days, but they always responded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I just changed it. Now it will replace "Article" with the name of the DYK nomination subpage. Usually that is the same as the name of the article, but not always, so this won't always work correctly, but it's the best I can do. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as a new reviewer, the change was quite convenient earlier today. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Death and Destruction

Since I disqualified [this article] on the grounds that it was out of time for nomination, I have been informed by the author that "the article was submitted on November 14 but it wasn't approved until November 23. If I had submitted it while still in AFC, I would have been told to wait until it was moved to mainspace."
I think its possible inclusion in DYK should be reconsidered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Added later. The author of this article does not have a user name. He/she seems to write articles on wrestling, particularly with reference to North Carolina. I have seen 3 nominated for DYK that appear to be by the same author and there may have been others. By using different but very similar IPs, he/she avoids the necessity to review other articles. Is there any policy on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we should enforce the review other articles requirement. We need more reviewers. PumpkinSky talk 12:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you think it's asking too much saying that a contributor to DYK has to sign up and not use an IP? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Definitely; Wikipedia is intentionally designed to allow IP editing, and I don't think we should stray from that here. Harrias talk 15:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say editing in general nor creation of articles, but perhaps DYK? - Also I think to open a account is not a big deal, anybody could do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
On the original question, Rjanag has reopened the nomination, and I agree with that decision; the timer started when the article hit mainspace. There are some complications when this IP user nominates articles. Since an IP cannot create pages in Template space, this user creates the nomination in Template talk. Unfortunately, this does not work correctly, as {{DYK nompage links}} assumes pages are in Template space. I have moved nine of the user's nominations from Template talk to Template. Four of them have been promoted, one rejected (a reviewer had concerns, the IP responded within a few hours, and the reviewer never returned), and four are pending. Although the IPs are all different, it's reasonably obvious that it's all the same person, and they may or may not have additional DYK credits. IP users should be subject to the same rules as everyone else, but it can generally be difficult to determine whether different IPs are the same person (or the same IP is different people), and how many DYK credits an individual has accumulated over various IPs. Also, although IP edits are appreciated and a valuable Wikipedia resource, I would say that IP reviews would be greeted with suspicion. For example, a user could log out and review their own hook as an IP. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK check

The tool normally works fine for me, but for Fürstenzug never returns, remaining on "processing". I had to restart my system. I don't see what might need a change in the article (not mine) and/or the tool, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just tried it and it worked fine for me. (Prose size (text only): 1985 characters (337 words) "readable prose size"; Article created by Pschemp on June 22, 2010; Article has not been expanded 5x since it was created; Article has not been created or expanded 5x within the past 10 days (537 days), for the record.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
So it may be my system that is wrong? - DYK check worked for all other articles so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Fürstenzug works with DYKcheck for me too. Prose size is 1989 but the old prose size is 1009, so it's not 5x expanded.. PumpkinSky talk 12:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Which browser are you using? (and the browser's version number) Shubinator (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Firefox 8.0, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
That's what I have too. PumpkinSky talk 18:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3: Entre a Mi Mundo

I don't understand the fourth item of queue 3, Entre a Mi Mundo. Specifically, the phrase 'that some music critics believed Selena was noting Diana Ross and Leslie Gore in the song "Missing My Baby" ': what does "was noting" mean in this context? Emulating? Copying? Sounding like? Following in the footsteps of?

The phrase is a quote from the article's lede, and is also problematic there as well. The "Other Songs" subsection references reviews that are more specific and mention Gore and Ross with more specificity. Perhaps the hook can be rewritten, but I think it should not be published in its current form. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I pulled the hook out of the queue. Maybe somebody can figure out what this was supposed to mean. --Orlady (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Q1

Should we really have two concert halls, and a classical composer, in one batch? Could at least one of the halls be re-scheduled? Kevin McE (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You read my mind, I just didn't want to cause too much trouble. If you ask me move the lead, it will be night in Europe for that set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I went to swap some hooks, but the bot moved that queue to the main page before I could save the set! --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks anyway! This (8:00) is a set now to show to people who think DYK is only about facts nobody wants to know anyway, - right to freedom of speech, curtain up! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Production line continues...

Ok, Hawkeye and I have rejigged some of the prose of Bill Bellamy (soldier) to distance from sourcing so anyone else is welcome to take a look, see Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Bellamy (soldier). Some of the other older noms are held up with the same issue (just scroll down from the top). I have to hop off the computer soon, so if folks could take a look that'd be great. I've loaded some preps into queues so we have lots of space to fill. Be back later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Q3

Bachata Rosa

We would not say that Elvis popularised the rock and roll, or that Miles Davis was a leading exponent of the jazz; remove the in Juan Luis Guerra brought the bachata music mainstream Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the wording. --Orlady (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Entre a Mi Mundo

What definition of noting is being used here? It might mean something in the world of music criticism, but not in general parlance, and not consistent with any definition in Wiktionary or Chambers. Is it imitating a vocal style? Plagiarising a song? Paying some form of homage? Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hook has been pulled. --Orlady (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Balance of the set

Two Latin music album hooks in the same set? Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

One of them has been pulled (see above). --Orlady (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
BLP

I hope there are impeccable sources for putting an accusation that somebody (Count Grog) treats his employees dishonestly on the main page. At the very least, we need to be able to attribute the accusation or add allegedly. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Professional wrestling is almost completely staged, although many fans seem to think it's real. All of the participants, apparently including this "manager", are playing roles. Accordingly, Count Grog can be considered a fictional character, even though he is identified with a real person. --Orlady (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
But employment contracts are not part of the performance. The article gives no impression that he is play-acting at being a manager, and neither does the hook.
Hmm... The cited source is offline. From the context in the article body, I thought that the "double-crossing" related to his antics in and around the fights. Where do you see a statement about employment contracts? If this one is pulled, it looks like it could be converted to a double hook with another hook currently on the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't see how you can't see: that Pro Wrestling Illustrated has called manager Count Grog the "least employee friendly boss around" due to his frequently double-crossing his own wrestlers? The hook is entirely about manager/employee relationship. Not specific mention of contracts, but that is the sort of thing a manager/promoter/booker handles with the sportsmen in such a context. I see no reason why you put manager in inverted commas as though it were a pretence: according to the article, that is precisely what he does, even if he does so with in rather flamboyant manner in keeping with the theatrical nature of the entertainment. Basically, the current hook says that a magazine made a comment about him, and then states without reservation something highly detrimental about his professional conduct, implying that the publisher of the hook (ie Wikipedia) considers him to have indulged in illegal, or at last immoral, activity. There is a world of difference between saying "Mr Jones was arrested because he is a wife beater" and "Mr Jones was arrested by the police, who accused him of beating his wife": in the first instance, the person making the comment is making a statement as to Mr Jones' actions, in the second he is only talking about what the police have done. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I swapped that hook to Queue 4 to allow more time to figure out whether this is a tongue-in-cheek remark about his behavior (as I read it) or an indictment of his actual treatment of employees (as you read it). --Orlady (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that people who know pro wrestling will understand immediately that this is part of the wrestling storyline ("kayfabe", a term I hadn't run into before looking into this), and everyone else, myself included, will wonder whether it's tongue-in-cheek or real, though in my case I thought it was extremely likely this was scripted behavior. The Pro Wrestling Illustrated article isn't any help, since 1999 could be in the kayfabe-only era, or "recent" enough that it could be from a more real-world point of view. The article itself is odd in that "Count Grog" is a character ("ring") name; the guy's real name is Greg Mosorjak. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
If it is some kind of fantasy world around the entire wrestling industry, that should be explicit in both the article and the hook, which it is not. It can't be totally fantasy: wrestlers need to be paid real money, real venues need to be booked, real customers need to buy real tickets etc etc. All of this is the realm of managers, promoters and bookers, and those are three of the roles attributed to Grog/Mosorjak in the article. Note that the claim is no longer in the article: I removed it 11 hours ago on the basis of BLP, in which regard safe is better than sorry. Kevin McE (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I replied to the message left on the talk page. The link to "double-crossed" points to Swerve (professional wrestling) so it's pretty clear (especially if you read the article further - e.g. "The Brotherhood" section) this is a kayfabe statement. 71.184.47.206 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is just absurd. Do the article and the source state that Count Grog has turned on his wrestlers, or do they say that Greg Mosorjak has turned on his wrestlers? In both cases, they speak about Count Grog, the character. This clearly shows that the statement in PWI is to be read as commentary on the character's fictional relationships with other characters. This needs to be restored to the Queues. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
"Do the article and the source state that Count Grog has turned on his wrestlers?" Yes, so we can say that that accusation has been made, but we can't present it as though it were incontrovertible fact. If it is to be taken as fictional (and I don't believe that simply using someone's professional pseudonym in the report makes that explicit), that should have been intrinsic to the hook before it appeared anywhere near the main page. And as to your comment that it should be restored to the queue, that simply proves that you have not been following the progress of the issue. Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Basketball rivalry

The rivalry itself does not include anything: the hook lacks semantic coherence. The history of the rivalry could, at a push, be said to include such games: we can certainly say that the history of games between the sides (with a piped link) included such meetings.

The hook is long and, at least to those not used to the terminology of the sport, clunky to read. suggest ...that the history of games between basketball rivals Duke and Michigan includes games that have gone to overtime when each team has been defending champion? And champion of what? Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I boldly replaced the hook with a different hook that I think is more effective (I verified it). The new hook reads: ... that seven of the twenty-nine times when Duke and Michigan played one other in men's basketball, both teams were ranked in the top ten in the AP Poll? --Orlady (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks OK. Bores me silly, but I can't imagine anything about that sport that wouldn't. Makes sense without semantic acrobatics though. Kevin McE (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

<--Shoot, I wish I had seen this before--the front page ran with "played one other". That's not grammatically correct. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it ran an unproven accusation of fraudulent activity against a living person, after that had been removed from the article, in the following batch (see BLP above) Kevin McE (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Prep 3 (John Vanderpoel)

What exactly is his book a "standard reference" for? In art, nudes drawn from behind? In anatomy, the spread of the epidermis? For a construct like "whose book The Human Figure is a standard reference", I'd expect a bit of extra information (even a complement). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not too familiar with the terminology, I understand "standard reference textbook" or however a book from which many students learn and to which references are made may be called. He was teaching drawing "The Human Figure", the one shown is an example, more examples in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggest using my original hook, which the reviewer also preferred for several reasons including the one Crisco mentioned: ... that artist John Vanderpoel, whose book The Human Figure (drawing from book pictured) is a standard reference for art students, was praised by Georgia O'Keeffe as "one of the few real teachers I have known"? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Concur. "For art students" is clear enough, methinks. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It's been changed to add "for art students" to the alt, but it looks repetitive as it has "art teacher", "art students", and "teachers". Also, the "pictured" strikes me as awkward. The original hook listed above is better. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we could drop the repetition "her art teacher" the first time, the picture shows it's about art, teacher appears in the quote. (It's now in Q3). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Q4

Thomas Crawford

dead of night is more suitable for poetry than an encyclopaedia: suggest simply at night or under cover of darkness. Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I quite liked "dead of night" but have changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Abdoel Gaffar Pringgodigdo

He was Minister of Justice in 1950: the Dutch invasion was in 1948, so he should not be referred to as a former Minister of Justice in relation to that event. Although not necessarily ungrammatical, losing much of his archives sounds as though it is: I would suggest that having archive in the singular is equivalent in meaning, and avoids the jarring phrase. Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking out the "Minister of Justice" note undermines the interest, so I have changed to "future minister of Justice" as that is what he was at the time and makes the hook make more sense. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
JT Floyd

A cornerback you say? And I didn't even know Michigan had a hurling team. (see C2 here: "Don't falsely assume that everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about". Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

added "football" Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
That figures, because Gaelic football teams have 2 cornerbacks. Kevin McE (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Lest that were too subtle. the simple word football does not identify the sport. Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Now duly Americanised....I'd bluelink it but it'd make the hook rather.....erm, blue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wording of hook in Queue 5

The wording of the last hook in Prep 3 was changed on a concern that I think has now been dispelled at the talkpage - that William Ellsworth Fisher and his brother are not/were not referred to as Fisher & Fisher. I think the new wording, referring to "the sibling partnership," is clunky and fails to recognize that the firm continued with a second generation Fisher as a partner, and would like the original hook restored: "... that William Ellsworth Fisher and his brother Arthur (Fisher & Fisher) designed the oil company town of Parco, Wyoming, in a unified Spanish colonial style to foster community?" But it's now in Queue 5 so I can't switch it back myself. In any case, the "that" has gotten left out and needs reinserting. Thanks. (And thanks to Casliber for inserting the credit to the article creator for the company article. I've already had to be a nudge about this nomination once, sorry about that.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed it because the initial impression was that Fisher and Fisher referred to Arthur. I would think that whatever the company subsequently became is quite irrelevant to the hook: it is the name, and partnership composition, of the company at the time that would be relevant. I also thought it worth clarifying that they were architects, not just oil company men exercising authority over something not necessarily in their area of expertise. That they were collectively known as Fisher and Fisher is still not attested in the article of that name, although there is some evidence at talk. Kevin McE (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
If the current hook is to be kept:
• it needs a "that" (as mentioned by Yngvadottir)
• "Architects" should be made lower case. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Variety of hooks

As I've been loading I have found "runs" of similar hooks, which I am guilty of myself I know. Anyway, for diversity, anyone is welcome to pillage ideas from User:Casliber/To-Do#Potential_DYKs where I stored ideas for 5x expansions from previous discussions. If you do, feel free to strike, tick off or remove from my page (I might even trim it myself). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Locoweed Q1

Gross exaggeration of what the article asserts. Article says that One to three months of heavy exposure causes death; hook claims that livestock usually die from eating it. Kevin McE (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Any rewording to less dramatic sounds......less dramatic. I love the name "locoism" so changed to:

"... that livestock eating white locoweed develop a neurological syndrome known as locoism?"

Howzat? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Kenny Demens Q1

As in the case of his teammate, we need to specify the sport per supplementary C2 Kevin McE (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"American football" added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Beneath The Snow Encumbered Branches nomination (Dec. 9)‎

I believe that the orthography of the article title, and hence the nomination, is incorrect: going by MOS:CT, "The" should be lowercase: Beneath the Snow Encumbered Branches.

Fixing it would require moving the article, and, the trickier part, changing the Template:Did you know nominations/Beneath The Snow Encumbered Branches and all the various places within the DYK pages affected by this. This may be easier at this stage than I think; I just remember what a headache it was to change a DYK when an article was moved to adjust its title orthography after it got to the prep area stage, and don't trust myself to figure out all the steps needed. Thanks to anyone who can take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The template title needs to be kept the same, but everything else is fixed. --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
For a situation like this, all that is really necessary is editing the capitalization of the title in the hook, which is what readers see. Readers don't generally see the nomination subpage, and thus that never needs to be moved or changed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both. I'm glad to hear that the hook can be fixed without having to adjust the name of the nominations subpage. I'm new to DYK reviewing, so I'm still learning. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I completed the final step: adding a subpage parameter to the DYKmake. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination gone missing

After fixing some issues, Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Anne Genter appears to have left the nomination page without having had a final tick, so it shouldn't be 'in transition' on its way to the queue. The nomination date is no longer on the page, so maybe there's a related issue. Schwede66 17:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Found it here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but what is it doing there? Schwede66 17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea. I just looked at "What links here". It looks as if - after a lot was approved - sourcing issues were raised. I would still expect it to go back to the Nominations in such a case. Be bold, do that, I would say, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
It's back. What happened is that it was the last open DYK for November 26. When it was initially closed, the November 26 date was removed from the page. Unfortunately, when it was removed from the queue or prep area, the November 26 nominee section was not restored at that time. I've just restored it, but as I'm fairly new at the DYK game, if I've done wrong, someone please fix things and forgive my boldness. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Aha. I thought it must be a silly little technicality that caused this. Thanks for fixing it. Schwede66 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert of 00:00 17 December 2011 (UTC) DYK update

Does anyone know why the 00:00 17 December 2011 (UTC) DYK update was reverted? There appears to be no discussion at either Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors nor this page. I suspect this is a simple case of fumble fingers but the admin who made the revert appears to have stepped away from the keyboard so it is not possible to confirm this theory. As the update is "on the clock", so to speak, a quick resolution would be useful. --Allen3 talk 01:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just returned (to my keyboard :) and reverted - whatever it was, it should not be done without an explanation. Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I discovered it at roughly the same time as Materialscientist. I'm thinking that we should give the current (restored) set an extra hour. --Orlady (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. As per Orlady's suggestion I have extended the update time for the current set by an hour. --Allen3 talk 02:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It was a glitch [4]. Materialscientist (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1 & 2

I built a couple of preps this morning—hadn't done this in ages and last time was long before all the fundamental changes. I see that both preps have been changed around substantially. This might be normal, but if it's to do with what I've done, then I'd appreciate some feedback. One can only learn from feedback :) Schwede66 03:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK is a collaborative enterprise so I would describe this kind of editing as "normal". People are entitled to tweak and improve hooks and hooksets, right up to and even after they hit the mainpage. So no concerns here, unless the changes bother you, in which case you can revert giving your reasons, or discuss them with the other editor. I'm not sure what the "subpage" business in the credit template is about though. Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Since I was the one who added the "subpage" parameters, I'll explain. In the Credits section of individual Prep and Queue pages, accompanying each article is a "View nom subpage" link. That link is displayed automatically when the nomination subpage has the same name as the article. When the names differ (e.g., for multi-noms or nomination subpages with typos in their names or if the article was moved subsequent to the nomination), a "subpage" parameter is required to display that link. This parameter is normally added automatically when necessary by the new nomination template. In this case, however, the nomination page originally had the same name as one of the nominated articles, so the "subpage" parameter was not automatically added. Then the nomination page was moved, with the new title naming both articles. (Such a move is not necessary and, in fact, it is recommended that such moves not be done.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
@Gatoclass - I wasn't bothered about it, but just wanted to know whether I could have done things differently / better. That's all. @Mandarax - thanks for the explanation. Schwede66 09:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit too much of a good thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I swapped out one of the three. --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Read It Later

I'm not sure if two of the sources - Engadget and Techcrunch - are considered reliable for DYK. I have seen articles from TechCrunch help save stuff from deletion in AfD. I would like the article reviewed soon because the hook ends with "this year". SL93 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, both of those sources are reliable. The articles are written by staff and they have an editorial review board. SilverserenC 05:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3 fix

The first hook in Queue 3 is missing a leading "that". Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 07:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Added, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Westminster Psalter template cock-up

Something went wrong here, which I hope is easily fixed by those who understand these things. My attempting to redo will probably make things worse. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, many thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Q6 Error

Q6's final hook needs (pictured) removed from it. It won't let me do it.PumpkinSky talk 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative hook in Q6

I have been hacking away at Doctor Ox's Experiment (opera) making it as complete as possibel before it hits the main page. I have now finished on it but wonder whether

would be a better hook.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes for people who know Waits. I had to look him up. The other day I proposed a hook in German with Andreas Scholl. They didn't know him. I suggest you leave it. I recommend the sophisticated article highly, including some juicy critical quotes (ah well, can we call "relentless drip-drip-drip of Chinese water-torture" juicy?). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Q6

Stroehling

It might have been apt for an art critic to anthropomorphise an animal in his description of a painting: it is not suitable for an encyclopaedia to attribute emotions such as adoration to a spaniel. Suggest Kevin McE (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dr Ox

It seems clumsy phrasing to repeat the name as that of both the book and the opera. Suggest "... that Gavin Bryars's Doctor Ox's Experiment is the third opera to be based on the science fiction novella by Jules Verne?" Kevin McE (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

ALT: ... that Norman Lebrecht found in Gavin Bryars's opera Doctor Ox's Experiment "lyrical ideas flowering from a Straussian seed-bed"? see also above for another ALT from the author, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I happy with either of those but how about
ALT: ... that Norman Lebrecht found in Gavin Bryars's opera Doctor Ox's Experiment "lyrical ideas flowering from a Straussian seed-bed" but Rupert Christiansen compared it to Chinese water torture? --Peter cohen (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Is an admin around to improve within the next 10 minutes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Young Men's Magazine

"A teenage Charlotte Bronte" is a rather informal construction, and probably ought to be teenaged anyway: it was written by Charlotte Bronte as a teenager. Kevin McE (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed this one. For the others in this group, I lack the knowledge and/or interest and/or patience to figure out what should be done. If you feel strongly enough, you might want to take them to WP:ERRORS. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Xu Haidong

He is not "one of the highest-ranking generals in China", and hasn't been for at least 41½ years, having been dead for that long. He had a name, and I do not believe that we would have omitted an Anglophone name in such circumstances: or we would have at least included a nickname such as is mentioned: "... that Tiger Xu was injured in battle nine times? Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Translated articles

How are articles newly translated from other Wikipedias treated with regard to the "New" criterion? I'm planning to nominate the Twelve Prophets of Aleijadinho. Now, that article that is probably OK, since it includes a whole section and citations not in the original, but as a matter of principle the issue of translated articles ought to be made a little clearer somewhere (unless it already is and I just didn't spot it). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been discussed, and several of us have had DYKs that fall into that category (expansions based on translations, too). My understanding is that the usual project rules apply: the referencing needs to be sufficient and one is responsible for knowing that the refs actually say what is claimed (no just copying refs from the other-language article). If your article has no unreferenced paragraphs, it is probably fine. (In practice I usually make quite substantial changes to articles I translate, based on the sources I find - or can't find - and what seems to me more important or worthy of explanation (often I summarize several other articles, as for example at Johann Poppe.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. In this case, the original article had no references at all. Another editor, who has visited the site of the statuary, has been assisting my work by providing explanatory background text and some much-needed references. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for bringing that article over and referencing it! To my understanding no references are required in the lead which should summarize referenced facts from the article. One reference per paragraph is a rule of thumb. They can be repeated, but it should be more than one source altogether - you achieved that already. Keep going through the article and nominate within the next days, even if you didn't get to the end, there is always room for improvement in the review process! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I've been through DYK (on both sides) many times; I just was uncertain about the current opinion on translated articles as nominations. But thanks for your informative reply. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and how many times have I been through finding refs for unreferenced German articles, and promised myself never to do that again, comes Ruhrfestspiele - I did it again ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Marking nominations as "ready for re-review"

Seeing how many DYK nominations undergo an extensive inquisition process before being approved, it occurs to me that the lives of DYK reviewers could be made easier if we had a method for marking a nomination as "ready for re-review." For example, it would take a person a lot of time to read through Template:Did you know nominations/1804 Haiti Massacre to determine that the article has been revised to address the concerns that Nikkimaria raised there. I propose that we add a symbol to the standard DYK arsenal to visibly identify a nomination as "ready for re-evaluation" (or "Please re-review").

Some possible candidates that would not involve cluttering Wikipedia with another new image file are:

Of those suggestions, my preference is for the first of the two recycling symbols. --Orlady (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems a sensible suggestion. A problem with the first three is that their colour is very similar to the "verified" tick – although your preference (the one without the circular border) probably looks sufficiently different. I wonder if could be re-coloured and used for this purpose? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 00:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'd go with the bent arrow but a different colour. (yellow maybe?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Please not yellow; it doesn't show up well (as in the Emblem question yellow symbol above). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Our range of DYK symbols doesn't include a red one yet. Perhaps we could have a red "bent arrow"? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Like this one Froggerlaura (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea and I like the red bent arrow personally, but red/green color blindness? How about orange? or purple? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as a person with red/greed colour blindness, it looks more brown to me, but then we don't have a brown symbol either :). It's the symbol itself that's important and I don't think that I would have any problem with it. Mikenorton (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added Froggerlaura's image to the nomination templates, so now we can see how this arrangement works. --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
alright then....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think red is an appropriate colour for a recycling symbol. What is wrong with the first recycling icon above, suggested by Orlady? It's an appropriate colour and symbol, and its design could hardly be confused with the tick icon. Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to use the recycle symbol . To further discussion, I am hereby transcluding the DYKsymbols template (below) for comparison with the symbols shown above. The symbols are a bit larger in the template than they are on the noms page; the recycle symbol in this comment is the same size as the ones in the template below. The distinction is pretty clear to me, but YMMV. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You may notify the nominator of problems with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}

Now that the red arrow symbol is used several places on the noms page, I share Gatoclass' opinion that red is the wrong color for this -- for most of us, red connotes "something wrong here". I would prefer that green recycling symbol. --Orlady (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's the Simple English version of that symbol. Art LaPella (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What about switching the colors for the DYKno and DYK?again symbols. Yellow would seem more appropriate for the second check needed, and red more appropriate for the failing notation.--Kevmin § 00:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Es ist ein Ros entsprungen

I had nominated a composer, mentioning his 2 most famous works, as a 2* BLP, accepted for Christmas Eve. I changed it now to a nomination for one of the 2 works, which needs a review, sorry for that. The article is not polished yet, but ready enough. - One of the reasons why I changed is that an observer found out that the composer was not completely unreferenced. Formally speaking this is true - but it was his own website which was used as an inline citation. Is that to be called a reference? - I learned to use the subject's website as an external link. Only asking for curiosity, I have no intention to return to bold him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The nom is now taken care of, just missing a final approval for the variation in pubtuation in ALT2 which is considered an improvement but was suggested by the reviewer. - But the question if the subject's website qualifies as an independent reliable source is open. - In this particular case I have no reason not to trust it, but I mean in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Q1

Olympus scandal

"scandal involving the Olympus Corporation", surely? Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To my American ear, the definite article "the" is optional in this context. I think this may be a difference between speakers of UK English and speakers of American English. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Martina Koppelstetter

"was the mezzo-soprano to record Lieder" sounds like an odd construction. She sang it, she was chosen to sing it, she was the soloist on it, she was selected to record it... And BR is surely a Bavarian radio station, or a Bavarian broadcaster: most radios are made in China. Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I edited this one. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Still is "Bavarian radio", though. I wanted to avoid too much German (Bayerischer Rundfunk, linked), but tried to have the same initials, so adding "station" would do. We have Radio Bremen, I was not aware that radio means only the device in English, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I think "Bavarian radio" is correct. "Station" typically means only one transmission location. Bayerischer Rundfunk broadcasts from more than one station. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC) But on second thought, it's better rendered as a proper noun "Bavarian Radio", as used on http://bavarianradio.com/ . --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
But with the it is totally unsemantic. I see no merit in trying to preserve the initialism: either put the name of the broadcaster in full and link it, or explain what it is in whichever English words are most appropriate, regardless of the initials. Orlady's comments re station opens my eyes to another ENGVAR variation: here it means, in the context of radio, a channel: The BBC is a broadcaster that has 5 national stations, but it has many, many studio locations. Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
When I edited the hook to make Bavarian radio a proper noun, I took out the "the". As for the BBC analogy, I see Bavarian Radio as analogous to "BBC Radio" or "National Public Radio" in the United States -- it's the name of a broadcaster, not the name of a station. (In contrast with the UK situation, radio in the U.S. is dominated by independent local radio "stations", described in articles like WDVX and WSM (AM). The broadcasters that can be heard all over the country go by names like "National Public Radio" and "CBS Radio", and generically are referred to as "networks".) --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The safest thing to do would be Bayerischer Rundfunk, no more, just I wanted to please those who want it in English, it's the state broadcaster of Bavaria, with 5 radio channels and several television channels, "Bayern 2" has a series Concerto bavarese which they record in life concerts and studio, and present after midnight, the perfect time for that set, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
St Silas' church

We have been through this several times before, but if specifying a place, we usually do so up to the level of sovereign state, unless we are referring to a globally significant city (which Lancashire is not) Kevin McE (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. Since this is the English language Wikipedia, I have the impression that we often omit the name of the country when discussing locations in the major English-speaking countries. "Blackburn, Lancashire" seems sufficiently specific to me without the addition of "England" or "UK". Similarly, another hook in that queue refers to "Ontario" (not "Ontario, Canada") and a recent hook said that All Saints' Church, Hertford, was described as "completely alien" in Hertfordshire (not Hertfordshire, England). Although "Blackburn" would not be recognized as referring to just one place in the world, the names of the old English counties are reasonably well-known and provide enough specificity to help the reader of the hook identify the subject matter. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:DYKSG "C2: Don't falsely assume that everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about" Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
IMO, names like "Lancashire" and "Hertfordshire" and "Ontario" are adequate to indicate what place is being talked about. --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Orlady re our normal practice. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ricky Elmore @ P2

To say that he "played eight-man football" is a misrepresentation of the source material, which only stated "Attended Grace Brethren High School in Simi Valley, Calif., a school that began at the eight-man football level in 2002 and ascended three divisions during Elmore’s time there". Elmore's arrival could coincide with a change to a higher level above eight-man football. We do not really know what Elmore played based on the available reference. Please do not ignore objections on the nomination template. --69.157.46.38 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why "linebacker" is capitalized. It's not a proper noun, and the wikipedia page for linebacker gives it as lowercase in its lede. For that matter, there should be a comma after "linebacker". BlueMoonset (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Further data: the school's website says that the transition from eight- to eleven-man football was made "in the year 2002" for Varsity Boys Football. Since Elmore's freshman year would have been 2002–2003, it seems highly unlikely that the hook claim is true—he would have played eleven-man football from the beginning. The previous poster and the objections in the template seem quite germane on further examination; I strongly recommend that the hook be rewritten. (Also, by DYK guidelines, the article's "2006" section should have a reference, and I was rather surprised to see that two sections do not end with periods.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I pulled the hook out of the prep area. It's back on the nominations page (see Template:Did you know nominations/Ricky Elmore). Regardless of whether he actually played 8-man football in high school, it's highly unlikely that high school is where he "got his start" as the hook stated. Most American football players start the game at about age 5. --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

P4 Henry Treffry Dunn

I would like to suggest a way to more gracefully word the hook to avoid both the say/said use and also the problem of having an American art museum being used with British plural rules? "The Met say" makes no sense in American English: "The Met" is a singular museum, and therefore "The Met says" is what an American reader would expect to see.

Current version: ... that the version of Lady Lilith which the The Met say is by Rosetti was said to be mostly painted by Henry Treffry Dunn?

Proposed revision: ... that the version of Lady Lilith in the The Met and ascribed to Rosetti was said to be mostly painted by Henry Treffry Dunn?

I think it would be helpful if the Dunn article made the point more clearly that the Met considers the work to be by Rosetti, not Dunn. In addition, I strongly recommend that the wording of the following sentence be improved by the judicious replacement of at least one "some": "Some have said that some of Rossetti's paintings were in fact almost entirely created by Dunn." BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_76&oldid=1142511285"