Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 78

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80→Archive 85

Time to quicken the pace?

There are four queues filled, plus 222 noms on the noms page, including 50 that are approved. Do you suppose we are ready to quicken the pace? Seven hooks per queue would take us from 18 to 21 hooks per day -- that would be a small step that we should be able to handle... --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. This backlog is significant. I have one that's been up almost two weeks and hasn't been reviewed yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd support this. It's a minor change that can be reversed with no effort at all should the backlog clear out. GRAPPLE X 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

PD text redux

A few weeks ago, we had a brief discussion concerning the use of PD text in DYK submissions. I think it clear from that discussion that a consensus emerged that some PD text was acceptable in DYK submissions, but no consensus was reached as to precisely how much. In spite of this, SandyGeorgia reverted my restoration of the longstanding consensus version which reflected prevailing consensus, back to a version which clearly does not in that it effectively prohibits the use of any PD text. Having restored the longstanding consensus version a few minutes ago, Sandy has now immediately reverted back to her preferred version.[1]

There have been two recent discussions about this issue, here and here. The following summarizes what most other users have said about this issue:

  • we should allow any "abnormal" additions (PD texts or texts from other WP articles) and count the expansion by subtracting them - Materialscientist
  • editors should be able to nominate articles that include some verbatim PD material if the material is well written and the source is reliable and independent - Aymatth2
  • The only general rule of thumb is that articles copied 100% verbatim from a single freely licensed source will need rewriting. Anything else requires discussion - Carcharoth
  • There is a case for the inclusion of small amounts of material from PD sources in some articles (assuming that they are properly attributed) - Mikenorton
  • I think "not include an abundance" could usefully be changed to "not consist for the most part of". I don't think text taken from other sources should count toward the minimum length requirement whether it's in quotation marks or not - Yngvadottir
  • Per this discussion last month, it appears that consensus is that the inclusion of some PD material is fine, although an article copied entirely from other sources (even if the license is acceptable) is not good for DYK - Crisco 1492

AFAICT there were only two users who were opposed to any use of PD text in DYK submissions - SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria. In these circumstances, it should be clear that the longstanding consensus version, which includes the crucial caveat "Try to" is the version which still has consensus. I am therefore reverting Sandy's edit. Gatoclass (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the "Try to" locution is tonally at odds with the rest of the section. It's supposed to be about "new" articles and what qualifies, yet this is talking about what might be appropriate, only doesn't explain what happens if you don't try hard, or if you do but can't find what you need. For a new person who wants guidelines on what to do, this is a singularly confusing entry. The other wording appears more helpful, with "should". Can we get a "should" or two in this entry, even if the rest needs some rewording to meet whatever consensus exists? And do note: "should" is not "must", and does allow for variance, though new DYKers will be less likely to stray from a strong guideline, at least when they're starting. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "Try to ... " is far from ideal, indeed I think its inadequacies were already recognized in previous discussion. That doesn't alter the fact that substituting "should" for "try to" is even more problematic in that users are inevitably going to interpret it as meaning "must".
I'm more than happy to discuss alternative wordings, provided that the basic principle that some PD text is acceptable is retained. Gatoclass (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
People should not interpret "should" as "must", and we should discuss before getting into another edit war about this (per BRD). I should also point out that you're misstating my position on the issue. I do not wish to argue that DYKs must not include any PD text at all, but a) these must be noted/attributed according to best practices, and b) per Materialscientist (quoted above) this text should not be included in the minimum character count. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't clear on your position to tell the truth, and I'm still not sure what you mean by "noted/attributed according to best practices". Other than that however, it's fine by me if we deal with PD text simply by not including it in the character count, in fact, in reviewing the various suggestions, Matsci's stood out to me as the most reasonable and practical solution. Gatoclass (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Nikkimaria, and seriously, Gatoclass, propose and gain consensus for text before you add it again with a claim that it is "long-standing". My personal view is that no PD text should count towards expansion or characters ... it encourages cut-and-paste editing rather than teaching editors (new and old) to correctly paraphrase sources in their own words, and shouldn't be highlighted on the main page, since it's not our own work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well if there's a consensus that we will deal with PD text by not including it in the character count, we can adjust the wording of the clause accordingly and put this issue behind us. Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem becomes, then (in an environment of Quid pro quo reviewing, where not all reviewers are well versed in all things) how to make sure that reviewers are accounting for PD text when counting expansion or characters. I've not highlighted any of them lately, but we still have lots of issues getting by new reviewers, resulting in last week at least one hook that was just ... wrong. So, if you allow any PD text, how do you know reviewers check the word count/expansion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
How do we know reviewers do anything properly? We don't, a certain amount of trust is necessary to the running of this project. We can deal with substandard reviewers, where identified, as we always have done. In terms of the technical issue, it's not difficult to delete discounted text before running DYK check, I do it all the time - which is why I've described Matsci's suggestion as probably the simplest solution. Gatoclass (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't PD mean anyone can do anything they want with it? Is that true for both images and text? PumpkinSky talk 15:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
For the encyclopedia at large, that is correct. For DYK in particular, some users feel the emphasis should remain on original text, which is basically why we are having this discussion about where to draw the line. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Proposal passed. Gatoclass (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This issue needs resolution, so based on the above discussion, I am proposing that we formally adopt Materialscientist's suggestion that text copied from PD sources be dealt with by excluding it from the minimum text count.

  • Support - Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I really don't care whose proposal it is, but it is logical. If PD text improves the article - add it, we just subtract it to promote creativity. Subtraction is a hassle, but also an unfortunate reality, as we have to subtract many other kinds of text and code while evaluating DYK noms. Materialscientist (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - This makes sense. While DYK is meant to showcase new material, it is also meant to showcase newly written material. PD material doesn't count as written, its just been copied. Therefore, PD material is allowed, but it doesn't factor into the 1500 character count requirement that we have for DYKs. We should require a minimum of 1500 characters of sourced, originally-written (not original research, but text written in one's own words from the sources) material in order for an article to qualify for DYK, along with the other requirements we already have (New/Expanded, ect.). SilverserenC 01:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; I think this is the best solution. I'm happy for PD content to be spread around, but DYK is supposed to be about recognising newly written content, rather than the ability to copy & paste. Subtracting means that new articles which have had PD content added to them can still qualify as DYKs, if the author wrote the same-sized chunk of their own text that any other DYK writer is expected to write. bobrayner (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Is the proposal to add a rule saying text copied from PD sources should be excluded from the minimum text count, or to replace the base rule "Nominations should be original (not inclusions of free data sources)" by this rule? I support addition of the minimum text count rule, and would also support rewording of the base rule by something softer, like "Nomination should mostly be original content with limited content included from free sources". There has to remain an assertion that the article should be mostly original. Otherwise I could write a 500-word preface and then dump in 20,000 words from some old book. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    Something like Nomination should contain minimum amount of new original prose text, and the "minimum amount" explained elsewhere (depends on whether it is a new or expanded article). I see no problem with the ratio. We did and do accept list and summary articles (many articles on sport events are like this), which mostly consist of some huge "copy/pasted" table. Materialscientist (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, weakly accepting Materialscientist's argument above. If I write a preface that meets the original text length requirement, I suppose there is nothing wrong with that being followed by a whole lot of PD. Most readers would not care, although a few might think we were somehow cheating. Too bad War and Peace is taken already. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Consistent with DYK's aims, hopefully will settle a perennial point of dispute. The Interior (Talk) 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the principle. Comment: But how are reviewers to know which is PD text and which is original, especially if its used in small chunks (one, two sentences at a time)? Yazan (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
We don't have to be fanatical about it. We don't get that many articles based on PD text anyway, for those which are, it should usually be pretty clear whether there are 1500 characters of original text in addition to the rest. In cases where it may not be so clear, I would just go on the overall quality of the article. Gatoclass (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I can live with that, Support it is. Yazan (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Rationale well explained by others above and parallels DYK policy on long quotes. However, in reference to the question of how reviewers are to know, it should always be made perfectly clear in the attribution, just like any other kind of quotation; otherwise it's plagiarism. The two issues are not the same, but the other one does also matter. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- Gatoclass has correctly quoted me and to be quite honest I suggested something like this before. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Somewhat weak though, as I would not be personally be comfortable with seeing articles promoted that had the bare minimum 1500 characters of non-PD content followed by say 9,000 characters of PD text, however well attributed. I would prefer something that required the non-PD derived part to be in the majority at least. Mikenorton (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as a start. I would also support a limit on the total % of PD text acceptable at DYK - maybe 50% max of the prose, but not tables and lists. It also needs to be an obligation of nominators to declare that PD text is present in the nom. Fiddly I know. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


Comments

The proposal is well intended, but I have reservations about whether it will be implemented in an environment of quid pro quo reviewing, and where there is no oversight of reviews. Here is the latest faulty hook reported at WP:ERRORS [2]-- showing a lack of rigour in review: Template:Did you know nominations/Phoenix United Mine. The hook appears faulty. Beating the dead horse once again that some sort of accountability at the level where hooks are passed to the mainpage would behoove this process. (See the quid pro quo review by the nominator with the faulty hook at Template:Did you know nominations/St Mary's Roman Catholic Church, Monmouth). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that hook fact looks funny to you, but the main element of that hook fact for Phoenix United Mine, about the rarity of Cornish path moss, checks out with reliable sources. It's not at all clear to me that it is possible to walk on the stuff, though... --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
That's the problem-- unverified hooks on the mainpage, still, and I don't think an experienced reviewer would have missed that, and wonder if novice reviewers will even know how to check for PD text. Keep it simple seems a better approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Not wishing to detract from the discussion on PD, but with regards to the Phoenix United Mine hook the facts were all verified in the references, even if the dots weren't all fully joined. It has been stated in the text that the moss grows in spoil-tip soil (eg, on the ground) and even the name "Cornish path moss" indicates that it is a moss, that grows in Cornwall, somewhere around foot-fall level. Also, if wanting to find out whether the site is actually open-access to be walked on, looking at the OS map reference, used for the location description, it can be seen that it is on access land. OK, this possibly could have been stated in the article to lead the reader by the hand, but the hook was IMO certainly not unverified and I think the reviewer did a reasonable job. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't believe that the reviewer checked the google map. It might be a happy coincidence that the statement was true (has it been established that people can walk anywhere at the other site where the moss grows?), but the hook was chosen, I strongly belief, to make a pun on the word path, not because it was known by the composer, and even less because it was proven by the reviewer, to be true. Besides, the Rules for DYK state The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. This was not the case in this instance, or so many others, and reviewers habitually ignore the issue. Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hook is too long

The hook for Frédéric Banquet, currently in Prep 2, is too long to attract attention, IMO. (It reads "...that rugby player Frédéric Banquet scored the first ever try in Super League history when he scored for Paris Saint-Germain against the Sheffield Eagles at Charlety Stadium on 29 March 1996?") I don't think that most of that detail adds any interest, but I can imagine that rugby fans might disagree. Would there be anything wrong with trimming it to "...that rugby player Frédéric Banquet scored the first ever try in Super League history?"?? --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the abridgement. With the longer version, I feel I know enough already and don't care about the article enough to read it, with the shorter version I'd be tempted to click through and find out the details. Isn't that what we want? GRAPPLE X 04:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

spelling change on main page

Ocak Işık Yurtçu was moved to a new spelling while on the main page. Can someone tweak the spelling of the main page accordingly? Thanks! Khazar (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

copied to Main page errors, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Cheers, Khazar (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification about double nominations

I just reviewed my first double nomination. Does the proposed hook need to be present in both articles, or can it be present in only one? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

One article is sufficient. There have even been cases where the complete hook fact is not present in a single article but spread across multiple articles (e.g. a set of biology articles where the hook fact is that all the species in the set share an unusual characteristic and each article only specifies said characteristic is present in that article's subject). --Allen3 talk 20:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Template problem - help!

I've been trying to close Template:Did you know nominations/eRulemaking but adding no to the passed= line breaks the template. Is it me or is the template itself broken? Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I think you were probably forgetting to subst the {{DYKsubpage}} (see Template talk:Did you know#How to remove a rejected hook). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I just checked the nomination's history, and that was the case. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Got it, thanks for fixing that. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

1989 Helena Train Wreck

Hi, I moved the page for this article but can't figure out how to update the nomination template. Please see the red link under Articles created/expanded on January 21. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. You just needed to move the nomination template so that the name matched what was being transcluded on T:TDYK. You had updated the transclusion to read {{Template:Did you know nominations/1989 Helena Train Wreck}}, but the nomination was still at Template:Did you know nominations/Helena Train Wreck. It's sorted now. GRAPPLE X 00:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
so ... whatrya gonna do about the fact that the title is wrong (1989 Helena train wreck)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. GRAPPLE X 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Guys, there are instructions for this: T:TDYK#How to move a nomination subpage to a new name. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2, February 2

The fourth (Vashon High School) and fifth (Ibiranu) items have been accidentally combined into a single DYK. It would be great if someone could separate them. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 talk 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The sixth (earthquakes) item: shouldn't the final word, 'patches', be in double quotes rather than single quotes? Since it's an article about American earthquakes, I believe "patches" would be more appropriate punctuation. (Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Prep 4 February 3 morning

In the fifth hook, "fifty-seventh" and "second" have been changed to "57th" and "2nd" with a citation of "WP:ORDINAL".

As I pointed out in the review of that particular hook,

  • That section says "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred ... )", so both "57" and "fifty-seven" are acceptable. (The next sentence notes that the above quote applies to cardinal numbers as well as ordinals, so "57th" and "fifty-seventh" are also fine.)

If DYK is one of those places, like infoboxes, where the numbers get preference over the words, then I'm fine with it, even if WP:ORDINAL doesn't mention DYK by name. But if it's just "WP:ORDINAL" that's being cited, my feeling is that you want the consistency of both words or both numbers. I frankly think "2nd" looks silly which is part of why I prefer words here. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've always preferred using words over numerals where possible. I'd second a request to restore these. GRAPPLE X 06:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
As I was the one who made the change, I've restored it back to what it was. —Bruce1eetalk 06:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I didn't want to simply revert, in case DYK policy was an unwritten exception like those referred to in the initial WP:ORDINAL paragraph. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hook pulled from main page for copyvio issues

A heads-up to the regulars here: The hook from Template:Did you know nominations/Bozeman Carnegie Library got pulled off the main page a few hours ago (after being there less than 2 hours) due to copyright concerns. The hook set is now off the main page; this hook was not restored or replaced. The only discussion of the issue seems to be at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations#Just pulled_Bozeman Carnegie Library from the main page -- input, please?. The issue identified is best described as a borderline case of WP:close paraphrasing. --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And it looks like the editor has (possibly) quit over this: [3]. I think we need to discuss a better way of dealing with this, especially the borderline cases. The Interior (Talk) 17:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering the allegations that PumpkinSky is Rlevse, methinks the problem might be in here, that you need better scrutiny towards copyvio, and you all might want to revisit consensus on any decisions that were made in the last month in which he participated. [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's Rlevse for sure? For pete's sake... The Interior (Talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I was dubious when I saw this claim advanced without any supporting evidence, but Amalthea seems to be pretty definitive about it: User talk:Amalthea#Pumpkin Sky CCI. Prioryman (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I admit ... it really bugs me that we had our suspicions over at FAC, knew something was amiss, but from reviewing the archives here, nothing changed from 2010-- y'all let him waltz right back in here, take up where he left off (promoting and defending copyvio) and didn't even wonder. For gosh sakes, this was his hangout-- could y'all keep a closer eye in the future? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it really fair to blaming this group of people for his actions? I mean, if someone decides to game any of Wikipedia's processes, it can be done. The whole AGF thing. To our defense, I think we're always happy to see someone new participating here. The Interior (Talk) 21:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Personally I'd prefer not to have to spend my editing career perpetually suspecting my fellow editors of acting nefariously. I think, to be honest, there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether we are overreacting - copying the odd sentence here and there is certainly very bad practice and has to be discouraged, to be sure, but it's so minimal a proportion of the source works that it wouldn't present any realistic legal threat. When we talk about copyvios we're usually thinking of people copying wholesale from the web or uploading images without permission. I wonder if we're overreacting by treating the copying of odd sentences as being just as heinous as wholesale copying of masses of material? That's not to make excuses for Rlevse but I'm not at all sure that the reaction is proportionate to the offence. Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess this means I can remove this page from my watchlist. (I expected it to be created soon and wanted to comment that the user wasn't ready.) --Orlady (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm still laughing about this one, Orlady-- a former arb who isn't ready to be an admin :) But not laughing about the fact that it's impossible to get folks in here to see the light about copyvio ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I laughed, too, Sandy. By way of explanation, my radar goes up whenever I see a relative newbie who shows an eager appetite for Wikipedia recognition, such as, but not limited to DYKs, FAs, and adminship. Sometimes they turn out to be retreads posing as newbies (as in this case), but more often they are just immature and eager. Either way, I characterize them as unready for adminship. Of course, if PumpkinSky had requested adminship, I would have looked more closely at his record before commenting on the RfA. --Orlady (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure people do see the light, but I'm just saying that we need to maintain a sense of proportion. It seems the ongoing CCI into this user isn't finding much of substance - is that correct? Prioryman (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome to look at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky and add. To me it summarizes to 560 articles (plus 169 where no content was added) touched in half a year, (quoting from there, starting at the end): "constructive", "improvements", "gnoming", "helpful", "good". That Wikipedia can let such people go makes no sense to me. I looked at some a little closer ("User talk:Amalthea#Paraphrase, but how?" in the history, for a link see below), including the one pulled. Two editors including me improved the article slightly, here is the comment of the other editor. I suggest to place the hook in the archive, and will do so if there is no concern raised within three days, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The alleged PumpkinSky copyvio

The discussion mentioned above is now on Talk:PumpkinSky, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for 2nd view on DYK nomination

I started out reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Sisingamangaraja XII but ended up making many changes to the article myself. Could someone else please take over completing the review, since as I'm effectively now a co-author it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do so? Prioryman (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Two quirky in prep1

I see two quirky hooks in Prep 1, do we have too many of those? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As you have seen, I agreed with your judgment and moved one of them to another hook set. --Orlady (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible nomination for DYK

Would José Manuel Martín be ok to add to the DYK page? I went through the article and picked out these facts.

  1. Spanish character actor José Manuel Martín has appeared in over 100 film and television productions during his career.
  1. Spanish character actor José Manuel Martín starred in one of the earliest Spaghetti Westerns, Savage Guns (1961), and went on to become one of the most prolific villains of the genre.
  1. José Manuel Martín, one of the most recognized character actors of Spaghetti Westerns, made his final appearance in the Italo-Western Amigo, Stay Away (1972) in an uncredited role as a peddler.

Martín's IMDB profile lists his appearances at a total of 113. Since the site isn't a reliable source, and I can't find another reference which specifically claims this number, would I need to cite each individual film for the first hook to pass? For the third hook, I cited his appearances in the "twilight" Spaghetti Westerns, specifically Amigo, Stay Away, though the source doesn't specifically say he played a peddler. Would I have to cite the actual film and the timecode for his cameo? I believe it's been in the public domain since 1992 but I could be wrong. 72.74.199.46 (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/José Manuel Martín has been created for you, and then posted on Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on February 1. Please wait for your nomination to be reviewed. The hook fact is scrutinised more than the rest of the article, but the rest of the article still need to be adequately cited. I'm pretty sure that this article won't get onto MainPage till the entire article gets properly referenced. Please add more refs. Happy editing. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Boilerplate on Nominations page for each day's list

I was wondering whether the boilerplate instructions under each day's header on the nominations page should be updated, at least going forward. They currently read:

  • After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment}}

In particular, I think the "e.g." should use the new-style "Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE" format, and while that's being changed, the final two closing braces should be changed to a single closing paren. That would give:

  • After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment)

I would also add a period at the end—"section (after this comment)."—but that's comparatively unimportant and there may be reasons not to.

One reason I'm suggesting this is that I think people are hand-deleting "Template:" from the version that's displayed for them to copy on their template creations page in order to match the example, when it's unnecessary for them to do so. I seem to remember doing just that hand-deletion on an early nomination of mine, before I had a better understanding of how the process worked. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The changes you suggest would restore it to exactly the way it used to be. The final braces are definitely wrong. This error was accidentally introduced on December 4, then the next edit fixed it incorrectly, and the minor error went unnoticed and has been propagated ever since. The "Template:" was removed on January 22. I personally prefer it without, but it may be easier for newer nominators to understand with. As I don't think there was ever a discussion to remove it, and it's really pretty unimportant, I'm restoring everything as you suggest. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Great! Looks good; I just saw it on the new day's header. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Wasserman

Question: The source upon which the hook is based, and upon which much of the page is based, was a newspaper article that the page creator accessed online a week after it was posted. Two weeks later, the article was already dropped from the newspaper's website. Can I go ahead and accept the nom AGF? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

While it is convenient for sources to be available online, there is no DYK requirement for this to be the case. In fact, previous attempts to create such a requirement have been met with strong opposition. Based upon the relatively recent removal you can check to see if your favorite search engine has a cached version still available (my checks found no useful results) and if that fails then AGF is the correct action. --Allen3 talk 00:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The wayback machine didn't find it. I'll go ahead and accept the ref; I see I can verify the hook through other sources as well. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Kirk (folklorist)

Hello. Is this the place to discuss contested hooks? I've tried contacting User:PKM with no response, probably due to the time zone difference. I'm hoping someone can help me out here. Basically, PKM has rejected my hook because she says it requires a fivefold expansion. However, this is not the case. In the comments section, I made a note that this was moved from user space within the five day nomination period. Per the rules, this is a new article that is eligible due to its initial (and current) character count. I think PKM missed the note and assumed it was an older article, which would make it subject to the fivefold expansion rule. Could someone take a look? Thanks. I'm currently reviewing Xinye Village. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Unverified hook?

Not sure what happened here: [5] Also, text contains verbatim text from a source without quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording of the hook tweaked based on your suggestion at WP:ERRORS. Is there verbatim text apart from the block quote? (lack of sleep catching up...) Shubinator (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't have time to check further ... I'm kind of all over the place trying to catch up on multiple today. That one was close enough that if someone has time to check, it would be good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I combed through and found one more sentence. Both plagiarized sentences have been removed. Shubinator (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you let the nominator and reviewer know? (Educate, educate .... :) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I hope that I'm not counted as the reviewer. I didn't review it, I only mentioned the unformatted references. SL93 (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion please

Hello folks, I've reviewed and commented on Template:Did you know nominations/The Adventures of Abney & Teal, but not signed off on the nomination due to (what I see as) a lack of secondary sourcing, which is not strictly a DYK issue from what I can see, but in this current climate I would like someone familiar with reviewing to offer some guidance. Thank you. Someoneanother 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK articles have to be "within policy". So, if there are problems in the article that are worthy of a cleanup tag ({{reliable sources}} or {{primary sources}} or something like that), you could fail it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
A QPQ review of a DYK nomination doesn't always conclude with an immediate positive sign-off or an immediate fail. Very often, as in the case of the review that "Someone" did, the reviewer asks for additional cleanup of the article. When things work out well, that review process leads to improvements in the quality of the article, after which the nomination passes. --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I've found a secondary source discussing the programme itself, which was the sticking point, so I've passed the article. Thanks for your time. Someoneanother 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

HELP

Eh, help? I've been working on Template:Did you know nominations/2000 UEFA Cup Final riots. I've had to do a lot of rewriting--for style, grammar, agreement with sources, etc--and just finished rewriting the hook. I need someone to help me out here, since I'm tired of the article and the subject matter. a. Someone please check the hook for length and tone and et cetera. b. Please also proofread the article and tweak where necessary (nominator isn't god's gift to writing, and neither am I; plus, I don't care for the topic). c. Please check the numbers: there are a lot of newspaper reports citing injuries and arrests, and I am not sure that the content in the article properly reflects what the sources give (mind you, such reports may change quickly from one day to the other--fortunately, they're all in very reliable sources).

Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking organs from cadavers

In the fourth hook of Queue 5, "an organ taken off a cadaver" looks very odd to me. I think "an organ taken from a cadaver" is better. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, by Orlady. Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a DYK problem

That plagiarism and close paraphrasing is being discussed in this forum is because DYK performs a useful function in Wikipedia as it places new or enlarged articles under scrutiny. If I were to knowingly write a dodgy article, I would not nominate it for DYK. I have sympathy for Khazar, whose original article sparked this discussion because, in my view, Musa Muradov did not infringe policy. It seems a great pity that Khazar has been driven away by other peoples' attitudes and that the close paraphrasing issue has been taken to such extremes.

Detecting close paraphrasing is difficult and most reviewers of articles are nominators of other articles that they themselves have written. They are not necessarily the best people to take decisions on close paraphrasing and may spend no more time on their review than is necessary. When I have reviewed an article positively and later get a talk page message telling me of problems that I have missed, I find it discouraging. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not only a DYK problem. Your second paragraph seems a strong argument against QPQ reviewing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

1-lysolecithin on Queue 5

the hook needs to say "at least ten" and the link re-directed to 1-Lysophosphatidylcholine. --70.31.8.76 (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it, but only after it made it to the main page. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2012 (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) 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6 is overdue now. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Admins, it's two hours overdue. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
There's already a good stock of prep areas, this could be rectified with relative ease should a passing admin unversed in DYK want to save the day. GRAPPLE X 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm an admin and can try and help, but I don't see the prep areas... --Rschen7754 02:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
T:DYK/Q shows all prep areas and queues, and gives the order they should be updated. Each prep area page and queue page should contain instructions in their edit notices if I recall correctly. GRAPPLE X 02:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay I think I did it, please check to make sure I didn't break anything. --Rschen7754 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems in order. Just waiting to see when the bot picks it up (hoping it's not just at the next scheduled update time). GRAPPLE X 02:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Speak of the devil... GRAPPLE X 02:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Zainal Mustafa

The reviewer has requested a second opinion regarding article neutrality (disclosure: this is one of my co-nominations) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm the original reviewer. After a thorough copyedit, the article seems good in almost every way. I just had some concerns about neutrality... mostly because of the topic: a rebel and religious martyr. The article is probably fine, as my review comments note, but I would feel better if someone else could look over the article before we pass it off. If others agree that it is neutral, then it is ready to be put in the queue without delay. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Structure Plagiarism?

I've been thinking about this issue for quite a while. I think it warrants further discussion.

At first I pondered opening a CCI on myself--I cannot guarantee that I never produced a WP text in a way that the original structure is still visible, and if I had the time and commitment I would find such similarities in articles up to FA. I am not even sure to possess the language capabilities to always re-tell a story in entirely different vocabulary and structure; as non-native writer I have only so many possibilities to rephrase.

Neither am I a lawyer. Where I come from copyright violation entails a certain level of creativity on the side of the original source, we call that threshold of originality. A standard eulogy for a prize-giving does not generally reach this threshold and can therefore not be the basis of a copyright claim. (It might be different in the US.) Similarly, plagiarism of a standard text has to be blatant in order to be called that way, even more so if it is only the structure that is thought to be stolen.

To base a plagiarism claim solely on the structure of the original, this structure must be unquestionably unique, outstanding, and recognisable. A standard obituary, short biography, or description of events cannot be the basis of such claim. I would therefore be hesitant to introduce a new charge, "structure plagiarism", for DYK contributors, as it seems to have happened de facto with SG's post above.

Regarding the specific example I agree it is too close to the original. But this is based on what MRG calls a blend of copied expression and duplicated structure. There are still too many similarities in the text which alone raise concerns. For instance, "Muradov himself was trapped in a basement" occurs in both original and copy, and at least the strange "himself" should have been reworded.

MRG makes more valid remarks up here which do not seem to have had much impact on the discussion. This is a pity because she's clearly literate in this topic. Her linked off-wiki essay, for instance, makes clear that a judge can decide only the clearest cases, and that everywhere else a jury is required. Now, SG should certainly not be the judge. As part of a larger jury (the readers of this page) she should maybe open up to opinions of her fellows or stand to be outvoted; I observe that not everyone passed the same judgment on the Musa Muradov article.

Sorry for the long post, I really feel this has not been discussed at the appropriate depth and detail. --Pgallert (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I suspect that one problem is that structure of an entire segment, such as a paragraph or a biography section, is being conflated with structure of a sentence. Clearly the "copy and paste and then change, omit, or add a few words" approach means the sentence is pretty clearly derived. But I don't think we can say the same for the structure of a paragraph about someone's life or career. I asked poor, busy Moonriddengirl at her talkpage whether she could make a clear statement on the "structure" issue here for our guidance, but as I'd rather expected, she said there was no hard and fast guideline that could be stated. Nonetheless, someone's article was pulled off the main page for close paraphrasing that several of us have deemed not to merit concern. And at the time it was stated that the concern pervaded that person's work. This is a bad thing to have had happen, and we must endeavor to have it not happen again. Notwithstanding the seriousness of copyvio and plagiarism - awareness of which is not helped, in my view, by such cases where the suspicion turns out to have been ill-founded and hence the reaction hasty and excessive. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2012 (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) 23:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Rschen7754 23:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be overdue again, which would be the third time in the last two days? And now it's supposed to update on the :05's? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is quite strange. Why is only one queue filled when there are 35 verified hooks that can be used? I think we are in need of both more reviewers and more active admins in this area to prevent this happening a third time. Lord Roem (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not a problem of reviewers, since we have that many hooks reviewed and ready to go. Only admins can put them into the prep areas and queues. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
ANYBODY can put hooks into the prep areas. I've added a few more hooks to prep 2, but I need to go do other things right now. --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh I was not aware of that. I'll figure out how and add a few. We still need an admin to move them to the queue. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Some additional nomination reviews also would help move the process along. When we have a lot of reviewed hooks about a few very similar topics (be that topic baseball players, English illustrators, horses that won the Derby, fossil insects, biographies of historical politicians, or old buildings), it's hard to create a balanced set of hooks. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

True. I noticed that as I just promoted a few to prep. I couldn't make the prep area balanced in terms of US/World; prep 2 is pretty world-heavy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I was also not aware non-admins could move items to prep areas. Thanks Orlady! I'll try to do a reviewing run in a few hours when I finish RL work. We should get editors to run through submissions to kick down the high backlog we currently have. Lord Roem (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed there are quite a lot of older nominations waiting for re-reviews; I just put the bendy red arrow on a few of them to make it more obvious. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3, February 11

Looks like I was just a minute or two too late with my corrections to prep area 1; someone will have to fix them in Queue 3 in the next seven hours.

  • Third entry (Shiawase no Pan): "is" should be "was", and "between 28-29 January 2012" should be "between 28 and 29 January 2012" (never use a range with "from" or "between").
  • Fourth entry (Spa Road railway station): please add a comma after "1836"

Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 talk 17:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln and zombies

As the author of that hook, I'd like to see it pushed back a hook or two. His birthday is Sunday (holiday observed Monday). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I swapped the lead hook with queue 4. --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Allen3 took care of the italics.--Orlady (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Prep 4 February 12

I would frankly like to see an independent reviewer be the one to approve Template:Did you know nominations/Coimbatore bypass for inclusion here. Nikkimaria raised "phrasings and structures" concerns with a source, and the reviewing editor, Ansumang, first helped with the edits designed to alleviate the problem, and then gave the nomination a new clean bill of health.

What bothered me was that instead of someone not involved with the review closing it and moving it to a prep area, Ansumang both closed it and inserted the nominated hook into Prep 4. This strikes me as a clear conflict of interest: isn't there supposed to be someone completely unaffiliated with the nomination who makes the final determination as to whether it's ready to be included, and that person the one who moves it to a prep area? (If not, it seems to me a significant break: each step in the process should allow for a fresh pair of eyes to spot potential problems.) The article could be perfectly fine, or it could still need more work. Since it's currently in the next prep area that will move into the queues and can be expected to hit the front page within a day, I thought it would be best to mention this now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't proper for Ansumang to fix the problem, declare the article to be fixed, and promote it. I put it back on the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot down?

User:DYKUpdateBot didn't post any notices on people's talk pages for the most recent DYK update. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot missed the update (server glitches I guess), I updated manually and forgot about credits - issued now, thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Review needed

Could someone take the time to review Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Elihu Sloan. As noted in the nomination's comments this hook is meant for the Centennial of Arizona Statehood (February 14) and it would be nice to be able to move it to the Special occasions holding area before the anniversary is over. --Allen3 talk 18:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looked it over and approved it, it's perfectly solid. Can someone stick it in a prep area to get it on the main page at the right time? GRAPPLE X 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It's now on Prep 1. --PFHLai (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Arizona's 100th anniversary of statehood on February 14th ...

I think Joseph Henry Kibbey may have been forgotten. He's been sitting in the special occasions area waiting for February 14th. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not forgotten. But it's rather confusing that the hook that got crossed out is the one that was approved.... I am also trying to make space for Valentine's Day, but the space on prep got filled up right away by another editor with something else....  :-( --PFHLai (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Twice I made space open on P4, and the space got quickly filled up by someone else both times. Maybe Kibbey can go to P2 for 0:00 UTC on Feb. 15th, but still Feb.14th in Arizona... --PFHLai (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've put the hook on P2. --PFHLai (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Two of us were reviewing it simultaneously and passed different hooks. What can you say . . . Yngvadottir (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

To review: Love's Messenger

Can someone be so nice as to review this nom soon so that we can put the hook on prep/queue for Valentine's Day, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I finished a review. It needs one more footnote, and it will be good to go. --Orlady (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Orlady. I've left a note on the author's usertalkpage. Hopefully the needed footnote will be added soon. --PFHLai (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion please

Copied from above (#Template:Did you know nominations/Zainal Mustafa) The reviewer at Template:Did you know nominations/Zainal Mustafa has requested a second opinion regarding article neutrality (disclosure: this is one of my co-nominations) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm the original reviewer. After a thorough copyedit, the article seems good in almost every way. I just had some concerns about neutrality... mostly because of the topic: a rebel and religious martyr. The article is probably fine, as my review comments note, but I would feel better if someone else could look over the article before we pass it off. If others agree that it is neutral, then it is ready to be put in the queue without delay. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Technical problem

Someone experienced please look at Template:Did you know nominations/Animal Justice Party. Some technical problem happened there, but I can't figure out. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lori Greiner on Prep 3: Good for use on Women's Day?

Is this a good hook to save for March 8th? --PFHLai (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto for Daria Khaltourina, also on P3. --PFHLai (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Shall I un-promote them and send the noms to Template talk:Did you know#Special occasion holding area? --PFHLai (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Any objections? Anyone? --PFHLai (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
As there have been no objections, the hook has been pulled from the prep 3 and moved to the special occasion holding area. --Allen3 talk 14:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Allen3. --PFHLai (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone want to take a go at this?

I failed Template:Did you know nominations/Lourdes Central School, Mangalore because of major problems. The nominator is still frequently editing after I posted a message on his talk page so it seems like the editor isn't interested. I thought that maybe someone might want to help the nomination. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I failed it on sight without checking the history. It is not even 5x expanded since 5 days before the nomination. I guess it can be closed as rejected. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't think so. It was submitted to "Articles for Creation" initially, and wasn't moved until main article space until February 2, at which point I believe it would count as a new article. Since the nomination was submitted on February 4, it ought to count under new, so 1500 characters would be sufficient, and it has 3431. It does need to graduate from being a Stub to qualify, but I'm not sure why it is classed as a stub. Its other issues will need to be addressed, of course. (I don't want to take a go at it, though.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Question on moving hooks to prep areas

Quick question -- is there a simple way to promote a hook, some template which you can put on the nom page of a hook to put the whole light green background on it? I have been straight copying what other editors do when they promote a hook, but is there a simpler way?

Thanks! Lord Roem (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Try T:TDYK#How_to_promote_an_accepted_hook. These instructions are there to help you guys... rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Thank you Rjanag. I really should edit less at night...very tired :P Lord Roem (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
You should not promote a hook which you have approved yourself. For example, in the lead hook of Prep 1, the author had said in the nomination that there is duplicated text in the two articles. But they're both short (1539 and 1759 characters), and that duplicated text should not count twice. I'm too tired to explore this further, but I think someone should look at the situation and remove from Prep if appropriate. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
That lead hook was a borderline case for "articles are too short", but I pulled it because I saw a pretty obvious opportunity to improve both articles, and expand them along the way.
As for not promoting what you approved, that's not a mandatory rule, but it's good practice. --Orlady (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2012 (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) 22:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Prep 1 down to six slots

Should we be reducing to six slots on all prep areas going forward until there's a better supply of completed DYK noms, or does the seventh slot need to be restored here. We seem to be running low on supply for the prep areas, though not on total nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea in adding a seventh slot was to help take care of the backlog, but if there's not enough reviewed hooks, the seventh slot is useless, and will actually make things worse if there are empty slots and no hooks to add to them. I owe a few QPQ's myself, so I'll review a bunch tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to note, I have changed the 'clear template' to have six (instead of seven) hook slots. Lord Roem (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Zeckendorf Towers (Queue 2)

The hook for Zeckendorf Towers currently reads "[DYK …] that the outdoor space of Zeckendorf Towers make up the largest residential green roof in New York?" Should that be "outdoor spaces"? Or possibly "makes up"? As it stands, I think something grammatical is missing! HTH Nortonius (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "makes up" would be the correct choice. The original sentence started with "14,000 square feet", which is why "make up" was used in the article, though it should have been changed here. I wouldn't modify "outdoor space"; I think, based on the article's wording, that it's a single seventh-floor rooftop between the building's four towers. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course, "makes up" would be the correct choice. However, I don't think that I have the right credentials to edit the blurb, so maybe someone could help? --Bruzaholm (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Only a select group of people do. And at least some of them can update the main Wikipedia page with the set of DYKs that include this one, which is overdue at the moment! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK Update is overdue!

The Bot didn't update at 16:00 UTC, so the update is over 50 minutes late as I write this. Whoever updates the page with the material currently in Queue 3, please note the correction that needs to be made (see Queue 3 section immediately above this one). Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Jan Uddin Queue 2

This actor is fairly young: it is very likely that his father is still alive. As such, anything we say about him is subject to laws of libel. We can say that Jan Uddin has said this of his father: there has never been a court case, so we can't say that it happened. Mr Uddin senior might choose not to take action against his son, but that does not prevent him doing so against those repeating the claim. Kevin McE (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be worth tweaking the item to read something like "... that actor and model Jan Uddin, best known for playing Jalil Iqbal in EastEnders, says that he was was beaten by his father, who also refused to let him watch television or read books?" It seems to be well enough sourced, to a UK newspaper [6], and we must presume that it has been signed off by their lawyers. Prioryman (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the first two sources cited by the article,[7] and [8], both state that Uddin's father is dead. As such this can not possibly be a WP:BLP issue. --71.96.130.140 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to change the hook under the circumstances; Uddin himself has said his father is dead. Far more important is that fact that this queue should have been put on the front page over two hours ago... BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd still rather see it as Prioryman suggests, but the revelation that his father has died makes that less imperative. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Prep 4: Pain in My Heart

I've just done an edit to the Pain in My Heart hook, since it was comparing apples and oranges—an album to a song—but even now that it's song to song there's an underlying problem with it: you don't accuse a song of copyright infringement, you accuse the songwriter, in this case, Naomi Neville. You can say that a song was thought to be an infringing work, I suppose. Before this hits the front page or even gets promoted to a queue, either the hook needs to be reworded or the entry needs to be pulled temporarily while a better wording is found. Since it's an article about the album, the album/song differentiation needs to be maintained. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK update late

It's been 9 hours since the last DYK Main page update. I don't know if the bot is down. —Bruce1eetalk 05:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was watching the bot and got distracted elsewhere. Last 2 updates went manual, and I'll keep an eye on the next few updates. I've left a note to Shubinator. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2012 (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 #5 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) 19:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Prep 3 and Prep 4 are both full and ready to be moved to a queue. Lord Roem (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK credit error

Just a note, I got a credit for a DYK that listed Monkey Island (series) as the DYK, but in reality, it's Game Dev Story which is the main article (and the bolded one). I guess it somehow got screwed up when it was transfered to the queue or maybe I made a mistake inputting it? Either way, I'm not sure how to change these sorts of records. Nomader (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Advertising

Over the last few weeks I have noticed multiple 'Did you know?' items that I felt were borderline advertisements. In particular, product and company-related entries written in such as way as to place the focus on other aspects of the statement(s) whilst still mentioning (and linking to) said companies and products. I would like to know if anyone else has noticed this and/or feels that policy should be revised; my motion is that 'Did you know?' nominations should not include trivia regarding present day companies and their (present or historic) products. prat (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  • A simple mention is not advertising. If I'm going to write an article about bullets made especially for use against zombies (they're out there, hint hint), I should put the product name in the hook. For me, advertising is like "Did you know ... that Wikipedia has been called "the wave of the future" If it's "Did you know ... that Wikipedia has more than 5 million articles in over fifty languages?", that's fine if independently verifiable.
Do you have any specific examples? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a terrible counter-example as it's a non-profit community. I don't have time to wade back through the last few weeks but I will make a point of collecting any I feel are a bit questionable here in a list over the next few weeks. prat (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK so an immediate example ... that the video game Dustforce won the $100,000 Independent Game Developers prize at the 2010 GDC Online conference? ... to me this is the effective promotion of a very current mass market product. prat (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Since I wrote and nominated that, I take exception to be it considered as Advertising (Disclaimer: beyond having played the game myself, I have no connect to its developers) "Advertising" would be if the hook was "...that Dustforce is now available on Steam for the low price of $10". The fact that the game won a prize that helped to fund its developing is an interesting hook and in no way related to advertizing. Yes, it's a recent product, but at the same time, only until recently would I have been able to write the article. So of course if there's going to be a hook about a recently released product, it may seem promotion, but that would limit any article that has any hint of commercial interest about a recently released product. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry you take exception. Perhaps wait for some more examples that are less personal. I am not insinuating that you put this there on purpose, merely pointing out that the massive first-page traffic probably resulted in a sales burst for this (digital download) product. (I believe someone working on Wikipedia's behalf could probably verify this with Steam, if so motivated.) I believe that policy should recognize this significant covert-monetization potential and guard against it. prat (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Basically, the caution you're trying to raise is going to be a problem for any currently-selling commercial product that gets a DYK at the front page - regardless if new or old; the product gets mention, ergo traffic is driven to its page. What our aim in DYK is to make that driver not related to why a person should buy the product, but to read about an encyclopedically-interesting fact and seek out more information. Thus, we do need to be concerned about a hook written to direct entice sales for any commercial product, but that doesn't mean that all hooks for commercial products are bad. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • How is Wikipedia a terrible example? Non-profits and not-for-profits still benefit from advertising, even if Wikipedia itself can generally depend on word-of-mouth. As for the video game hook, winning a large prize is considered interesting, especially since we aren't supposed to focus on plot elements in hooks. Not all games have interesting backstories, like perhaps a game written by Noam Chomsky or Stephen Hawking (theoretically) or one which supposedly had a cursed production. Just having hooks about new products are not automatically advertisements, just like having hooks about Indonesian lit is not an attempt to force people to read the works Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This is something that's not really avoidable. Without commenting on it being a positive or a negative, it's simply down to the fact that new articles are very often going to be about new things—films, games, books, products, etc—and they might seem to tie in with release in a promotional way when it's often simply because something that's a new and current topic will be reported more widely than something old and forgotten, or else those older topics will already exist and not be DYK-valid. GRAPPLE X 21:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair point on new pages. If it really becomes a problem, though, maybe the community could consider looking at 'new content' and not necessarily 'new articles'? prat (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Already done—expanding a stub to five times its length also qualifies an article for DYK (and none of my own DYK noms were for anything you could really call new, now that I think of it). But since new material tends to come from newly-released or newly-pertinent topics, it's always going to go hand-in-hand. GRAPPLE X 08:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I've had several like that, including award-winning songs and films (US ones [i.e. the ones we expect to be in good condition] to boot) that were expansions. They weren't advertisements when given main page exposure. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The original comment wasn't about newness, but about commerciality. I don't think newness is the issue, really (except insofar as recentism means we get a disproportionate percentage of new articles about new things). If I read this section correctly, it would also be a concern if older companies get a bounce from exposure on the main page of Wikipedia. First of all, I think that bounce is vastly overrated; a hook is only there for 6–8 hours, and the majority of site visitors bypass the main page; of those who do look at it, the majority don't click on a DYK (compare page views typically in the low thousands on the day an article was featured in DYK with the million site visitors a day). Secondly, of course a DYK placement will pique some interest - that's what it's all about; the hooks are supposed to be interesting, not just "Did you know that X exists?" I think the contention that this is bad when the subject of the article is a company or a product is over-sensitive. I doubt anybody ran out and bought a mop just because Freudenberg Group was on the main page, and if they did, I'm no more upset than if they tried to find some of La Jana's movies because she sounded hot or put the Stone Bridge in Regensburg on their bucket list - to name 3 of my DYK's. I'd be a little sadder if folks decided to avoid Helmut de Boor's scholarship because he was a Nazi, but them's the breaks; it's all information, and informing through interest is what we do at DYK. Ultimately it's up to the consumer of the information what to do with it - or even whether to read it - so providing it's accurate, I don't think we should censor it because it might give someone an idea what to spend money on any more than because it might be disturbing or include rude words (like the recent Ulenspiegel hook). --Yngvadottir (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Günther Strupp - prep 1

I'd like to have this returned to the nomination page. It was approved, but with a caveat. I did not see the approval tick till just now and the reviewer wrote something that had missed my notice before and I'd like to address it so that my first proposed hook, which I think is more interesting, can be used. The fact was not cited in the story, which was just an oversight and I can easily fix this (and will get to it as soon as I post this). Thanks in advance. Marrante (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now fixed the problem. The ref for Herbert Sandberg now states that he was a Buchenwald survivor and co-founded the magazine Ulenspiegel. I also see the article is out of prep 1, but the template page is still blue. Marrante (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I have now posted this information to the talk page of the template. Marrante (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The hook got moved to Queue 3 because there were too many hooks from the same era (early 20th century) in P1. I think the hook approved by Schwede66 is fine. I can certainly un-promote the nom if you want to talk Schwede66 into approving the original hook. Let me know. --PFHLai (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, did it get moved to queue 3? I thought I had checked that, but maybe I looked while it was "in transit". Actually, I would like to use the other hook if I can. I have written to Schwede66, but have not yet heard back. He's in NZ, so he's probably asleep at the moment. Marrante (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It's now un-promoted and no longer blue. I am not putting this on {DYK Removed} as I expect this nom back on prep very soon. --PFHLai (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Marrante (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Duplication Detector

Just a reminder to reviewers: you can't always rely on Duplication Detector to tell you when there's a problem with an article. Take for example this nom: the size of the source prevented the tool from working properly, but a manual check showed large-scale near-verbatim copying. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2012 (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) 12:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, prep areas are now empty. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6 : Whisper

The word described needs a preposition before the description: you cannot say the noise was described "ear-splitting, but the noise was described as "ear-splitting". However, since the description is a simile with the word as twice already, suggest that the horse was said to be " as near to perfection..." Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Edited as suggested. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6 : Needing/Getting

Rally driving is one discipline of motor sport; stunt driving is another altogether. Which is the singer claimed to have trained in? Having endured the video, I can't see anything in it that would be normally considered to be stunt driving. Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

For insurance reasons, in the movie/tv biz, any type of driving that would be considered remotely dangerous (i.e. the controlled slides you see in the vid) must be done by a trained "stunt" driver. The term "stunt" is used very widely, not just for sweet barrel-rolls. The Interior (Talk) 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, but in that case, why is there a link to rallying? Kevin McE (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The course that Kulash was trained to drive and the one use for the video was a rally car course, which requires certain skill sets (driving dirt roads, tight corners, and in this case, keeping a steady mph during sections of the track), compared to your normal "stunt driving". --MASEM (t) 17:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Yeah, it sounds like he was trained in stunt driving, and drove on a rally-style course. It's probably not completely accurate to say he was trained in "rally car stunt driving" (which probably isn't a separate discipline), just "stunt driving". The Interior (Talk) 17:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done The article says he was trained in "stunt driving" and drove on a rally car course for the video. I removed "rally car" from the hook, since the article doesn't specify what kind of stunt driving training he received. --Orlady (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't see that as a problem in creating the hook but it clearly better w/o it (in DYK terms). --MASEM (t) 17:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism Dispatch

Another copyvio removed from the mainpage today: Template:Did you know nominations/Musa Muradov

It would help if folks would understand that copying the entire structure of a source is copyvio. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches:

Adapting source text, whether by paraphrasing or summarizing, is a valuable skill, and contributors to Wikipedia need to be alert to the potential for inadvertent plagiarism. Many editors believe that by changing a few words here or there—or even by changing a great number of the words found in the original source—they have avoided plagiarism. This is not necessarily the case. Nor does the mere rearrangement of clauses, sentences, or paragraphs avoid the problem.

In other words, just because the duplication detector shows only a few words similar, we're not out of the woods.

In terms of both plagiarism and copyright, the author of a text not only "owns" the precise, creative language he or she uses, but less tangible creative features of presentation, which may incorporate the structure of the piece and the choice of facts.

and

In evaluating copyright concerns, the United States courts adopt a "substantial similarity" test that compares the pattern and sequence of two works, finding such similarity where "the ordinary observer [reading two works], unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same."[17] Even if all of the language is revised, a court may find copyright infringement under the doctrine of "comprehensive non-literal similarity" if "the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar".[18] Likewise, plagiarism may exist if readers comparing the two works would come away with a sense that one is copied from or too heavily based on another.

Every DYK I have examined from this nominator has the same problem: if you read the source, and then read the article, you are reading someone else's work, with a few words juggled. See examples at Template:Did you know nominations/Nosa Igiebor (journalist) and Template:Did you know nominations/Aboubakr Jamaï.

It's hard not to despair when no amount of scrutiny has brought any change to bear on DYK, in spite of at least three years of attempts to stem the tide here. Folks, you have a training ground here for new editors, and they continue to be rewarded for not learning how to paraphrase correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to uphold these standards and stay sane, when many of the contributors are crybabies. A few months back I had to put up with a bunch of lame drama, including an ANI thread, when I rejected a copied-the-structure-of-the-source case (Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner) that was even more obvious than this one. In the end it looks like they just ignored me and passed the plagiarized article anyway. No wonder I don't bother with reviewing anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I know-- I've asked Moonriddengirl to come over here and put in a word. Perhaps she will shed some light. Maybe I'm wrong :) But when you read a source, and you can tell the structure is the same, but then the authors claim, well it's chronological order, what are you to do? It's as plain as day that the structure is identical, with a few words changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I did the comparison suggested by SandyGeorgia and I find no copyvio there. --Kenatipo speak! 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask someone to post a list of articles that have been removed from Wikipedia at the request of the source author for "close paraphrasing" or "structure" copyright infringement? This is a gray, subjective area, and we may be discouraging good faith editors who are sensitive about being called thieves when they are not thieves. --Kenatipo speak! 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Having gotten seriously rattled recently when a DYK reviewer declared an article of mine to be a verbatim copy of the source (in fact, it was identical to itself -- a plagiarism-checking software package found it to be identical to a page of the same title on a Wikipedia mirror site), I endorse Kenatipo's plea for gentleness in interacting with article creators on this issue. We all are capable of mistakes of judgment. --Orlady (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The list can be found at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. However, most were not removed by the source author. Froggerlaura (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to that page, Froggerlaura. I don't know why anyone would sue Wikipedia anyway (the Foundation doesn't have any money, does it?) --Kenatipo speak! 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Just off the top of your head, did any of the "removed" articles get fixed? --Kenatipo speak! 21:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What's funny is that I actually re-read the close paraphrasing policies two weeks back to try to stay on the right side of this. I have to admit I missed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, though.
I'll be happy to have my work reviewed by others, and if it's found to be too close to original sources, I'll be glad to get some guidance on how to avoid it in the future. Sandy has already made fun of my response above, but I do find it legitimately difficult in the articles I'm writing on--which often involve a series of crimes or court cases in which journalists are involved--to avoid chronological order. Aboubakr Jamai is a good example; wherever I could find information about his litigation in another source, I added it in, but CPJ had written about several of these incidents, in chronological order, and so I used them as a source multiple times. I did separate direct censorship incidents and litigation into separate sections, sourced from multiple places, but found it difficult to have them make sense without appearing in roughly chronological order. If the resulting article is still too close to the CPJ source, I'm not sure how to get there without deleting the facts themselves from the Wiki.
Given my past run-ins with SandyGeorgia, however, I hope nobody minds if I ask for a second opinion. I'll see if there's a copyvio report board or someone similar who can give this a once-over. I don't know what else to say except that I am a good faith contributor doing his best. If I have been unintentionally violating Wikipedia policy here, my apologies in advance. Khazar (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware we had had "past run-ins" (I interact with boatloads of editors, so don't remember all of them), but knowing that raises a concern-- were our past encounters related to paraphrasing? Anyway, Moonriddengirl has promised to pop over here later to help educate us, but she's busy for the rest of the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
@ Sandy. I don't think Khazar has any malicious intent and from his previous DYK that were linked previously, the closely paraphrased passages are like the one discussed below (BLP with few sources to draw from). Please weigh in on the discussion below where the problem (which was identified by you) is being addressed. Froggerlaura (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Specific example

This is a specific example of the closely paraphrased article source structure in the Musa Muradov article.

Wikipedia: Background section

“Muradov graduated from Moscow State University's journalism department in 1982. He then returned to his home town of Grozny, Chechnya, where he began work for Groznensky Rabochy, a weekly newspaper established in 1917, then controlled by the Communist Party. After the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, Muradov became the paper's editor-in-chief. However, Dzhokar Dudayev, president of Czechnya's new, unrecognized secessionist government, soon attempted to make the paper an official publication of his party, and Muradov and most of his staff quit. For the next two years, he worked teaching journalism at a local university as well as reporting for a small regional publication. In 1994, he fled the growing violence of the First Chechen War with his family, moving to Moscow.”

Source: “Awards 2003 – Muradov,” CPJ (2003).

“In 1982, after graduating from Moscow State University's journalism department, Muradov returned to Grozny and began reporting for Groznensky Rabochy, which, like all Soviet publications at that time, was controlled by the Communist Party. Following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Groznensky Rabochy became an independent publication, and Muradov became its editor-in-chief. Two years later, as secessionist movements in the region gained momentum, Chechnya's separatist leader Dzhokar Dudayev attempted to convert Groznensky Rabochy into his administration's official publication. Muradov and most of his staff refused to compromise the paper's newfound freedom and walked away. Groznensky Rabochy was consequently shuttered, and Muradov took a job as a correspondent for a regional publication while teaching journalism at a local university. In 1994, with the situation becoming increasingly violent in Chechnya, Muradov and his family fled to Moscow.”

The question is does CPJ "own" facts pertaining to Muradov's life. Is there any other way to convey the same information in a coherent manner (probably chronological) that would not be too close to the source but still accurately reflect (no OR or opinion) what happened in the man's life? Froggerlaura (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is a full biography, it needs to be in chronological order if it is the only way to convey the information properly especially if it goes from year to year. It's not like, for example, an editor should start writing about someone in his 60s, then his 30s, then his 20s, then back to his 60s, and then his early life. What I mean is that not following the same structure at all is impossible. SL93 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Without taking a stand on whether I'm doing right or wrong in my editing, that's a good example of the sort of paragraph that leads to tough decisions for me. I was very frustrated not to find his earlier history in other sources in a significant way. I do my best to rewrite the source information, but it's difficult given chronological, factual events from a single source; the choice then appears to come down to whether to include it in a form that's rewritten to the best of my abilities or to omit some information. It's entirely possible I'm erring on the wrong side of this choice, however, and I'll be glad to hear the feedback of others on this. Khazar (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The "example" here covers most of the problematic passage, which deals with the early part of his life and career. As others have noted, it is difficult to present a biography without being chronological. A particular challenge in this instance is that there seems to be only one source that documents this part of the subject's biography, and there are gaps in this part of his life story. Khazar has endeavored to reduce the resemblance to the source by restructuring and rewording. I fooled around with additional modifications to some sentence structures and wording, but the changes are only incremental, and I find that some of my rewording inadvertently took Khazar's text back closer to the source:
“Muradov was born c. 1958 in Grozny. He studied journalism at Moscow State University, graduating in 1982. He then joined the staff of Groznensky Rabochy, a weekly newspaper in Grozny that had been established in 1917. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Muradov became the paper's editor-in-chief. It was expected that the newspaper, formerly controlled by the Communist Party, would be independent. However, in 1993 Dzhokar Dudayev, president of Czechnya's new, unrecognized secessionist government, attempted to convert the paper into an official publication of his party. In reaction, Muradov and most of his staff quit, leading the newspaper to shut down. Muradov found work for a time teaching journalism at a local university, as well as reporting for a small regional publication. In 1994, amid the growing violence of the First Chechen War, he and his family left Grozny for the relative safety of Moscow.”
IMO, additional creative restructuring and rewording is likely to distort the facts, which I believe is a more serious error than generally reflecting the structure of the source. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I find Orlady's rewrite acceptable. Compounding matters, the CPJ website article is a shortened (bad IMHO) version of an article by CPJ journalist Olga Tarasov (which the website does not attribute the text to, plagiarizing themselves?). Information very close to the source could also be directly quoted. Nice quote by Muradov in article lead. Froggerlaura (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
@Orlady: good job on the re-write!
@Froggerlaura: your example paragraphs make the problem more evident to me—it's more borderline than I first thought. My method of comparison was to tie each of the cpj refs in our article back to the CPJ source article one by one. My review should have been a little more "macro" in addition to "micro". --Kenatipo speak! 20:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I find that I erred in one sentence. Instead of "It was expected that the newspaper, formerly controlled by the Communist Party, would be independent", say "Initially, the newspaper, formerly controlled by the Communist Party, was independent." --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Froggerlaura and Orlady do a good job here of demonstrating that the article follows a bit closely on the structure of the original and also that the creativity in the original is fairly low. I think it benefits from the change, but that the issues would be very unlikely to rise to the level of a copyright concern, which a court would probably determine with an "ordinary observer" test of the look and feel. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronological structure in biographical articles

I've made a post here which may be of interest. What I've asked there is whether it is actually possibly to copyright a standard structure to an article such as chronological ordering frequently used in biographical articles? My view is that this is not in fact possible, as many biographical dictionaries and articles published in many different places, by different authors, all claiming their own copyright, frequently follow the same chronological structure when describing a person's life story. Biographies when they are in a stub state are essentially collections of facts about a person's life arranged in chronological order. As a biography develops, it is possible to make some sections thematic, or to follow the 'house style' that Wikipedia biography articles tend to adopt, but in cases where there are few sources, and those sources do nothing more than arrange facts in chronological order, the structure of a Wikipedia article will of necessity also follow that structure. Care should be taken to avoid exact duplication of structure, but some duplication will likely always be present. It might also help to be clearer what level of structure is being discussed. You can have duplication of structure at the clause level, the sentence level, the paragraph level, the section level, and the article level. The approach to avoiding or fixing such duplication of structure can vary, which is why being precise on what structure is being discussed is important. What level of structure was being duplicated in the examples above? Carcharoth (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's down to sentence level with some clause repetition in this case. Each sentence in the source is mirrored (not verbatim but with same elements) in the the wiki article. The problem is mostly confined to the Background section where there is only one source to draw from, so mixture of source info is difficult. Froggerlaura (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I figured I might as well copy over some of my personal opinion there. :)
In terms of chronology and no other way to tell the story, there may be room for disagreement as regards plagiarism, which is not my major focus, but copyright law doesn't care about the ethics of whose work it is. :) All it cares about is whether or not the content is creative enough to warrant protection. If everybody writing a biography would include the same facts in the same order, the presentation is not regarded as creative. If I read a biography that says, "He was born. He went to school. He worked. He died," I can use exactly that same structure in writing my own biography, because there would be little to no creative thought in it. They are what we would generally agree are the major points of outlining a life.
It's a very delicate balance, deciding when the organization becomes creative. The longer our source is and the more closely we follow it, the more likely we are to be running into problems. Did he hold 12 jobs and they list 6? That begins to show some subjective thought. For the same reason, it is not a copyright infringement to reproduce a complete "list of works" in a biography, but may be to reproduce a "selected works", if the selection criteria is creative. The core question you have to consider when thinking about copyright issues in terms of structure is "how much thought went into this?" The more creative the content, the stronger the copyright protection. If multiple sources use the same structure, the case that the structure is uncreative is actually strengthened. :) But I still try to mix it up a bit by adding in unusual facts I dig up from obscure sources, and if I can only find one source that discusses a subject in depth, I will take only the most important facts. Sometimes detail is lost. :/
What usually raises my concerns in close paraphrasing issues is a blend of copied expression and duplicated structure. The more similar the pieces would seem to an ordinary reviewer, the more likely it is to be an issue. In determining substantial similarity, courts will often ask for an entirely subjective review of whether or not the overall look and feel of a piece is the same. If it is substantially the same, and there is not some legal defense (such as fair use) successfully advanced, then infringement has occurred.
I have only just today found this essay, "WHEN IS A KNOCK OFF AN INFRINGEMENT", and at first blush it looks like a good one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me just save you all some trouble here

While I appreciate the discussion here and below, I may as well make this decision moot by simply leaving Wikipedia. I'd been off for a while anyway, and was attempting a return after a diagnosis of chronic illness left me housebound for life this month. In retrospect, this is a silly place for me to be at this stressful juncture of my life, and facing discussion because I'm found to be in violation of a policy SG had to go back to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches to find is just the last indicator.
I've never claimed to be a perfect editor, and I do think Sandy's concerns here are valid ones that are worth discussing. I've edited in good faith, but it's still quite possible I'm on the wrong side of this gray area. So why not talk to me directly and calmly (on this page or elsewhere), give examples, and make suggestions for improvement instead of posting a public shaming that condemns my work as a whole, treats all my attempts to discuss the issue as bad faith, and offers no constructive suggestions? I'm tired of admins who are more interested in "Gotcha" than in actually helping editors improve their work, and tired of a community that lets such people run the place.
Anyway, the debate goes on, but if people feel that my case turns out to be actionable, I'm willing to return for whatever RfC, AN/I, etc. you wish to convene so that I can apologize and accept responsibility and punishment for any mistakes I've made; just e-mail me through my page. Other than that, I'm out, yos.
Sandy, just to set your mind at ease, our only previous encounters were in the Great DYK Flame War of Summer '11 when you repeatedly accused everyone involved in DYK of lacking any decency. I asked you a few times on this page to take the hostility down a notch, to which you never responded.
Good luck to all still fighting the good fight to create new content for the wiki. I do sincerely apologize for my shortcomings as an editor that have caused this kerfuffle. It's been a pleasure working with all of you, Khazar (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sad! I was soooo happy to see you return, Khazar, and you noticed. All the best for you personally, for health and well-being. (I don't want to spoil your clean talk, hope you look here.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't leave! I don't think this kerfuffle is that serious in the grand scheme of things and can easily be fixed (per Orlady's suggestions). There will be bullies in any forum, don't let them get to you. Froggerlaura (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your health problem, Khazar. Don't let the Plagiarism Paranoiacs get on your nerves. Let's assume they only want what's best for Wikipedia. But, it's a gray area, it's subjective, and, it's a matter of opinion. Take a break, then come back. Your humility alone makes you unique here! --Kenatipo speak! 00:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This is most regrettable, but I can quite appreciate Khazar's preferring not to deal with this stress at this point. This is, after all, a volunteer activity. I'm not sure where best to note that I personally cannot see a problem with the passages reproduced above. When we get to "Do the new sentences have different information" I think we're setting the bar unreasonably high - and in effect requiring people to adopt as turgid and winding a writing style as I tend to have . . . I have looked hard for the passage seeming to be an echo or obviously derived - and it doesn't. I appreciate the seriousness of copyvio; I have raised the issue earlier on this page of plagiarism being important and distinct from whether the text is common domain; but with this sort of instance, I cannot see a problem. In my view Khazar did an adequate job telling the story in his own words. Orlady's (with the change made) seems to me equally good, not better. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with close paraphrase

Regardless of how this case works out, I think it illustrates that we as a project need to be on the same page about how we handle close paraphrase when we find it. Can we all agree that the above method, where posts where made to the nom page, the author's page, WP:ERRORS, another editor's talk, and here, is not how these situations should be handled? This is the worst possible outcome out of many. The above author was ready and willing to discuss the issues at the nomination page, but was instead forced to defend his writing choices on a widely-watched noticeboard. To be blunt, this shouldn't happen like this again.

  • Suggested best practice - if you find problems related to plagiarism in a nomination, first try to address them on the nomination page. If the author is reticent, or denies that there is a problem, then seek a second opinion. Terminology is important too - if the problem is close paraphrase rather than blatant copy/paste, use "close paraphrase" rather than "copyvio". Close paraphrase can be inadvertent, but copyright violation is a real-world crime, and we don't want people to feel like criminals. Thoughts? The Interior (Talk) 03:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your suggested best practice, TI. (It should be adopted by SG immediately!) --Kenatipo speak! 05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it is useful to distinguish "close paraphrase" from "copyvio," even though, legally, a sufficiently close paraphrase may be regarded as a copyright violation. Wikipedians are used to thinking of copyright violation in terms of cutting and pasting material verbatim, an act both bright-line (it's quite obvious when this has occurred) and deliberate (it really can't be done accidentally). Close paraphrase is far more subjective—intelligent people acting in good faith can easily disagree on whether a particular piece of writing too closely follows the structure of its source—and need not be deliberate, particularly in cases where there are only a few obvious ways to structure the material. While maintaining this distinction might be argued to trivialize close paraphrase, I think it's also less likely to lead to reflexive hostility and indifference from those accused of doing it.
On a side note, could I make a general appeal not only to avoid personalizing this, but to avoid imputing motives in general? During some of the previous iterations of this debate, various motives have been ascribed to the "FAC people" or the "DYK regulars". While such nebulous terms do circumvent Wikipedia's prohibition on personal attacks, in practice, it simply means that many people are likely to read into them a veiled attack on themselves. I think we can discuss this reasonably without assuming other people in the discussion are tyrants, monomaniacs, or morons. Choess (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting but unworkable suggestion; once a DYK goes to the mainpage, the nomination page is closed, the nominators frequently unwatch (and don't return to) the articles, and the nomination page has nothing to do with WP:ERRORS. Also, reporting problems on the nomination page doesn't get issues addressed at DYK, which is where they are occurring. A more workable solution for dealing with the recurring issues would be to put procedures in place at DYK that address the long-standing issues (which do not only involve copyvio/plagiarism/cut-and-paste, but also involve reliable sourcing, faulty hooks, unsourced hooks, and glaring prose errors) going on the mainpage. There have been many suggestions over the years, a bit of progress (at least we have a nomination page now and an archived record of the unabating problem), but no substantial change in the problem affecting the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you feedback. I would disagree that this is unworkable, though: in the above example, the author responded to comments on the nom page within hours. Speaking for myself, 100% of my nom pages and their articles are still watchlisted. I appreciate efforts to solve problems and welcome discussion on concrete and well-thought out proposals for change. But when offering criticism, it very important that the criticism be a) constructive, and b) de-personalized. With the subject of close paraphrase and structure, a theoretical example is far more desirable than using a specific editor's product to illustrate a point. These are tried-and-true basic management techniques. The Interior (Talk) 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If I may offer some general feedback, I strongly advocate trying to minimize shock and shame for people who may have issues with close paraphrasing, and wherever discussion may best take place do like the emphasis on neutral terminology. My own practice has generally evolved more and more in that direction over the years I've worked copyright issues on Wikipedia, as I've had plenty of opportunity to see what gets the best result. (In my opinion, the best result is good practice for writing free content and a happy, productive contributor. If we both walk away feeling good, then it's a "win" for Wikipedia. :)) I really like the way Choess succinctly describes the issues with close paraphrasing and especially the difference between that and copy-pasting from a "good faith" perspective. Besides my work on Wikipedia, I've taught college composition and know that the art of paraphrasing is a difficult one...and sometimes most difficult for the best students. Students are taught for most of their lives to accurately recount what they're given, but then suddenly required to do it in different language. This is a hard-won skill for many people. Most of the contributors I've found with close paraphrasing issues (though not all) can and will moderate their approach if issues are explained constructively. If people are inadvertently made to feel ashamed, it can sap both their motivation to contribute and their belief that they have something worthwhile to contribute, and that's a shame.

In terms of the poll below, unfortunately, best language approaches for the problem is also not always an inborn skill. :) Just as I've seen a lot of people with copyright issues in my four-whatever years of doing copyright work, I've seen a lot of people trying to address copyright issues, and they are also doing important work. I try when I can to encourage good practices with them in neutral terms that avoid shaming or demotivating them from keeping an eye out for issues. If you're going to add language to guide whistleblowers, for lack of a better term, I would really suggest adding concrete guidance, because I would swear that in even the most abrasive, accusatory confrontations I've seen (and I've seen some doozies), the contributor thought the language was appropriate to the situation.

I think we need to avoid here shaming people who fall at either end of the "close paraphrase" continuum - whether that's those who need to come towards the "stricter" side to meet community standards or those who are already too strict. Insofar as we possibly can, we must take the conversation out of the realm of emotion and keep it firmly grounded in reasoned conversation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A poll

In practice, all decisions on what should be regarded plagiarism, and how bad it is (say, acceptable, must be rewritten, or so-so but should not be repeated, or etc.) are a matter of on-wiki consensus. However, this is just a part of a more general issue of phrasing concerns with a DYK nom. Such concerns have bordered the line of direct accusation way too often in the past. Thus my suggestion is as follows: whoever is the whistleblower, he/she must follow the line "not guilty until decided so by consensus" and use an appropriate language. I believe this is part of the unspoken wikipedia civility code and therefore suggest a poll on that

I believe the consensus for this would be decided at WP:CIVIL or WP:COPYVIO, not here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky CCI

Please help with checking in the Contributor copyright investigation, The alleged PumpkinSky copyvio, 28 articles (of 729 touched) need to be checked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

18 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
16 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
10 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
8 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
7 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
5 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
3 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Finished! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Original Reviewer's Take

I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion (my house's internet is being all finicky lately); I was the one who originally reviewed Musa Muradov, so I figure I should at least say something in this discussion. I received the following message from User:SandyGeorgia yesterday: "Structure of almost the entire article copied from one source, removed from the mainpage". I feel that this is an egregious broach of WP:AGF, as I had obviously reviewed the exact same article and come to a completely different conclusion. A much better way of wording this would be, "The article Musa Muradov has come under scrutiny for being too closely paraphrased to the original article and has been removed from the queue. Could you comment on the discussion as the original reviewer?" Also, instead of "Plagiarism Dispatch", why not name this section "Possible Paraphrasing Issue?" I think it's obvious that there was no intention to copy the original source verbatim, and plagiarism has a negative connotation to it which implies exactly that.

With regards to whether or not this is paraphrased too closely, I stand by my original assessment. The article is in an encyclopedic form in its chronological order and I see no way of rearranging the fact of his life to avoid minor paraphrasing (the re-write examples shown up top are actually quite impressively done). It is all cited in-line with proper references (without such, it would actually be plagiarism and I would have duly reported it). It meets the DYK criteria otherwise, and I found the hook to be insightful and interesting. If there is consensus to reverse my original decision, I understand, but I feel I should make my opinion known. Nomader (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"I think it's obvious that there was no intention to copy the original source verbatim, and plagiarism has a negative connotation to it which implies exactly that." This is an example of the problem we face with language and a diverse community. :) While this is true in many places, on Wikipedia, it does not necessarily imply that; we accept that "inadvertent plagiarism" is possible here (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#How to avoid inadvertent plagiarism). If plagiarism requires intent, one can't inadvertently plagiarize. :) There was a lot of ink spilled over the issue back when that guideline was coming into being, and at one point it explicitly noted that some people have different definitions of plagiarism, but that was lost along the way. Calling this section "Possible paraphrasing issue" might have been better, though, to avoid the all-too-common confusion between plagiarism issue and copyright concerns. While often related, these are not at all the same, as citations may eliminate the former but not the latter. (Outside of linking to the guideline, I almost always avoid the use of the world "plagiarism." It just means too many different things to people, and to those who believe that plagiarism must require intent, it is a highly insulting word in itself.)
Regardless of the issue of whether and how much paraphrase exists in this article, though, I'm not sure I see how it would be an egregious breach of good faith to call out a potential copyright issue. WP:AGFC notes that it is not an assumption of bad faith to raise copyright concerns, but only to begin from the stance of presuming that copyright problems are intentional. Certainly, if somebody accused you of willfully overlooking copyright problems, that would assume bad faith! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Well said! I was mostly referring to the tone in which I was notified and not the actual plagiarism notice, but I understand your point, and I apologize for coming out guns blazing with a link to WP:AGF and for using phrases like 'egregious breach'. These sorts of things only fan flames. That said, it might be worth it to have a discussion about the language that we use to discuss these sorts of things; I think tempers can easily flare when editors are informed that their work might be accidental plagiarism and there should be a more civil way of informing them. Maybe it would be worth it to dredge up that old conversation? But I understand your overall point and agree; thanks for the response! Nomader (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Another opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/Edin Osmanović

Hi, can I get the opinion of an image copyright expert on Template:Did you know nominations/Edin Osmanović? The nominator apparently knows the subject of the article personally and claims to be a photographer. Should I just assume good faith in that case? Thanks! — Toдor Boжinov — 11:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to verify the submission, I made the nominator remove the two images for which I had copyright doubts. Right after the article appeared on DYK, he readded the image (File:EdinOsmanovic.jpg) back, which pretty much renders my verification invalid, as I do not believe this image is free of copyright. Right now the article with this image (Edin Osmanović) is being linked to from the Main Page. Is there anything that should be done about it? I have asked over for assistance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyright of images on Edin Osmanović, but so far nobody has replied. — Toдor Boжinov — 16:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The user says that the photograph is one that he made 12 years ago, then scanned and uploaded here. Do you have a particular reason to doubt the uploader? If not, we can assume good faith. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't appear anywhere online that I could find. Boжinov, do you think it's scanned from a magazine? The quality looks too good to have been scanned from a magazine page. Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No, what I mean is that while he clearly possesses a physical copy of the image, I do not think he is the original photographer. I guess it was the nominator's unusual explanation and his overall odd behaviour that led me to suspect this. You are right that I cannot prove my doubts, though, so I have no choice but to assume good faith in that case. Thanks to both of you for your opinions on the issue! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 22:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording in two queues

Could some admin, assuming they agree with me, make the following changes please?

Prep 3 Cuyopsis

The Prep 3 Cuyopsis hook "that shells of the extinct Argentinian bivalve Cuyopsis are symmetrical enough to be named for it?" left me scratching my head: the final "it" seems to me to be referring back to the Cuyopsis shells, so I was left to conclude that, somehow, symmetry is related to Cuyopsis in some mysterious, indirect fashion. In fact, the article says the genus Cuyopsis was named for the region; it's the species name Cuyopsis symmetricus that comes from those symmetrical shells.

I have edited the hook accordingly, with the added "rectangular" description (from the article's mention that these shells were "rectangular in outline") to add interest—not a typical shape—while still keeping the symmetry. I mention this here so that if I've gone astray, corrections can be made before it's too late:

Hope it works! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6 National Movement for the Liberation of Azawa

As Lihaas has pointed out on Orlady's talk page, the Queue 6 entry (from the template National Movement for the Liberation of Azawa) has problems that need addressing.

The hook in the queue (number five of six) is currently as follows:

While the suggestion there is to add a parenthetical element—instead of "for the defeated government", change it to "(mostly for the defeated government)"—I'm not sure "mostly" is justified either, and I feel that parentheses should be avoided in DYK entries. My suggestion, for a variety of reasons, is instead to use the sourced allAfrica characterization (ref 4) and make the sole change the addition of the word "many" before "Tuareg":

I have no idea why this was brought up on my talk page, as I have had no involvement with the article or the review of the hook. Please don't wait for comments from me. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Edited per BlueMoonset's recommendation. --Orlady (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Not for you per se, just needed urgent attention. as a DYK admin i thought youd be online soon.
Anyway, we can take out the paranthesis and just put "mostly."Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. As it happens, I've been offline quite a bit in the last few days. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Color me confused, due to conflicting theories on how to change the wording. The current version reads:
If there are problems with those words, please explain what is wrong with them so that appropriate corrections can be made. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, i didnt read fully. Your suggesting of many is good (which is the same as mostly) so thats great. Thx.Lihaas (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

QPQ

I was curious to note that the QPQ requirement is only applied to self nominations, and not nominations by a separate party. Is there a reason that they are not included in the requirement?--Kevmin § 09:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that was because we didn't want to do anything which might discourage third party nominations. Gatoclass (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I can understand and appreciate that... but I think if you get to the point where there is a backlog of over 50 unreviewed DYKs and you've nominated over 50 yourself but aren't reviewing any in return, it is creating a bit of a problem of not fixing unreviewed ones, especially unreviewed older ones that might otherwise not appear because they are high up... On a side note, related to backlog potentially caused by that, User:LauraHale/DYK pass fail indicates old UNREVIEWED DYK nominations are not filled with problem nominations that people should be scared to touch. --LauraHale (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe people submitting nominations should be required to do a review if they've submitted a certain number of nominations. It could at least be required if they've nominated more than a few articles written by the same person—otherwise, someone could easily act as another's dykpupppet. 159.83.4.153 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The idea of QPQ is for people to contribute to making DYK work. IMO, nominating other people's work for DYK is contributing to the process here by helping to maintain throughput and by diversifying the content that gets nominated. When we get lucky, it even induces people who don't participate here to get involved, thus increasing the volunteer pool.
Furthermore, it's not easy to nominate someone else's work -- in fact, just creating the nomination is very much like reviewing a DYK nomination, except the nominator often also has to clean up the nominated article, address reviewer comments, etc.
There may be a few cases where article creators are nominating one another's work to avoid QPQ reviews, but that's hardly a reason to create a Universal Rule that will discourage a lot of positive work. If we see people doing that, we can tell them individually that we don't like what tget ae doing. --Orlady (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that it will discourage others, and it seems that if someone is consistently doing noms of other peoples articles then they have developed a very good feel and flow for it. Currently the noms page has a month and a half worth of hooks while the prep areas a consistently low to empty when it comes to updates and queuing. This seems to indicate to me that we need more reviews of hooks.--Kevmin § 21:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on QPQ's for multiple noms

In my first double article nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Jordy Mercer, Matt Hague, the reviewer said I only needed to have performed one QPQ review rather than two. Is that the case? I have a nomination up right now with ten articles and I've so far performed six reviews for it. I don't have a problem doing four more, but I am curious about the distinctions regarding multiple articles in a nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times but I haven't paid attention and don't remember what the conclusion was. Once someone answers this, please also update the rules so that the information is easily available and we don't have to keep having the discussion again. (Although, given how good most DYK nominators have been at reading the instructions, I imagine writing this down won't actually change anything.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The conclusion IIRC was that QPQ reviewers only have to review one article, but are encouraged to review someone else's multinom when submitting a multinom themselves. I don't have time right now to search for the relevant thread though. Gatoclass (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Lat time I asked I was told that it was an article for article review, thus a 2 article hook would require reviewing 2 other articles in some combination of hook/s(e.g. a 2 article hook or two 1 article hooks). The problem is that different reviewers have differing options on how it works and most the original players in the discussion that lead to QPQ are gone. I would suggest review per article with the new focus on review quality that has come about. Also I would suggest every nomination should be accompanied by a QPQ review, whether a self nom or a second party nom.--Kevmin § 01:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
For now I think someone who remembers where the last discussion was should just let Muboshgu know what the current consensus is, so he can handle his nom. After that we can get into discussing whether or not it should be changed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't care for myself. I'll do the four more reviews to make ten reviews for the ten articles nominated. This should be clarified, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I think Kevmin's referring to this discussion last September, which did say one review per article, but there was an earlier discussion that categorically stated it was one review per nomination. Frankly, the change in interpretation led me to avoid multi-hookarticle nominations like the plague. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes the September discussion is the one I was referring to.--Kevmin § 03:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I was always told multiple expansions in a single nomination are treated as one nomination and require one. (And when I did a multiple nomination recently, some one commented I should have reviewed two, but some one else commented to say no.) It doesn't particularly fuss me either way, but helpful to know when nominating. (I'll take the additional review count for having done that one if it does.;) --LauraHale (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't review or make multiple nomination DYKs, but I do know that TonyTheTiger likes to review multiple nominations because he uses each article in the multiple to match the equivalent number of his single nominations. If that isn't the way it should work, we should probably make it clear so everyone knows the rules regarding multiples, both reviewing and being reviewed (and checking for same). BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm planning to nominate a few articles in a few days. (waiting on pictures before moving over and nominating.) I think I did two double nominations to help get the total. I was operating under the understanding that they could for one review each. The amount of work is probably worth two, so I don't see a problem with giving credit for having done two, three or four credits for a DYK review on multiple articles in a single nomination because it does require that extra work. But yes, having a clear answer one way or another would be handy. :) --LauraHale (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Its looking like we should make a !vote on if we want to go with the original hook for hook QPQ or to formally adopt a article for article QPQ. Yes/no?--Kevmin § 20:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
IMO, it all depends. Some multiple-article hooks are not much more work to review than a single-article hook -- those are the cases where all of the articles are based on essentially the same sources, so the reviewer needs to check no more sources than if there was just one article involved. On the other hand, I've reviewed some multiple-article nominations where each article used a different set of sources. Recently I did one for a 6-article hook, for which there was almost no overlap in sourcing; just checking sources for that hook was a lot of work (and I wasn't even claiming one QPQ credit, much less six). IMO, honest Wikipedians would try to do review work that is at least commensurate in complexity with what the reviewer(s) of their own nomination(s) are likely to have to do. Most of the time, that will mean reviewing as many articles as you nominated.
Note that when QPQ was introduced, there was no expectation that each DYK review would include a thorough examination of the article for copyvio, close paraphrasing, etc. At that time, it seemed reasonable to say that review of one hook would suffice for a multi-article-hook submission, but with the emphasis on article reviews that we have under the current regime, that no longer seems as reasonable as it did at first. --Orlady (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This last part. Some reviews can take 5 to 10 minutes. They have no images, use three to five sources all available online, the hook is almost copy pasted from the text, the topic isn't that controversial, it isn't a BLP, and the nominator has a history of doing acceptable DYK noms. Other ones are basically GAs, with 30 to 50 citations, with 20 images that all need a copyright check, with half the sources used things that are online but need verification as the duplicator check doesn't work on them, have to be checked for POV pushing, and require some learning about a subject. These can take 15 minutes to 30 minutes. It is hard to tell what you're getting in for when you review just looking at the nomination itself. --LauraHale (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I have been reading its looking like the article for article thing is instruction creep that has seeped into the process at times. In light of the new procedures for review I wouls say we should go with the hook for hook requirement. I still say it should be for all hooks and not just self noms though.--Kevmin §
I like hook for hook and if we were doing a vote, would be inclined to support it. I'm good with giving new self and new nominators the first five nominations for free, IE no requirement to review. Great that people want to nominate new articles that the creators might not. Their options should be: 1) Encourage new DYK person to self nominate and help fix up the nomination if problems, 2) Review a nomination. Otherwise, it creates a bit of a backlog and an imbalance in reviewers/reviewees. :( --LauraHale (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Chalmers hook fact not cited

This is on the main page now. I checked it earlier, but could not log on because I was on a hand held (and can only rarely log on successfully from it). The hook fact can be cited (I've found a ref for it) and I'm about to take care of it, but I just wanted to state that it is not there now. This should have been taken care of in the review stage or while it was in prep, no? Marrante (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a look. It was cited way down in the body of the article. It was also added, with a ref, to the end of the third paragraph of the intro with this edit. Then Marrante referenced its pre-existing occurrence in the first paragraph of the intro (which is an actual lede para and thus my understanding is should not have refs except in cases of dispute, such as about where and when someone was born). In reviewing articles, I've started to see these long intros that summarize the article in detail after summarizing it briefly in the first para.; not my usage, and I commented on it in one review, but clearly a popular style of presentation. The danger is in terms of verifiability that the reader is going to want a reference on the version of the piece of information that doesn't happen to have the ref. That's what seems to have happened here. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I was on a handheld when I first looked at it and had very little time when I finally got on a computer to make sure of what I thought was the case. Had that lede paragraph not had the ref, I'd have looked harder for it in the body, but seeing the ref on the lede paragraph, and it was a long-ish article full of unfamiliar names and such, making such reading hard, especially under my time constraint. I'm glad to hear it was cited properly then, but then these lede refs really should come out. Marrante (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A template advertising DYKs

I've designed a template that can be dropped on a user talk page, accepting an article name as a parameter, thanking the editor for his new article and suggesting they nominate it for a DYK. Feel free to tweak it directly, and if you like it, we could consider mainspacing it and/or linking it from one of official DYK pages. The current use for syntax is {{subst:User:Piotrus/TDYK|ArticleName}} . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:28, 22 February 2012 (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 #2 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, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical query

I cannot determine from reading:

what the consensus was on that, and don't know if that consensus has since changed. I had encountered that before, but the recent mainpage

leads to my question. The Jennifer Worth nomination was presented initially with paraphrasing issues (subsequently cleaned up by others), but nonetheless went on the mainpage with text sourced to personal blogs, which was generally trivia. I'm unaware of how to check if the word count was met with the blog-sourced trivia removed, but I'm also unclear on what happened to Wilhelmina Will's topic ban proposal based on these same issues years ago (I was aware that Blechnic left Wikipedia after being one of the first to raise these concerns). Could someone who knows the history explain the consensus on Wilhelmina Will's proposed topic ban? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I even knew DYK existed back then (you linked to an AN/I discussion that began on August 3, 2008). However, we have an archive index for this page, and it showed me this announcement that her ban was lifted, dated August 19, 2008. Also I'd point out that with rare exceptions, her recent activity at DYK has been to nominate articles written by others; that includes the Jennifer Worth nomination. She does not appear to then follow up on those nominations when concerns are raised - at both Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer Worth and Eugene Eisenmann, for example. But nominating others' articles is not a problem, it's to be encouraged (although I'll admit I was a bit startled when she nominated one of mine!) and I see no mention of its having been included in her DYK ban. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Yng; much appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If you want to check in future how large an article is with certain content removed, Dr pda's page size script also works on preview screens, allowing you cull out the content in question, preview the abridged article, and check its size in preview without saving the changes. GRAPPLE X 17:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've had and used Dr pda's script since he wrote it (I may have been the first to use it), but it stopped working for me, I've been unable to figure out why, and he went missing. Now I have to do it the old-fashioned, manual way (I was around before Dr pda's script :) I miss the Dr and the wonders he used to be able to work with FAC stats with a script :( But thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Word in queue should be removed or moved

In the fourth hook of Queue 5 (for Similodonta), "in" should be removed or moved between "down" and "a". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed by Floquenbeam a few minutes ago, after it moved to the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup

An approved hook needs to get to the Main Page by the 26th for an editor to advance in the WikiCup. Any help for them? BCS (Talk) 21:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's already been added to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3, which should, I believe, be featured on the Main Page within 24 hours (I may be wrong). GRAPPLE X 21:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, six minutes after I posted here the hook was approved. BCS (Talk) 04:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be out of line for me to politely request that an approved hook of mine, Template:Did you know nominations/List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft, also be placed in queue by the 26th?  :-) I also need this promoted to advance in the cup. –Grondemar 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In Prep 1, due to be on the Main Page on the 26th. It was approved before you made that comment, though. That's what I call quick :) BCS (Talk) 04:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Just as a note, I'm pretty sure the WikiCup allows you to count DYKs and other promotions in later rounds, if they were promoted after the end of the round they were worked on in, as long as they were worked on after the start of the Cup as a whole. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about DYK

Would Sir Francis Verney be eligible for this page? I think there are several facts which would make interesting hooks. 71.184.38.227 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that article is brand new, yes. Go to Template talk:Did you know to start the nomination. Someone here can help you if needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried following the directions to submit the article but I can't create the subpage. I entered the name of the article but I couldn't fill out the form. The save/preview buttons were also missing. I was going to post it directly to "Template talk:Did you know" but when I edit the main page it tells me to create a subpage. 71.184.38.227 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know if an (unstated) requirement for entering a DYK nomination is that you are logged in—that is, that you need a Wikipedia account in order to nominate, which would effective prevent IPs from nominating? I couldn't find a specific mention of this, and it may well be some other problem preventing the nomination, but I thought it was worth asking. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you need to be logged in. Anonymous users can't create new pages, including new templates. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

So would someone else have to create the subpage or do I just copy the form to the main page? 71.184.38.227 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that now's as good a time as any to create your own account. Alternatively, you can give us a few possible hooks and one of us can open the nomination for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you know that this oil painting of English adventurer Sir Francis Verney has been displayed at the Verney family estate, Claydon House, for over 400 years?

Alright, here's a few that stand out:

  1. Did you know ... that following a legal dispute with his stepmother over his inheritance English adventurer Sir Francis Verney left England to become a Barbary corsair?
  2. Did you know ... that despite having no background in sailing English adventurer Sir Francis Verney became of the most feared Barbary corsairs of the early-17th century?
  3. Did you know ... that English adventurer Sir Francis Verney was one of four leaders of a Barbary pirate fleet headed by John Ward?
  4. Did you know ... that rumors of Sir Francis Verney and John Ward's conversion to Islam caused a sensation in their native England?
  5. Did you know ... that Sir Francis Verney is the only English aristocrat to have supposedly converted to Islam?
  6. Did you know ... that English adventurer Sir Francis Verney spent two years in the Spanish slave galleys for two years before being rescued by an English Jesuit priest?
  7. Did you know ... that English adventurer Sir Francis Verney's final days were recorded by Scottish traveler-writer William Lithgow?
  8. Did you know ... that several personal effects of English adventurer Sir Francis Verney, sent back to England after his death, are still preserved and on display at Claydon House for over 400 years?
  9. Did you know ... that Sir Francis Verney was chosen by Disney imagineer Marc Davis as one of several real-life pirates for Disneyland's "Pirates of the Caribbean" amusement ride? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.38.227 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

71.184.38.227 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the first hook is by far the best, because it is both the most informative and also a highly unusual fact. Some of the other proposed hooks don't say much about who Verney was at all. BTW, I think the "English adventurer" phrase is redundant - he is plainly English per the knighthood and name, and obviously an adventurer given his choice of career. Gatoclass (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've created the template for you: Template:Did you know nominations/Francis Verney. Someone will review it in time, so be sure to respond to any comments they may have. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Anybody got a minute to help a DYK newbie?

Would somebody here be so kind as to take a look at User talk:HJ#Beebuk and see if everything;s in order with the nomination the editor is enquiring about—I'm not familiar with the new nomination system (even though it's not that new any more!). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Step III (posting the nomination template on the Template talk:Did you know page) hadn't yet been done, so I explained what needs to be accomplished at this point. I did have a thought while explaining, though: I'm wondering whether the bot message should say "step III" rather than "step 3"; some people are very literal-minded, and there is no "3" there. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with changing it to III, but you'll have to contact User:Shubinator to get that done, he's the one who operates the bot.
How much do we need to hold editors' hands? The instructions are quite simple and a bot told the guy quite straightforwardly "you need to do this step"... rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with prep area 4 entry

In prep area 4 there is an entry which reads:

"... that Alison Quinn (pictured) was an Australian Paralympic athletics competitor who began in gymnastics to improve her coordination and symmetry?"

I think the use of "began" in this sentence is what they call a dangling modifier. Anyway, the sentence can be read in two completely logical ways with very different meanings:

...that she took up gymnastics because she thought it would improve her coordination and symmetry; or
...that after she took up gymnastics her coordination and symmetry began to improve.
--108.54.19.166 (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The use of past tense is also awkward and symmetry?, suggest ...that Australian Paralympic athlete Alison Quinn (pictured) started gymnastics as a child to improve her coordination? Froggerlaura (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
It is in prep, so anyone can edit it without needing to discuss here. As a two year old, she had no particular objective in mind. I have changed it to ... that Australian former Paralympian Alison Quinn (pictured) was brought to gymnastics as a child in the hope that it would improve her coordination and symmetry? (but that is not a dangling modifier) Kevin McE (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2012 (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) 06:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Prep 1: thematic imbalance (now Queue 3)

3 out of 6 hooks in this batch are sports related: an imbalance that should be addressed. Kevin McE (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Noting that these have since been moved to Queue 3, and can now only be modifed by an administrator. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done I swapped one of the sports hooks to Queue 2. --Orlady (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing Hook

Please can an administrator change the hook on Zennor Head (in queue 1) back to the one it was promoted with, i.e "that Zennor Head, Cornwall, is the largest coastal feature in the United Kingdom that begins with the letter "Z"?" rather than the new one it has been changed to. It was changed by an editor who did not believe the book it was referenced from was a reliable source, because of a humorous comment made by the author in the introduction, but I have explained that the joke (see my edit summary on the history) about subjective opinion only related to the 4/6 picturesque rating, rather than facts in general, and an exhaustive examination of the OS maps of Britain have supported the hook as true. Thanks --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 14:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

i.e. here, change


{{*mp}}... that French general [[Hubert Lyautey]] ''(pictured)'' described his defensive tactics in the '''[[Zaian War]]''' as analogous to hollowing out a lobster? {{*mp}}... that in 1936, '''[[Mahmoud (horse)|Mahmoud]]''' set a course record at [[Epsom Downs Racecourse|Epsom]] and became the third of four [[Gray (horse)|grey]] racehorses to ever win the [[Epsom Derby|Derby Stakes]]? {{*mp}}... that actor [[John Abraham (actor)|John Abraham]]'s first production '''''[[Vicky Donor]]''''' deals with the concept of [[sperm donation]]? {{*mp}} ... that in the '''[[1991 PBA First Conference Finals]]''', [[Barangay Ginebra Kings|Ginebra San Miguel]] became the first team in [[Philippine Basketball Association]] history to win a championship series coming from a 1-3 deficit? {{*mp}}... that the plot of the [[adventure game]] '''''[[Undercover: Operation Wintersun]]''''' focuses on a nuclear physicist trying to destroy [[Nazi Germany|Nazi German]] prototype [[nuclear weapon]]s during [[World War II]]? {{*mp}}... that '''[[Zennor Head]]''', [[Cornwall]], is named after a woman who was reputedly washed up there after being thrown into the sea in a barrel by her husband?
to
{{*mp}}... that French general [[Hubert Lyautey]] ''(pictured)'' described his defensive tactics in the '''[[Zaian War]]''' as analogous to hollowing out a lobster? {{*mp}}... that in 1936, '''[[Mahmoud (horse)|Mahmoud]]''' set a course record at [[Epsom Downs Racecourse|Epsom]] and became the third of four [[Gray (horse)|grey]] racehorses to ever win the [[Epsom Derby|Derby Stakes]]? {{*mp}}... that actor [[John Abraham (actor)|John Abraham]]'s first production '''''[[Vicky Donor]]''''' deals with the concept of [[sperm donation]]? {{*mp}} ... that in the '''[[1991 PBA First Conference Finals]]''', [[Barangay Ginebra Kings|Ginebra San Miguel]] became the first team in [[Philippine Basketball Association]] history to win a championship series coming from a 1-3 deficit? {{*mp}}... that the plot of the [[adventure game]] '''''[[Undercover: Operation Wintersun]]''''' focuses on a nuclear physicist trying to destroy [[Nazi Germany|Nazi German]] prototype [[nuclear weapon]]s during [[World War II]]? {{*mp}}... that '''[[Zennor Head]]''', [[Cornwall]], is the largest [[coastal feature]] in the [[United Kingdom]] that begins with the letter "Z"? (the original succesful nomination is here) Thanks -- Gilderien Talk|Contribs 15:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any objective way of measuring the size of a coastal feature? Where does it start and finish. And an editor looking at OS maps can only be OR. By what criteria is the author of this book authoritative or reliable? Light-hearted books carry all sorts of statements that cannot be considered to have been enyclopaedically verified. Kevin McE (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Length of coast? Area? I just did that to confirm the facts in the hook as correct. I will have a look for some more sources regarding this.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 16:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)And OR? Surely it is OS who have gathered the data? Correct me if I'm wrong, since I am quite a new and inexperienced editor, but OS is the publisher of the information.
Like I asked, by what definition are the start and finish points of such measurements determined? If you are confident of the terms in which it is the largest, can you source those measurements? Kevin McE (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
For islands, like Zacry's Island, it is pretty simple. For headlands, it is harder, but I have seen area measured as a line drawn from the furthest point inland from the adjacent coves, out to sea. I will endeveour to provide sources for measurements of the respective page, but does gathering and comparing count as OR?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 16:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I see this is still being sorted out so I'll disable editprotected for now. Tra (Talk) 14:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2: Pythagoras for ET

... a proposal to signal aliens by drawing a massive representation At least in UK English, it is usual to signal to somebody. Signal also seems to suggest a more active mode of communication than simply putting something on the ground and passively waiting to see if someone/thing happens to notice it. Kevin McE (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources I checked (not all of them) use the word "signal", which is also the word used in the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
None of the sources accessible without book or subscription, so I don't know, but the normal meaning of the word signal remains. What of the grammatical issue of the need for a preposition: is this an ENGVAR issue? Is a Version Neutral English solution possible? Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
A quick check of various online dictionaries of American English confirms that one of the meanings of "signal" encompasses that in the hook. "Normal" meaning is a slippery thing; I found the hook quite clear in context. Does this meaning not exist at all in UK English? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Brigitte (Queue 3)

Inconsistent to compare the "actor" Brigitte to the character Eddie. Either compare Stella to Eddie, or Brigitte to Moose. Kevin McE (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the fact is that Brigitte was compared to Eddie. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess that is what happens if we use the gossip column of a sensationalist Murdoch tabloid as a "reliable source". It is still inconsistent, and not an example of what an encyclopaedia should do. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Prep 4: Chinese whispers

... that composer Graham Waterhouse played Chinese whispers in Chinese Whispers? Simply untrue. One cannot play the game without several people each using their voice to pass on a verbal message. The game influenced/inspired the composition: the game is not played during performance of the composition. Needs to be sent back for a re-write. Kevin McE (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider taking the original hook, pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Slightly better, but still not really true to say that he "played with" the game or the music. ... that the small incremental changes of a [[Chinese whispers|children's game]] inspired Graham Waterhouse's composition Chinese Whispers? Kevin McE (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
We are talking about ... that composer Graham Waterhouse (pictured) played with a children's game and Chinese music in his award-winning string quartet Chinese Whispers?
More important than the slight changes are a certain playfulness (it's composed for children) and perhaps Chinese Pentatonic scales. What do you think of ... that composer Graham Waterhouse (pictured) plays on a children's game and Music of China in his award-winning string quartet Chinese Whispers? Please improve, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The age group that would typically play chinese whispers, and the age group that would typically be able to play at that level, or who might typically comprise the audience at a performance of Waterhouse's work are very different applications of the word "children". Using play in a piece about music implies a style or an instrument: he may have been influenced by the game, but he was not playing it. Kevin McE (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
My language capabilities are limited, how can you say that the composer playfully used ideas/elements from the game and from Music of China, treated to western classical music style? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I went and looked at the ref. I disagree that "played with" in a musical context always suggests "played an instrument," and also the source makes clear that there are different voices involved, but let's keep it simple and closer to the source, since the wordplay has aroused misgivings. How about:
or if Chinese music has to be got in there, how about:

April 1: discussion initiated

Interested parties may wish to contribute here. Kevin McE (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2012 (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 #5 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, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reviews

If it isn't a bother, could somebody perform reviews on the noms for Bay Darnell and John King (racing driver)? The creator of the first article requested that it run on DYK if possible with the Daytona 500, which didn't happen - but the race has been pushed back to tomorrow (noon GMT+5) by rain, and the latter would fit well with it as well, so if it's possible to get these up tomorrow mid-day New York time, that would be awesome. If not though, no worries! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unreviewed articles in Prep 3

There appear to be two unreviewed articles from the second hook of Prep 3. Due to template limitations, only eight of the ten articles appear in the section heading and only those eight have "article history links" on the nomination page. The review specifically says that eight articles were reviewed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the other two articles: Chad Tracy (baseball, born 1985) and Andrew Garcia (baseball). They are new enough, long enough, and well-sourced. --Orlady (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2012 (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) 06:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK Main page update > 2 hours late

The reason: all the queues are empty. Is there an admin who can help please? —Bruce1eetalk 10:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see Allen3 has loaded a couple of queues and the DYK bot has resumed updating. Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 11:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Scroogle hook removed

The Scroogle hook on the main page was recently removed [9], leaving five hooks in the set. There was no discussion for removal of the hook, admin issue. Froggerlaura (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that the admin that removed it, User:DragonflySixtyseven, not only removed it without any discussion before or afterwards, but didn't return it to the nominations page to be worked on, which is just plain dickish. GRAPPLE X 19:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't jump to conclusions too quickly. That was almost certainly due to the Daniel Brandt controversies (see also pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)), and I'm not sure we wanted to start those fights again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Daniel Brandt, the former owner of Scroogle, has had a contentious (to put it mildly) history with the Wikipedia. Where his name is concerned, there is far too much knee-jerk reactivism from all sides. If Scroogle has been in the news lately for its demise, then I see little reason to leave it off of DYK for political reasons. The Scroogle article itself was recently restored from the trash heap as it has become more notable since deletion a few years ago. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
If it's that controversial, a simple note to someone involved to explain why it was pulled would not only serve as a courtesy but a reminder that the subject area is one to be cautious in editing; certainly something should have been said somewhere given that no genuinely actionable objections exist other than general wariness. GRAPPLE X 20:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reasoning behind it beyond "oh no, it's something related to Brandt". Waiting for Dragonfly's response is the proper thing to do, but he'd better have a good explanation for this. SilverserenC 03:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I just found this response by DS on the nominator, ThaddeusB's talk page. It's quite clear at this point that there is no basis for this removal and I think it should be placed into a new queue section so it can run for a full DYK period. Otherwise it's just a slap in Thaddeus' face. SilverserenC 03:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. "This might offend someone" is a terrible rationale, especially if the potentially-offended party is essentially a bystander who in all likelihood will neither see nor consider the entry in question. Since nothing is actually wrong with the hook or article, I'd recommend sticking it back in a prep area rather than making it run the full nomination process again. GRAPPLE X 03:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I meant putting it back into prep, sorry if I wasn't clear on that. SilverserenC 03:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No response after 24 hours from Dragonfly. Should we just go ahead and put the hook back into prep? SilverserenC 22:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

DS' latest statement on the subject is clear and seems like appropriate advice: "Having the article on Scroogle - sure. Having Mr Brandt named on the front page - possibly problematic." It shouldn't go back to the prep area until a new hook is devised that does not mention either Mr. Brandt or litigation. --Orlady (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason to change the hook. It's cited to The Irish Times, a newspaper with a very good reputation, and the article further elaborates on the point in a manner that passes Brandt off as intelligent and strategically-minded; I have a genuine problem with us running in fear of what possible offence our use of reliably-sourced information might maybe cause. GRAPPLE X 22:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
We can't just censor him whenever something he's involved with becomes notable. We removed the article on him, sure, because it was decided that fell under him being a private person. However, private people being mentioned in DYK hook with no article for them doesn't violate BLP or anything like that. There is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be mentioned in the hook as the creator of Scroogle. SilverserenC 23:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't you think that a hook that says "Daniel Brandt once sought to be sued by Google?" just possibly raises BLP issues?
No, I don't. It accurately reflects a newspaper article which went unchallenged upon publication. Were it not supported by a source whose reliability is not in question, then maybe, but The Irish Times is a neutral and respected paper in terms of technology and business (it's biased in other respects but I highly doubt Irish republicanism weighs too heavily in this issue). GRAPPLE X 01:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not as if that was the only possible hook for that article. Since it was on the main page for less than one hour, I think it ought to be allowed to go back up, but with a different hook. For example:
  • I don't really care about whether we use the same hook, just that the article in general gets a full DYK run. I am a bit concerned about the censorship issue here. I don't think Brandt deserves any special privileges, especially considering he's tried to force us to remove articles that have any relation to him (for example, by null-routing all links to his websites). SilverserenC 03:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So, let's go with one of the alternate hooks then to make everyone happy. I like the first one. SilverserenC 23:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restored Scroogle under Feb 23 on the nom page, someone can approve it there. Froggerlaura (talk) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hooks require explanation of subject?

I started a DYK nomination yesterday for Cash mob, which you can find here. User:What a pro. reviewed it, but didn't pass it because he said that the hook has to explain what a cash mob is. I disagree with this. The requirement for hooks is that they are directly cited in the article and are interesting. There's nothing in the rules that say they have to define the subject. I thought those were the dry sort of hooks that we were trying to avoid? I left a message on What a pro's talk page 19 hours ago, but there's been no response so far. SilverserenC 03:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be two viewpoints with DYK hooks—that hooks should be dry, avoid humour and serve almost as a hyper-abridged lead to summarise the article; or that hooks should serve as an interesting catch to draw attention to the article. Personally I'm entirely in favour of the latter, but you'll find many supporters of the former. When it comes to mandating that a hook must explain the article, that's definitely not the case. As long as the hook is verifiable, reliably-sourced and well-presented, it would seem to defeat the purpose if it gives everything about the article away up front; as well the fact that longer, drier hooks are generally more of a mouthful and less interesting to a casual reader. Having looked at the linked nom, I don't see a problem with the suggested hook; aside from agreeing with the suggested to link U.S. state, and the fact that the bold link should be parsed as [[cash mob]]s and not [[cash mobs]] GRAPPLE X 03:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I already did the US state thing before, but I just went ahead and parsed the link, I hope that's better. So what's your advice if What a pro never responds? SilverserenC 03:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a little soon to worry about a lack of response. Another 24 to 48 hours at least should elapse, and perhaps more. You're safely nominated, so the big question is what to do with the hook. Give your reviewer a chance to log back in and consider your response. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, I just was concerned about what i'm supposed to do if it comes to it. SilverserenC 04:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that if it is not immediately apparent what the main topic is (which would be the case here, it's a relatively new term that's not clear just from reading) that some bit of description to establish context would help on the "interesting" front. Without context, it'd difficult to be interested in it, but there's also a balance as with this specific topic, I see no way to summarizing it NPOV-ly in a few words. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
And I also wrote it this way to get people interested in reading it. Though, I agree, there's no real succinct way of explaining it anyways. SilverserenC 04:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's a point specifically for this one. Consider you know zero about "cash mobs" beyond those words. The statement in the blurb could be taken as a positive or negative, the latter more importantly since "mob" is generally a word associated with crime. Now, in considering all other aspects, a question to ask is can that sentence be altered to show that this is a "good" thing , without violating any other part of DYK? For example, instead of "hit" what about "supported" (since that is what they supposedly do), which makes the sentence positive, and thus gives me a bit more incentive to learn more since that seems counter to what a "mob" is. Now I would call that "interesting", even if you haven't fully explained the notion of a "cash mob". Also, one other factor: since this is a relatively new thing, I would date this ("since 2011") or something like that. Something happening 30 times in an obscure timeframe, meh. 30 times in a few months, definitely of interest. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I've changed it. Better? SilverserenC 05:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3 Problem

Hello. Please note that there's an alternative version that was approved by The Bushranger for Template:Did you know nominations/Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1980s, different from the one used here. Cheers.--Jetstreamer (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've renamed this subsection to attrack more attention. The hook needs to be changed to "deadliest accident Aeroflot experienced in the 1980s" otherwise its a little inaccurate. My fault - I added the wrong hook to the prep area. Miyagawa (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. --Allen3 talk 13:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 5, Rated R: Remixed

In what way was the act of remixing exclusive? Sounds like promotional hyperbole of no real meaning. He didn't remix those tracks for any other album? Only Chew Fu remixed them? And what is an electronic record producer? A producer of electronic music (a genre description so wide that it would include anything from Kraftwerk to Drop the Lime, or a music producer who uses electronics (an even more generalised description)? Kevin McE (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I replaced the hook with "... that Rihanna's Rated R: Remixed received mixed reviews?" --Orlady (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me...not. Reverting back. "received mixed reviews?" is an awful hook. Aaron • You Da One 01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Like it says at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#The hook, "A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit." Hooks get second-guessed all the time. Do you have another suggestion that is supported by sources and that will not be subject to criticism? --Orlady (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
My original hook is sourced and supported. There was nothing wrong with it. It there was then the reviewer would have said that it is not sourced. Might I add that only one person reviewed the album, therefore you have actually written something which is not supported by sources as your have pluralized "review". Aaron • You Da One 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The sourcing indicates that Chew Fu remixed all ten songs. It does not support the "exclusively remixed" language that Kevin McE found to be both unclear in meaning and promotional in tone. Seeing the contention here, I was about to pull the hook back to the noms page to resolve the issues, but it's already gone to the main page. --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
What? Fu remixed all of the songs, that is exclusivity. Point is, there was nothing wrong with the alt that was suggested in the review. The one you changed it to is simply horrific. What is interesting about "received mixed reviews" ? NOTHING. The info in the article is all that is available. There are no other reviews or information. I want the original alt hook from the review page to be restored. There was no reason for changing it. And yeah, I got informed on my talk page with the DYK credit last night, not that I even want that awful hook credit to my name now. All of this could have been avoided if one of you had bothered to inform me, then all you would have had to do was change "exclusively" to "solely". Aaron • You Da One 12:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
You need to read the comment at the bottom of every edit screen: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. If you are concerned about the passage of your proposal through the DYK process, it is incumbent on you to watch the relevant pages. It is not normal usage of the word to attach a word of exclusivity in such a context, and it was irrelevant to the claim (and using info absent from the target article) to list the DJs activities as you did. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem, but my hook was perfectly sourced, all that needed to be changed was "exclusively" to "solely", and now the current one is just plain shit. There is nothing interesting about it. But neither of you are listening, so I'm going to remove the DYK from the article's talk page and I won't be claiming the points for such a thing. Aaron • You Da One 18:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Late submission and WP:IAR

I've just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Milan Area C, and everything in it seems alright to me. However, the article's history shows that it was eligible for DYK by January 17, although it wasn't until February 17 that the nomination was created. It's a southern European traffic law article and to me that seems uncommon enough to consider invoking WP:IAR to stick it up there anyway (since I'm pretty sure 5 days isn't a hard and fast rule anyway). Would anyone mind if I changed my verdict on this and signed off on it as okay to run? GRAPPLE X 21:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IAR-ing that one, for multiple reasons: (1) I'm tired of the lack of topical diversity in DYK. (2) The creators are not DYK regulars; we should encourage new contributors. (3) Significant new content was added on February 17. --Orlady (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Good enough for me, just didn't want to rush in and approve it to have it bounced back later. GRAPPLE X 23:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The nominator apparently knew the rules (since he went out of his way to point out the article's age in the comment). The 5-day rule as written on WP:DYK#gen1 clearly no longer reflects the practice of reviewers, who let any old article on. So if the rules no longer reflect the consensus, they should be updated. Does anyone have suggestions for how it should be rewritten? rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Given how the 5 day thing is already specified as a guidelines, perhaps simply further emphasising reviewer discretion would be all that's needed. Hooks tend to be reviewed by one person and added to prep by a second, so there is some degree of failsafe should a hook be passed when it's far too old. GRAPPLE X 02:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
My point is, if recency is no longer something the DYK project cares about then it shouldn't be in the rules anymore. Or if the de facto cutoff has changed then it should be changed in the rules as well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This truly is an instance of ignoring a rule in a special case, not abandoning rules altogether. Recency is still important. However, the reality is that we routinely have hooks on the noms page that are over one month old, so "new" generally means only "sort of new." That define some possible latitude for considering late noms. This particular article is still very new as content goes. It was created when its topic was still very new (roughly one day old); by February 17 it was possible to include information that did not exist a month earlier -- and that makes the article and the hook far more informative and interesting. As Grapple X notes, variety is also important for DYK, and because a large fraction of noms at any given time are drawn from a small number of specialized topics (for example, recent topics have included racehorses and Rihanna songs), it's often hard to achieve variety. On balance, it looks like this article is plenty recent, and including the hook would enhance the quality of DYK. The only reason I can see not to include it would be an insistence on enforcing all rules at all times, and that's inconsistent with Wikipedia culture. --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that Orlady's point about a special case being a special case is well taken, and I thought it was an interesting article as well. Since the rules do point out an exception (supplementary rules D9), and there are not at the moment enough approved hooks to fill all the queues and prep areas, I'm in favor of this one going through. It's not like this happens every day, or even every month. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Suitable for DYK? Clarification needed

Hello, I'm asking this question because I'm really confused over an important issue. I searched the archive and found nudity/sexuality-related articles in Main Page cause a lot of controversy (as can be seen from the discussions (here, here, (here, here). This is why I withdrew the nomination of recently expanded article about a nudist festival Nudes-A-Poppin'. Here is the archived discussion. Please provide a brief input on this issue, especially whether Nudes-A-Poppin' was suitable for DYK. I found articles like Nude wedding and More Demi Moore were featured in the DYK. And there is an article about a film waiting to be featured with this image. The problem is that since we do not have any clear-cut policy regarding nudity/sexuality-related material on the Main Page, it become very difficult to identify which article is suitable for the Main Page, and which not. Although Wikipedia is not censored, nudity-related article are generally restricted from being featured in the Main Page from common sense ground (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules), as I can see from the previous discussions. This is very reasonable if the article does not have encyclopedic value. I think we need a policy regarding this matter. Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion Talk 01:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw your nomination go up, but unfortunately didn't see the discussion there until now. Frankly, I felt the picture you chose was fine, because at that scale, the nudity being shown would be impossible to see without looking at the image page itself, which can easily be done anyway. We've had nude art in TFP before, and that was probably more explicit in what was shown than the image in your hook. You'd have had my support had you pressed forward with the nomination, as I don't believe that censoring something so inoffensive or barely-noticeable should ever come into play. GRAPPLE X 01:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I see no harm in nominating that article for DYK. Nudes have appeared in the image slot on a number of occasions, but I personally would not use an image with the hook that was proposed for this article. Withdrawing the nomination was an over-reaction by the nominator. I suggest unclosing the nomination (by restoring this version). --Orlady (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both of you for your input. Unclosed nomination. I've temporarily removed the photo from the article as it's going to be featured in the Main Page, will readd it after the DYK is over. Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you need to (or should) remove any of the article's images while it's on the main page; anyone who clicks a link marked "Nudes-A-Poppin'" knows bloody well what's going to be in there. Frankly I think it'd disappoint more viewers than would be offended. :P GRAPPLE X 06:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've added the image back in the article per your suggestion. If anyone believes the image will be offensive when the article is featured in the Main Page, feel free to remove it. Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion Talk 06:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Super hero required by the country of Wales

Can someone help? Monmouth Cap has been patiently waiting to appear on March 1st since January. Its an article designed to run on St David's day. Nikkimania had a concern which has been addressed twice. However the clock is ticking. Can someone fly in, check that the concern has been addressed and if so move it to the St Davids day queue There are still good slots available. Thanks for listening - hope you can spare the time Victuallers (talk) 10:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and I have approved it, after the work carried out to address the paraphrasing concerns. As per the guidelines, I'll let someone else promote the hook to the prep area. Can I suggest that it goes as the lead hook for prep 4 (and move Henri-Edmond Cross to lead prep 1), which will see it at the end of 1 March in the UK. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Prep 3 seems more logical. Why have it at the end of the UK day when it can be can be right in the middle of the day when the most people will see it? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, Prep 4 jumped ahead of Prep 3 into Queue 3, so now I'd recommend swapping this into Queue 3. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Monmouth Cap is now in Queue 3. --Allen3 talk 20:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Could I also ask for some eyes at the articles Morgraig Castle and Cardiff town walls? Both were pulled from prep by Nikkimaria and were originally to run on 1 March, and User:Seth Whales, the creator, hasn't edited since 26 February. The close paraphrasing concerns are detailed at the nomination pages: here and here. Judging by Nikkimaria's comments, the latter may be a more serious case. It would be nice if the issue could be resolved and those two run on St David's Day after all. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your rewrite of Morgraig Castle was good and I've re-approved it. We just need someone to promote this and Monmouth Cap now. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And I've moved it back, as the close paraphrasing issue hasn't been addressed. I realize you're eager to get it out in time for tomorrow, but it's better to get it right. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not just haste, although you happen in these couple of cases to have swooped in just before a special occasion; I genuinely thought I'd adequately digested the prose in Morgraig Castle; otherwise I wouldn't have called for a re-review. I'm sorry it wasn't to your satisfaction. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep 3 Sturgeon class

This nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/List of Sturgeon class submarines, was originally put into a prep area on February 25, but was pulled in order to gain an image, and thus be eligible for the top slot. This required an image review, and I pitched in to do it, even though I wasn't the original reviewer, since said reviewer had already signed off on the nomination.

It seems a shame for the nomination not to have a shot at the top slot under the circumstances. If people think it isn't appropriate for it, I can understand, but I'm not sure it's been considered in that light. Given that this is in the next prep area due to be moved to a queue, even if only four slots are filled at the moment, I thought I ought to draw attention to it before it's too late. Thanks.

BTW, the prep area currently has seven slots, while all the queues and other prep areas are still at six slots. Whoever finishes off the prep area should fix this, regardless of what is done with the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all submissions with images get in the top slot on DYK. There are far more submissions with images than there are slots to put them in. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. I thought it was implicit in what I said, and I have done DYK reviews with and without images. Given the specific circumstances of this one, I thought I should make sure it didn't inadvertently slip through the cracks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are you saying that editors who nominate through the normal channels should accept the fact that their image might not be used, but editors who don't use an image in the beginning and then cause a mess by adding an image at the last minute and pulling their article back out of prep should get special consideration and should be guaranteed an image slot? rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
No. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Then what is the "specific circumstance" with this article? The only special thing I can see is that the nominator didn't add an image until after the article had already been reviewed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
As you can see from the template, there had been no action for over four days, then someone helpfully reiterated the check mark because "sometimes these can get overlooked if there's text after the last tick", which there had been practically from the moment that tick had been made. 7.5 hours after the check reiteration, the nomination was scooped up. If the assertion about being overlooked had any merit, then 7.5 hours is comparatively little time at all for the nomination and its picture to be considered, especially given how little prep work had been done in those hours (thus my words "a shame not to have a shot"), and it seemed to me worthwhile to post this section to find out before the prep area moved to the queue and it was too late for consideration by many of the people who build prep areas. I have done so. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep areas need filling

I shifted three to the queues and started loading prep 3 - but have other things that need doing. Anyone is welcome to keep loading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What is considered to be the appropriate balance of time between a blurb being in Prep sections and being in the queues? Kevin McE (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Errr dunno. If'n you see anything amiss in the queues, there are generally admins around to help out though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Like you!! Thanks so much for keeping this running, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Stingers

In both Queue 5 and Queue 6 we have hooks using a nickname for the Australian women's water polo team that is unlikely to be known by many outside the spectator base of that relatively low profile sport. I would argue that this is tantamount to insider jargon, and fails to inform the reader. Kevin McE (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Stingers is the name of the team. No more jargon filled in my opinion than saying Chicago Cubs. --LauraHale (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Given that it's a national team, the better comparison is probably the South Africa national rugby union team, known as the Springboks (you have no idea how long I spent thinking it was "Spring box" as a child). I don't mind the use of the term in the two mentioned hooks as the hooks do make it clear that it's water polo that we're talking about, but if they didn't do that then I'd recommend changing (worth considering if you've more of them to come). GRAPPLE X 20:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The Australians like to have names for every team. As some one who does social media related monitoring as part of her dissertation, trying to monitor say "Australian Diamonds" or Kangaroos or Wallabies, this could be a huge exercise in frustration. I'd have Australians asking me the name of the American national soccer team because they are the Socceroos. Somehow, USMNT does not have the same ring to it as the Hockeyroos. (I can't recall what the other nominations I have use to refer to the team.) --LauraHale (talk)
These are informal nicknames, and in the case of a water polo team, a nickname with very low recognition among the breadth of Wiki readership. I can't see what social media monitoring in a dissertation has to do with the phrasing of a DYK hook. Someone who reads the linked articles will derive the information that McFadden is coach of a water polo team, not a a group of stingers (whatever a stinger is meant to be), and that the 5 women named are aspirants to that team, not to some ability to impart a sting. The hooks should not hide those facts behind an obscure nickname. Kevin McE (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
These aren't informal nicknames. They are the team names. Basketball Australia calls the senior women's national team the Opals. Netball Australia brands the team as the Australian Diamonds. These are official team names in Australia... just like the All Blacks, Tall Blacks, Black Caps are official team names in New Zealand. Beyond that, most newspaper sources refer the team as the Stingers, instead of "Australia women's national water polo team." (Which wouldn't be the name used anyway. Australia women's high performance water polo team is the name I've seen used in a few places. --LauraHale (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Cruft-help, please

Charles Cruft (showman) was supposed to for March 11, but was mistakenly moved to prep. I thought it said in the special occasion holding area that only an admin could move it there, so I did not.--Ishtar456 (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Cruft (queue 4)

The nominator has requested on my talk page that the Charles Cruft hook be held for 8 March. As the set was promoted within 30 minutes of me finishing it, I can't touch the hook now. Anyone? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually March 11, but either will do. Please read comments in the review. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hook has been swapped out and Charles Cruft has been moved to the special occasion holding area for March 11. International Women's Day noms are awaiting the 8th so the 11th works better. --Allen3 talk 13:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Same text in multiple articles?

Revolt_(network), El_Rey_(network) and Aspire_(network), which share a hook currently in Prep 4, also share a nearly identical paragraph, without which at least two (and possibly the third) would be too short to be eligible. I had thought repeating content in this way was not allowed? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeating content is fine, but such content should only count towards the length of the first of them to be created. Mikenorton (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree, I'd say 2/3 of those articles don't meet the length requirement. If the author doesn't want to expand them, only one should run. The Interior (Talk) 00:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Revolt_(network) is the original (and also the longest), and should be the one to run. The other two were posted after, and share the same outline and History section with it. Since the History section alone is 536 characters (excluding 15 characters for footnote numbers; should those be included? If so, 551), that takes Aspire down to 1005 even before other similar phrases are eliminated, and El Rey down to 1061. I agree with the above: only Revolt is eligible, barring 40%-50% expansion unique to another article to bring its original material length up to 1500 characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I had approved similarly for three articles, two were bolded, I reduced it to one for the reason above. When it appeared, the bold White Goat Wilderness Area received 773 hits, the other Ghost River Wilderness Area 543 hits, and the third (only mentioned and linked in the nom) Siffleur Wilderness Area 298 hits, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone should have contacted me. We could have taken these out of the queue and I could have fixed them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I approved the three under the impression that it was allowed to repeat the text if it's appropriate; it was my first multiples review, and I'm sorry for my mistake on that one. poroubalous (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep3

I have just loaded three hooks into Prep3. Would someone like to check to see if I have done it correctly as this is my first attempt at doing it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good for the most part but I did spot one small concern. When completing a set of hooks it is helpful to remove any remaining placeholders from the credits section (e.g. *{{DYKmake|Example|Editor}} and *{{DYKnom|Example|Editor}} lines for article "Example" and user "Editor"). --Allen3 talk 10:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I note what you say about the credit section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3, Cornish mine

There seems to be no evident reason why we are displaying wolfram rather than the IUPAC name of the element, and home of the article linked, tungsten. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be the wording used in the source, however, I agree that it should be changed as the use of the word Wolfram unambiguously refers to tungsten.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 19:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
They mined wolframite at Great Wheal Fortune, not wolfram (or tungsten), so that it was what was probably being recovered - I'll try to check that and update the article. Mikenorton (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Tungsten does not occur as a native metal and wolframite is found at Great Wheal Fortune according to this (page 371). I've asked the creator of the article to check what the source actually says, but I think that it should be changed to wolframite anyway. Mikenorton (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the source says 'wolfram', which must be wrong as explained above. So it looks like we need another hook. Mikenorton (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A check with the Mindat.org page on "Wolfram" here shows that while wolfram is the German name for Tungsten, it is also an English language synonym for Wolframite. A check with the mindat.org page on the Great Wheal Fortune page [[10]] shows Wolframite in the mineral list.--Kevmin § 01:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
A comment on Talk:Tungsten suggests the opposite: that tungsten can refer to mineral forms, but that wolfram invariably means the pure metal, but that contributor might have as much specialist knowledge as I have (ie none). Assuming that my near namesake's research above is accurate, the link should be to wolframite, not tungsten. Given that A) it is a chemical impossibility that this mine-scavenger was sourcing pure tungsten, B) the term wolfram clearly could have meant wolframite in the source, and C) it is not a direct quote, so we are not obliged to use the exact words of the source; I would argue that the hook should explicitly say, and link to, wolframite. Now on MP, so I've posted at WP:ERRORS in the hope of getting admin attention. Kevin McE (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Returned the hook to T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A second talk page?

This talk page seems to have two very different purposes:

  • As the talk page for Wikipedia:Did you know it deals with issues or principle, policy and practice, that probably ought to remain visible for some time and should be archived.
  • As the talk page for Template:Did you know/Queue, and all ten templates that feed into that, it carries short term items akin to those on WP:ERRORS that could be deleted as quickly as they are resolved.

Would it be sensible for the queues to have their own talk page, which could be transcluded here, as wp:errors is transcluded onto Talk:Main Page? Kevin McE (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Prep 3 "The Well-Worn Lock"

The hook on this item is simply not accurate. It seems to be criticizing actor Paul Dooley for a preposterous portrayal, when the reviewer, VanDerWerff, is criticizing the character, Joe Bangs, who goes from horrifying to preposterous in that episode. This hook either needs a major overhaul, or a completely new version. I can't come up with anything on the fly; if no one else can, the nomination should be withdrawn until a new hook can be crafted and approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just came up with an adequate, accurate substitute. It's a little longer and omits Paul Dooley, but I don't see how you can retain him and be true to the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
[EC] Excellent observation. I edited it. See if it works for you. --Orlady (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Good thing I caught this in my watchlist. As the original nominator, here's a few alts of my own (don't like not having some input when this happens):
Alt1 ... that the Millennium episode "The Well-Worn Lock" "tries some interesting things" with the series' formula?
Alt2 ... that the villain in Millennium's "The Well-Worn Lock" has been called "preposterous"?
Alt3 ... that one critic found scenes in Millennium's "The Well-Worn Lock" to be as horrifying as anything he had seen on television?
GRAPPLE X 23:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Of the three, I think ALT3 is the most effective, and more so than the one there now. (Edited all three Alts to add proper bolding.) I would add "several" before "scenes", though. Also, is "critic" or "reviewer" preferred for DYK, or are they equally accepted? I like the latter myself, but that's no reason to change unless there's a general usage preference. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I used "critic" as it's shorter, but if "reviewer" seems better than that's fine by me. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Adding "several" and changing "critic" to "reviewer" still uses only 134 characters, so it's fine with a longer word. I'll make the change now. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
PS to Orlady: I hadn't realized until just now that I overwrote your earlier version when I posted mine about 50 minutes ago; I don't know why it let me do that, but I didn't know we'd had a collision on the prep3 page. Thanks for your help! (I liked your construction better than mine, though I think I would have wanted to add the reviewer caveat.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I couldn't figure out why your edit summary disparaged my hook wording, but I shrugged it off. Now I understand that you didn't see my wording -- and you weren't alerted to the edit conflict. Something similar happened to me on an article yesterday. In both that case and this one, one of us had edited the whole page, while the other edited just the one section. I'll try to see if this has been reported as a bug. --Orlady (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a similar problem. When I submitted my edit, someone else's edit appeared, but mine did not. The usual "edit conflict" warning did not appear.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't even thought of that; I'm so sorry! (My edit summary was referring to the original hook, of course.) Glad you've figured out the bug, and it is something that needs fixing; I thought any change in a particular section of the page was supposed to cause a conflict whether you were editing just the section (in my case, "Hooks") or the whole shebang as you did. In this case, my section edit was completed after your page edit; was that the order on yesterday's article? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe this is a bug related to new software. I've reported it (and described my two experiences) at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#Edit conflicts not being detected. Others of you who have encountered this bug (a bad one, methinks) may want to add your comments there. --Orlady (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Queue 4

Second to last hook, "Battle of Copenhagen," is missing its "that." Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 talk 22:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

suggestion for cleaning up back log

Hi, I recently came back to wikipedia after a long absence and am overwhelmed by the length of, and back log on Template talk:Did you know. I have come up with a some suggestions for how to clean up that page. <s>1. Either put the directions for "how to nom" and "how to review" on separate, '''clearly linked''', pages. Or collapse them, the way the contents can be collapsed. 2. There should be a time limit to how long a nom has to fix issues with the article. I see several lengthy discussions about articles with multiple issues, mostly plagiarism, POV and citations. I think there should be a point where some says "This does not pass, case closed". But it seems like a lot of time is spent on poor nominations and they just sit there forever until someone finally fixes the problem. Is there a rule that says that every nomination eventually passes? It seems to me that a lot of perfectly good nomination are being delayed because of all the effort put into problematic articles. <s>3. I have also noticed that noms, fulling the requirement to review other articles, often make one comment and then don't follow up after the problem is fixed. I think that they should be told they have to see the review to the end. I think once someone takes on the review they should see it through, unless there is a need for a second opinion or mediation. Just some thoughts.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As an example of my second point check out Template:Did you know nominations/Somewhere I Have Never Traveled. It was originally rejected on Feb. 6, and several other issues have emerged since and it is still there.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how hiding the instructions is supposed to make noms get reviewed faster. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Two issues: 1. cleaning up the page, making it more navigable,2. and promoting the nom in a timely manner (thus making it more navigable). Both things are making the page user unfriendly, in my opinion. --Ishtar456 (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I really doubt that any reviewers fail to finish a review because they got lost on T:TDYK. It takes just one click to skip past the instructions and get to the noms. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Is timely moving of passed reviews really a problem? I have found that once my DYKs have been successfully marked passed, they are generally put in the prep area with in 12 to 48 hours. This feels rather timely. --LauraHale (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
You do not have a problem with noms that are a month old or older taking up more than half the page? I think that kind of defeats the original intent of DYK. These are supposed to be new articles. I do not remember the page being as big a mess a couple of years ago as it is now. I don't remember there being such a backlog of old articles. Should articles stay on the page indefinitely, especially when they have multiple issues?--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say I don't have a problem with it. I said I don't see how hiding the instructions will help. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
@ Rjanag your response to me is to my response to LauraHale. Sorry for the confusion.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you see a review where a person has responded to feedback and the original reviewer has not come back to address it, just give the reviewer a ping. Sometimes, we review and there are issues and it takes a day or two to get fixed and it is easy to miss them on your watch list. I really like the how to review instructions above the page as it makes it much, much easier to review because the guidelines are right there. --LauraHale (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Amplifying upon LauraHale's comment, just as no one owns an article, no one owns a DYK review. From a practical standpoint, when I review a DYK nom, it is unlikely that I can chain myself to Wikipedia for the next week to watch to see whether the nominator or article creator has responded to my review. The primary reason why I review DYK nominations is to help out with the process. If someone is going to insist that review activity on a nom implies a commitment to follow that nom to its conclusion, you won't see me volunteering to help any more. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There is also the red bendy arrow symbol that can be added to attract attention to a nomination that needs to be looked at again. (A very good idea, recently implemented.) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, my first and third suggestions don't have any support so I have put a strike through them, but I don't see any response to the second suggestion and I would like opinions on that, if anyone has one to offer. Thanks--Ishtar456 (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
In a manner of speaking 2 already happens. The problem is that there is no set limit. However, various aspects probably make this a necessity. Firstly, most people don't like failing nominations: I would guess that everyone who reviews here also nominates articles, and you don't want to get a reputation for failing other nominations if you want yours to go through okay! In addition to this, it is often difficult to work out how much of a problem there is going to be, sometimes what might appear a small problem won't get solved, whereas there are some editors here who can solve seemingly catastrophic problems with nominations literally overnight. If one problem is solved, and then the article is approved, another problem may be found by User:Kevin McE or another of the editors who review the articles once they are in the queues, and the article will return to the nomination page for more work. This would make it appear as if the article has had problems for a long time, but if these were failed due to a time limit, it would be unfair given that it may only take a day or two after the problem has been spotted for it to be sorted out. Often the delay is actually due to the reviewer(s) being delayed in re-reviewing an article, rather than the nominator being delayed in fixing it. All in all, I think a hard and fast time limit would need so many provisions and exceptions that it wouldn't be practical. That's my tuppence worth anyway! Harrias talk 13:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I get what you are saying, especially about people not wanting to fail the nominations of others. I know I feel that way. Perhaps though, if there was a provision for a "hold", like there is in GA reviews. When the problem starts to take an extraordinarily long time ( to be determined with discussion here)the reviewer can put it on hold and the nom has X amount of time to respond. If they don't, then the article fails, if they do than the clock is reset until he next delay. If everyone knows that that is how it is going to work, I do not see any problems with fairness. I think that when someone has nominated something it is up to them to monitor the nomination. When I nominate something here or at GA I check on it at least once per day. I don't think that that is unreasonable, especially with DYK as time is a factor in the nomination.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
This is sort of happening in practice: someone (often Crisco) adds a note that the problems haven't been addressed in x days (usually a week). If there's no activity after the reminder notice, those noms usually are removed. I guess we could make this practice official, but I'm not sure it's necessary. The Interior (Talk) 15:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
When only one editor is putting to practice then it is inconsistent. A policy would make it more common and I think decrease the back log. It is only necessary if people (other than me) feel this is a problem (which I do). I would like to see the back log of month old noms decreased, if not eliminated. When I came back after my absence I could not believe how old some of the noms were and I have to tell you that I think noms used to be promoted in a more timely fashion. I have one that has been there for 5 days that has not been reviewed. And couple of years ago it would have been within the first couple of days. In my most recent accepted nom, I had to remind the reviewer that he was reviewing it. And that was a person that is on DYK every day. I do not think that it would have been overlooked for so long if the backlog was decrease, IMHO.--Ishtar456 (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would also prefer we not put in hard and fast time limits for getting an article over all the review hurdles. We're all volunteers here, and the 5-day requirement can already be a problem in some cases. The emphasis at Did You Know has always been on getting the article up to standard so it can be shared. And all sorts of things happen to delay an article's passage to the main page, some of which may not be obvious: reviewers forgetting to actually add the check mark/tick template, articles getting returned from prep (or even from the main page) because someone challenged them at that stage; someone nominating someone else's article and then not keeping tabs on the nomination, and often the article creator won't know issues have been raised, either; Real Life intervening in various ways. We have a larger problem with a fall-off in submissions to Did You Know, and somewhere between the two in significance, problems with the thrice accursed quid pro quo requirement; a thorough vetting of the article, resulting in a long nomination page and/or a long wait until it makes it to the main page, is relatively insignificant as a problem and could even be viewed as positive by those who consider DYK prone to copyvio and other problems. On the other hand, yes, the list of articles still not passed is alarmingly long. Someone recently set out to test the hypothesis that older articles that have not yet been reviewed are harder or otherwise problematic nominations, and found it was untrue; further back, someone else (possibly PumpkinSky) was posting every week or so a list of old nominations that still hadn't received a review. Positive approaches like looking for an older nom when doing a quid pro quo review, or posting a list here, are the way to go, I think; not more deadlines. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I did not realize that there was a drop off in noms. That sort of makes it different (although the backlog might be part of that problem). I am comfortable with closing this discussion. Thanks to all who participated.--Ishtar456 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_78&oldid=1139988688"