Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 72

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Sexism

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Is it too much to ask that we not include blatantly sexist statements in DYK like "Did you know that Flat Horse dance may represent male virility or female irrationality?" Lest we forget, DYK already has a long history of misogyny thanks to the reign of King Bedford.[1] Perhaps we could be a bit more thoughtful in the future. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It did not occur to me that this hook would be read as DYK's endorsing "female irrationality." But then I just got yelled at yesterday for a hook that mentioned "the ten plagues of Egypt" without mentioning disputes about the Book of Exodus. Bear in mind that a hook about the ballet Swan Lake might say it represents magical swans; few people would interpret that to mean that DYK claims magical swans exist. But your interpretation is also a possible one. Could you suggest an alternate hook that you would like better?

Sharktopus

^talk 18:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Think of it this way: If the hook had said "Did you know that Hoohaa dance may represent white virility or black irrationality?" do you think it would have made it to the main page? There are plenty of other interesting hooks that could have been made from that article. At the very least, we could have changed it to "Flat Horse dance has been said to represent male virility or female irrationality". Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Edited on main page. Kaldari could have fixed the problem by editing it there, too. (Wink) --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Orlady! Kaldari (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also thanks to Orlady, and thanks to Kaldari for bringing to our attention something that may well have been offensive although it was not intended to be so.

Sharktopus

^talk 20:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to be sexist; it was just an amalgamation of Spiller and Richter's interpretations of its meaning. Perhaps subordination would have been a better choice, but it seems that Richter's main point was the irrationality. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the article so I understand where the hook came from. The problem was lack of context given in the hook. While lack of context may sometimes be useful for creating humorous or intriguing hooks, it can also lead to hooks which sound quite offensive on their face. Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Very well. I will try to keep an eye on things like that (if I see them). I hope the revised version was acceptable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template for noms

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

The above was done fast and efficient, thank you! The template for noms results, if "diff" is filled, in a lot of blue clutter. Could that be reduced to a piped link to, let's say, "diff". Or can we even drop it, now that we have the subpages? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; could you show me an example? I agree that a diff is probably not necessary anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just go over the suggestions page and look for "http", example Template talk:Did you know/Shinde Chhatri. I never filled "diff" because I reviewed articles with subpages which carry the hstory. But there are people who fill out everything ... and then complain that it's so hard, smile. Let's take it easy, go slowly over the summer and make decisions when people are back, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a problem with the template; it seems to be an temporary error on Wikipedia itself. I assume it'll be fixed soon. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is definitely specific to this page. It only just happened recently, though--it wasn't happening before--so I'm going to have to try to figure out what's causing it. The links themselves are not malformed; there must be something on the page (maybe a recent change to {{DYKsubpage}}) that's causing them to not render correctly. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking! Yes, I saw it only today, first in an article I reviewed. I changed the "naked url" to piped "diff", but next time I looked it was as before, I didn't bother to question if it was reverted. That article was promoted already. The link doesn't look malformed, just too blue, and I don't like clutter, I guess I said so before. - I liked your "snippy" comments, btw, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Something's happened to T:TDYK that's messing up the rendering of links within the subpages. When you open the subpage itself it doesn't have these problems (the example you gave was just a typo in the external link itself; the other subpages that have links, display correctly); the problem only happens when viewing T:TDYK. I'm looking into it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed now, and I didn't do anything. Must have just been some problem with the wiki. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you know: Don't believe in miracles. Rely on them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Otis (song) in Queue 2

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Could an admin please change Otis to "Otis" in Queue 2 (last hook)? Otis is the name of a song, not an album. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, but that is a very poor hook. Band releases a song? What on earth is unusual about that? The hook should be replaced. Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The original was "from The Throne", but Kevin MCE changed that too. At the very least, we have "... that (person name) was released by (word possibly meaning government)?" Better than "... that "Highway to Hell" was released by AC/DC?", which would not be able to be misinterpreted. If we have another quirky approved, it could be changed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the hook with a new one. Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I got the inverted commas/italics convention wrong: my recollection was that all works (songs, paintings, scultures etc) were to be italicised. But of course I would change the preposition: does anyone claim that any linguistic convention is being followed by saying (track) is released from (band) ? Kevin McE (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

By is probably the more appropriate. An album might be from (maybe, at least Billboard thinks so), but I doubt a song could be released from someone. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite so: is the latest release from (which could apply equally to a single) is a very different grammatical construction than was released by Kevin McE (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

True, true. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

An article you may want to read

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Churnalism. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And one you might want to read: meta:What is a troll?. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I call. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth Shadrick (prep 2)

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

There seems to be no real evidence of causality between the theft of some kit and the decision to join the army. His parents had power to veto his signing up, so there was, we assume, some deeper level of conversation than "I don't like it at school: the big boys took my stuff". The nearest we have to a causal link is "It was probably the football uniform, his father decided, that started Kenny on the way" [2]: starting on the way is not a firm cause, or a claim to such. Kevin McE (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass has addressed it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

His edit is an improvement on what was there before my edit, but I think still overstates the situation. "Starting someone on his way to doing something" is not the same as "doing something because of..." Kevin McE (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What about: "... that Kenneth R. Shadrick, the first U.S. foot soldier reported killed in the Korean War, joined the Army after his football uniform was stolen?". The inclusion of the football shirt theft implies a link but the hook is strictly factual. Yomangani ^talk 12:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What is hooky about that? The current hook is a simple statement of fact - that it was thought [by his Dad] that a stolen football uniform led to his son joining the Army and getting killed. The hook is accurate, factual and hooky, and that is all that is required. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to: "... that after Kenneth R. Shadrick became the first U.S. foot soldier reported killed in the Korean War, his father traced the tragedy back to a stolen football uniform?" I don't think there can be much argument about that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Yomangani's proposal, but this one is OK by me. Kevin McE (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

But looking at that again, it seems less than even handed to have mentioned an award given for killing 250 Koreans a couple of days ago, and then describing this unfortunate young man's death as a tragedy. Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Queues 5, 6

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Q5: When we talk about a public building, especially one that is named according to its function, we generally assume that we are talking about the function of the building unless otherwise specified. That being the case, the phrase "the Hartington City Hall and Auditorium is a Prairie School design" seems at best counterintuitive: the auditorium is not its architectural design. Suggest ...that the Hartington City Hall and Auditorium was built to a Prairie School design when that style was in decline... Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Q5: Waxworks: one word. There is nothing in the emboldened article to suggest any persuasion/convincing on Philidor's part, although it is hinted in the Tussaud article. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Q6: "Spans" seems an odd choice of verb, especially as the road does not actually reach the third city in question: suggest "links" Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Q6: It would appear that no building work has started: suggest that Kingdom Tower is to be built by.... Building projects do not always go to plan: and is planned to be the world's tallest building. Also suggest that we should give some location information, per rule C2. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Q6: Typo: is noted for having very similar Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased all (hopefully). Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Change to Queue 4

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can someone change the hook for HMS Phoenix (N96) to

... that HMS Phoenix (N96) (pictured) fired upon multiple ships in World War II before she was sunk, but didn't hit any of them?

relevant discussion can be found at User talk:Crisco 1492#DYK Review. I also left a note at User talk:Reaper Eternal so it may be dealt with. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Skier Dude (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Separating out reform discussions

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Just a note to say that the separating out of the reform discussions to Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals. is not yet finished. If no-one else does it, I hope to carry on doing it tonight. But it is possible the archive bot may sweep up some sections and dump them in the archives if this is left too long. The sections can be retrieved from there, but it would be better if the moving of various sections from here to there carried on. Also, note some people are starting to edit that other page, so people here need to watchlist that page as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Turned out I had no time this week for anything on Wikipedia. What do people here want done with the threads at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals? Currently, some of the threads that I had intended to move there have ended up in the archives (due to the archive bot). If you want those threads that I moved to the subpage to be archived in the archives, I'm happy to do that. I do think that some list of the reform-related threads should be made and a summary written to help keep track of all this. But what I want first is to get everything in one place, rather than the half-moved stuff (which is my fault really, for starting and not finishing, though that was because I underestimated how long it would take and how much there was). There is a partial list of the reform threads at the top of this page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If no-one replies before this section is archived by the bot, I'll do my best to tidy up what I started, probably by just adding the subpage to the archive box above (along with the partial list at the top of this page) and making clear that it is incomplete, and that other reform discussions are present in the archives. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Plan B didn't work. The archive box is one of those auto-generated bot ones and I can't work out how to manually add a thematic archive link like Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals to the numerical list of archives. So maybe it is time for plan C, which involves dumping the subpage threads into the main archives and then using the subpage to link to all the reform discussion threads once archived. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Main issue: copy vio on main page

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Frankly, I've lost track of all the proposals, polls, particulars, problems, predicaments, quips, qualms, quandaries, queries, qoncerns about ques and qriticisms, rebukes, ripostes, replies and remonstrations, statements, side discussions, serious and silly scrapes, and all that else that has been raised lately.

In the interest of refocusing the discussion: in my opinion the most serious problem with DYK is the potential appearance of (links to) copyright violations on the main page. Other stuff like some minor grammatical issues or spelling errors in the articles themselves (in the articles themselves, not hooks) as long as it doesn't rise to the level of "embarrassing" are secondary. I guess another serious matter is the potential for POV pushing in hooks etc. but that appears to be more minor and mostly confined (so far) to the I-P dispute; there, it's probably enough that reviewers are aware and pay special attention to the articles in this area.

So the questions is how to best ensure that no copy-vio-articles get promoted. The checklist was supposed to be a way to remind reviewers to check for that, though now it has taken a life on its own. Some other possibilities potentially are:

Get User:CorenSearchBot to also automatically run through all articles currently in the nominations page. Currently it just runs through newly created pages but this will miss any copy-vios added to x5 expansions, and to articles which are created initially but expanded after a pause of a day or so.
Somehow get Duplicate detector [3] to check all nominations. This can be done just by including a link somewhere to it and asking reviewers to run it on the most used online cite in an article (if there aren't any then AGF). Maybe it would be possible to write a bot to somehow do this but that's outside my expertise.

Any other ideas?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are fine ideas. CorenSearchBot is regrettably out of order and has been since July, but once it comes back online I hope we can use it here. I have found DuplicationDetector very useful in checking DYK articles. One caveat is that it will flag as "duplication" direct quotations enclosed in quotation marks and properly cited to the source. Therefore the reviewer should check the article before flagging it as a copyvio/CP.

Sharktopus

^talk 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, still need human eyes - DD just suggests some things to watch for (another false positive is long titles of sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that Template talk:Did you know/mChip is a blatant copyvio. The article is now listed at the copyright problems page and the article has been blanked with a copyright notice. I'm guessing that it is safe to close the nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have rejected all nominations by that author and moved the involved articles to their userspace with a request to rewrite them ASAP. (This is a compromise solution aiming not to scare a prolific newcomer contributor). As far as I can see, there are no nominations of this author in preps/queues/archives. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios are bad but are not lethal to the project. If the source material is offline there is no mechanical way to spot it. Every so often copvios will find their way onto the main page. Some will be spotted and removed quickly, not all. Original research and unsourced content are also bad. Poor spelling and grammar, garbled wording and poor overall organization are not good either. It would be nice to also avoid incomplete or biased articles, but often only an expert can spot these problems. I don't see copyvios as the main problem. The problem is striking the right balance between fresh new content and quality content. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh, the crucial difference between copyvios and poor spelling and grammar, is that the latter are not breaking the law. So yeah, I'd say copyvios are the main problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A law we inevitably violate occasionally, because for one thing, "If the source material is offline there is no mechanical way to spot it." Could that be "lethal to the project"? Unlikely, because we've survived for years in that condition. But I suppose it could be lethal, if someone sued Wikipedia for millions. And anything that's referenced could conceivably be called close paraphrasing. I wish we had some professional legal opinions, which no one here has claimed to have. Art LaPella (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Health of DYK

Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments10 people in discussion

House has made his diagnosis; it's not just the new nominations format or the new reviews that are causing the patient to be sick, it's a combination of both. DYK has seen a lot of treatment recently, and the life-support is wearing thin. Question: Can DYK stand on its own yet, or do we require further intervention?

Translation: We've discussed what's wrong with DYK up the wazoo, and it is showing signs of improvement. We have a somewhat decent amount of reviewed hooks under the newer nominations section, but the total number of nominations is down. A goodly number of DYK regulars are MIA, including some admins. Is DYK stable enough running as it is, or should we do something more drastic, like reducing queue rotation? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat a comment I made above where it may have been missed: the new procedures, new requirements, and new template are going to prevent me, and many other editors, from submitting DYK nominations at all. I came here yesterday to submit a nomination, but I was completely baffled by the new template for reviewing someone else's nomination - which the rules require me to do. There are no instructions, I couldn't tell what I was supposed to do, and after 15 or 20 minutes trying to figure out what was required of me I said "the hell with it, I just won't submit my nomination." I suspect there are many like me, occasional DYK submitters, who are turned off by the complexity and incomprehensibility of the review template and the added burden of doing a full review of all the sources in the article. If you want to continue to get DYK nominations from regular editors like me, as opposed to DYK specialists, you need to either relax the requirement to review another submission, or else return to a simpler process. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You could ask another editor to nominate for you. I've seen it done a few times since the new review template started to be used; people who usually collaborate instead have one as maker and one as nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but it seems like that would add still another burden to those few of you that are comfortable with the new system. It's really not important to me; when I create an article it's because I want to create the article, not because I want to chalk up another DYK. If I ever have one that I REALLY think needs to go to DYK I'll let someone know - if there still is a DYK feature. Good luck to those of you trying to maintain it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A low number of approved hooks and of reviewers is nothing unusual; this has happened many times in the history of DYK, and DYK has kept plugging away. We certainly don't need to hastily implement more drastic changes and we don't need people from the FA crowd to come "rescue" like they seem to think they are. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

True enough, but it is rather frightening when one can scroll halfway down the page and not find a single unreviewed article, only "promoted by", "rejected by", and problem articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing that bugs me about the current arrangement is having to scroll through all those "promoteds" and "rejecteds" in order to find nominations that are either ready for promotion or needing to be reviewed. In the old days (for example, a month ago), the page wasn't cluttered with the skeletal remains of old noms. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I could edit the template so that those don't show up. I don't remember off the top of my head why they are there; they weren't there in early versions of this system, but eventually something prompted me to add them. I think it was in response to some issue, but I don't really remember what. If anyone can brainstorm pros and cons of having these links to completed noms, it would be nice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to do? It's hard to keep track of how serious the situation is with all the passed and failed reviews still on the page. DYK bot seems confused too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it. Noms posted after now won't have this behavior any more. Unfortunately, current noms will still show up like this (since the templates are all subst'ed) unless someone wants to go through with AWB or something and remove it from all of them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My article is still sitting there unreviewed - not sure if it's because I did something wrong or what.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mine too. I'm going to try and find yours and review it, since I should try this new review system. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole process seems to be ridiculously bureaucratic and rule-bound now – as well as baffling – and I too really can't be bothered with it any more. A shame, it used to be a nice place and fun. The arrival of the jobsworth literal police was a harbinger of this kind of nonsense, I guess, the ones who frowned on hooks such as "... that A. Forward was a forward". Ericoides (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That comment sounds like it's directed at me. For what it's worth, I and several other editors have been pushing for hooks to be "hooky" for at least two and a half years; this is not a new development. I'm fine with people complaining about the recent changes that have been made to the review system—I've had complaints too—but if that's what we're doing, let's try to focus on the ones that actually are recent. A lot of people seem to be wanting to use the "oh, there are so many recent changes" meme to vent complaints about entirely separate issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken in thinking the comment was directed at you. In fact, you altogether misunderstood the thrust of what I was saying. We sail towards the same object; I too am for hooks being hooky (hence my phrase "the jobsworth literal police" for those who felt it necessary to specify exactly in which sport A. Forward was a forward – the humourless and mechanical application of some obscure ruling at the expense of the hook). Ericoides (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake then; I misunderstood your comment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to echo what MelanieN says above, after making two recent noms, and reviewing two articles and looking at all the changes, I doubt I'll be making any further nominations. Too convoluted, too complicated. Frankly, all of these templates and changes and subpages have created a situation where the solution is actually worse than the problem it is intended to fix. I have great respect for most of the editors attempting to improve the process, but there is a long way to go yet. Reso lute 01:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning reducing queue rotation: It might last another week at this rate, but I expect enthusiasm for elaborate reviewing to peter out after the excitement is over. We can always adjust the queue rate then, if there's anyone left who feels like adjusting it. Art LaPella (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully. I have tried to keep the queues from faltering, but it's rather hard to fill a queue with no noms. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

One bizarre contributing factor in the current dearth of hook nominations has been the continuing dysfunction of User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult‎, which is normally a source for potential DYK candidates. That bot service was completely unavailable for a time. Now that it has been restored through the good offices of User:Tedder, it doesn't yield the same quality of results it used to provide. Recent results included very, very few articles even remotely suitable for DYK. I've discerned that the bot wasn't scoring new articles for size, which meant that it wasn't providing nearly as many results as it used to -- and the vast majority of the results were actually too short for DYK. Tedder confirmed that it wasn't implementing the size parameter; that issue may have been fixed, but there may be other issues waiting to be identified by tech-savvy folks in our midst. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we come back to discussing the archiving procedure? I agree with Orlady that it's creating a lot of clutter, and unnecessary red tape. Why do we even need archive pages for individual days anyhow? We already have the archives for the individual noms, surely that is enough? I have gone to the nom page three days in a row now with the intention of doing some reviews, and just given up in disgust at the mess on the page. I only managed to do a few reviews tonight because I went down to the bottom of the page to review some "clean" noms, but if I'm finding this new system discouraging, it must be a nightmare for less experienced reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. (I think we are at August 2nd now; I've been hammering away at them for a while). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The main reason I made archive pages for individual days was become "some people" (User:SandyGeorgia) were insisting on it. I did explain to her (here) that I don't see any usefulness of daily archives. If no one other than her likes this daily archiving thing, I'd be happy to go back to what it was before. (If desired, days could still be archived after they go empty--at that point it wouldn't make a difference to nominators and reviewers anyway--but while they are going on, they would be sections of T:TDYK like before, rather than their own subpages like they are now). rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Special request

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Would it be possible to add Whorlton Castle (approved at Template talk:Did you know/Whorlton Castle), which I wrote, to a queue this weekend? I intend to do some more work related to it but I would like to get the DYK out of the way first. Prioryman (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, it's appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why no timestamp with signatures?

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Any reason people are signing without the time when promoting or rejecting a nom? Tony (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

People are not signing when promoting or rejecting a nom. The signature is automatically added by {{DYK top}} ([4]) as part of the promoting process. The template can be changed to make a full signature (including a timestamp), although I don't know if it makes a big difference either way. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make this slight change? It would improve the tracking of the history of noms in the process, and would improve accountability, especially where an article is found to be wanting in a prep room or queue. Tony (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I already did. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved some stuff around

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

In case anyone is confused: I just changed something to new nominations subpages will be at Template:Did you know nominations/some article (list) rather than Template talk:Did you know/some article (list). This is mainly in response to complaints about the nom subpages having no associated talk page (since they already are talk pages), particularly with people who want to leave comments somewhere after the the nomination is completed and boxed out (see, e.g., this discussion, and edits like these).

I don't think it will be necessary to move old noms (as far as I can think of, the only thing that needs to know the name of the nomination page is {{DYK talk}} and the other credit templates, but I just edited those so they will work with both). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the rationale for making them go at Template:Did you know nominations/... rather than just Template:Did you know/... was so that it would be easy to separate them out from maintenance-related pages (e.g. Template:Did you know/Queue, etc.). I used Template:Did you know nominations/... rather than Template:Did you know/Nominations/... because that's the only way I'm aware of to make a group edit notice that will show up on all nom subpages (showing, e.g., the ticks and stuff) and not show up on pages where they're not needed such as the queues and the main template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Instructions need to be updated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you see any places that are out of date? I tried to update them when I made the change (although just now I found one spot that I had missed, and updated it), but if you notice anything else feel free to change it or to point me to it. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Archiving may need to have the instructions changed a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Waclaw in Queue 1

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I've got a quick question about a review I did for a DYK (and many thanks for the work you do on this). It was Template talk:Did you know/Wacław Gluth-Nowowiejski, which you promoted. I think I might have used the wrong symbol there, as I thought a couple of things needed discussing or changing first, but as they were minor I assumed the promotor would have looked and made the changes themselves? I'm referring mainly to the hook comments I made (the wording is not so critical, but the overlinking I pointed out was later fixed here and I made another change here. Looking closer, I see you had delinked World War II, so maybe you did see the comments and silently made some changes and not others? If so, did you consider the alternative hook wording I had suggested, and was there a better place for me to suggest that? What I also want to know is whether I should have used a different symbol, or asked the nominator directly for input about some of that? Possibly the changes made to the hook as it progressed to the queue is a feature of the system, but maybe it would be better if the hook was settled at the time of promotion? I'm going to ask Tony1 (who removed the other example of overlinking) and Volunteer Marek (the article nominator) to comment here (as the nomination subpage is now closed), as they might have some thoughts on the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page. Would a shorter hook be better? I left the longer hook as we are at 6 hooks per set right now, and OTD keeps using long hooks (and thus us being too short would be an eyesore). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I actually saw Carcharoth's comments and wanted to respond to them but the nom page looked "closed" (in fact I think it said something like "discussion is closed") so I went to sleep instead then didn't think about it today. One thing I would change - and thanks to Carcharoth for pointing this out - is that it should be "short comic" rather than "comic book" (basically it was one comic among others in a comic book anthology/magazine kind of thingy). I can't make the change in the que either as I'm not an admin. But yeah, basically I was left wondering myself as what the proper way to address these was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Preceding copied from my talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(Having said that, I think "short comic in a comic book" vs. "comic book" isn't THAT crucial so... not sure if this is a big deal).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I changed it here. It's not critical, as you say, but I didn't want to make the hook any longer as it might then unbalance things on the main page. This was mainly my fault for not using the right symbol. I should have put a "hold" or "discuss" symbol on the hook bit at the review. Would have held it up for a day or two, but would have avoided the messier "tweak things in prep and then queue" method. Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Separating out reform discussions

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Just a note to say that the separating out of the reform discussions to Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals. is not yet finished. If no-one else does it, I hope to carry on doing it tonight. But it is possible the archive bot may sweep up some sections and dump them in the archives if this is left too long. The sections can be retrieved from there, but it would be better if the moving of various sections from here to there carried on. Also, note some people are starting to edit that other page, so people here need to watchlist that page as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Turned out I had no time this week for anything on Wikipedia. What do people here want done with the threads at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals? Currently, some of the threads that I had intended to move there have ended up in the archives (due to the archive bot). If you want those threads that I moved to the subpage to be archived in the archives, I'm happy to do that. I do think that some list of the reform-related threads should be made and a summary written to help keep track of all this. But what I want first is to get everything in one place, rather than the half-moved stuff (which is my fault really, for starting and not finishing, though that was because I underestimated how long it would take and how much there was). There is a partial list of the reform threads at the top of this page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If no-one replies before this section is archived by the bot, I'll do my best to tidy up what I started, probably by just adding the subpage to the archive box above (along with the partial list at the top of this page) and making clear that it is incomplete, and that other reform discussions are present in the archives. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Plan B didn't work. The archive box is one of those auto-generated bot ones and I can't work out how to manually add a thematic archive link like Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals to the numerical list of archives. So maybe it is time for plan C, which involves dumping the subpage threads into the main archives and then using the subpage to link to all the reform discussion threads once archived. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning: Deliberate Breaching of RfC Consensus

Latest comment: 13 years ago48 comments19 people in discussion

The bulleted checklist that has been included in DYK nominations for some weeks now has the explicit endorsement of the "checklist" RfC. While it is not the only checklist that could be produced in line with the community's overwhelming decision, it follows the wording of the RfC text closely: text that the community has endorsed.

It has come to my attention that User:Rjanang has been unilaterally, without consensus, (1) removing the template from DYK nomination pages, without substituting another template that does justice to the community's insistence on a checklist; (2) fiddling with the original template (created by Carcharoth) by inserting "noinclude" to blank it out in display mode; and (3) revert warring over the past half hour when I attempted to reinstate the checklist. This is despite Rjanang's noinclude admission that the RfC produced "consensus to include a checklist". Rjanang has used several spurious reasons to justify his actions. Among them are "there is no rule that the decision of every RfC needs to be implemented immediately" and "You don't have consensus to force this version of your checklist on everyone, until you actually ask if there is consensus for it." The latter is despite the fact that the checklist comprises what the community decided on, plus a few DYK rules for convenience and thoroughness, and which need to be ticked off explicitly in any case.

The proper course of action for Rjanang would be to hold an RfC to reverse or modify the community's overwhelming decision only three weeks ago that a checklist is required before main-page exposure.

If Rjanang's behaviour persists, I will launch an AN action against him within 36 hours, since he is clearly going against strong community consensus, and in a way that again renders DYK liable to serious breaches of policy. I believe that nominations stripped of the checklist (or any template that satisfies the consensus of the "Checklist" RfC without replacing it with another checklist that also satisfies the community's demand should 'not be moved to a prep room. They are, in effect, rendered illegitimate by his actions.

Another alternative would be to terminate DYK altogether. I'm not averse to that option, even though I've put considerable work into shoring it up against the many editors at WP who are complaining vociferously about it. Tony (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion is at Template talk:DYKrev#noincluded. I have nothing to say that I didn't already say there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony has been informed on numerous occasions that his RFC on the checklist was malformed and a breach of WP:POLL, but he has continued to play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT over that issue. Moreover, there was never any consensus to use the particular checklist that Tony is using, nor was there a consensus that it be used immediately and without further discussion. My opinion is that the checklist has made T:TDYK quite chaotic and difficult to read, and been a leading factor in driving many of our most longstanding contributors away from the project. I support Rjanag's position that the use of the checklist should be suspended until all the outstanding issues have been resolved and there is clear consensus on the use and format of a checklist, doing otherwise is just going to lead to further chaos. Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- (e.c.) **Gatoclass, you make those assertions without backing them up with facts or references. They are not credible. Go back and examine the RfC, and observe the > 3/4 majority that demanded a checklist. This will go to ANI if there are further reversions, and I am about to warn nominators individually that there nominations are likely to be ineligible for main-page exposure if their nom page does not include a required checklist. Silver seren, until another RfC overturns the first one, the requirement for a checklist remains. Materialscientist, I'll disregard the implied personal attack and assumption of bad faith. If you think proper reviewing, as demanded by the RfC, is unwieldy, we'll need to close down DYK. Tony (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Truly extraordinary Tony, that you think it appropriate to threaten other users here if they don't agree to immediate and unconditional surrender to all your demands. I've been increasingly concerned with your attitude over the last couple of weeks, to the point that I myself have been considering applying to AN/I to have you blocked for disruption. If you are foolish enough to take this matter to AN/I, that's precisely what I will be proposing. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think another RfC about the new DYK template would be useful at this point in time, considering that there have been a number of complaints about it since it was put into use. An RfC on whether editors wish to continue using it would be helpful in determining if it has been successful in its intentions or not. Silver seren^C 06:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a new RFC would be premature, since as you can see from the above section we are still in the process of refining an alternative checklist. At the very least we need to have a couple of alternatives to choose from rather than a yes/no !vote for just one. But we can't do even that much until we have settled on what those alternatives will actually look like. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Tony, this all does look like a few editors were dropped here with machine guns to shoot the regulars, scare newcomers and either terminate or hijack the project. This all goes back to being friendly and accepting criticism. The checklist is unwieldy. It helps reminding issues to check, but also does clutter the page, and the same old errors are passing through as before. So please take it easy. I might add suggestions to the list a bit later, just one note for now - I suppose "vintage" is a dubious and obscure term, especially for non-native speakers. Something like "nomination date" sounds better to my ear. Materialscientist (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Everybody calm down a bit. There's no need for the section header to be in all caps. It's the tone of threads like this that drives contributors away. (Now back to my bot coding...) Shubinator (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

- I note that the Proper reviewing checklist RfC has been archived and explicitly excluded from the links on this page to RfC reform proposals. That looks like an agenda-driven omission to me. DYK regulars appear to be in denial. That's too bad, I'm sorry: the community determined in no uncertain terms that a checklist must be used. Perhaps you need reminding of the text:

RfC: DYK quality assurance and archiving

Extensive discussion above shows that there are serious quality and policy-compliance problems in the current DYK process, and that many editors are concerned that plagiarism and close paraphrasing, sourcing issues, verification issues, copyvio, and wrong facts are regularly going through under the radar. This RfC is to determine whether there is consensus for two changes to the process as partial steps towards fixing these problems.

The RfC does not cover issues that might need to be resolved if one or both of the current proposals gains consensus. These include whether:

there should be a directorate;
nominators (after their fourth successful DYK) should still be required to review another editor's nomination when they nominate a DYK;
a template should be created to provide for the explicit checking off of the explicit requirements listed in the first proposal, below; and
the system of pasting in coloured ticks and crosses should be binned or modified.

Implicit in the proposals is the likelihood that the maximum four six-hour shifts per day of five to eight hooks (≥ 32 DYKs) will more often than now be altered by the queuing admins to longer exposures and fewer shifts per day, and be treated as normal practice. This would not be necessary if there is a sudden influx of reviewers and more nominators who can manage the time to respond to the issues they raise. However, please note that the primary consideration of the two proposals is effective quality assurance and compliance with site-wide policies, not reduced flow. ...

RfC proposal: a proper reviewing checklist

Proposal: "No DYK article should receive main-page exposure unless the article has been checked and explicitly passed for:

adequate sourcing, including verifiability, reliability of sources and BLP policy;
neutral point of view;
plagiarism and close paraphrasing;
other copyright violations, in files and text; and
obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting."

These checks are in addition to the existing requirements concerning hook length, hook source, article length, and time since article creation/expansion.

_______________

The template that User:Rjanang has taken upon himself to remove (twice in some cases) was designed to precisely do justice to the text that !voters endorsed with a resounding majority. Tony (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the RfC was archived by a bot (who I don't think has an agenda), as all discussions at this page are eventually; it's still visible here. The moving of proposals into Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals was handled by User:Carcharoth, who I don't think has any agenda and who left several messages at this page beforehand asking for input about which proposals people thought he should move and which they didn't. If you think he had some agenda, though, you're free to check with him. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As it specifically says there, the RfC was not to be about the inclusion of a checklist template, just that DYK noms should be checked for those things. Thus, there is no consensus for the current arrangement of the template and users are free to change it (or even blank it) if necessary in order for there to be more discussion in order to improve it. As I stated above, there appears to be extensive problems with the current template that are not helping matters or DYK process. Silver seren^C 07:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) OK, granted (I endorsed the proposal too), but it seems to me that that the nub of the dispute is simply whether this particular template is the best way of going about it. I don't see an endorsement above of a particular template and I was a bit surprised to see the one you came up with suddenly appearing on every DYK nom. Tony, nobody's disputing the valuable contributions you've made to this discussion, but I do think it would be helpful to reach agreement on how this checklist should be documented. Let's have that discussion and come up with something that works for everyone. Prioryman (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that the points I was about to make have been pre-empted by several other users, in which case I will confine myself to simply endorsing their comments. Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Silver seren is playing with words. For sure, generally speaking as a project, there is no deadline. However, as events have proven time and again, the inertia for continuing to do things 'the old way' remain strong. It was only a few days ago, in the background of severe bludgeoning from certain quarters about "Plagiarism Central", that Tony was held out to be the extremely constructive and helpful 'saviour'. I note Rjanag, in editing the template as he did, was reacting to some [persistent] complains from the regulars here about the complexity of the procedure.

One might continue arguing about the legitimacy of the disputed template, but there's no shying away from the fact that the community is explicitly wanted each article to be checked for those issues appearing in the checklist. It is the procedure that is the cause of this apparent malaise, not the template itself, which is but a vector. Implementation can't be put off forever. In view of the seriousness of the problems, it ought not to be put off at all because the form isn't exactly right or has everyone's endorsement. With the incessant criticism about the template, the adoption of a 'consensual version' of the checklist which could take the rest of the year... I'm pretty sure it's not the response hoped for by the community. I could be wrong, but my reading was that an urgent fix was necessary. My suggestion: grin and bear the template for now, pending an 'agreed' version that satisfies the concerns addressed at the RfC. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

These "urgent fixes" have already led to the resignation of four of our most longstanding DYK admins, not to mention the other contributors who have left, including at least one quality contributor who has retired altogether. This kind of haphazard approach to change, as users try to force their own vision onto the project without regard to practicality or consensus, is leading the project to disaster. Well perhaps that is the intention, but if so it is not a goal that has the community's endorsement. Nothing is lost by slowing down the process of change and proceeding more carefully; the same cannot be said for the alternative approach. Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Put the blame anywhere except where it belongs. The patient was suffering from an ailment. Previous attempts at self-medication didn't fix it, so it became a chronic and more aggravated condition. The new medicine, it seems, is making the patient worse à la House for now. Look at the self-medication if you want to point fingers. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the example of a Vicodin-addicted felon who always gets it wrong the first few times when not sexually harassing nurses or unprofessionally berating his colleagues while acting outside the law or medical ethics is an apt one. Nobody is disputing that the 'patient' needs 'treatment' but the exact form of the template to be used was not the subject of the faulty RfC. - Dravecky (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well caught... I did say that the problem lay with the self medication, didn't I? ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the issue of the RfC being malformed, the RfC merely stated that reviewers must have "checked and explicitly passed" an article on five points. That does not necessarily suggest any template, much less this particular template. Rjanag has been hard at work creating a more compact template that still meets the RfC's requirements. Beyond that, it would be entirely sufficient for a reviewer to type (or copy and paste) "I've checked and explicitly passed this article for sourcing, NPOV, plagiarism and copyvio, and obvious faults in prose." That meets the RfC's requirement, and it takes up a lot less space (and is a lot less difficult) than your (Tony's) massive template. cmadler (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Support for this! (said several times). Also: run a RfC in summer when nobody is active, run several at a time so people don't bother to even look, let alone vote, if you want to push something. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat, and there are certainly methods that don't involve excruciating pain for the animal. ;-) What's being suggested above isn't so bureaucratic, and is more like the 'I hereby do solemnly swear that I have exercised due care and attention in my review, and so be it' type declaration. One of the key advantages of the "massive template" is that the review using said template doesn't have to be all performed by one person. It allows the job to be split up, and it's transparently and obvious if something hasn't been checked, and equally obvious who claims to have done which part. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also said before: in that case, a review not completed by one person, a template showing what was reviewed by whom is a good tool. But, to my experience, those are only a few. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. The RfC covered what needs to be explicitly reviewed, not whether this or any particular template was required. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Opposed to the new templates and instruction creep

While I understand and even support splitting each nom into a subpage, and the requirement of "submit one, review one", speaking a rather prolific DYK creator (350+) I want to express strong objection to the new complex templates. I saw this monstrosity added and thankfully reverted from a DYK, and I was strongly hoping that the addition was some sort of weird experiment that will not be seen again. DYK reviews are no GA reviews, they are supposed to be quick. I refuse to spend more than one minute on them, and if you introduce this complex template, I will most likely stop bothering with nominations. Please stop pushing so much instruction creep into what was once a relatively simple process; at least not without a better advertised poll among DYK creators, and analyzing some numbers on how the current creep is affecting DYK nominations. Recently, another DYK writer told me that he stopped nominating DYKs because the rules became too complex, and I fear few do-gooders are merrily creeping DYKs out of existence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I also happen to agree that this quid pro quo reviewing wasn't working. I would quite happily say goodbye to it, but the community still saw a value in it. Without QPQ reviewing, you can submit any number of articles without the need to reciprocate; reviews will be done by editors who want to review. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that isn't a bad thing. Not everyone is competent to review; forcing everyone to do so inevitably means that people who aren't any good at it will end up doing it and making mistakes. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"DYK reviews are ... supposed to be quick. I refuse to spend more than one minute on them"—In that one statement, ~~Prioryman~~ Piotrus, I think you've given those who want to close down DYK the greatest propaganda coup they could wish for. Tony (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully, Tony. Piotrus said that, not me. Prioryman (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Prioryman: fixed. Tony (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Piotrus asks for a "poll among DYK creators". Herein lies the problem. (Personal attack removed) Presumably there are plenty of non-problematic DYK creators under the easy system. But how do you propose those shortcomings are dealt with if only the opinion of the existing club of "DYK creators" matters? FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, I had only one DYK article that was considered too close to the original sources. I would have fixed it, but guess what - I took a break from Wikipedia. I never told other editors to fix it which one of them that fixed it didn't complain about it till yesterday. Joe Chill (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have redacted a claim that two specific editors are examples of problematic creators. I think nearly everybody in Wikipedia considers some other Wikipedians to be problematic, but RfCU and ANI are the places where such allegations can be made appropriately, giving the people thus named a chance to defend themselves.

Sharktopus

^talk 02:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming tiresome to see this self-serving falsehood trotted out day after day: "Tony's forcing his checklist" ... note forcing and his. I'm sorry, it's not my checklist: the checklist was approved by massive consensus in the RfC. Tony (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. The "checklist" RfC calls for a checklist, not the checklist, explicitly passing an article for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. So at least the word "his" (meaning Tony's specific checklist) seems undisputable, especially in a context where the alternative is Rjanag's table rather than nothing. Did I miss something? Art LaPella (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, Art, for several weeks now Tony has had his fingers stuck in his ears and been singing "La la la la la I can't hear you!" regarding this point. Above everyone told him the same thing you and I just did, so now i think it's sufficient just to ignore his strange messages and revert him if he actually is stupid enough to keep edit-warring over adding his templates. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, maybe, but I have more patience than most. Tony, did you "hear that", and why doesn't Rjanag's template comply with the RfC? A better point for Tony is that last time I looked, not all of the approvals on the nominations page did comply with the RfC; some don't even mention copyvios. Art LaPella (talk)

Rjanag, now you're calling me "stupid". Isn't that a violation of WP:CIVIL? I think the time is coming to ask you not to participate at DYK. Tony (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call you stupid. I said continuing to edit-war over these templates after numerous editors clearly told you above that you have no grounds for doing so would be stupid. For an editor who is known for his clear eye for these sorts of details in article writing, I'm surprised you'd jump to such a silly conclusion here, so I can only assume you're being deliberately stubborn. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting sense of humour, to ban the one who is working and helping the most here, for just a word, and not even a strong one. Todays Bach cantata translates to "It has been told to you, mankind, what is good" (not even reviewed yet, btw), my "words on Sunday", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

So now he's calling me "silly". Right. Tony (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- A Wikilawyer would emphasize that he called the conclusion silly, although that defense doesn't apply to "deliberately stubborn" (but maybe the AGF exception does). I don't think Rjanag has Tony's experience concerning what you can and can't say under Wikipolitics. Why doesn't Rjanag's template comply with the RfC? Art LaPella (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving toward consensus on improvements to WP:DYK

I'd like to start by expressing great respect for the contributions of both Tony1 and Rjanag. I hope that the intelligence and generous spirit that has motivated both of you in your efforts to improve Wikipedia and DYK will also guide you toward a satisfactory conclusion of your current disagreement.

Tony1 created a checklist in response to many requests for something like a checklist on this talkpage. As was to be expected, many people had ideas about improving it after Tony had done the work to create it. Rjanag, who had been doing the coding to implement the new page-archiving feature, proposed quite a few different ways of implementing the checklist, with discussions evident here, here, and here.

If I could summarize a hopeful consensus for this thread, it is that the review template should include some checklist for reviewers, but not necessarily the format created by Tony1. For example, there seems to have been consensus in the discussions cited that using a table format, as proposed by Rjanag, saves white space and usefully segregates longer-form comments into a space separate from ticked-off requirements. Instead of waiting until a new-form review checklist has consensus, I propose that Rjanag insert one of his own updated review checklists into the review template. Something not perfect will be better than nothing. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 14:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion, there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but I still believe it should be removable; or better yet that the reviewer should have the choice of using a template or not (that would also be the best way to determine which format people like best). There's also more than one way to do a thorough review. Also, see above section, where the idea of abolishing QPQ comes up yet again. If that can be revisited, some of the argument for a template - reminding people of what-all they should check - may become moot. Both the QPQ discussion and the whether to have a template discussion drew limited participation and consensus seems likely to have changed with respect to both issues. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Sharktopus: I do intend to add the review template to {{NewDYKnom}} at some point, but, per Template talk:NewDYKnomination#Review template, I'd prefer not to do so until there is a clear consensus about which template to use. Unlike some other people in the discussions above, I don't want to look like I'm forcing my preferred version of a template on anyone. More seriously, since it's a protected template people wouldn't be able to revert that addition without wheel-warring, which I think makes it even more important to secure clear consensus here before adding it. The whole reason for the silly shouting thread above was someone wanting to force his preferred template on all reviewers without any regard for the community's feedback. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect, even the most carefully pre-vetted checklist will have things people want to change once it comes into use--so giving your in-process checklist a public tryout will bring consensus much sooner. Also, inserting a checklist will short circuit any claims that you are defying previous consensus to have some checklist. As a practical matter, and also in the kindly interest of reducing further dissension, I ask you to insert your own preferred checklist into the current template, with whatever disclaimer you wish regarding its provisional nature.

Sharktopus

^talk 22:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I just don't agree that it's appropriate of me to insert my preferred checklist into a template that everyone has to use, when even I haven't yet figured out how people want the checklist to work. I think it would do quite the opposite of reducing quarreling. Given that everyone is already complaining about Tony forcing his checklist on everyone, I don't see how myself doing it is any different.

As for "short-circuiting claims that I am defying previous consensus", I hope I made it clear through my lack of participation in most of the discussion above that I am not concerned about those claims anyway. It seems pretty obvious to me that no one other than Tony has a problem with what I did. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just noting here that I think a period of consolidation and review of previous discussions is needed before charging ahead with any new RfCs, though some new RfCs may be needed. I would encourage anyone to help out with the plan C mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Separating out reform discussions. Once we have an idea of what was discussed, it will be easier to see where attention is needed going forward. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Main issue: copy vio on main page

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Frankly, I've lost track of all the proposals, polls, particulars, problems, predicaments, quips, qualms, quandaries, queries, qoncerns about ques and qriticisms, rebukes, ripostes, replies and remonstrations, statements, side discussions, serious and silly scrapes, and all that else that has been raised lately.

In the interest of refocusing the discussion: in my opinion the most serious problem with DYK is the potential appearance of (links to) copyright violations on the main page. Other stuff like some minor grammatical issues or spelling errors in the articles themselves (in the articles themselves, not hooks) as long as it doesn't rise to the level of "embarrassing" are secondary. I guess another serious matter is the potential for POV pushing in hooks etc. but that appears to be more minor and mostly confined (so far) to the I-P dispute; there, it's probably enough that reviewers are aware and pay special attention to the articles in this area.

So the questions is how to best ensure that no copy-vio-articles get promoted. The checklist was supposed to be a way to remind reviewers to check for that, though now it has taken a life on its own. Some other possibilities potentially are:

Get User:CorenSearchBot to also automatically run through all articles currently in the nominations page. Currently it just runs through newly created pages but this will miss any copy-vios added to x5 expansions, and to articles which are created initially but expanded after a pause of a day or so.
Somehow get Duplicate detector [5] to check all nominations. This can be done just by including a link somewhere to it and asking reviewers to run it on the most used online cite in an article (if there aren't any then AGF). Maybe it would be possible to write a bot to somehow do this but that's outside my expertise.

Any other ideas?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are fine ideas. CorenSearchBot is regrettably out of order and has been since July, but once it comes back online I hope we can use it here. I have found DuplicationDetector very useful in checking DYK articles. One caveat is that it will flag as "duplication" direct quotations enclosed in quotation marks and properly cited to the source. Therefore the reviewer should check the article before flagging it as a copyvio/CP.

Sharktopus

^talk 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, still need human eyes - DD just suggests some things to watch for (another false positive is long titles of sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that Template talk:Did you know/mChip is a blatant copyvio. The article is now listed at the copyright problems page and the article has been blanked with a copyright notice. I'm guessing that it is safe to close the nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have rejected all nominations by that author and moved the involved articles to their userspace with a request to rewrite them ASAP. (This is a compromise solution aiming not to scare a prolific newcomer contributor). As far as I can see, there are no nominations of this author in preps/queues/archives. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios are bad but are not lethal to the project. If the source material is offline there is no mechanical way to spot it. Every so often copvios will find their way onto the main page. Some will be spotted and removed quickly, not all. Original research and unsourced content are also bad. Poor spelling and grammar, garbled wording and poor overall organization are not good either. It would be nice to also avoid incomplete or biased articles, but often only an expert can spot these problems. I don't see copyvios as the main problem. The problem is striking the right balance between fresh new content and quality content. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh, the crucial difference between copyvios and poor spelling and grammar, is that the latter are not breaking the law. So yeah, I'd say copyvios are the main problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A law we inevitably violate occasionally, because for one thing, "If the source material is offline there is no mechanical way to spot it." Could that be "lethal to the project"? Unlikely, because we've survived for years in that condition. But I suppose it could be lethal, if someone sued Wikipedia for millions. And anything that's referenced could conceivably be called close paraphrasing. I wish we had some professional legal opinions, which no one here has claimed to have. Art LaPella (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Health of DYK

Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments10 people in discussion

House has made his diagnosis; it's not just the new nominations format or the new reviews that are causing the patient to be sick, it's a combination of both. DYK has seen a lot of treatment recently, and the life-support is wearing thin. Question: Can DYK stand on its own yet, or do we require further intervention?