Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 95

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Orlady in topic Queue 5
Archive 90←Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97→Archive 100

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should a DYK for Wikipediocracy be published?

Latest comment: 11 years ago62 comments28 people in discussion

Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy? (And if so, what should be the "hook")?

The proposed DYK is here. The form of the hook as of this writing is

  • "(Did you know)... that Wikipediocracy, a weblog and forum, is dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia?".

There is also an earlier discussion about the matter above. Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(N.B.: for the purposes of internal DYK requirements, if any, that DYKs be processed within a given time after article creation, the time that this RfC is open shall not be counted against the age of the article.) Herostratus (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • I oppose a DYK for this. The article is back at AFD and is obviously a bone of contention. Warden (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (N.B.: my original !vote was so bollixed up that I've completely rewritten it. FWIW The original is here) -- Herostratus (talk).
    No, I oppose this DYK, after thinking it over. It's an interesting situation, and I don't have a problem with the article existing, but here we are talking about featuring it on the main page, and in that regard:
    • The article is about a website, and an effect of the DYK appearing on the main page will be to drive eyes to the website. Given that the article creator and most of the main authors are associated with that website, that doesn't sit too well with me, and wouldn't for any website.
    • It wouldn't for any website, but let's face this honestly: this is not Little Sisters of the Poor we are talking about here. While no fair-minded person, I think, could maintain that Wikipediocracy is monolithic or they don't do useful work (as well as being a wretched hive of scum and villainy), the plain fact is that that those eyes will be driven to a website that is dedicated, in part at least, to the destruction of the Wikipedia and to the immiseration of its individual editors personally. The Wikipedia's rules are not a suicide pact, and anyway the policy WP:IAR forbids us from deliberately abetting damage to the Wikipedia, which is a likely result of enlarging the Wikipediocracy community. Let them do their own advertising.
    • The purpose of DYK is to encourage the creation of new articles. To facilitate this, we deliberately allow DYK hooks to be less interesting than they could be (if we used a larger pool of articles to draw the hooks from). This degrades the potential reader experience, and must lower the number of clicks into the Wikipedia, lowering our readership capture. We accept this loss in order to maintain the benefit: providing an incentive for article creation. (All this is fine.) Does this DYK fit into that paradigm? No, it doesn't, per the two points above. The article creator and many of the other article editors are not good-faith actors in the DYK process. They are not going to feel pride in their DYK and be motivated to make further constructive contributions. This DYK is a perversion of what DYK was created for and is supposed to be about, and I don't see why we should have to stand for that, notwithstanding that they may have met the technical requirements for a successful DYK (if they have, which FWIW seems debatable).
    • Also, the very fact that it is controversial is, in an of itself, a good reason not to run it, I think. The appearance of the DYK would make many productive editors unhappy. That is not a useful function for DYK to perform, even if one concedes that the editors being made unhappy are wrongheaded, overly sensitive, or even cretinous. DYK is suppose to be happy time. We have plenty of DYKs that won't make a bunch of editors unhappy, so let's stick with them. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC) (Originally 13:57, 24 May 2013 and 16:53, 25 May 2013)
"DYK is suppose to be happy time?" I must have missed that particular guideline! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 16:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per Crisco 1492. Also, it is an opportunity to show to others that Wikipedia is a place strictly adhering to neutral point of view & where even articles of it's critics get a fair chance to get popular. - Jayadevp13 03:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Precisely! We want to show that we can treat articles related to Wikipedia, either those which shed a positive light on the project or negative one, with neutrality. That, I think, should be the mark of a professional. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - it's a chance for us to take our criticism seriously, which gives us credibility on WP:NPOV. TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 11:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per the above support votes. It may further Wikipediocracy's interests to have this DYK, but it equally furthers Wikipedia's: to be seen not to be sweeping criticism under the carpet is the best advertisement Wikipedia could have in a case like this. (I say that both as a Wikipedian, and as a Wikipediocracy member and moderator.) Andreas JN466 05:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no reason why Wikipedia should bend over backwards to prove how open-minded and neutral it is. I also dislike the free advertising for a random website. DYK should be restricted to non-promotional purposes, in my opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • "I see no reason why Wikipedia should bend over backwards to prove how open-minded and neutral it is." - Who's bending over backwards? DYK for new articles is not out of the ordinary. And what is promotional about "Wikipediocracy criticizes Wikipedia" or the ilk? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The text is not promotional, but featuring an article in DYK drives eyeballs to that article. That is a fact. Thus the effect of a DYK is to promote (popularize, increase readership of) the DYK'd article. For an article about a website, some percentage of this enlarged readership will certainly be driven to that website. Thus the effect of a DYK on an article about a website is to promote (popularize, increase readership of) the that website. These are facts. It's OK to respond to these facts with "so what", but not OK to say that facts ain't facts. Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pretty much a POINTy nomination; the article barely clears GNG (or barely doesn't clear GNG in the opinion of a significant minority). DYK has been manipulated in the past and has insufficient safeguards to manipulation now and this has neener-neener written all over it. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Carrite. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose why promote an attack site? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Time and time again I have heard people say that we must not have biased opinions when on Wikipedia but it seems to me that everyone who opposed this is being biased. You are saying that Wikipedia is not to be ridiculed at whereas some others may feel differently and so this other opinion should be accepted and mentioned. I see no problem with this DYK as it is also showing that Wikipedia is accepting the fact that others may not like it. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - if it meets WP:GNG, then by all means include it, assuming all other DYK conditions are met. The fact that it insults WP and that some editors don't like it is irrelevant. If it doesn't meet GNG, then delete it.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I separated this into two subsections, for clarity -- Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion on the meta-issue of whether this RfC is even in order

  • What? You closed an open DYK nomination to start an RfC on whether a new article should have a DYK? Is there any reason why a new article would not be eligible for a DYK? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have reverted that close, this is absolutely unnecessary to hold a side discussion; you don't get to ban topics from DYK on "I don't like it grounds". The Alt2 hook discussion was going on with no contention at all, and even agreement among the interested parties and independent ones. Let that discussion flow, please. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • A community RfC is not a "side discussion". If an RfC is opened, the purely local discussion involving those (relatively few) editors aware of the discussion becomes the side discussion. Herostratus (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: Although this community RfC probably trumps purely local discussions, editors at the local discussion ([here) are fighting to keep that local discussion active, and for it to be the controlling discussion. Since this is a time-sensitive operation (the DYK will automatically appear on the main page after N days pass, which is before this RfC expires), I suppose this is a political move intended to trump consensus and push the nomination through, rendering this RfC moot. I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of the DYK, but I do have a strong opinion on moves like that: I don't like them. Therefore I'm going to that other discussion and voting "Oppose" purely as a procedural move to block this sort of anti-community thinking and acting. I urge all editors, regardless of their opinion of the merits of the DYK nomination itself, to do so also. (Yes, I did write this but forgot to sign - Herostratus (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC))
Herostratus, the history looks like you wrote the above "Procedural note". Yes? Because the way this thread runs, it looks like The Devil's Advocate wrote it. Anyway, I'm wondering if there is a mis-cue in "the DYK will automatically appear on the main page after N days pass"? How does a DYK automatically appear on the main page if it isn't promoted to a prep area and approved and moved up to a Queue by an Admin? Maybe I missed something in the DYK process, but I'm not aware that any DYK nom automatically appears on the main page. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, yes I did write it. Right, a DYK doesn't automatically appear on the main page without going through the procedures you describe. I wrote that as shorthand, meaning that it will appear if it passes those steps. Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This is blatant abuse of an RfC for the sake of stone-walling and should be summarily closed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It is an abuse of RfC and a waste of time. In the past DYKs have been stopped from appearing on the main page because of concerns about whether e.g. Sexy Cora's hospitalization from giving blow jobs or death nth boob-job surgery deserved to be on the main page, on the nomination page (not even here). IMHO, this DYK would serve as an informal apology and resolution to do better with abusive editors (aided by abusive administrators), particularly on BLPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • @ Tito Dutta: Oh, OK, sure. Well, first of all, this has been a slightly contentious nomination so far, and it seems to have aroused some strong feelings. I think that that alone is sufficient, probably. When something is contentious, it's probably a good idea to thrash it out. A case could be made -- I think this is where you're coming from -- is that if a DYK fulfills the DYK team's internal requirements of a DYK nomination, then that nomination must be accepted; it's a purely mechanical process. I'm not sure I'd agree, and I'm not sure that others would either. That's what we're here to find out, partly. A counter-case could be made that the community has a right to oversee DYKs appearing -- we are talking about the Wikipedia main page after all -- and discuss any one that they want to. That may be wrong, but in my opinion its not crazy or idiotic.
(BTW and FWIW, it has been established (de facto, as a political reality) that this doesn't apply to the daily featured articles; the Featured Article team publishes what it wants to (which may be a good thing, not sure). Whether this should apply to DYK I'm not sure. I don't think it should, but lack of such a standard could lead to a lot of unwarranted meddling in DYK I suppose (but much doubt). Anyway, that's a matter of whether the DYK team wants to establish that as the prevailing state of affairs and has the support to do so. Probably the best way to determine this would be to WP:MFD this RfC.) Herostratus (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Kiefer... an "informal apology"? Or in short, basically you want this posted to prove a WP:POINT? I am sorry, but that is simply asinine. If this is to be posted, it should be only on its own merits as a qualifying article. If the desire to put this on the main page is based on internal political considerations, then it most certainly should not be posted - any more than we should post any positive-themed naval gazing. Regardless, as I have indicated in the DYK nom, I oppose the posting of this article at this time because it lacks evidence of notability (and yes, I have read the AFD which was snowed under by superficial 'it passes GNG because I say so' comments), lacks non-trivial independent coverage and is nothing more than a WP:COATRACK operating primarily as a duplication of the criticism of Wikipedia article rather than something dedicated to Wikipediocracy itself. But that latter part should be expected given there is no significant, independent coverage to be found. Resolute 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Can't we require that "editors" pass a quiz on WP:Point before they are allowed to miscite it? (Everything I write has a point, pilgrims, so please stop telling me that I am being pointy....) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, sort of. Subject to the general WP:RFC guidelines, which discourage idiosyncratic RfC's (which are generally disallowed by nature, that is they will garner no support and fail or be WP:SNOW closed anyway). Should you not be able to? We're generally pretty lax about these things -- it's a wiki after all. Anyway, I didn't open the RfC so much because I didn't like the DYK (I may vote to pass it through, not sure yet) but because there was already argument and discussion on the matter. Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Summarily close this RFC. The article was taken to AFD, where it was snow kept as containing sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I noticed the speedy keep and size of the article, which was largely created in two waves by Volunteer Marek and Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I figured that Marek probably would not nominate it since he had not written as much of the articleas Alf had, and Alf was too quiet and nervous to nominate it, so I nominated it for them. Don't use an RFC to make the DYK fail the technical requirements for DYK articles simply because you don't like the subject matter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't think that that's true, at all. The "M" stands for "miscellany" and includes everything not covered by another specific XfD, including sections of pages, I would think. If it doesn't include sections of pages, we can make it so now -- this is a wiki after all -- unless there's a specific rule saying that doesn't. It'd probably be the appropriate thing to do in this case. There are now two entirely different things being contended here:
  • Whether this particular DYK should or should not appear on the main page.
  • Whether an RfC may be requested on any DYK.
Some people are seeming to say "no" to the second question, so rather than interleaving and confusing the two issues it'd be better to separate them I think. This could take the form of a separate RfC, but that would be confusing and it'd actually be much better to run an MfD on this RfC (if the MfD succeeds, we can probably assume that no RfC's on DYKs should be made in future). There's no hurry, so we can work through these things one at a time. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As I said over there, the problem I have with this is that it was a drastic big step in the dispute resolution process that didn't seem to be necessary. RfCs should be called to help settle prolonged and intractable debates, which that DYK discussion really wasn't, once it went got past the initial ERMAHGERD TEH WIKIPEDIOCRACY commentary. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that it's not contentious (beyond the knee-jerk opposition you describe), based partly on my reading of the thread higher up on this page. But if you're right, the RfC will be accepted with flying colors and only a bit of time will be lost, so why not see it through? Herostratus (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Close this: This is an out of process RfC on a non-issue which is sorting itself out as we speak. Although my own views on Wikipediocracy are fairly public knowledge, I must stress that we do not prevent articles from running just because the subject is related to Wikipedia or because we don't like it. This goes for the Wikipediocracy article and, ironically enough considering the forum's reaction, the Sarah Stierch article. Both are/were neutral articles which can/could stand on their own legs and thus get/got the same chances as every other article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Again, if it's a non-issue, what's the problem? Everyone will vote "Yes" and the DYK will go through. Go up to the Survey section and add your Yes to the cavalcade of unanimity there and Bob's your uncle. You could also read my argument there: it doesn't matter if the article was about Saint Alda, DYK exists for a specific purpose, and this nomination doesn't fit it. That doesn't have to matter to you, but it matters to me, and notwithstanding that you think that that's not a fit subject to even be discussed (individual DYK nominations are not a good venue for discussing larger issues like this) I respectfully submit that it might matter to other editors. Or maybe not. I'd rather know, since I prefer data to no data. Herostratus (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there've been a number of editors contending that this is out of process and should be summarily closed. Any uninvolved editor can close an RfC. I don't think it'd be a good idea to summarily close this one, since it's not clear that it is disallowed I don't think. But I'm sensitive to the contention that RfC's on DYK's are out of line (I don't agree with it, but I suppose I could be wrong), so here's what I suggest:

  • Let this one go through. It's too late to stop it now without drama, and it's only one RfC -- the Wikipedia will survive.
  • Go to the thread I've opened here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Question re RfC on main page issues. and (if enough people go there and support the proposition), add the suggested text to the page. This will prevent this situation arising in future.

Does this seem like a reasonable way to address this question of legitimacy? Herostratus (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 wrote, in the Survey section, {{xt}"Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial.}}

Well, "being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria" is exactly the problem. (That's why we're having an RfC, and so why I'm writing in this section, to expound on why this RfC is a necessary and good to have.)

The established DYK criteria is essentially or wholely technical: is the article the right age, is the hook the right length, does the article have enough refs, and so forth. That's all well and good as far as it goes. My understanding is that considering matters such as (say) "Will publishing this damage the Wikipedia" or "Will publishing this maybe cause some editors to feel bad" or "Will publishing this maybe cause a firestorm of angry debate on various Wikipedia fora" or "Will publishing this maybe end up in the news" or whatever is not really something that DYK is set up to well consider.

You DYK folks do sterling work which we all sincerely appreciate, but maybe you are getting a little too close to your own work? Llook at the larger picture. DYK exists for a reason. The larger Wikipedia community is interested in and feels a stake in what appears on the main page. One may think that's silly but it is what it is.

No one likes having a boss, but most of us have them. The DYK folks have one: the larger community. If the Wikipedia had a paid professional Editor-In-Chief to answer these questions, she'd surely insist that potentially problematic main page material pass her desk. The main page is important! We don't have an Editor-In-Chief because (for good or ill) we have community decision-making instead, so the larger community serves this function.

Geez, if I were you, I would want the larger community to help me out with these questions. This is a hard question! You have enough to do without have to handle stuff like that without help. That's what an RfC is for: to help. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion on the merits of the question asked in the RfC

  • Comment The main question of the RFC asks Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy?. Now, the question immediately indicates that there are some reasons for which the article/hook should not go on the main page? But, what are the reasons— that has not been clarified. Guesses— a) all/mostly unreliable refs; if so, please add tags and templates in the article b) fails notability; please add tag and take to AFD if needed c) CoI/written like advertisement/neutrality disputed; add templates if applicable and discuss at talk. These tags and/or AFD (if applicable) will help (read "stop") both the review and the reviewer ("immediately"). --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Or is the opposition to Wikipediocracy appearing on the DYK section of the main page actually due to its exposure of serious COI concerns with GibraltarpediA, which was blatantly spammed across the main page for months? Hmmm...one has to wonder, given the stuff regularly posted.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

[N.B.: part of my answer to Tito Dutta concerns the meta-issue and is in the above subsection -- Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC) ]

As to the merits of whether or not the DYK should appear, here are some of the points made at earlier discussions:
  • Whether the article is stable is perhaps open to question (it appears that it is being or recently has been actively edited).
  • Whether the entity is notable is perhaps open to question.
  • Most of the creators and editors of the article are associated with the entity. This could possibly bring conflict of interest questions into play.
And here's a point I'll add for my own part:
  • While there aren't any specific rules or guidelines I can point to regarding this matter, the whole issue of intent here could have some bearing, if one is inclined to consider such matters. Whether we're being trolled here, whether that matters, what we should do about that (if anything), to what extent we as normal human beings with normal human emotions should have to put up with stuff like this, and how any of this actually improves or is intended to improve the Wikipedia, are all questions that might arise in the minds of some. (I do note that the nominator features prominently on his user page the motto "Make articles, not drama", which, given that he made this nomination, is I suppose intended to enrage, or maybe sarcasm is the intent. Whatever it is, I don't much care for that sort of thing. Again, that may not be germane, but we are supposed to here to try to get along and to improve the Wikipedia, and how much shrift we are willing to give to folks who aren't is a reasonable question I think. The Wikipedia is not a suicide pact.) As a counter-argument, "We're bigger than that" is a valid point, which is why I haven't made up my mind yet. Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Added later: I talked to the nominator, and he wasn't trolling, and I was wrong to say so, and I apologized to him. Rather, he really was surprised at the notion that anyone would want to discuss the appearance of this DYK on the main page, beyond issues such as whether the hook is the right length and so forth. This in turn was extremely surprising to me, but I guess that's just a failure of imagination on my part. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 wrote, in the Survey section, "Support giving it a chance of a review, and being promoted assuming it meets the established DYK criteria. There is no ban on topics which may be deemed controversial."

  • OK. We just disagree on this I guess. Of course I'm not advocating a flat ban on featuring controversial topics on the main page. Each case is different. But, yes, if a topic is controversial -- is likely to cause a non-trivial number of editors to feel sad or angry when they see it appear (surprise!) featured on the main page, for instance, or have other bad effects -- that is certainly a factor that tends to militate against doing so, yes. Why would it not be. (Of course, we are not discussing whether the article itself should exist; if we were, "No, the topic is controversial" would be pretty weak tea. This is different.) Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I was just looking at that site (Wikipediocracy) just now, and I see that once again they've ferreted out and published the name and address of a Wikipedia editor, which is something they do do from time to time, with the intent of intimidating that editor (and, really, by the you-could-be-next example, anyone and everyone) from further contributing to the Wikipedia. It's not illegal to do this, but still: c'mon. Do we really have to abet this by giving these people valuable free promotion? I don't think that would show that we're neutral and brave and uncensored, at all. I think it would show that we're stupidly heedless of our own basic interests. I think it would show that we don't care to protect our editors from personal peril or humiliation. I don't think that successful organizations behave like that. Herostratus (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is depressing. An editor User:Allen3 with the user rights to do so published the DYK anyway. This is a big loss to the concept of fair dealing, open governance, and community control at the Wikipedia and a big win for the centrifugal forces tending toward the empowerment of individual projects and other fiefdoms. These forces are always in tension of course, and it's possible that this for the best, but I don't trust the fiefdoms themselves to make that judgement.

Naturally the folks over at Wikipediocracy are pleased. I don't know whether it's more for the publicity or just the demonstration of further breakdown of fair play here. As one WO solon noted "I hope it'll be possible for Wikipediocracy to have a blog post that'll make an especially big impact while it's being mentioned on Wikipedia's main page... While this site is getting a DYK, I think we have a unique opportunity to impact Wikipedia's culture with a hard-hitting blog post, and it would be a shame to not take advantage of that." Oh boy. Herostratus (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't heap all the blame on one editor. I passed the article, as can be clearly seen from the nomination page; and because of the nature of the DYK process, it takes multiple editors to promote an article (one to pass it, one to move it from the nomination page to a prep page, and another to move it from its prep page to a queue). When making my decision I took this RfC into account, weighed both sides' arguments, and explained the rationale behind my decision at length. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I too was aware of this RFC at the time the hook was promoted. At that time, this RFC had been open for four weeks and was well below the level of support needed to prevent the article from receiving normal treatment. Furthermore, the strongest argument to block the article from appearing is that it fails WP:GNG, an argument that had been made twice at WP:AFD and rejected by the community (since the article's appearance on DYK the Wikipedia community has rejected a third attempt to delete the article). Given these facts, and because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there was no reason to further delay the inevitable. --Allen3 talk 12:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is out of scope for this place,I think, as it doesn't bear on the merits of the case, so I've copied the above two comments to User talk:Allen3#This is not good and I'll respond there. Herostratus (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources and DYK

My question is, how exactly do primary sources factor into DYK nominations? Because there are a fair amount of primary sources in use in the article that are referencing a fair amount of content that doesn't otherwise have a secondary source. What are the normal DYK rules about this? SilverserenC 01:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

They are reliable for certain details and most of the sources being used are reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are being used conservatively for a small number of details, a quote and two sentences about contributors, where their use falls well within policy. Even without those sections the article would still be over the 1500 character limit.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I should think that standard SPS procedure should be followed: non-controversial, non-self serving, actually about the subject itself. As of my writing there is no rule against using SPSes to source a hook fact — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK hook comment

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

... in the poem The Hymn of Samadhi, Swami Vivekananda explained experiences of Nirvikalpa Samadhi?
DYKC says, the hook should be related to real world. Nirvikalpa Samdahi is a real world thing (a type of advanced meditation). Is this hook okay? --Tito☸Dutta 22:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This is fine. The hook is describing a poem which exists in the real world. The rule you are referring to refers to hooks written in a totally in-universe context (e.g., "... that Forrest Gump ran across the United States three times", as opposed to "...that the film Forrest Gump depicts a character running across the United States three times"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Tito, I don't agree with User:Rjanag. Both example hooks still talk of what happens in the film and that's how they are not related to the real world. Similarly, this hook also is basically "...that the subject of this work is XYZ".
Also shouldn't we be discussing this at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hymn of Samadhi. No one would know about this discussion here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 3: hook improvements needed

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hook 5:

Although only 160 characters long, this is overpacked with diversionary facts, not to mention five links; the theme of the hook (and therefore the DYK) is swamped, and third out of these five links (all of which are in context in the DYK article). Why try to educate readers about "Missa" in a hook? What is wrong with simple, clear, punchy:

One verification point: the reference—Unger's 2005 listener's guide—doesn't seem to provide evidence of this fact. I see other people quoted by Unger, and I see "probably" and "suggest" and, in Wolff's imperfect English, "so it is not surprising if Bach wanted to write ...". Would Wolff p. 143 be a better reference? And could you point to the actual supporting text for the hook fact ("copied and performed")?

  • Did you read the nomination? I said copied, but the reviewer pointed out that it might be misunderstood as "imitated". This is a hook about Wilderer, we want to say that HE is important, court musician at an important place. He get's more important by the Bach connection (which was the reason to write the article), - sorry, I can't say it shorter. Also: why would you put it in the passive mode? You can return it from the queue if you want me to look for better sourcing, I need to sing at church, Hassler mass ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • After singing: Indeed I would like to educate, - rather than collect hits. Missa: ask our esteemed readers if they know that Bach meant Kyrie and Gloria (no more) when he said Missa, as in Missa, BWV 232a? A link gives them a chance to learn that ;) - The source: "a Mass in G minor by Johann Hugo von Wilderer, which Bach copied out and apparently also performed around 1730", - what else do you need. Add "apparently" to the longish hook? I don't think Bach copied out for pleasure, but to perform. Bach-Cantatas has "Works performed by J.S. Bach: Missa brevis in G minor - performed by J.S. Bach in Leipzig 1725-1729", disagreeing only about the time, like other sources, that's why the hook gives no time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know why the hook was changed on the Main page? - I explained above why the shorter one doesn't do justice to the subject, and would like to have it changed back, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Please consider allowing visitors to educate themselves through wikilinks in the deeper context of the article itself. Unless you're ashamed of the quality of the article, and want to divert people before they ever get there. I used passive so that the DYK article could be linked closer to the opening. Active voice is typically preferable, but that's no reason to have a war against passive voice. If you can't say it shorter, I suggest it not be a DYK. It's one of the worst hooks I've seen in a while.

But more importantly, could you respond to the issue I raised about verification? Tony (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hook 1:

Pity that (pictured) is jammed into the middle of the nominal group: the Russell Watson (pictured) version of the song "Faith of the Heart.

Is Russell Watson the arranger ("version" suggests this)? No, I learn. Do we need two additional links, one of them first? Shorter, more direct, and more explanatory:

Last hook:

Why do we need links to common terms vanilla ice cream and garlic? Are they not linked in the DYK article?

Second-last hook:

Why do we need a bunched link for List of world records in athletics after the link for "shot put" (MOSLINK says to avoid bunched links)?

Hathorn ban ?

Latest comment: 11 years ago24 comments7 people in discussion

Was Hathorn's ban lifted? Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 72#Proposal to ban Billy Hathorn from DYK. He has put up multiple nominations since yesterday, and the few I've checked have recurring issues that have been discussed over the years and led to the ban (non-reliable sources, padding of articles with off-topic content to meet length/expansion, but I haven't yet checked for copyvio). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. I, too, was just noticing he's self-nominating again, and I thought he'd been blocked indefinitely from editing at all, because of Socks (still ongoing, it seems). And I seem to remember countless images he'd uploaded at Commons being removed for license problems. It seems his block was lifted for a reason I've never seen before. I guess I'm just kind of surprised at all of this. Let's open the door and let all those sock masters back in, because, what the heck....— Maile (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, my. Thanks for those links.  :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Even if his Wikipedia ban has been lifted, I don't see any sign that the DYK indefinite one has been. Assuming that one is still in place, if the issues are recurring with the new nominations, then perhaps the old DYK one should be reaffirmed, and the new nominations rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your good memory, SandyGeorgia! Since he was blocked entirely about 6 weeks after the DYK ban was placed, I had completely forgotten about the DYK ban. It's still in effect, AFAICT. (It was never rescinded.)
While getting over my surprise at seeing that Billy was back, I did look at one of his new DYK-nominated articles (some of the usual nonencyclopedic trivia, but no apparent copyvio) and I added notes to his noms about the need for QPQ reviews. He's done a couple of "reviews", but they aren't DYK reviews -- they are his opinions about the articles. I guess it's time to (1) tell him he's still banned and (2) reject his noms.
FWIW, here's a link to the ANI discussion that was ongoing at the time of the ban discussion here. --Orlady (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've notified him that the ban is still in effect. --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that he was sockpuppeting even recently and the ban was lifted because people gave up on him, no chance I would lift the ban. Wizardman 22:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the original ban proposal, I'm not persuaded a ban is the best option. I would still like to see more effort going into getting Billy to conform with policy, and one way to do that would be to treat his nominations like any other, if he sees his noms are failing because of, for example, close paraphrasing, wouldn't that help motivate him to mend his ways? Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The original ban was only intended to be temporary anyway, for three months or so, that was almost two years ago. Perhaps what we could try is impose some additional conditions on his return, to monitor his progress - for example, he would have to post in his own section at the bottom of the page, his entries would need to be verified by two reviewers like the Gibraltar ones, perhaps we could also limit the rate he is permitted to submit, that sort of thing. Gatoclass (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Gatoclass, I can appreciate what you are saying. And I personally was not involved in any of the Hathorn investigations or discussions about him. In fact, I was really enjoying some of his images placed on Texas articles I was working on. Until his images became deleted because of copyright concerns. And then I started running across articles he'd written in Texas and Louisiana, and I found myself doing a lot of clean up. Extensive, sometimes. His nonconformity to WP guidelines has been so blatant that I can just about look at any Louisiana article and tell if Hathorn created it without looking at the history. The wider WP community had been trying with him for a very long time, and their efforts were useless. If you go to WP unblock discussion, he's been consistent on following his own style with disregard to everyone and everything. Unfortunately, it casts a shadow of doubt over any IP DYK contributions, because Hathorn's IP socks over the years have not been confined to one locale, not even to one US state. This guy has been out there since 2006, had made over 105,000 edits under his own name, who knows how many under the multiple socks. What are the chances DYK can turn him around? — Maile (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Look, I too have my doubts that he can be reformed. But given that he's been unblocked, it seems the community has little choice but to try. If Billy could be encouraged to reform, he could be a valuable asset to the project given the prolific nature of his contributions. Gatoclass (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, let me just say I appreciate the fairness of your comments. Who knows. — Maile (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Everybody should have a second chance once in a while. However, if we are going to have this discussion here, more than socking has been involved with this editor. The term "prolific" doesn't seem adequate. — Maile (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but note that very few of those articles have actually been checked by anybody (I really would like to find time to check a few myself, but there is so much else that needs doing here). I must say that whenever I have checked one of his articles, I have found a few examples of close paraphrasing but not much else - it's not as if he has chronically engaged in wholesale copyright violations, at least, not to my knowledge. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, if as it appears, we (that is, all of Wikipedia) will be saddled with Hathorn and all of his socks, it would be helpful if you would also check that his articles aren't padded with irrelevant trivia based on non-reliable sources. It goes without saying that if that had been the norm at DYK (upholding the DYK criteria which call for reliable sources)-- or if it would become the norm-- DYK wouldn't have the Hathorn problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You're right that this isn't a DYK-specific issue; it's a Wikipedia issue. For a long time the Wikipedia culture that calls for encouraging contributors (even the incompetent and chronically clueless), assuming good faith (often when there is plenty of reason not to), etc., led DYK to treat Billy's nominations with near-infinite patience. Some of his noms did get rejected, generally due to lack of reliable sourcing. I reviewed quite a few of Billy's DYK noms back in the old days, including cleaning up copyvios, attempting to address the reliance on non-reliable sources, and removing nonencyclopedic trivia from some of the articles. The quality of his work is highly variable -- some of it is rather good and some of it is the opposite of good. I ultimately ran out of patience -- particularly after the QPQ requirement came in, and he started doing useless reviews. A particular source of frustration is that this is a user who has almost never interacted with other members of the community -- his edit count consists almost entirely of article edits and DYK nominations. That lack of interaction is a big problem for a collaborative effort like DYK.
Although a temporary ban from DYK was discussed, an indefinite ban is what was imposed, and I'm not particularly interested in thinking about rescinding it at this time. I don't believe that Billy understands and accepts the standards of DYK, not to mention the standards of Wikipedia as a whole. The only positive benefit I can see from letting him participate in DYK is that it ensures that somebody monitors his work. Unfortunately, that means that somebody has to volunteer to review his contributions; I, for one, am not ready to devote my life to taking care of him. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I hear you :/ But ... with the QPQ requirement and the constant turnover here, it won't be long before new editors are approving his hooks, and admins who are not held accountable are putting them on the mainpage. Back to my old suggestions of the only ways to prevent this ... accountability at DYK at the level of the admins who pass the hooks to the mainnpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
And then again, if Wizardman (a bureaucrat, I see) sticks to his guns on not lifting the ban - and doesn't go all willy-wog like the Admin who decided apparently on their own with no prodding to lift the WP block - maybe there won't be a problem with Hathorn. — Maile (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
it won't be long before new editors are approving his hooks, and admins who are not held accountable are putting them on the mainpage
That didn't happen with the Gibraltar hooks, indeed as Prioryman will testify, there was difficulty in getting those hooks reviewed at all. QPQ reviewers generally avoid the more problematic noms, sticking to the easier ones. And as Orlady said, having him post his submissions here will ensure they get monitored, which is unlikely to occur otherwise. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Main page error not answered

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Copied:

the current hook is ... that the the largest Swiss organization of IT academics and professionals celebrates its 30th anniversary today? - This hook has a "the" too many. Also it's not approved, and I don't like that the name of the celebrating organization is not mentioned. What did I miss?
the approved hook, avoiding "today", was: ... that the Swiss Informatics Society, celebrating 30 years, is the largest Swiss organization of IT academics and professionals? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This would also work: ... that the Swiss Informatics Society, the largest Swiss organization of IT academics and professionals, celebrates its 30th anniversary today? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
IT hardly needs to be linked. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
that's not the question, "the the" is, and not giving the correct name of the organization, - drop the link to IT if you have the impression that everybody knows what it stands for, - I would be not so sure. I was told that unexplained abbreviations are not wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
no repair in an hour, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
the extra "the" was removed, but the name of the birthday child is still hidden, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Ohconfucius: I think it is a point on which there has been disagreement for a long time. Some editors feel that hooks, while being as titillating as possible, should also be clear, and not send readers on a wild goose chase or draw readers in by making them confused. There are others who feel that leaving some key information out is ok, even desirable, to draw readers in. I'm not sure if there's ever been a consensus about this; I can see some merit in both sides. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Personally I felt OhConfucious' tweak was fine, as it had the effect of highlighting the most notable thing about the group while at the same time trimming the hook. With regard to the question of mystery v. clarity raised by Rjanag, I would say there is no simple answer, a lot depends on the individual hook - though I do think hooks tend to err a little too much on the side of mystery these days. Gatoclass (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not against a certain amount of surprise (leaving key information out), as you can see in the other hook of the same set that I approved, but repeating from above, the name of the organization was something I would have liked to be seen openly. Next time, please send me (and perhaps the reviewer whose concerns in this case were completely ignored) a notification (so easy now) in case of such a substantial change. I accept that the tweak was made in the good intention to raise curiosity, probably successfully so ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I did momentarily consider reverting to my own hook version, but decided on balance that OhC's was an improvement. I think it was one of those cases where just the right amount of mystery was created ... :p Gatoclass (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Is this why I feel the need for DYK to appoint a few admins to be the ultimate managers of quality control, with quick responses when issues are pointed out? And is it why I feel the pipeline is still running too fast for professional standards to be ensured? Tony (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    Tony, we are all aware of your desire to completely ignore basic queueing theory. Even an apprentice plumber is aware that it is not possible to plug up the drain while keeping the taps wide open without creating a gigantic mess. Until you are able to provide a viable plan to make the math work, your desire to choke off DYK's outflow of completed nominations while ignoring the flow of incoming nominations will go nowhere. --Allen3 talk 15:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hook issue

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This nom requires some fairly urgent discussion as the hook is currently in a lead spot in the queue - hopefully it can be resolved quickly without having to pull the hook. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Also this one about Oakley Hall, Hampshire, which currently is next to hit the main page. The hook was not the one approved (and the article itself says nothing about Jane Austen). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 20:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 Y done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
And the first ref is to this page range: pp. 114– Tony (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience.

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Can someone please tell me how reviewers can determine what facts are interesting to a broad audience? I don't see how it is even possible. I am tired of editors complaining about hooks due to them thinking that they are boring. Editors are acting like their opinion of what is interesting applies to the majority of the English reading world. Readers of DYK come from a variety of countries and backgrounds so why does anyone believe that the opinion of one reviewer or a small group that is involved with DYK is the same opinion of the very broad audience? Opinions of what is interesting can also come from their cultural bias. SL93 (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's hard to tell what's interesting, and in my experience the bar is set pretty low. There are some things, though, that are pretty uncontroversially "too boring"--what I have in mind is "X is a Y" hooks, like "did you know that <some soccer player> is a soccer player" or "did you know that <some city> is a city in <some country?" rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that. It is hard for hooks that are actually lesser known substantial facts also. I'm worried about new editors not trying to go through the DYK process because of them thinking that their hook is interesting and then feeling put down when some reviewer comes along and doesn't approve it due to it being boring. SL93 (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Suggesting that a hook is not interesting enough does not mean rejecting it, it can mean simply having a discussion with the nominator, or looking for another hook, or having a broader discussion at WT:DYK. Further, "that Archbishop X is primate of diocese Y since date Z" is both dull and a bad precedent. Will we accept a hook like "that X has held position Y since date Z"? I concur with Rjanag that the bar has been set low historically, but I see no reason to dig a trench under it so we can lower it further - let's stay above the "that buses have wheels"-level, please. EdChem (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
IMO, not every article that meets the minimum criteria for DYK contains a good DYK hook fact. For that reason, some articles shouldn't be nominated.
However, assuming that the article has some DYK potential, but the nominator had difficulty writing a good hook, other DYK volunteers should pitch in to help uphold the quality of DYK. It is not necessary for reviewers to limit ourselves to hooks proposed by the original nominator. A reviewer who finds that the original hook suggestion is uninteresting may suggest different hooks. Sometimes simple rewording (such as changing "since date Z" to something potentially surprising such as "more than 50 years") is enough to "fix" a boring hook, but often a reviewer with a fresh set of eyes can find a good hook that the article's creator overlooked. --Orlady (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the phrase "interesting to a broad audience" is not entirely accurate and does not reflect the actual practice here - I've been intending to tweak that statement for a long time but never got around to it. A hook should preferably be of interest to the widest possible audience, but it doesn't necessarily need broad appeal, because many topics are simply not "interesting to a broad audience" in the first place. But regardless of the breadth of its appeal, a hook at minimum still has to highlight a fact that is likely to be of interest to someone who already has an interest in the topic.

I have intended for some time to write a guideline for hook writing, but unfortunately the time I have available to pursue my wiki-hobby has diminished sharply in recent months, and I no longer have nearly enough time to do everything I would like to do here. However, in response to SL93's query, I would say the primary criterion for a hook is that the hook fact must be unusual or surprising in some way, or alternatively, informative or educational. The kind of hook to be avoided at all costs is the one which states the obvious, which, for example, presents an everyday, common occurrence, or which expresses something which is already self-evident. We don't need to tell people what they already know, or to present them with trivia that no-one needs or cares to know. Gatoclass (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, you've hit the nail on the head: "not every article that meets the minimum criteria for DYK contains a good DYK hook fact. For that reason, some articles shouldn't be nominated." ... or they should attract early warnings by reviewers that the hook is not suitable. The forum needs to communicate problems with nominations before hopes are raised, or dare I say it, a culture of entitlement is fostered. Otherwise, the whole idea of producing DYK hooks for the main page should be dumped. Tony (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have rejected few hooks as i didn't find them hooky enough. But most of the times we were able to fish out some other hook. I remember only one example where nothing was possible. But good that this topic has come up. We have passed out many such hooks which were really dull. Maybe we can have a list of what kinda hooks shouldn't be promoted. Even if they have been promoted before, i see no reason to not raise our bar now. Some examples:
    • ...that X ranks nth in World? (Exception where n=1.)
    • ...that X is [adjective] according to John Doe? (Exception when John Doe is a blue link person and a really notable in judging X.)

Of course, these examples can be included in hook as subordinate clauses like "...that Blah river, 19th longest on the Earth, has gold mine in it?" §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 2: hook problem

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

"... that cloud storage service Tresorit has offered $10,000 to anyone who can hack into their cloud storage servers, and has yet to be hacked?"

  • Isn't it "that the cloud storage service"? (But my suggestion below didn't seem to need the "the", now that a context is partly set up before you get to the company.)
  • What makes "cloud storage service ... cloud storage servers" a welcome repetition within three seconds?
  • The phrase at the end has a clunky relationship with the previous clauses.

I don't know the subject, but perhaps this attempt might help DYK editors to improve it:

"... that the servers of cloud storage company Tresorit have yet to be hacked, despite its offer of $10,000 to anyone who can do this?". Tony (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


Generally there seems to be a good treatment of theme in the hooks I've glanced at—that's good work, everyone; but in prep area 3, this stands out as having no clear point at all:

"... that while actress Belén López, was nominated for the Newcomer Award for her role in The Distance (2006), flamenco dancer Belén López was the inspiration of film director Franco Zeffirelli?"

A contrast is set up in the grammar—"while ... ". But what exactly is the contrast between one person's nomination for X, and someone else's inspiration of a film director? Is there a connection between Zeffirelli and The Distance? It's very opaque, and not in an intriguing or interesting way ... just weird and flat. I don't know enough about it to fix it. Tony (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it either. It looks like two people with the same first and last are being related in an insignificant way. The flamenco dancer is inspired by Franco Zeffirelli and Franco directed The Distance which stars the actress. The actress article doesn't even mention who directed the film and there is no article for it either. I had to go to the IMDb page of La Distancia (The Distance) for that. SL93 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I have given the hook a tweak in line with the concerns raised above. Gatoclass (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. It's a little better now that we see the point is that they had the same surname. I wonder whether they're related (or married). Still not the best hook. Tony (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not the best but I think it's passable, and the best that could be done at short notice. Gatoclass (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Misleading image

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I find the image used for Template:Did you know nominations/Muggeseggele (now in the image slot of one of the prep areas) to be misleading. The hook indicates that a Muggeseggele is pictured. That's not true; a Muggeseggele is a fly's penis, but the image shows two flies mating. Surely I'm not the only one who finds this misleading! Could the "(pictured)" text be revised to say "(utilization pictured)"?? (It would be easier not to use the image.) --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right. "(utilization pictured)" sounds pretty silly as well. I suggest that this hook be promoted to the main page but without a picture. Use a different hook's piture.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have gone ahead replaced the misleading image with the image from the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/List of places of worship in Tandridge (district). Hope that's OK with everyone. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the (pictured) caption in the hook, as it was in the wrong place (sorry, this was my fault: after I nominated the article, there was a change to the suggested picture and I forgot to move the (pictured) caption in the template to take account of it). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. Was the temple definitely the image you felt was better when viewed small? They both look OK-ish to me. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
If the United Reformed church image is used, it should be cropped to reduce the amount of car park it shows. --Orlady (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy enough with the temple. It's actually rather more intresting than the brick church: it has a golden man with a bugle standing on top of the spire, although that very much isn't visible in the 100x100 main page version!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the temple is the better one; the URC photo didn't come out as well as I'd hoped because it's swamped by its car park (luckily there were no cars in the way) and the day turned out cloudy instead of sunny as expected (the disadvantage of planning photo trips in advance!). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I have concerns about notability, and have slapped a merge tag on the article. I don't know what current consensus is about how to proceed when the article is already in the prep area (if it weren't, I'm sure this would hold up the nomination, but maybe now it's not an issue), so I just wanted to mention it here rather than re-opening the nomination myself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I pulled Muggeseggele out of the prep area and put it back on the noms page. That's become a fairly standard operating procedure hereabouts when issues arise with hooks that have been moved to a queue. --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 14:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hook in queue 1

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In Queue 1 the Chicken harvester hook. An editor has asked for the wording of the hook to be tweaked on the nomination template. As the article reviewer I would be happy to accept the change. Could an Admin have a quick look before it's moved to the main page in a couple of hours? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • DYK is now way overdue. In fact, it's just shy of four hours overdue, half an entire cycle. There are now two full preps; if one can be promoted to a queue, the bot will take over and move it to the main page. Many thanks to any admin who stops by and takes care of this. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • ...and the move to queue has been taken care of by Orlady, who gets a boatload of thanks, with the bot doing its move thereafter. The remaining prep should be moved to the next open queue within a few hours, to avoid the necessity of another of these bot-posted messages. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • And I was very pleased (and relieved) that the bot showed up so quickly to do the update, so I didn't have do a manual update. Hurray for DYKUpdateBot! --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 2 (6/28/13)

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The hook for blackspot shark says (pictured). It is placed in such an area that the picture does not show. Blackspot shark needs to be moved out of this prep area, and to the top of another prep area. I suppose I should learn how to do this, but... Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Pricasso

Latest comment: 11 years ago68 comments27 people in discussion

For those who donn't follow wiki-drama, Russavia has been writing a userspace article on the artist Pricasso, who has painted a portrait of Jimbo with his penis. Looking at Jimbo's talk page, you'll see quite a controversy and there is also an active deletion debate at commons. Newyorkbrad has topic-banned Russavia from Jimbo and there was edit-warring over the draft that led to full protection. Russavia has now copy-pasted the article to mainspace, losing all the other contributions and making the article appear stable (rule D6 restricts articles with unresolved conflicts), and nominated it for DYK. I have posted a hold on the nomination and am noting here that this article is the centre of an ongoing controversy. I propose we not action the nomination until the dust settles and the wiki and article conflicts are resolved. We do not need a new battleground in this war started here, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Who's contributions did we lose? Russavia (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Didn't notice Pink Ampersand, but I would hardly call FPaS' edits "contributions". As to the contentious discussion; only here on English Wikipedia, eh. Russavia (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This article appears to have been created in bad faith (as part of badgering Jimbo), so it clearly shouldn't appear on the main page. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Would you like to back up your personal attack with some evidence? Russavia (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Based on my reading and assessment of the various threads about your recent misconduct: you used an video created by this guy to troll Jimbo, while simultaneously creating an article about them, hence I conclude that the article was created in bad faith. I found User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 135#NSFW - Wikimedia Commons video and User talk:Russavia#Special BLP enforcement restriction the most relevant discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Openly accusing someone of bad faith ediing with no credible evidence -- someone who has no history of bad faith editing -- is not a personal attack? FFS, English Wikipedia has really gone to the shitter if this is the case. But anyway, I've responded on Nick's talk page so not to clog up this; I will remind people though that I am not tolerating personal attacks on myself, and I will eventually ask for action to be taken. Russavia (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This is relevant, particularly if one is drawn to drama like a moth to a flame: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I have just blocked Russavia indefinitely. Resolute 13:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, should the actions or intentions of Russavia have anything to do with whether or not this DYK ends up on the main page? Per WP:OWN, the article belongs to the community, not this one user despite him/her being the major contributor. And getting the hook up to the main page is not supposed to be primarily a "reward" for the nominator (although in many cases they may feel rightly proud of their achievement, the primary purpose of DKY is to showcase articles not promoting editors). So, given that (a) Pricasso is by all accounts a artist who satisfies WP:GNG, and (b) the dispute is over an image of Jimbo rather than over Pricasso generally, and that image is neither included in the article at present nor mentioned in the hook, and (c) the DYK nomination seems to satisfy all other requirements, is there any reason not to post it? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the DYK nom should be handled normally. There is no real instability on the article and the only content dispute has been resolved, from what I can tell.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not all that sure that this artist meets GNG - a person who gets zero NYT mentions is not likely all that notable, and the articles on him focus on his "means of production" and not on him as an artist. Notability is something which must reflect on the artist specifically, not on notoriety of "means of production" AFAICT. Collect (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You are free to take the article to WP:AfD if you are not personally satisfied with the subject's notability. If you do decide to nominate then please do so quickly so the community can obtain a timely resolution. There has been enough drama over this article already, no need to add in some of the delaying tactics that have been used on other contentious articles. --Allen3 talk 19:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The suggestion that the failure of an American news outlet to mention an Australian artist indicates the artist is not notable is just chauvinism. Don't spew a line of bullshit about notability when it is obvious your only real goal is to censor material you consider objectionable. He is obviously notable so the article is staying.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Just checked at the ANI page on the block - I count 23 admins who endorse the block to 1 against. It pretty clear that this article, at the center of that controversy, is not stable and is not looked upon as one of Wikipedia's best new articles. The instability is showing up in the article's edit history with the commons link being inserted and deleted repeatedly. Certainly if the Commons link is in the article, a large portion of Wikipedia's editors cannot support it being on the front page. And how do we prevent the link from being inserted? Edit protect it while it's a DYK?

As far as the notability of the "artist" - it's clear that he doesn't pass WP:Artist, but that is because he is really a porn star (if you've seen the video you'll understand). Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO either. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

He is an artist, not a porn star, and he definitely has received significant critical attention, even if just for the unusual nature of his method.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
"I have never been awarded a grant and have entered many art compertitions but never won any . I have sold thousands of paintings but probably would not have sold to much without also becoming a soft porn star which might be a contributing factor of why I feel they dont really know how to judge me." Pricasso at [1] He's a tenth rate porn "star." Clearly doesn't pass WP:Artist, probably not WP:PORNBIO Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
DYK is not the proper forum for determining an article subject's notability. If you truly believe the article should not exist then WP:AfD is the proper forum. --Allen3 talk 00:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
So the purpose of this forum is ... ? Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Above all, why allow this childish stuff to become next week's great copy for another of FOXnews's bad-faith, ignorant slam-WP stories? WP is supposed to be authoritative and prestigious. Tony (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Odds of Fox News noticing or caring about this are pretty low. Even if they did, they may actually be more happily bemused by it than annoyed. We shouldn't consider those unlikely scenarios in such a situation. Far more vile content has graced our DYK section without incident (did you see some of those April Fool's DYKs?).--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The article is highly unstable. It is not well written and is poorly sourced, even by the standards of the gutter press. It appears that the creation of the article and the DYK proposal were part of a "trolling" stunt that first involved targeting Jimmy Wales. When that failed, a disingenuous protest was made on Newyorkbrad's talk page and borderline pornographic prose was inserted into the article.[2] As EdChem has written, the history of the article, its creation and its main contributor make it unsuitable for a DYK at this stage or in the near future. Mathsci (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to invalidate

I know WP is not censored, but in view of the disruptive intent of the editor, who has now been blocked, the poor quality of the article from almost every point of view (and not just the bad taste of the "artist"), I would propose to remove the article from DYK. WP should be usurped for political purposes. DYK, which already does not enjoy a sparkling reputation, should be even more prudent that this could send it to the dogs. IMHO, to not invalidate the nomination would be an endorsement of his shenanigans and his point-scoring. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked, as you note, so his original intent no longer has bearing on what is done with it now. No one is "conceding victory" to Russavia by treating this like any other DYK nomination. It should succeed or fail on its own merit as an article, not because of some problem with the person who created it or because something that isn't in the article anymore was a source of controversy. Honestly, if one were going to test the "can I get what I consider smut kept off the main page by stirring up the community" approach it would be good to try it with something that isn't fundamentally what WP:NOTCENSORED is meant to protect.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I couldn't agree more with Mathsci's comments above. The article was created in bad faith, and is far from an example of good-quality work. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the shenanigans themselves may be enough to disqualify the article from DYK, but certainly the quality of the article disqualifies it. The writer was obviously concentrating on something other than quality when he wrote the article and it shows. Smallbones(smalltalk) 10:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    Please could you explain (with examples) what you think is wrong with it? Granted it probably wouldn't pass GA or FA at present, but that is hardly a requirement for DYK. Personally I can't see anything obviously wrong with the prose or unencyclopedic in nature. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
He's clearly not an artist, he's a porn star wanabee (see his quote above), but the article presents him as if he is an artist. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have explained to you on the article talk page why this is wrong. He didn't say he is a porn star, that he wants to be one, or that he isn't an artist. No reliable sources I can find call him a porn star, but instead call him an artist and his work art. Stop making this "porn star" claim, please.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Ignoring the facts doesn't make them false
"Porn star
By Pricasso
I'd love to be a porn star --now that would make my day
I'd never take a sickly and I’d work for very little pay (etc., etc.) at [3]
  • Oppose - the subject is notable (as far as I can gather from the consensus around the wiki), the hook is interesting, and I don't personally see any problems with the prose in the article (ignoring its history and alleged intent, that is, which are not directly relevant to a DYK nom). I don't like it when WP becomes a cult of personalities, editor-centric rather than content-centric, and this is a classic case of that. The editor in question is blocked, so (s)he is out of harm's way, and we should just move on and let the article stand on its own two feet.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. We can't just ignore the context in which the article was created and nominated. People are still edit warring over the link to Commons, and the article's creator already said that he is going to have the article translated and the images in question added to many other languages. There's a clear intent to cause disruption here, and we are going to support that disruption by bringing the article to the main page, regardless of whether the user is blocked or not. --Conti|✉ 11:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The intentions of the editor are not part of the DYK criteria; if an article meets the criteria, it should be treated like any other article that meets the criteria, regardless of who wrote it. I had a look at the article itself and, while far from being glowing prose, it does seem to meet the already-low standards set in the DYK criteria. Smallbones, can you be more specific about what you think the problems with the article quality are (and preferably make reference to specific DYK criteria that the article does not meet)? And people are saying the article can't pass because it's "unstable", but the supposed neutrality dispute the article is tagged with is non-existent--I see no such discussion of neutrality in the article talk page. It looks more like someone slapped a tag on the article to try and keep it out of DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't see much wrong with the article, and I think it would make a good quirky hook, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion of rewarding a banned user. So I'm sitting on the fence ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK is not about rewarding or "punishing" editors. We have a suitable article with a picture the is not inappropriate, and we are doing our readers a dis-service through self-censorship. It is not Russavia's article, it was written by him, but it belongs to the community, and since it meets the requirements, we should feature it. Although I haven't investigated myself, there seems to be a consensus that the artist meets the GNG, and since there is not even a mention of Jimbo on the page, and see no reason why it should not be run.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Totally wrong! DYK IS about rewarding editors – it's clearly billed as an encouragement to new content creation. There was a hue and cry over the appearance of excessive numbers of Gibraltar-related articles at DYK to reign back the alleged promotion, and I'd strongly argue the creator's motives absolutely do come into it on that same basis. I have no objections per se to not deleting the article because some people will no doubt get a hard-on looking at it (pardon my French), but I can just see the world will have a field day at our expense when this hits the MP as a "DICK" [sic]. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and in this case it would be to reward a troll who has been indeffed for being such. This is apart from other considerations that I believe rule this one out. Oh, and "Support" invalidating this nom, if that wasn't clear before. Tony (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support invalidation Basically the same opinions espoused by oothers apply here. Collect (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply. ArbCom has ruled that admins must take internal Wikipedia politics into account when performing admin actions. This presumably includes admin action required to promote DYK articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose invalidation. Having argued for the running of Wikipediocracy on the basis that no subject should inherently be not DYKable, I certainly can't argue for the exclusion of this article just because he's a guy who paints with his prick. Russavia was, in all likelyhood, trolling Jimbo, but the article itself does not mention him nor does it use Jimbo's image. It is (for the subject) main page safe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support invalidation. There is no obligation to carry every DYK just because it matches some set of formal criteria, and in a case like here, where the article has been nothing but a source of disruption and contention, I really don't see any value in pushing it further into people's faces. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Awkward case since this is basically NOTCENSORED vs. Disruption/POINT. I find I have to support invalidating this nom because there was significant intent to harass another Wikipedia user in this aritcle's creation and it was a clear troll job. There is too much bad faith involved in this nomination. Resolute 14:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't say "You must include everything explicit because Wikipedia is not censored!". To claim that WP:NOTCENSORED means we have to put it on the main page is not only totally missing the point of the policy, but it's also blatantly incorrect. If there are valid and legitimate reasons to exclude something, irrespective of whether it is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED or not, then the exclusion reason applies. In this case, it appears quite likely that this article and DYK nomination is all part of an intention to disrupt, which is definitely a good reason to not include it as a DYK. Additionally, I shudder at the prospect of having an article linked to from the main page that is protected due to edit warring. That is not exactly a sample of the upstanding work of Wikipedians. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The point of the policy is that we don't exclude something simply because people might be offended by it or because we are offended by something about it. All the support votes above are some variation of "it is offensive, so it should not be allowed on the main page", which is exactly why we have WP:NOTCENSORED. Nowhere has anyone backed up the claim that the article itself, or the DYK nom, were motivated out of a desire to harass anyone. People claim that about the image, but not everyone agrees as it is a claim based purely on emotion rather than reason, and the image wasn't even in the article at the time of the nom. Hell, the commons interwiki link buried at the bottom doesn't even go to a page with the image anymore, but instead goes to a page with images of the article subject and another link that goes to a page with the image. We are dealing with a classic WP:NOTCENSORED case and thus it should be invoked to invalidate this whole "vote" as contrary to policy. Stability should be handled by finding a resolution for the singular issue of the interwiki link, not by some sort of discussion where people are not basing their decision off of anything but their attitudes regarding the nominator or some image that has been removed from the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is no evidence at all that the article was written for any reason other than Russavia wanting to write about a subject in which he was interested. He started writing the article months ago, very soon after he got back on Wikipedia, while the image was only created this month. The image is no more essential to the article's existence than Commons is essential to Wikipedia's existence.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • To quote the Daily Dot article: "This day's painting was special, however. For one, the man commissioning the painting never revealed his real name. And rather than pay money directly, he suggested a trade: I'm going to write a Wikipedia article about you, he said, and you penis-paint the face of Jimmy Wales, the cofounder of the largest and most influential encyclopedia in the world. The painting would then be added to the article. "I was surprised that someone would do an article on me," Pricasso told me. "I thought what the hell—I'd do it." Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • My confidence in the ability of the press to describe a situation with complete accuracy is not nearly as high as yours. Even the best journalists get things wrong, especially around the edges. The difference between saying you will create an article for someone in exchange for a painting and saying you are creating an article for someone and would like a painting is pretty thin. We should not be guided by a journalist who is trying to "fill in the blanks", but by what our own evidence suggests. Unless we are saying it took Pricasso three months to take up Russavia's painting, even though it took him only half an hour to create it, then the more likely answer is that Russavia was planning to create the article all along, but in June decided that getting a painting done for the article was a nice idea.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reading the article without parsing through the Wiki-talk kerfuffle and knowing nothing about the article's creator, I found the entry a fair and balanced account of the artist with an unusual painting method, really no different (rather tame really) than other makers of Shock art (like the truly infamous Piss Christ). The mass of end-paragraph inline cites has to go. The painting in question is actually quite good considering the "member" that made it and the painting would not be offensive or degrading by itself save for the connotations about its method of creation (One has to worry about Pricasso's risk for SCC doing it though). Let it stand. Froggerlaura ribbit 06:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per Fut.Perf and Resolute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - IMO there's no need to punish the article subject for the transgressions of primary contributor. Surely there's folk creative enough around here that can come up with a means of acknowledging a decent article while denying recognition to the d-baggery surrounding its creation. Hell, award the DYK star or whatever you do around here to NewYorkBrad, for tossing Russavia out of the project over this. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is valid subject matter for DYK even if we have to wait unitl April Fool's Day to run it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose disqualifying the article because of its creator, without prejudice towards failing the article if insurmountable quality issues are found. The article should be carefully scrutinized for potential issues, but if it meets the criteria, we should run it. Lets judge the article on its merits instead of our feelings towards its creator. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Despite pruning, the article is still poorly written and poorly sourced. There is too much reporting of non-events in the article (e.g. unsuccessful entries in competitions, Patch's activities as a builder). A lot of the content is not neutrally written, with uncritical and direct reporting of Patch's own statements in interviews. Much of the tone seems promotional. The quality of the prose is very variable, with some parts perhaps reflecting too closely the original gutter press or sex industry sources: "one celebrity was OK with it," "Pricasso hit back," "a canvass which concealed his brush," etc. The article has been unstable since its creation. It is currently fully protected until 1 July; the talk page is semi-protected until 11 July. Including it as a DYK would be bad publicity for wikipedia as others have mentioned. Mathsci (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

More reviews urgently needed

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We currently only have 22 approved hooks, and half of those are probably not really approved as they have been challenged since initial approval. The Prep/Queue has only one update remaining. We are going to run out of hooks if more are not approved over the next 12 hours or so. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some old noms that are still needing to be reviewed:

Clearing out some of those would help.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

And Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Kitty (May 6), please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Coboy Junior (prep 3)

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

There's no doubt that this is going to survive AFD, but we shouldn't run it on the main page until it does. Could either an admin speedy close the AFD or anyone remove this from prep? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Pricasso

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I can't make heads or tails of this nom. It has every type of tick that we have. What should be done with it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion higher up on this page about whether or not to run it, I don't know how the numbers are going there, but there may not be a consensus on it yet. Gatoclass (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What about putting it aside until next April Fools Day.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I think there's a slight majority for running it - there's clearly no consensus in favour of pulling it, so I guess that defaults to permitting it in any case. Prioryman (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS fix

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to MOS:FRAC, the "use of the few Unicode symbols available for fractions (such as ½) is discouraged entirely". In the lead hook of Queue 1, "4½" should be replaced with one of the following: "{{frac|4|1|2}}" (producing 4+1⁄2), or "{{sfrac|4|1|2}}" (producing ⁠4+1/2⁠), or "four and a half". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Harrias talk 08:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 15:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

POV hook

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding the hook for the article Bob Fu, currently displayed on Wikipedia's main page: "largely funded by wealthy oil magnates from Midland, Texas" is hardly a neutral statement, but full of connotations that I struggle to believe are unintended. The article itself appears mostly balanced, perhaps with exception of the last few sentences from which the statement is derived. I agree that DYK should provoke interest, but not in the same way as a tabloid headline does. Interesting facts, not interesting smearing.--Nikolaj Christensen (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't necessarily agree. Looking through the article and quickly through the sources, there is nothing suggesting that the oil magnates are seeking to gain any influence through this, and I don't see that there is anything inherently negative about the funding coming from oil magnates. If a fellow admin disagrees and chooses to change this I won't mind, but personally I don't see a POV issue, merely a fact. WP:ERRORS is the correct forum for hooks already on the main page, incidentally. Harrias talk 16:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

All queues are empty. Three preps are ready. Update is overdue.

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Where are the admins? --69.158.116.5 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Current lead hook: Angelina Jolie Trapdoor Spider

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The hook was changed due to concerns that someone might mistake the pictured spider with the actual actress. I thought the issue was dealt with at the nomination page by adding the definite article. To be completely honest, I believe the chances of confusing Jolie with a venomous, ambush-hunting arthropod are rather slim. Since the wording made the hook much "hookier", I suggest changing it back. Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My inclination would be to leave it as it has been altered now. It might not be as snappy, which is unfortunate, but it removes any ambiguity and reads a lot easier. Harrias talk 20:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I've proposed a compromise/improvement at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in the current or next Did you know.... How do you feel about it, Harrias? Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Feel? I'm sure I speak for everyone here at Arachnophobe Central that we were delighted to see the thumbnail. Many thanks! Ericoides (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Image reappearing condition at main page

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Is there any condition that an image can not appear more than once in main page? Reference: File:Swami Vivekananda-1893-09-signed.jpg which has been nominated in another recent DYK. --Tito☸Dutta 01:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The image appeared on 12 Jan (2013)'s main page. I have nominated it for 4 July's main page. Vivekananda was born on 12 July (1863) and died on 4 July (1902). Is it okay? Or I can add the color image which could not be forwarded last time for your deletion nomination --Tito☸Dutta 01:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that six months should be enough time, so there shouldn't be an issue. If there is another suitable image, we should favour the alternative, but if there is only one, then go with it; there's no guarantee it will be chosen as the lead hook anyway. Harrias talk 13:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the colored version would be preferable in this case, since the signed black-and-white version ran only six months ago. Of course, the colored version would need to be used in the article in order to be used with the promoted hook, since images must appear in the nominated article. I'm one of those Crisco alluded to: I think six months is too soon between identical images (better at least a year), but the color makes enough of a difference that six months is sufficient here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 14:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay - have moved the one prep area full to a queue - all prep areas empty and I have to run. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hook: Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian civil war

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hook Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian civil war should be pulled from Queue 3. It is still a work in progress. Rule R7 of the Supplementary rules: 'There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected' This article still has an unexpanded header and has seen extensive editing the last days (being related to current events). My opinion is that the article still needs much more information on especially the Arab nations. The article also still has bare URL's (D3). Crispulop (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the superficial issues you mention. There's one issue with a link still, but it seems to be a result of the spam blacklist and I'm not able to fix it (well, technically I am, but I've never messed with Mediawiki pages or the spam whitelist and I'm not about to start now). If this reference is a problem, I would be fine with the section being deleted entirely until a better reference can be found, and still have the article run on the front page. Heavily edited is not the same thing as incomplete or subject to edit-warring in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to say that there is edit-warring. Just that this article needs more expansion before being able to call it 'complete'. Crispulop (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it rare for a DYK article to be complete with a 1,500 character minimum. SL93 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. But it also depends on the article per the London-Croughton idea. It's just my personal idea that this article needs more substantial coverage before going front page as a substantial amount of viewers will probably have knowledge of this article content. No need to agree ofcourse. Crispulop (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are only 10 of 154 nominations approved, not even enough to get us halfway through July 4 (and it's already July 3). There are always plenty of older hooks that need attention, as witness those listed below. Thank you for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Kafka

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

A hook on Kafka's works is the quirky in prep 1. Is there any chance to get it in a queue (4 or 5)? It's his birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Article featured without DYK bot message/credit?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I saw that my article Gabriela Rivadeneira (Template) was promoted to a prep area this morning and just found out that it probably has already featured on the Main page. But I don't see any DYK Bot message on the article's or my Talk page. Does anyone know what happened? Thanks, Crispulop (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like the hook was added to the prep area, but the DYKmake template, which tells the bot to give proper credit for the hook, was not also added with it. The prep was promoted to the next available queue, and the bot picked it up from that queue shortly thereafter. Can an admin who knows how to fix this make sure the proper credit is given? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  Done. No admin took care of it, so I did. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Mandarax! Crispulop (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing backlogged nominations

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to review some of the backlogged nominations for DYK but they seem to violate the five day rule. For instance, today is July 3 and there are nominations from June 3. I would think such nominations would fail the five day rule since it's been an entire month since the nomination.

Are we to consider five days from the time of creation / expansion until today? Or are we to consider five days from the time of creation / expansion until the nomination date? If the latter is the case, that should be clearly indicated on the rules page under Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria and on the nominations page under Template talk:Did you know#Backlogged?. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Onepage#New_article_nominations For yet a different version. — Maile (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, that page addresses exactly what I'm talking about. It's weird that it addresses the topic in a subtlely different way from the main rules page (e.g. it talks about 80% new in addition to five-fold expansion). I'm concerned that changes may not always propagate to the onepage page. In any case, I'm wondering if that stipulation (at the time of nomination) does in fact apply. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately...

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Prep 3 contains 2 hooks related to Swami Vivekananda (and both are my articles). Please do not remove the first hook (i.e. "To The Fourth of July"). OR, following WP:IAR you can keep both the hooks/move a to next queue, because tomorrow (4 July) is Vivekananda's death anniversary and this year is is being celebrated as 150th anniversary of Vivekananda. --Tito☸Dutta 22:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, you removed it from prep 1, where I had moved it after I saw that there were two Vivekananda hooks in the same prep 3 set, so there wouldn't be hooks in two sequential sets; you moved it to prep 2, where it would run on July 4 in India. Since it is the anniversary of his death, I can see that kind of exception being made. I do think it would be good to space out the promotion of other hooks currently under review when they are approved, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That's what I get for writing in a hurry. Agree about runs of the Swami, since we have several more related to him and his disciples (although I note that we had Amir Hamzah on the MP twice yesterday, despite the boldlinked articles being written several days apart) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Harrias talk 06:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Queue 3 Queue 3

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The last hook of Queue 3 has a double "that". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 talk 22:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Red flag

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
  • Thanks, OC—I hope someone's dealing with this. I took a quick look at prep 1, to find that many of the issues discussed a few weeks ago are still popping up: carpet linking (why link a common dictionary word such as "commissioner", especially when a more specific link is adjacent?) and the burying of the DYK link in the middle of a hook. I've reworded the "colonel" hook to reposition the DYK link at the start—it wasn't hard.

    But this one is unsuitable: "... that Peter Hofmann performed the part of Siegmund first at the Opernhaus Wuppertal, two years before repeating it in the centennial Ring in Bayreuth?" So what ... Am I missing something? Aside from the lack of point to the hook, why not widen the scope so that more visitors to the main page get the gist ... "sang the part". Can "Wagner" or "Wagner's" be slipped in? Tony (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

    Article: I'm unsure what this means: "The house reopened on 14 October 1956, as one of the first damaged theatres in Germany ...". Could have a number of meanings.

    "It was designed by the architect Carl Moritz (de) in a style drawing on neo-Baroque and Jugenstil. It was completed in 1907.[2] In 1939 it was changed considerably."—What was changed considerably? The style? The building? I'm confused.

    "The opera is known for revivals of operas"—??

    "It houses mostly performances of operas"—not idiomatic English. I've pinged Gerda. This shouldn't go on the main page yet, I think. Tony (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Answered in the nomination, with an ALT. Not mentioned there: he did not only sing the part, he acted it, and as he was trained in Decathlon, very convincing, see the film. (PS: The ping on my talk page lacked precision, no link, "bottom" not true any more, here hidden in other posts.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 06:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I did it, can someone please check me as I've never done it before? Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 07:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Yesterday's DYK hook was ... that Swami Vivekananda (pictured) wrote To the Fourth of July on the celebration of United States' Independence and incidentally died on the same date four years later? Now, the main hook To the Fourth of July got 2669 views yesterday and the article Swami Vivekananda got 14000 views. The article gets around 5000 view everyday, so almost 9000 views came from the DYK. Now, a) will it be added in DYKSTAT? b) I have a long time doubt that a good number of readers don't understand where to click if there are multiple links in a hook. --Tito☸Dutta 08:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I think, I have got an answer, people clicked on Swami Vivekananda because it was linked first in the sentence. I need to be careful from next DYK and link the DYK article at the beginning. --08:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that people will click on whatever link that they are the most interested in no matter where the link is positioned. SL93 (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

How is it undermining DYK when people will, no matter what, click on whatever they find interesting? Removing all other links doesn't matter because people still won't click on that link if they are not interested in it. SL93 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • It would be much better, then, to put a random list of "interesting" links in the DYK section of the main page—if the main aim is to provide merely "interesting" links. I thought all of the effort that goes into creation, improvement, reviewing, and adminning here was the whole point. Tony (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not even sure what the main aim is even though I participate in it. It is said that DYK is to provide interesting sourced facts that are important to a wide audience as well as to promote new content. I think that most of the hooks promoted are boring and barely any of the articles/expanded content are even new because of the backlog. SL93 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a complete tempest in a teapot. Fourth of July was the lead hook and Swami Vivekananda was pictured, which doubtless helped drive views to the (linked) person being pictured. Also, because it was the 100th anniversary of Swami Vivekananda's death, and due to a special request, there were two different hooks about him during the 24 hours considered by the edit counter, both with secondary links to his article: one at 13:30 India time, and the Fourth of July one mentioned above, during the day in the U.S. I also doubt that the positioning in the first hook diverted a significant number of readers away from the Fourth of July article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • After checking few more DYKs where DYK article was positioned second or third, I take back my comment. User:Crisco 1492 and User:BlueMoonset seem to be right, I forgot about Swami's death anniversary, it was featured in newspapers, news channels. So, a good number of traffic have come from there. --Tito☸Dutta 03:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

More reviews urgently needed

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There is only four hours to go to the next update, there is no update ready and virtually no approved hooks left to select from at T:TDYK. We urgently need some more completed reviews, thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I just did three, you do recall there is a really decent article waiting in the wings   Darkness Shines (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I have thrown an update together, so there is now 9 hours or so to the next update, but the number of approved hooks is still extremely small, so anyone who can lend a helping hand will be welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I will see what I can do although I tend to not review articles about topics that I don't know much about. SL93 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Choosing airplane photo

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The airplane image in Prep 4 is not used in the article -- a problem that was flagged by the DYK reviewer. However, the article has a nice image of the airplane that later crashed. Either (1) the image from the article needs to be swapped into the hook (changing "exampled pictured" to something like "pictured before crash") or (2) the image that used in the hook needs to be added to the article as a second image.

I almost swapped the image from the article into the hook, but held back because I suspect there might have been a reason for choosing the other image. I can't tell from the DYK review history. --Orlady (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, it's my error: I didn't see that the image was flagged despite the bold NO in the sentence. (Is there a reason we don't delete known-problematic images from DYK templates during the review so, like struck out hooks, they aren't used in error?) The image in flight is nicer to look at, but I don't see any reason why the image from the article couldn't be swapped in; it's decent enough. I don't see the point of adding an image of a different plane of that model to the article just for the sake of a DYK when we have the actual aircraft involved already in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up: I have replaced the image with the one from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Striking hooks is a relatively recent thing over the last few years. But of course essential. We should boldly delete non-acceptable images with just as much eagerness. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It's even better when reviewers can help make an unacceptable image hook into an acceptable one. ;-) Thanks to BlueMoonset for addressing this -- after my bedtime. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Prep area 2:

... that the 1931 recreational vehicle (pictured) that Paramount used to bribe Mae West into making more movies is on display in the RV/MH Hall of Fame?

->

... that the RV/MH Hall of Fame houses the 1931 recreational vehicle (pictured) that Paramount used to bribe Mae West into making more movies?

Tony (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Queue 2 Keimer hook needs shortening

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can the phrase "it is considered the" be deleted from the Samuel Keimer hook (with Benjamin Franklin) that's fourth in this set? The qualifier is not in the article, and makes the hook duller than it needs to be. (Using "the printer" instead of "printer" is not typical of modern American English.) The resulting hook:

I'd appreciate it if an admin could fix this before it hits the main page in a couple of hours. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hook wording needs improvement

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I reviewed Prep 2 and decided that it's ready to be moved to the queue, except that I'm dismayed by the wording of one hook. Specifically, I am bothered that the hook "... that the theft of The Weeping Woman from the National Gallery of Victoria was the theft of the most expensive work purchased by an Australian art gallery and that the crime is still unsolved?" is essentially a run-on sentence, has much too long of a link to the article title, and repeats the word "theft". Maybe we can have some fast teamwork on rewording it. One idea I've had:

As the reviewer, I approve your suggested new wording. Do Hawkeye7 or Shirt58 need to weigh in here? — Maile (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm copying that wording into the prep area. It will go to the queue soon. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No, that doesn't work. It says that the theft stole the painting, which doesn't make sense. How about: ... that in a still-unsolved crime, the most expensive work purchased by an Australian art gallery was stolen from the National Gallery of Victoria? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I edited the hook (now in Queue 6) to read "that the most expensive work purchased by an Australian art gallery was taken in a 1986 theft from the National Gallery of Victoria -- and the crime is still unsolved?" --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Orlady, can the double hyphen in that hook please be converted to either a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash? The hyphens are definitely incorrect, and need fixing before this hits the main page in a little over 80 25 minutes. Thanks! (Any other admin can take care of this too!) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC), revised at 23:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It was replaced with a spaced extra-long em dash plus hyphen, which is always wrong. It should be a spaced en dash (my preference) or an unspaced em dash, with no hyphen at all. See WP:MDASH. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, and mentioned the spaced en dash only (to avoid confusion); I also gave an example of what it should look like. With luck, it will be fixed soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to fix the main page twice now, but I often find myself unable to insert the "right" kinds of dashes and quotation marks. --Orlady (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
That wording wouldn't work because this particular painting was the only thing they stole. Read the article; it was a very interesting theft. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Zillions of successive ref tags

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, just trawling through the multi-DYK hook "that paleontologists have discovered the fossilized eggs of cephalopods, fishes, and reptiles, with some dinosaur eggs (pictured) being preserved with pathological shell deformities?". Dinosaur eggs has every sentence tagged in the scientific sections—like a dozen 11s one after the other. Ref tags are retrospective, and if there's no particular reason to tag more than one sentence in a row with the same source, please let's spare readers the ugly, disruptive effect. I've left a note with the main author and a copy-edit tag on the article. Tony (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  • In some controversial fields that "ugly, disruptive effect" is necessary; East Europe-related ones, for instance. I doubt dinosaur eggs falls within that category, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio check (Earwig @ toolserver) on Priyanka Chopra filmography

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding the Priyanka Chopra filmography, it is worth noting that Copyvio check (Earwig @ toolserver) is malfunctioning on this specific article. As noted on the Village Pump, this is a bug that affects select articles. Doesn't look like it will be resolved soon, so the only alternative seems to use Dup detector from the nom template and check each of the article's 85 citations individually. Unless someone else has a suggestion. — Maile (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

One doesn't need to check every single cite, especially in an article like this where most of the cites are just to info in a table, one is hardly likely to find copyvio or plagiarism there. A spot check of one or two of the principal refs to the text body should suffice. Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Civil War hooks

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I tried filling prep area 3, but I have a problem. I placed two Civil War hooks in the prep area because there are so few accepted hooks. Finding a hook with a picture for the first spot is a problem because the only reviewed one with a picture, that I didn't review, is another Civil War hook. I reviewed several articles so those could be promoted and one of them includes a picture. One of them could also be used to replace one of the two war hooks if needed. I didn't want to promote articles that I accepted because I figured that it wouldn't go over too well. So I'm basically asking for someone to help fill the prep if they want to. There is plenty of time. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that I could remove my own sections from project talk pages, but I was reverted. This was taken care of. SL93 (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For future reference, the solution is not to unpromote one of the hooks, but to move one of the two hooks to another prep, either to an empty, later one, or by swapping hooks with another prep to even out the numbers: it could be too many bios, sports hooks, music hooks, hooks from a single country, etc. Unpromoting is generally reserved for hooks that are discovered to have problems that need to be addressed; only if there is no possible swap and no prep slots open where the hook would fit should undoing a promotion be considered. (Yes, I reverted your deletion for a reason.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I never said that there was no reason for it. SL93 (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are only 13 of 127 nominations approved, not even enough to fill the two empty preps, much less the four empty queues. There are always a great many older hooks that need attention, as witness those in this list. Thank you as always for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Crisis looming

Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments12 people in discussion

We have two full prep areas - about 16 hours' worth - but only four approved hooks, which is not enough to assemble another prep area. QPQ reviews will not be enough; so the only source of hooks is the backlog of hooks marked "need another review". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no crisis: just slow down this cascade. If DYK hooks and articles have been reviewed properly and are of sufficient quality, we should have no problem in allowing people in every timezone the chance to view a shift. Tony (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
A lot can change in 16 hours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how there is a crisis. Enough articles tend to get reviewed when time is close. I reviewed two of them myself and I am waiting on clarification if a source is reliable on another nomination. We would possibly have a crisis if there was around only a few hours or less until we needed enough articles. SL93 (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
We have 140 hooks total, and we've averaged under 19 new hooks a day for the last 14 completed days (through July 1): that's the average all nominated hooks, whether ultimately promoted or rejected. We're currently burning 21 promoted hooks a day. At some point, we're going to run out of hooks, even if the review rate increases, which I hope it does. Perhaps we should consider reducing the frequency to two sets a day if the newly nominated hooks don't spike upward. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggestions: Encourage editors to nominate other editors' articles. DYK is a peculiar process (before anyone starts bashing DYK, let me tell it is equally true for GA and other article valuation processes) the people who know and work in the process, their even most uninteresting article get promoted (of course they follow DYK criteria), but, sometimes some genuine good works are not featured which could be magnificent DYK hooks. So, taking initiatives to encourage others to nominate other editors' articles will be helpful. In WP:INNEW suggest to nominate articles at DYK from newly created article list. WiiProjects can be encourages to nominate articles at DYK. On the other hand, we need initiatives to encourage reviewers too. More nominations and more reviewers, we;ll not run out of "interesting" hooks.--Tito☸Dutta 03:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There are seven approved hooks right now. I boldly reduced prep areas to six. You can revert if you want, but I'm not as active as I used to be... well, I should be off for a long while, so I hope I'll be fine for a month or so. --George Ho (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) SL93's suggestions is a good one. In AFC they have a template for inviting to Teahouse. We can add one to nominate articles at DYK. I don't like the suggestion of reducing number of shifts to two per day. It'll be unfair for those hundreds of articles which got hours slot at the main page. So, it should be keep as the very final option. --Tito☸Dutta 04:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, it isn't a permanent change: depending on the flow of articles into DYK, we've done as few as two sets a day (every 12 hours) and as many as four (every 6 hours), and the number of hooks per set can vary, too. I've had hooks posted for six, eight, and twelve hours, depending on the then-current frequency, and there's nothing unfair about it, just normal variation. To declare it as the "very final option" would be a significant change indeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I would agree that a move to two sets a day would be the best interim move, and see how things settle from there. How would main page balance work if we had two sets of eight each day? Harrias talk 08:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • My 2p is that we have had precedence of previously lowering the number of hooks in a set when reviews have dried up but I don't think I recall us using 2 sets a day as an option. The point I'm making is that I think that if we go with what we know works in this situation (lowering the number of hooks in a set) then we can maximize the amount hooks that can be on the front page without draining DYK of it's reviewed hooks pool. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We went from three sets a day to two sets a day as recently as six months ago, in December 2012, and then back to three sets when WikiCup 2013 started on New Years Day and new nominations started pouring in. And that's only the most recent occasion. (We do know that it works.) As I pointed out, we have precedents for two, three, and four sets a day, in additional to raising and lowering the number of hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We currently have only 150 nominations total. IMO it's time we went to two updates a day for a while, until both the number of noms and approvals build up a bit. Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  • And now we have only 127 nominations total, with only two queues and one prep filled. I've asked Shubinator to change to two updates a day for now, at his earliest convenience. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Orlady. It requires an admin to make the change, not Shubinator, so it's great you were able to do it. I'll update my request on his page to let him know you've taken care of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor closely paraphrases sources

Latest comment: 11 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

Strike Eagle has been nominating articles with close paraphrasing issues. His articles have been promoted since June and possibly earlier. These are examples of close paraphrasing from promoted articles - [4] (INS Chennai) and [5] (Russian submarine K-51 Verkhoturye). The issue was pointed out to him on June 25 - Template:Did you know nominations/INS Kamorta. I reviewed a July 6 nomination with the same problem - Template:Did you know nominations/Russian submarine K-18 Karelia. SL93 (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I made some close paraphrasing in INS Kamorta and confessed to it immediately. All the rest are crap. If writing names of missile systems is considered close paraphrasing, feel free to block me indeffly. Morever if my edits are considered CF, what should this be ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Just do this mate replace "snoop tray" with "surface search radar" so you get "the surface search radar operates on the i band, and the sonar suite also has the hull mounted MGK-500 Skat sonar system" (I think that is the correct system). Basically do not use the nicknames, use the correct terminology. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't just naming missile systems. SL93 (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It's interesting how you tried bossing me around on my talk page. It is possible to defend your work without being like that. SL93 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is close paraphrasing because it is more than missiles and proper nouns as anyone can see in my review. SL93 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

    • " About 100 new features were applied to the boat including installation of rocket torpedo system TVR-671RTM and addition of the RSM-54 Sineva SLBMs. in article compared to "Over 100 innovations were applied during upgrade, including installation of rocket torpedo system TVR-671RTM and SLBMs RSM-54 Sineva."
    • " It was laid down in February 1987, launched in 1988 and was commissioned in 1989 into the Soviet Navy." compared to "The submarine was laid down in February 1987 in Severodvinsk; launched in 1988; commissioned in 1989."
    • "The submarine conducted over 14 missile fires and covered more than 140,000 kn (260,000 km/h; 160,000 mph)." compared to "The sub has performed over 14 missile firings and covered more than 140,000 nautical miles."
    • "K-18 Karelia (Russian: К-18 Карелия) is a Project 667BDRM Delfin class (NATO reporting name: Delta IV) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine currently in service with the Russian Navy." compared to "K-18 Karelia is a 2nd generation Project 667BDRM Delfin Nuclear-Powered Ballistic Missile Submarine."

Do you really think that these can't be reworded? It is simple.

  • "About 100 new features were applied to the boat including installation of rocket torpedo system TVR-671RTM and addition of the RSM-54 Sineva SLBMs." turns into "The submarine had 100 new components added which includes a rocket torpedo system named TVR-671RM and SM-54 Sineva SLBMs."
  • "It was laid down in February 1987, launched in 1988 and was commissioned in 1989 into the Soviet Navy." turns into "The submarine went through the keel laying process in 1987, launching in 1988 and then later being appointed in 1989 for Soviet Navy use".
  • "The submarine conducted over 14 missile fires and covered more than 140,000 kn (260,000 km/h; 160,000 mph)." turns into "K-18 Karelia fired over 14 missiles and encompassed a wide range larger than 140,000 kn (260,000 km/h; 160,000 mph)."
I will give you the last one, but it is not as you say with the others. SL93 (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate any help in this matter. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear that there is close paraphrasing here. Another identical bit: "In April 2000, Vladamir Putin sailed aboard the sub" from FN1 is extended with additional information (and "sub" becomes "submarine"), but the article is the same that far in. Further, the "over 14 missile firings" sentence was paraphrased so it doesn't make sense in the article: 140,000 nautical miles is a distance traveled, while 140,000 kn (and km/h and mph) are all speeds per hour: the article currently claims that the sub can travel fast enough in an hour to go the equivalent of two-thirds of the way to the moon, which is bizarre. The article needs work to address the current instances of close paraphrasing before it can be approved for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I had also noticed the knots/nautical miles problem, and was actually off fixing it at the same time you were writing about it here. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Strike Eagle, there are some solvable problems with close paraphrasing here. We're not going to indef you right off the bat, but these are things you need to address, and such close paraphrasing is inappropriate for DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
About the lead sentence, I've taken it from the Good Article Russian submarine K-114 Tula..so I'm not the copycat here. Morever the same pattern is used for any submarine or ship article, so IMO it's not a paraphrasing... About the commission dates issue, I tend to use the same format nowadays as it seemed better. I've used another source to write the dates and didn't even bother to look into the source from which SL93 alleges I paraphrased. It's just a mere co-incidence. I'll fix the rocket system issue if it is objectable, no problem. But I had no intention of close paraphrasing whatsoever. Making fun of me because I've mistakenly used speed instead of distance is pretty horrible and not what I expected from the established editors and sysops...please realize that there are humans on the other side too and they have feelings too... Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 13:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't making fun of you nor did I say that you meant to close paraphrase. However, you called my concerns crap and tried demanding me to remove the close paraphrasing tags without the issues being fixed. SL93 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't demand you to remove the tags...I only asked you to make a background check into the above mentioned K-114 GA...I didn't say you were making fun of me....no..you never did.... Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec)Comment We all cock up at times, I have offered Strike to look over his next DYK and help him out should there be issues. I feel sure he has taken on board what has been said here, and will now fix the paraphrasing issues (if not already done) based on the advice given above. Shall we drop it now? Less drama is good for all   Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I have more to say about the talk page comment, but I will let it slide. SL93 (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Darkness, that's kind and practical of you to offer. The willingness to increase skills is of the essence here, and if Strike Eagle is willing to do that, DYK can live up to one its goals, which is to be a learning environment. Strike Eagle is being defensive, it seems to me; a few days' distance from this should make all the difference. Strike, everyone here, including me, has learnt from their role as a WPian editor, so you're not alone. Tony (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for sounding a bit too authoritative in my message in your talk....sorry! I was frustrated to see that I was accused of some co-incidences which I didn't author. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 14:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't hold grudges anyway. SL93 (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Something amiss on July 5 noms

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

At the end of Alberto Suárez Laso, at the end of the "Nominated by" line, is {{DYKsubpage |monthyear=July 2013 |passed= |2=

It looks odd, and I opened the Laso template. Doesn't seem to be a part of that one. I can't figure it out, but maybe it's another nom that isn't showing on the page under July 5.— Maile (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. An editor removed the closing brackets for the nomination immediately following the Laso nomination. --Allen3 talk 15:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that. SL93 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hook pull off

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Initially they pulled off the hook mentioning "politicians lay foundation stones of new buildings all the time", did they read, the foundations stone was laid by the Prime Minister of the country — the highest designation of Ministers? And, no, Prime Misters do not lay foundations stones often. Then they added a close paraphrasing issue where sentences were rewritten. --Tito☸Dutta 21:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Tito Dutta. I'm one of the "they". Gatoclass had pulled the hook for the first issue. I was going to do an Alt hook, and immediately found in the first source the copyvio-close paraphrasing that was too close for comfort at DYK. I only read the first source, so I don't know about the others. What I find interesting, is that I ran both the Copyvio Check on the whole article, and the Dup Detector on that one source, and neither one found copyvio issues. I'm wondering if that had something to do with origin of sources, or something in the coding of the sources. Just thought it was a little odd that nothing came up. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll come to alleged close paraphrasing/copyvio later, initially it was pulled because some other reason (i.e. common incident, politicians lay foundations all the time"), then close paraphrasing issue was added. And about the mentioned close paraphrasing issue, nothing came up in tools, because there was no issue, those sentences were rewritten. --Tito☸Dutta 21:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do see that you've made some wording changes since I posted that concern. At this point, it would be good to get the input of a new set of eyes. Maybe it's different in India, but politicians laying cornerstones is pretty common in a lot of places, so I understand why Gatoclass said that. — Maile (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have changed only 3 words. If that solves the problem, the problem was not serious enough. Again note, it is "Prime Minister", to clarify this Indian Prime Minister holds similar position that a US President does and he does not lay foundation stone unless it is something very special. The institution in question is a University that regulates almost 100 engineering colleges of the state. --Tito☸Dutta 04:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The edits do not solve the problem, which is indeed serious. Swapping the position of two words makes it no less close paraphrasing than before, and replacing "systematic" with "procedural" changes the meaning so it frankly makes less sense, if "procedural education" even has real meaning. I think we've lucked out here: whether you agree with pulling of the hook because it was deemed insufficiently interesting, the result was that a clear case of close paraphrasing was discovered, thus saving the hook from being pulled later in the game (or, worse, hitting the main page with this uncorrected). From this American's point of view, even having a head of state laying a cornerstone does not sound particularly interesting or impressive. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I still think it must be different in India. Part of the job of the President of the United States (no matter which one) is ceremonial photo ops. The President pardons a turkey once a year. — Maile (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Examples of close paraphrasing were laid out for you on the nom page before you opened this section. Things like "reserves 50 percent seats in postgraduate studies in courses like steel technique and material handling for the employees and children of the employees of Steel Authority of India" vs "reserve 50 percent of the seats in postgraduate studies in certain courses such as steel technique and material handling for SAIL employees" constitute close paraphrasing - the phrasing and most of the wording is identical. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Queue 5 request

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was wondering if it is possible to wikilink Temptation of Saint Anthony in visual arts to The Temptation of St. Anthony on the hook for The Private Affairs of Bel Ami. SL93 (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK criteria on "newness"

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Please see conversation on DYK Maximiliano Óscar Rodríguez Magi. This has taken a turn on the DYK policy that would be better discussed here. A reviewing editor has taken exception to Eligibility criteria of the basic rules on newness - and seems to want to argue the point indefinitely on this template, rather than allowing a review to happen. Could be considered disruptive. Rather than hold up a full review of that particular nomination, which meets the DYK criteria of newness, the policy should be hashed out here. If it continues on that template, it's counter productive at a time when we badly need completed reviews. — Maile (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It's quite simple. The article was developed in userspace, moved to mainspace and nominated within 5 days of starting life in mainspace. Therefore it is "new" for DYK purposes. As DYKFN#F3 says, ""Five days old" means five days old in article space. You may write your article on a user subpage and perfect it for months. The five days start when you move it into article space. Such moves are often overlooked when enforcing the five day rule..." and the reviewer has got completely the wrong end of the stick here. I'd also suggest that the reviewer installs the DYKcheck tool to avoid such mistakes in future. BencherliteTalk 12:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
At this point, intent is in question. This editor is continuing to disrupt the nomination with this, and it's getting childish. However, that technique is very effective at deterring a real review from happening. — Maile (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know where "assuming good faith" has disappeared from Wikipedia. I am "that" editor and as you can see some of the "normal" editors can give me answers in a normal way. And as I said in my very first comment the nomination meets all other criteria so it could get a green light. What I didn't understand is that the article had a "double move". If the July 3rd creation date is a "move" then he moved it again on July 8. I see it's a 0 byte move but how can (or can't) Wikipedia log that properly? Or how can one figure the move dates out without installing additional tools (which I don't want to because I edit Wikipedia on different computers). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to install DYKcheck on an individual computer; it's entirely within Wikipedia. To activate it, you can either put it in your skin.js file (since I use Wikipedia's Vector skin, mine's in my vector.js file, which I created just for DYKcheck; if you use the monobook skin, use that .js file) in your Wikipedia user space, or run it individually on a page from within Wikipedia. Complete instructions are at WP:DYKcheck. DYKcheck is very useful beyond giving the file's size, newness, and whether there's a 5x expansion: it points out previous moves (and where the article moved from), plus things that are hard to check but would prevent an article from running in DYK: a previous DYK appearance, an appearance in ITN, etc. There are some caveats, as with any computer program (under some circumstances, it may say there hasn't been a 5x expansion when there has been), but I strongly advise anyone who reviews DYK nominations with any frequency to use this tool. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Entirely agree with BlueMoonset. You seem to be unaware of how page history works. If I create a page in my userspace on June 1st and edit it for a month, then move it to mainspace on July 1st, the page history is moved to mainspace too, rather than being left behind in my userspace and the page history starting from scratch. So, in this scenario, my article has a month's worth of editing history from June 1st onwards, but it wasn't part of mainspace until July 1st. DYK counts this as a new article as of July 1st, not as of June 1st - because as far as DYK is concerned, people can work on draft articles in their userspace as long as they want. Now, the article you loooked at only had one move, on July 8th; I don't know why you think that the creation date was a "move" too. And you can figure out the move dates from looking at the page history if you don't want to install DYKcheck (which isn't installed on your computer, as BlueMooonset has explained). BencherliteTalk 18:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you guys for your help. Will try these. Since I'm frequent at DYK I guess I will have to upgrade my repertoire. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Copy editing

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I was told at Template:Did you know nominations/Spirit Touches Ground that the article needs some copy-editing, but I don't know what is meant by that. Saying that the article need copy-editing does not tell me the how and why of what needs copy-editing. SL93 (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen an article not promoted because of it needing a minor copy-edit. Another editor joined the discussion by saying that the structure is awkward without explaining how it is awkward. I also don't know what "vernacular conversational style" means. Actually, I probably do know what it means, but using such a statement does not help. With an encyclopedia that anyone can edit irregardless of their writing background, things need to be explained in a way that at least the majority of people would understand. It seems like this article is being treated like a Good Article or a Featured Article although it is a short article that will get one fact on the main page. It was also said in the nomination that plenty of less-well-written articles have been promoted in DYK. SL93 (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments like "Excuse me for assuming competence on your part" and "if I wrote like that in my 8th grade English class, I would have had red marks all over my paper" by User:Orlady on that DYK review are profoundly unhelpful and inappropriate for a collaborative project. (On a separate topic, the prose really is not so disastrous at all - no comment on the now-possibly-fixed close paraphrasing issues.) Possibly Orlady didn't intend them that way... who knows. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I suppose those comments were out of line. I was offended at being criticized for having made the assumption that the user I was talking to was a reasonably well-educated native speaker of English. Basically, I had made a good-faith assumption about another user, and that user complained that I had given them credit for capabilities they don't actually have. If I had tried to state my comments in simple English (as I would for a person with limited English -- but I'm reasonably sure that this user is a native speaker), I bet that the user would have complained that I was being disrespectful of their capabilities. I don't like being criticized for trying to treat other users with respect. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think that vernacular would be a word that every native speaker of English would know. Saying only the definition of vernacular is not simple English although your definition was simple English for some reason. That was not the only issue though. Saying that there is "some awkward wording and sentence structure" does not explain how it is awkward. It is not a common sense thing for every native English speaker. SL93 (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
For future reference, you can say whatever you want to me. An editor recently called me a bias, censorship promoting human rights violator who has favoritism for certain topics as well as having intellect problems because of that favoritism (it wasn't said in one sentence) and I just ignored it. SL93 (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made a series of changes. Comment is requested on whether this is sufficient copy edit to address concerns from Orlady and BlueMoonset, and whether this is helpful as an example for SL93. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there something that I'm missing?

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I'm in the process of reviewing the DYK nomination for Typhoon Longwang and I'm stumped. The DYKcheck tool says that the article has not been 5x expanded. It was 2,422 characters of prose at the time of expansion and the current amount of characters is 12,812. An exact 5x expansion should have been 12,110 characters. Is there something that I missed? SL93 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The tool sometimes gets confused. I do the same thing you did. Rather than take the tool for its word, I run a check before the expansion. And a check in its current state. If there is a 5X expansion between those two figures, you're OK to say it's 5X expansion. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I wanted to make sure before I finished reviewing a C class article. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
A slight disagreement with Maile66 here: if there are recent edits prior to the expansion that significantly cut the size of the article, then the measurement of the expansion should be taken from before the cuts. (Exception: if the cut material was copyvio, then the measurement begins after the cut.) BlueMoonset (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Residual feed intake and I'm not sure if red links can't be in DYK articles. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Red links don't matter, nothing in the rules about it. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Great. I will mark it as accepted. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Backlog?

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I noticed that the project suffered from lack of new nominations, and had to slow down to two slots per day, so I thought this was the time to nominate a couple of article that was too old. Template:Did you know nominations/Vegard Lysvoll was reviewed and accepted within minutes, but was later rejected because one user believe we do have a backlog of other nominations. I disagree with that argument, so I want a second opinion on that nomination. I don't care much if that or Template:Did you know nominations/Aleksander Solli is promoted or not, I just thought this was my chance to add a couple of nomination to DYK, as I don't have the time to expand or create an article during five days any longer. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

My comment from the nomination - "Actually, it was a mix of barely any new nominations and a lack of reviews." SL93 (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Crisis looming, User talk:BlueMoonset#Cycle rate and User talk:Shubinator#Setting DYKUpdateBot to run only twice a day: it's time. SL93 (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
When the original "five days old" rule was written, it was at a time when almost all the nominations which hadn't been approved after a few days were eliminated as too problematic. Look at the length of time noms are retained now; currently they go all the way back to May 1, which is 2 1/2 months ago. With so many ancient noms still awaiting approval, what does it matter if a nom is a few days older than the standard "five days"? I think if Hawkeye went to the trouble of reviewing and approving the hook in spite of the fact that it is technically "too old", we should just accept that and move on - especially when the real problem we have ATM is a lack of approved noms. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I gave it a pass as a second opinion based on 5-day Not Exactly. We've done this before, and that's what "Not Exactly" is there for. With the shortage we have, better to go with an easy nomination than to spin our wheels on nominations that are bogged down in issues. We're talking about 11 days past the 5-day guideline, not a month or more. — Maile (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually the link you included above is pretty old and looks to be incorrectly stated. The usual pointer is to D9 of the Supplementary rules which states: "Five days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a clean up is overdue in the DYK guidelines. How I found that link was DYK New article, first sentence points right to it. DYK New article is linked from DYK Article, first sentence. And you can keep backtracking forever at the links that eventually lead to the 5-day Not Exactly link I used. — Maile (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC).

I am fine with what I did being rejected, but this should be a known thing for nominators if that is allowed. They should know that it is possible, at the current time, to nominate articles late. Something this important should not be hidden on a page where barely any nominators look. SL93 (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

SL93, please don't look at it like what you did was rejected. More like it was just one more opinion that went a different direction. DYK would be positively boring if everybody saw it the same way. However, I agree with you that this information should be out there clearly. This is not the first time the issue of visibility on that technicality has been raised. You might be interested in this October 12, 2012 discussion. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It is possible for nominations to be accepted after five days but also possible for them to be rejected as too old, depending on the circumstances. So it's better for users to nominate within the five-day period, acceptance of noms older than five days is always at the discretion of reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

William de Courcy

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The hook about William de Courcy (the second one in Template:Did you know/Queue/6) needs grammatical corrections. It states "that William de Courcy a 12th century Anglo-Norman baron not only gave land to Abingdon Abbey but also a fishery named "Sotiswere"?" This should be corrected to "that William de Courcy, a 12th century Anglo-Norman baron, not only gave land to Abingdon Abbey but also a fishery named "Sotiswere"?". 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  Done Harrias talk 20:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 20:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot appears to be down; can an admin do a manual update from Queue 6?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We have a queue ready, but the DYKUpdateBot didn't move it to the main page at 21:00 (UTC) as scheduled. The queue appear to have the DYKbotdo template required, so that shouldn't be gumming up the works. I've just pinged Shubinator, but he may not see the note to restart the bot for a while.

If there's an admin who knows how to do a main page update from the queue (Queue 6, in this case), that would be appreciated. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Manual update performed. --Allen3 talk 00:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article at Template:Did you know nominations/Badger flea was removed from the prep with the statement that the article was not approved. However, it was approved as I said in the discussion. SL93 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, the approval had been superseded by a later (edit-conflicted) review. It is standard, once a new icon has been placed along with an explanation, to treat that as the active status of the review, and any previous approvals don't count any longer. Otherwise, an article with newly discovered issues could be promoted on the basis of an earlier approval. I feel I made the right decision in reversing your promotion of an article where the discussion was clearly still in progress. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Manual update overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

An update was due about 15 minutes ago. Not sure why the bot is not doing it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running 12 hour updates (2 sets/day). The next update is not due until 12:00 (UTC). --Allen3 talk 10:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Toolserver is likely down, and manual updates will be required over the weekend. Usually Allen3 performs them, but if not, I can back him up for the next several days (the current update schedule is convenient for me). Materialscientist (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
DYKHousekeepingBot has been performing regular updates so we can eliminate a toolserver outage. When DYKUodateBot goes missing for reasons other than a toolserver crash, the bot's recovery code usually kicks in after one missed update. Hopefully that will happen again and the bot will be back in operation for the 12:00 (UTC) update. --Allen3 talk 11:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 2 - Vegard Lysvoll hook

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Could someone have a quick look at the hook in Prep 2 for this nomination, please? I think the word 'sat' should read set; I was just about to change it myself but the wording of the hook generally doesn't seem to feel right - I do admit I know absolutely zilch about football so maybe it's just me! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "set", but agree that it doesn't read as well as it might. Harrias talk 14:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
How about:
  • ... that Vegard Lysvoll scored 30 goals during the season in which his club set a new Norwegian record by scoring more than 100 goals?
EdChem (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems good to me, I'll change the prep to that. Harrias talk 14:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how your reply got lost, but restoring it. I was just removing the "pictured". EdChem (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm troubled by the "more than 100 goals" claim, which is cited to a source that only tells of the team's 100th goal (definitely a Norwegian record), which was scored in the second-to-last game of the season. The team may well have scored additional goals in the final game, but there is no source given for it, and DYK requires that hook facts be sourced. The team's article claims the number is 105, but the only source there is a different article about the 100th goal. I think it's best to pull the hook and get this straightened out. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 1

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure if the hook for Extol should say reunion instead of re-union. Re-union does sound wrong to me though. SL93 (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed, done. Harrias talk 16:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this tiny image acceptable on the main page?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

 

Tony (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because you haven't popped up to suggest an alternative :-). Replaced, there are many other choices in [6] and [7]. Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Third Fourth opinion requested

Latest comment: 11 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

Could someone please check Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Gap Footpath and provide a third opinion? Prioryman (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Not sure you'll like it though. Fram (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. You raised one legitimate issue (close paraphrasing, now resolved), and two bogus ones (notability, which is not part of the DYK criteria, and a claim that sources must be "independent" when this forms no part of WP:V). I have dealt with these on the nomination page but I will be honest, given your history of relentless opposition to Gibraltar-related DYKs – which comes through in your comments on the review – I don't think you're the best person to review this nomination. Could someone else please take a look? Prioryman (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Why do we have so many DYKs on Gibraltar? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The simple answer is we have "so many DYKs on Gibraltar" because there are contributors interested in creating or greatly expanding articles dealing with things related to Gibraltar and then nominating them to DYK. This is due, at least in part, to efforts from members of WikiProject Gibraltar. I also suspect a variation of the Streisand effect is in play as repeated efforts to censor anything Gibraltar related has raised awareness of the subject among regular DYK participants. --Allen3 talk 19:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability is part of the DYK criteria from the supplementary guidelines. SL93 (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

But no single editor is empowered to reject an article on the grounds of notability. That's why AfD exists - it's a community decision. If you think the article isn't notable, then it's your responsibility to take it to AfD and make the case there. This particular article has never been at AfD, and it's not permissible for editors to issue personal vetos on the grounds of notability. Prioryman (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't personal if the article does in fact fail the notability guideline in its current state. The supplementary guideline says no such thing about AfD being required. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's work through this, shall we? WP:DYKSG says: "D12. Multiple sources are generally required, to ensure the article meets the general notability guideline." I count six sources and an external link in the article, so that criterion is clearly met. If there is a dispute over whether the article satisfies the notability guidelines, WP:GNG states, "For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days." There has been no attempt by anyone to nominate it for AfD. The decision made there is a community one, not dependent on the views of a single editor. Prioryman (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The reasons for the sources not showing notability was already mentioned by Fram. I can nominate the article for deletion if you wish. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It's probably up to Fram, since he's the one who has notability concerns. Unless the community agrees with him that it's not notable, he won't be permitted to reject the nomination on the grounds that he personally doesn't think it's notable. Prioryman (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Does anyone else feel that Prioryman is probably the last person who should complain about someone biased reviewing Gibraltar-related articles for DYK? Apparently it is no problem if someone with a clear bias pro Gibraltar-related articles approves these, but if someone with legitimate complaints notices that many Gib-related articles have serious flaws, then he should be disqualified from reviewing... Thanks, Prioryman, you have just provided enough ammunition to keep (or strengthen) the DYK restrictions for Gibraltar for years to come, first approving a deficient article and then wanting to bar the person that actually found the problems with it. As for the "bogus" reasons, I have replied on the nomination page, and surprise surprise, neither is actually a bogus reason, since it is part of both the DYK criteria and of WP:V. Self-published sources are only allowed if "the article is not based primarily on such sources.", which is the case here, and DYK criteria include that articles must meet core guidelines and policies. I hope you are not arguing that WP:N is not a core guideline (if you do, I wonder which article-related guidelines are actually "core" in your opinion, if the one used to delete articles isn't...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that as an avowed opponent of Gibraltar-related DYKs, you have a clear motive for sabotaging nominations. I'm not saying that is what's happening in this case - as I said, you identified a legitimate issue - but your other concerns are frankly tendentious. The source you're objecting to is hardly a "self-published source". The information signs used as sources in this article have been published by the Government of Gibraltar, the state-linked Gibraltar Heritage Trust and the Gibraltar Ornithological & Natural History Society - Gibraltar's heritage and conservation bodies respectively, the equivalent to English Heritage (or Historic Scotland or Cadw) and the RSPB in the UK, or the National Parks Service in the US. If you're honestly suggesting that national heritage and conservation bodies aren't reliable sources, that is frankly absurd. The reality is that they are the most reliable sources on such issues and we routinely use such sources in articles. Prioryman (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
You're ignoring the required independent sources that are needed. SL93 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that is relevant here - you're misunderstanding the requirement for "independence". The subject of the information signs is the human and natural history of the footpath and the area around it, not the organisations responsible for maintaining and renovating it. They're not writing about themselves, they're writing about issues within their areas of professional competence. Your objection is comparable to, for instance, objecting to citing the National Park Service on on the history of Yellowstone Park. I don't think anyone would consider that a reasonable thing to do. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, but this debate is pointless to me because there are better things to do on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Also, I would not object to that because Yellowstone Park does have plenty of independent coverage as well. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's a pointless debate, because you're not going to get to reject a DYK on tendentious grounds - it brings DYK into disrepute when reviewers act arbitrarily or tendentiously. We need more input on this one from more experienced editors. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It is pointless because I have no intention of rejecting it. SL93 (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, unlike Fram you've used the question mark icon rather than the yellow cross, so I guess you've not rejected it so far. But the two issues that you originally raised have been answered. The author of the informational panels is the Government of Gibraltar, the Gibraltar Heritage Trust and the Gibraltar Ornithological & Natural History Society, whose logos you can see at the top of File:Devil's Gap Footpath3.jpg. There's clearly nothing wrong with any of these three very authoritative bodies as sources. There's also no reason to suppose that the article is in any way promotional (and isn't it past time that bogus meme was taken out and shot, anyway?). Prioryman (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for editing the plot section on the article that I nominated. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. By the way, for anyone else who's reading this, SL93's Template:Did you know nominations/Sharknado needs someone to okay the proposed hook. Prioryman (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The article has been approved, but still needs hook approval. SL93 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording of two similar hooks was approved by a reviewer to be chosen by the promoter, but another hook suggestion was added. The reviewer's hook should be approved by someone else if they think it should be chosen. SL93 (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Hotel (Sioux City, Iowa)

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The reviewer said that my hook suggestions are inaccurate after I already brought forward two hooks that are accurate based on our conversation. SL93 (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsure why SL felt need to comment here. I went to bed last night after spending much time trying to catch and fix SL's repeatedly erroneous hook proposals and awoke to find his complaint here. A bit of patience is needed as people do need to sleep, after all. Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't about patience. It is about me not noticing the edit conflict. SL93 (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. All's well in the end, as Mandarax proposed an alt 6 that is quite good. Cbl62 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 10:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Mystery: Nomination that was never transcluded(?) but got reviewed

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Rosblofnari, I noticed an expression of bewilderment that Template:Did you know nominations/Palikir was never promoted to the main page, in spite of having been approved back in May. I tried to figure this out, but I can't find any evidence that it was ever transcluded to the noms page. Not being listed on the noms page would, of course, be an excellent explanation for not being moved to a prep area!

Can anyone else shed light on what might have happened here? I surmise that it could have been reviewed and approved as a result of being listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rosblofnari, but that doesn't explain how its absence from the noms page could have been overlooked. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't find it either, it looks like you're right about what happened.
Back in the day I was in communication with the person who runs DumbBOT and with Shubinator about getting a bot to automatically or semi-automatically find non-transcluded pages like this (User talk:DumbBOT#Using DumbBOT for DYK?). I don't think any progress was ever made with that, but if this is still a perennial problem then maybe it's worth revisiting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe DYKHousekeepingBOT notifies you automatically, but I suppose it must have been down when the nomination was made.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, one of the bots has been doing these kinds of notifications periodically. I wondered if the bot was fooled by the fact that the nom had already been reviewed. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I doubt it - it seems to detect purely creation not being followed by transclusion to the specific page.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The bot was disabled at the time the nomination was made on May 9. When the bot was enabled on May 11, it notified Dr. Blofeld about the untranscluded nomination. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about DYK and NPP

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm an active new page patroller and I also enjoy promoting articles to DYK. These two things seem like they would be cross compatible, but the problem is that the new page backlog is currently at 115 days, way way past the 5 day limit, and new page patrollers are encouraged to patrol from the back of this queue. I've come across numerous pages that I would love to take to DYK - well-written, well-cited, quite interesting articles - but they are sadly, months old, despite having never been patrolled: A few examples are Chang Hsien-yao, Battle of Santo Domingo (1586), and Chromosomal instability.

My question, I guess, is if there is some kind of workaround I'm missing - It's a shame that these pages will miss out on DYK simply because the queue is insane. Have exceptions ever been made, for example counting the five days from the date the article was marked as reviewed, as opposed to five days from creation? (I know, I know, and I understand why there is the 5-day age cap - I'm just curious and a little frustrated, I guess)

These aren't my articles, as one doesn't patrol their own work; I just think it would be a boon, both to editor retention and to both projects, if there was a way to latch the two together, or a way to allow nppatrollers to DYK pages they come across while patrolling, without having to patrol the front of the queue. --TKK bark ! 00:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it there a workaround, but that would be nice. My nominations of articles by other people are what I found by patrolling new pages. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The search result at User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult is intended, at least in part, to identify new articles that are potential candidates for DYK. I've made a few nominations recently from that search result (I also found at least one from skimming the NPP list), bit it's clear that the search result fails to pick up some excellent candidates, such as the ones that Tikuko lists. It seems to me that the "GoodSearchResult" list used to be a better source of DYK noms, but increasingly it seems like most of the results are pages with very little text, but thoroughly developed infoboxes and tables. This may simply be part of a trend toward more inclusion of bells and whistles on new pages than existed back when the rules for this search were created.
It could be beneficial to tweak the rules to decrease the emphasis on formatting niceties and find a way to give more weight to features like the presence of multiple citations. I don't understand the searching protocol well enough to suggest changes to the rules, but some of the rest of you might be able to parse the rules and figure out what could be done differently to improve the usefulness of these results for DYK. Suggestions ultimately should go to Tedder, who is currently running this search.
A work-around for NPP is to decouple DYK identification from patrolling new pages. I've found that there are enough details in the current list of new pages that I can skim quickly to identify some of the relatively small number of pages that might possibly be long enough and good enough for DYK. That's not as efficient as the GnodSearchResult, but it could work. --Orlady (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

SS Gallic in Prep 4

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Regarding the hook "that the cargo vessel SS Gallic had its name changed seven times during 37 years in service, despite the superstition that it is bad luck to change a ship's name?" presently in Prep 4, the hook portrays it like this is a present-day superstition, or at least that it was a superstition back when Gallic existed (1918-1956). As a source for this is cited some type of boating website.

A quick Google Books search (search text: "bad luck to change a ship's name") shows that, indeed, at some point in time there was such a superstition, but as early as November 1938 MotorBoating magazine said: "Often I have wondered what became of that old superstition that it is bad luck to change a ship's name. A glance through Lloyd's register would make most of them unlucky-if the old adage held good." Besides, there's no mention of anyone connected to SS Gallic holding such superstitions. There doesn't seem to be a connection. The article says this is a "... prevailing maritime superstition", but with only the boating website (of unknown reliability) to back that up. I suppose the superstition might have been present in the 19th century, but nowadays, as well as in the period of Gallic, ships very often change their names, usually when ownership change. Manxruler (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. Even if the superstition angle wouldn't necessarily hold water now, might a single ship having seven different names and six different owners across three different nationalities and continents still be noteworthy?Aumnamahashiva (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have pulled the hook as IMO the hook fact is unremarkable in any case - many merchant ships in modern times have multiple name changes. A new hook will have to be found. Gatoclass (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I verified the alt hook instead. Gatoclass (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Q1 lead needed

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Need a lead hook for Q1 within the next few hours, please. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not use the Q2 or Q3 lead hooks, to give more time to find other new leads? The P4 hook could be moved up into the later queues, if desired. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, now Q2 needs a lead. I don't want to move up the P4 lead at the moment - it's a long article and I haven't time to check through it properly. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria. Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I've promoted an additional picture hook and placed it in Prep 3. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Queue3

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Aren't the coordinates in the Asana River article excessively precise that it looks quite ridiculous? I don't know enough about these to go round changing these myself, so someone else ought to look at it. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Elsie Lie and Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Darren Ng

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see that Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Darren Ng has been promoted already. The creator and nominator now wants to use a similar hook for another article he wrote Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Elsie Lie. I would suggest combining these into a one double hook, if the nominator agrees. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio and new/expanded articles?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I've just completed a major series of re-writes on the SK8 article. The original was largely a copyvio from a former Apple page, no longer available on the 'net but still there in all it's 1990s glory in the Archive (thank you Mr. Kahle!).

I'd like to list this for DYK, but I'm not sure how it works in this case. The content is all-new (I hope!) and the article is entirely different, but unless I ignore the former close-quoted version, I'm not sure it hits the 5x requirement - although I'm not great with the tool...

Am I OK to post this one?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't delved into the history enough to be sure I know what version you were expanding from, but I ran the DYKcheck tool on this pre-expansion version of the article, and I find that the current version is less than a 3x expansion. --Orlady (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC) What parts of that pre-expansion version were copyvio? (It looks like you rewrote and replaced as you went along, rather than deleting the copyvio at the beginning of your efforts.) --Orlady (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
this was the last major version. The history section is either identical to or close-quoted from the original Apple page, saved here. The lead and other sections are largely from the front page here or other links therein. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(undenting) I think the point may be getting lost here... the question is when an article, any article, consists largely of copyvio or similar, does the original length count for DYK purposes when it is re-written? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Normally when an old article is thoroughly revised and expanded, we calculate DYK eligibility using its previous length as the basis for the 5x calculation. However, if the old article was a copyvio, the amount of content that was a blatant copyvio is deducted from the previous length before we do that calculation. That's why we need to know how much of the old article was a copyvio. --Orlady (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Queue 2 missing a lead article

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Queue 2, which is next in line for the Main page, is missing a lead article. Manxruler (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Less than an hour is left until the template updates so some admin needs to fix this issue quickly. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been taken care of. SL93 (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The image does not appear in the lead article in Queue 5. Froggerlaura ribbit 01:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I can see it. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I replaced the hook with another image hook. --Orlady (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Terwilliger curves

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

At the nomination, the reviewer pointed out a concern with a reference. The reference says that it is a reprint of an article by Lisa Grace Lednicer for the Oregonian, but the author link points to a member at [8]. Lednicer actually is a staff writer for the Oregonian though. I was wondering if someone could verify if it is an actual reprint to help the reviewer and myself out. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I solved the issue myself... SL93 (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kovan double murder

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

I am concerned about potential WP:BLP issues with this nomination and would like to hear some other opinions before this nomination is promoted. My concern is that the hook discusses a "suspected perpetrator" to a recent crime that the article names and shows has been arrested in connection to a recent crime (10 July 2013) and police investigation. However, there has not yet been time in which to hold a trial or provide any other form of due process. My primary concern is with the potential of indirectly describing the arrested individual on the Main page and then learning a few days later that he has been cleared of all wrong doing. --Allen3 talk 18:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I share your concern about referring to a "suspected perpetrator". I would be a lot more comfortable with language along the general lines of "...that a policeman was arrested in connection with the Kovan double murder?" Also, language in the article that describes him as the perpetrator (e.g., "the suspect was accompanied by policemen at the crime scene in Kovan for a re-enactment of his crime") needs to be scrubbed. --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time right now to take a close look at the article, but have placed a hold on it while these issues are under discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed and going for death penalty!!! :) :) :)   [9] ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 09:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yarh. Agreed, it's not yet "confirmed" so to speak. As much as I wish for such a scum to rot in the gallows (forgive me), the source AK quoted clearly stated that the man "could face hanging if convicted of murdering car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin". Right now he is only charged. It is quite obvious though lah. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It is clear from the sources that a policeman was arrested for the crime. Wikipedia can report that sort of thing, but it shouldn't get involved in reporting on gruesome speculations. --Orlady (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Forget BLP, I have no idea how this is even notable as an encyclopedic topic. It looks like a run of the mill news report for a murder. Resolute 15:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to tell about this sort of event. It takes time to determine how significant it is. However, I think a case can be made that this one is notable, due to the international coverage it has received, such as [10], [11], [12], and [13]. It seems to me that Singapore's reputation for strict "law and order" probably makes this story far less "run of the mill" than it would be in some other parts of the world. --Orlady (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually I'm surprised that countries (other than our neighbours) know about it, such as Australia. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

scheduling request error

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

At Template:Did you know nominations/King & Maxwell, I requested a Wednesday or late Tuesday queue, but realized afterwards that I want a Tuesday or late Monday queue. Allen3 (talk · contribs) promptly put it in a Wednesday queue, but can someone swap it into a Tuesday queue?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

to be clear, I am requesting that King & Maxwell be swapped from queue 3 to queue 1 before 12:00 UTC today, when it will be too late.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone watching this page??--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I am going to bed. I hope someone takes care of this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Please allow me to thank everyone for spooching the pooch on this one ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201307/King_%26_Maxwell ).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Another "newness" problem on a template

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Symbolic ethnicity. Another discussion trying to disqualify an article that was moved to main space within the time frame. It's taking a different turn, an accusation that these started as redirects. Please refer to the above link and comment at will there. — Maile (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Queue 5

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Pls check the credit templates. Thanks. --174.89.158.208 (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_95&oldid=1151017459"