Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Did you know?
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
	v; t; e;

Did you know?
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
	v; t; e;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:30, 12 February 2009

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

Template:Archive box collapsible

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

Inappropriate linking in Did You Know

On 1 February 2009, a DYK reads: "that landscape architecture firm West 8 designed the so-called "Reptile Bridge" between Leidsche Rijn and Utrecht in the Netherlands?". Rather than "Reptile Bridge" wikilinking to an article about the bridge (which would be interesting), it individually links to articles about the two words "reptile" and "bridge" (which is not very informative). Incidentally, there is no such linking in the "West 8" article itself. Perhaps we can be a bit more careful with wikilinks? Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inappropriate so much as not ideal. Bridge is an okay link, reptile perhaps not relevant. Please note in this case, there is no Reptile Bridge article. Generally hooks are checked for # of characters, that they're referenced in the article, NPOV and at least minimally interesting. They're then copied into the queue as is. To make secondary links in hooks more relevant, you can suggest alternate hooks for future DYKs at T:TDYK. I have doubts about it being made a rule though, given the two pages of rules (WP:DYK WP:DYKAR). Currently the rules say to check that it's not a disambiguation page and no redlinks. TransUtopian (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC) (edit: Since you've contributed to DYK, you already know most or all of this. Sorry.)[reply]

DYKAdminBot may have malfunctioned

I think there's been a glitch ... the Queue 1 hooks (starting with the Flora of Saskatchewan hook) did not make it on to the main page. The stage in the process where the bot copies them to the main page and leaves the edit summary "Adminbot automatically updating DYK template with hooks copied from queue 1" seems to have been missed. All the credits and everything else were done. I'm copying this to Nixeagle's talk page as well (bot owner), but must dash - my lunch break is over! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have retrieved the unused set of hooks from Q1's history and placed them on Q2. I hope the bot will actually post them on MainPage this time.--PFHLai (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

It's been almost 8^1/2 hours since the last update...(look at the history of T:DYK...) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The bot just put up Queue hooks #2... COMPLETELY skipping the first hooks yet giving everyone credit anyway. I think the bot f'd up. Wizardman 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone will have to block the bot and go back to updating by hand, until nixeagle has had a chance to fix it. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the issue noted above, I got a DYK credit for Carol Hutchins, but the hook never made it to the main page. Presumably, other hooks are in the same situation and should be put back in queue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have retrieved the unused set of hooks from Q1's history and placed them on Q2. I hope the bot will actually post them on MainPage this time. --PFHLai (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double creds though? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd left out the {DYKmake} and {DYKnom} templates to avoid double crediting (see Q2). Hope this works. --PFHLai (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that someone got double credits. First [1] + [2] and later [3] + [4]. Punkmorten (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different episode of errors by the Bot. The same set of hooks from Q4 were posted on MainPage twice, archived twice and most of the credits were given out twice. Apparently, after posting the hooks on MainPage at 19:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC), the Bot forgot to blank Q4 and replace them with {{User:DYKadminBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}, and no one noticed. When Q4's turn came up again after a cycle of updates, the same hooks were posted again at 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC). I've removed the duplications from the DYK archive and the usertalkpages. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block the bot until nixeagle figures out the problem? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is forgetful and needs a supervisor/nanny/follow-upper to complete any unfinished businesses at each updates. I don't think it has made any harmful edits to deserve getting blocked. If it makes ~20 of the 25+ edits it is supposed to make at each update, whoever monitors it only has to do ~5 any time before the next update. If it's blocked, we have to make all ~25 ourselves AND we have to watch the clock. Letting it run may also allow nixeagle to watch for patterns of omissions and may therefore be helpful in determining the cause(s) of its problems. --PFHLai (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, as inconvenient as it is to have to check up on the bot, it was way more inconvenient not to have to have to bot at all. - Dravecky (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - that makes sense. Never mind :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another glitch

Same as what Hassocks reported. The bot thought it had updated from queue 4, and did everything except update the DYK template. It gave out credits, reset the clock, and cleaned out queue 4. I've emailed Nixeagle. Shubinator (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the CN article be given a pass?

I know it doesn't strictly meet the 5 times guideline, but I've made a lot of effort on completely re-writing this page into something I think is much better. It went from 8k to 27. I'd like to put it up for DYK, and if the answer is "no" due to the rule then perhaps I can be given a couple of days to expand so it does hit it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the "CN article"? --NE2 02:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Maury's recent contributions, I'd guess Numerical control. Bencherlite ^Talk 02:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it won't pass if it's 8k to 27k. Expansion is counted from the previous version of the article, no matter how bad it is and how much of it you have completely rewritten; this is to provide an objective measure and to avoid lots of arguments over how much an article has "improved" (with the fast turnover necessary at DYK, we usually don't have time to perform such in-depth and subjective assessments). If you have it up to 4.5x expansion or something like that we would be able to bend the rules, given how long an article it already is, but at the current expansion it would probably not pass. I recommend you spend a couple days expanding it more (as you suggested), if there's enough justified material to add without artificially bloating it; just make sure you do it fast enough that it doesn't get outside of the 5-day limit.

Also keep in mind, even if you can't reach 5x expansion for DYK, an article of that size and which you have worked on this much would probably be a great candidate for GAN :). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a count on the Numerical control article (which I assume is the article you're working on). It appears that the current prose size (not counting wiki markup, tables, etc.) is only 22k characters, not 27k (counted with User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, which is about a 3x expansion from what it was before (about 7600). You'll definitely need to expand it more before doing a DYK...if you can't expand it that much, though, you can definitely at least get it to GA. Best, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. We'll just let readers find it the old fashioned way. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old stone jail hook

Should my old stone jail hook, currently ont he front page, say "was the last stone jail" instead of "is the last stone jail", as it is no longer a jail, but instead a b'n'b?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just saw this and it's off the Main Page already. Art LaPella (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expiring nom overlooked?

Other than an Alt hook suggested by Alansohn, there's been no action on my Jan. 28 DYK nom of Tony Jannus Award. Why? JGHowes ^talk 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) (later): As someone with 15 DYK's to my credit, I think an explanation is in order as to why this one was simply ignored without comment—I've never had this happen before. The nom met all criteria, is well sourced and, I thought, interesting. At least an explanation would be nice. JGHowes talk 13:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being ignored, the hook is in Queue #2 which should place it on the Main Page in the next 18 hours or so. - Dravecky (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I must get my glasses checked! I looked in all the usual places earlier today (queues, edit summaries, etc.) and didn't see it.

JGHowes ^talk 16:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sometimes the Queue page doesn't properly display its most current state until you hit the "purge" link. - Dravecky (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK timer

Now the Bot is updating after 5 hours and 52 minutes. This is worse than the the old frequency of 6 hours and 5 minutes and both are worse than setting the damn thing to perform every 6 hours. Can we make it 6 hours and 00 minutes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still more punctual that most humans. Let's worry about the bot's problem with missing edits, per Wikipedia talk:Did you know#DYKAdminBot may have malfunctioned above, first. --PFHLai (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, especially since the bot should still be running on the 5 hour pace the timer is set for but never actually achieved with the timer set to 18000 seconds. I don't know if nixeagle ever figured out what the heck was up with the timer. In the meantime, I've going to change the alert back to 6 hours since all it's doing now is reliably going to yellow alert for 52 minutes 4 times a day. - Dravecky (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it is now 6 on the dot. Thanks. Now we just got to get it going at 0:00, 6:00, 12:00 and 18:00.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of lead sections in submissions

This is something that has been bugging me for a long time. We get a great many articles that contain no formatting at all except maybe a few paragraphs. There is no introduction and often no sections except for the refs/footnotes. Basically, these articles are just slabs of text and they look very drab and unininteresting. For the shorter ones, they also tend to look like just a handful of paragraphs strung together - which is what many of them are, but without headers the impression is even worse.

I don't think we can justifiably mandate the addition of headers throughout an article, but I don't see why we could not make it a requirement that all DYK submissions include a discrete lead section, which means a section separated from the rest of the text by a header. Every article really should have a lead section giving a brief summary of the contents in any case, so I don't think anyone could argue that this is an unreasonable requirement. I had to add section headers to at least six submissions this evening, and quite frankly I'm getting a little tired of tryng to make other people's articles meet minimal standards of presentation. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles that just meet the 1500 character threshhold usually look very odd and distracting with section headers. Headers need not be required unless there is over 3000 characters.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some people have the opposite problem, being overly fond of adding a section header for every second sentence. However, as I said I'm just proposing a requirement for one header, to create a lead section separate from the main body of the article. I don't think one can argue that is excessive, even for a short article. Gatoclass (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think getting into mandating section headers, leads or other WP:MOS details would be a bit of instruction creep. The simplest solution is to up the minimum characters to 2000, 2500 or 3000. More fully developed articles tend to be better formatted with more defined leads and sections. As Bedford noted, 1500 char articles look very odd with headers and leads. By their nature they really just are stubs and "slabs of text". If 1500 is our bare threshold, then we shouldn't be disappointed with the quality of these "stubby" articles. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Agne, but I must disagree. Even a 1,500 char article is considerably improved in appearance with a discrete lead section. Even a single header makes an article look better organized and more substantial - and by making a lead section a requirement, we may actually encourage submitters to become a little more conscious of the organization of their information, which can hardly be a bad thing. Gatoclass (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat my usual refrain here: there's no need to "mandate" anything other than that the reviewers always have the right to reject or delay an article for being crappy, no matter whether or not the rules give a specific reason for why it's crappy. It might cause teh dramaz from time to time, but we have to exercise judgement now and then. There will always be people whining that our rules don't cover enough (sometimes I'm in that camp) and people on the other side whining that we don't use discretion enough (sometimes I'm in that camp, too), so there's no point trying to satisfy all of them. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 03:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the spirit of Gato's argument - there should be some basic formatting in articles. I don't think we should mandate it, but no headings in an article look like a "run on paragraphs" that are difficult to read. I often add at least one heading in an article because I assume that if it has none that the contributor is relatively new to Wikipedia. Royalbroil 05:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just make it a recommendation then? "It is recommended that the submitted article contain a lead section, per WP:LEAD" or something? Gatoclass (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section headers aren't needed for 1.5k articles, which are basically just a stub. Otherwise, people will write a 1,k articles, put headers in and then put in an unecessary header and lead to puff up a stub. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People could do that already if they wanted to. Requiring (or recommending) a separate lead section is neither here nor there in that respect. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could, of course, just require articles to be well-written, which would require good organization and paragraph structure. Whoa. Crazy. Awadewit (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too fussed - I always saw DYK as an experiment in a quick peer review for improving articles in a nice collaborative way, hence improvement in formatting etc that occurs around the nom is a good thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to DYK award description

Up until now the description of the {{The DYK Medal}} award has been simply "Award for significant contributions to DYK." Unfortunately it appears that some users are interpreting this as an award for less than 25 article contributions, which is not AFAIK how we've generally used it. So I've been WP:BOLD and altered the description as follows: Award for significant contributions to the operation of DYK, excluding article contributions.

If someone objects to this I'm open to discussion, but I do think that there should be a separate award for contributors to the day-to-day running of DYK, so if we're not going to use this existing award we should create a new one specifically for this kind of contributor. Gatoclass (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot failed to clear again

Just for the record, the Bot failed to clear the queue page after doing the credits again. I note that the update included a hook containing a nomination with parenthesis again (). Could this be a common factor in the Bot's occasional failure to clear queue pages? Gatoclass (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It failed to do so a second time, and also seems to be randomly missing credits, so please check carefully after it updates, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USS Connecticut (BB-18)

Why is this article appearing in the DYK when it was created in 2003? AP1787 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that there was a 5x expansion between 6 January and the current time. However, it doesn't look like there was enough of an expansion. Someone may have thought that there was enough to warrant it. Who passed it? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone double check, but it doesn't look like they made the 5x expansion in 5 days. Jan 30, Feb 1, 2, 3, 4. The 5x seems to appear about Feb 5/6, which misses it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was passed by Shubinator and promoted by me. The first edit to set the clock running was at 8:56 UTC on January 30 and by 22:28 UTC on February 3 the article had been expanded from a pre-edit prose character count of 4191 to 21736, or just over 5x in just over 4.5 days, well within the 5 day guideline. - Dravecky (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava - prose was 5x. In the original article, the infobox took up a large percentage of the 'byte count'. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this counter, with copy and pasted entries without formatting, there are 3,850 (need 19,250 for 5x) characters in the Jan 6th version. I'm also getting only 20,300 for the February 5th number. So, it seems like there is something a little off here. For the Feb 3rd number, I'm only getting about 18,100. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated by this edit, on February 6, and therefore it was submitted in the "Expiring noms" section. Therefore, it doesn't comply with WP:DYK#Selection criteria, but that's fairly normal; the real de facto rule is described more honestly by Additional Rule D8. Art LaPella (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naval encyclopedia

Major copyright violation found in the Feb 3rd version used to justify the expansion.

Feb 3rd:

In the summer of 1920, Connecticut sailed to the Caribbean and the west coast on a midshipman-Naval Reserve training cruise. The next summer found her in European ports on similar duty, and upon her return to Philadelphia 21 August 1921, was as signed as flagship Train, Pacific Fleet. She arrived at San Pedro, Calif., 28 October, and during the following year cruised along the west coast, taking part in exercises and commemorations. Entering Puget Sound Navy Yard 16 December 1922, Conne cticut was decommissioned there 1 March 1923, and sold for scrapping 1 November 1923, in accordance with the Washington Treaty for the limitation of naval armaments.

Naval dictionary:

In the summer of 1920, Connecticut sailed to the Caribbean and the west coast on a midshipman-Naval Reserve training cruise. The next summer found her in European ports on similar duty, and upon her return to Philadelphia 21 August 1921, was as signed as flagship Train, Pacific Fleet. She arrived at San Pedro, Calif., 28 October, and during the following year cruised along the west coast, taking part in exercises and commemorations. Entering Puget Sound Navy Yard 16 December 1922, Conne cticut was decommissioned there 1 March 1923, and sold for scrapping 1 November 1923, in accordance with the Washington Treaty for the limitation of naval armaments.

Even the typographic error with "Conne cticut" was copied over.

This version cannot be used to justify a 5x expansion. We need to go through and see what else was still a copyright violation before this page was accepted. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um hold on a sec: DANFS, as a work of the U.S. federal government, is PD - that's why we have so many U.S. Navy ship articles (they are all copied over). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain requires an acknowledgment of the source. This would, at the very minimum, require quotation marks. Regardless, copyrighted or pd information is not counted towards prose size, especially when this would have to be block quoted. Thus, the article fell short about 2.5k characters from reaching the 5x expansion. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness. Check any U.S. battleship article that is not BB-35, BB-36 or BB-61 through 66. They are all close DANFS copies (well, some differences as people have edited them over the 6 years they have been here since being copied over in '03, but very close).

I was still working on this article on February 3rd, which is why that para was still in there - that was the last part of the article I had to get to, as I worked on the ship's history from beginning to end. Also note that that is completely changed and referenced now. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they contain uncited copied information then we have a major problem. Seeing as how two of them are FA class, I am going to inform SandyGeorgia of this. Regardless if the edits were changed or not, it was declared above that the February third diff was the one chosen as proof that it made the 5x expansion within 5 days, which it clearly does not. Along with what Art points out above, this article is disqualified to be a DYK and should never have been selected. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every battleship article that is NOT those. I.e. BB-1 through BB-34, BB-37 through BB-60. Also, in those, it is cited, but not with in-line citations. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In-line citations is not enough. Direct language needs to be in quotes. I put a note saying that they need to be checked for language that is direct or "too similar". If a few articles have a known to have a problem, then chances are many others have a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, it doesn't. See also: Talk:USS Nevada (BB-36)/GA1#question/suggestion on DANFS sourcing.

I have invited comment from WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST on this matter. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is why we have {{DANFS}}. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't? That violates every single copyright law out there. You cannot take direct wording from any source without quoting it and attributing it as a direct quotation. It is simply not acceptable. I am thoroughly disgusted by the practices of articles that you are involved in and I wish nothing further to do with you. I will take this up with OTRS and the rest and expunge these problems from Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed this with Raul on IRC; he said that (quotes for different posts):

"DANFS is public domain. You can do anything you want with it" "at least from a copyright perspective" "he might be right about the need to cite it though" "per the citing sources policy"

I believe that the "citing" is covered by {{DANFS}} and/or in-line citations, especially when all copied text has been changed (see: USS Connecticut (BB-18), USS Nevada (BB-36), USS Iowa (BB-61)) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, let me make it clear that I am not attacking you or anyone who worked on the articles. Lets be clear about that. However, most people around here know my involvement with the 1911 Britannica and how I have been slowly trying to purge it from Wikipedia and replace it with a higher standard. With that said, let me express the concerns: they are two fold. The first is that PD should be cited and attributed so people can know exactly what the PD language is. The second concern is that failing to do this would lead to people citing direct language to another source, meaning, you have a quote taken from one source but you put in a second source to "verify" it. Thus, you would be attributing a direct quote to the wrong source. This is a major headache and a problem with pages that use to be part of the 1911. This needs to be known and made aware of so people can purge the old language out completely. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Out) DANFS text is used at least in part in over 8,000 articles. This has been discussed several times before (one such discussion here). As long as {{DANFS}} was present at the time the text was in the article, it's perfectly fine, copyright-wise. Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Ad Ed and Parsec pointed out, Template:DANFS, which adds the following text:

This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.

is designed for use on any article that includes text copied verbatim from that source. So suggestions of copyright violations and/or plagiarism are a bit much… — Bellhalla (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is on strong legal grounds. As I pointed out, this is fine when the whole article is taken from the source. However, when you start adding attributions to other pages and cite information that may be directly quoted from the PD source, that is a major problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If anyone has problems with the use of DANFS text, you'll have to talk to people at WP:SHIPS, who have been doing it for a long time and, as Parsecboy points out, have consensus in their favor. A long time ago I ran into an article that was a direct copy of DANFS text and I almost had it speedied, which is how I got my induction into PD-copying issues. Personally it's something that I don't like, but it's been going on for a long time and in many areas so if someone wants to start a battle about it this isn't really the place; it's so ingrained here now that it would have to be subject to a community-wide discussion, RfC, etc. All DYK can do is maybe decide that articles with PD text are ineligible (which is a decision we haven't made yet; personally, I just always refused to review articles with PD text, and left them to someone else); if there you want greater community-wide action to be taken, DYK is really just a tiny part, and you would also need to have an open RfC and (hopefully before that) talk to people at WPSHIPS and WP:Plagiarism, both of which have discussed these issues a lot. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that per se. Its that the original complain is over the blockquote of information that was neither quoted or blocked in as it should have been. It was decided by the consensus that large chunks of information from a published source does not count towards prose size anymore. In this situation, it would matter in terms of if this page met the 5x expansion or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On very large article expansions, especially those that have been further expanded after the 5-day window, I am quite willing to accept a 4.9ish-x expansion as permitted by the guidelines so discounting that one brief passage of PD text would not have changed my decision to promote the article. - Dravecky (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused here. That wasn't even used to count towards an expansion - I rewrote the entire paragraph when I finally finished the expansion of the article. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dravecky claimed that he was going off of that page. As per Art, the nomination was too late to be considered. Regardless, Dravecky's math is way off. It would be, at most, 4.7 x expansion with the inclusion of the last paragraph. Less than 4.5 without. This is troubling, seeing as how this is yet another page with problems with copyright issues and not meeting the guidelines that Dravecky has promoted in recent history. This is a pattern that should not be happening. The page is instant disqualified by what Art has said. Dravecky should have seen that one too. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further note - both users that Dravecky bent the rules for are also members of the WikiCup. If this is a coincidence or not, it is obvious that Dravecky should stop reviewing entries done by WikiCup participants to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dravecky "claimed" no such thing. As it's been a couple of days, I couldn't tell you the exact edit I looked at when reviewing the article, already approved by another editor, for promotion. I merely did the math that anybody here could have done to point out that 5x expansion took place in 4.5 days and your initial charge was incorrect. In any case, based on the character count I used my math was not "way off" and the article appeared more than suitable for promotion based on the presented expansion. Oh, and I am in no way connected to or involved with the WikiCup and have no idea who might be so involved. But, hey, thanks for continuing to slander me and question my judgment. - Dravecky (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "by 22:28 UTC on February 3 the article had been expanded from a pre-edit prose character count of 4191 to 21736" above. As I pointed out, this is clearly not the case, as it fell short by at least 2k. Your character counter was wrong. And yes, I am questioning your judgment because you keep coming up in problematic situations. You are either reckless or have been passing articles off without a thorough look through for those involved in a competition that tries to rack up as many articles passed as possible. Either way, this questions your judgment to pass these articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated for the record that I am not involved with this "competition" in any way so the notion that I've show favor to anybody involved is beyond the pale. I have tried to engage you calmly and rationally, showing you that your charges and accusations are incorrect. As you keep shifting the goalposts and persisting in a curiously personal attack against me, I am choosing to disengage from this discussion and return to productive work. Good luck in your future endeavors. - Dravecky (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks? You can try to shift responsibility by claiming that my concerns are "personal attacks" (which is a severe abuse of the term) all you want. However, that does not mean that you didn't pass multiple articles off with copyright concerns. Do you even check them before passing them? It only took a cursory glance to find language that seemed to stick out and seem unnatural in the document provided here and in Doug's pages. If you are unwilling to stop copyrighted material from hitting the mainpage, what does that say about Wikipedia? If you happen to pass one more set with copyright problems I will call for your desysopping or your complete ban from passing anymore hooks. This needs to stop now. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question contained, at one point, a paragraph or two in the public domain that was by the time I actually reviewed the article to be promoted (which is after another editor already checked it and approved it) apparently rewritten and properly integrated into the text of the article so at no time was this an article with "copyright problems" headed for the front page. We agree on one thing: "this" needs tp stop now. - Dravecky (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check again. That is not a paragraph or two, and that book is definitely copyrighted. It goes throughout the whole page. This is still in the current edition and was in the version displayed on the main page. This is completely unacceptable and you should have caught this. You didn't catch the major copyright problems with Doug's pages nor this one. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But DYK requires originals right? so the copied part doesn't count. Otherwise there will be a flood of people cutting and pasting Us govt country profiles from the CIA and hundreds of copied Education/Transport/Tourism in XXX will pop up. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(many e/c's, @ Ottava above) There are no copyright problems. I've said it above, and you are ignoring it. And considering that the article I expanded was 9,114 bytes on 6 January, I think that 4.7x or 4.9x is close enough.

(after) And stop bringing WP:CUP up. The reason why I wrote and expanded this so that we have a relevant article for TFA on 22 February - the centennial of the Great White Fleet. It wasn't for the Cup or any other reason. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the Cup is a competition between individual editors - so he would have failed my hook if he was trying to help himself in it. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ed17, any PD information is not appropriate for character counts. This PD information, if used properly, would have had to be block quoted to be included. Block quotes are no longer counted. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This book is not in the public domain. This diff, which is the first to be over 5x expansion, contains information worded in a far too similar manner:

"Based out of Philadelphia, Connecticut trained midshipman for the next eleven months." and "Connecticut spent the next eleven months based out of Philadelphia training midshipmen" All that did was take one end of the sentence and switch it around. This is a violation.
"On 2 May 1920, 200 midshipman boarded the ship for a training cruise" and "On May 20, 1920, BB-18 arrived at Annapolis to pick up 200 midshipmen for a training cruise"

I could go on, but as you can see, there is wording that is far too similar to fall under adequate citation guidelines. Thus, more text is in violation and should be dismissed towards the expansion even at a later date. A more thorough check would be necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Connecticut (BB-18). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the wording is "far too similar". One or two sentences that contain similar information does not amount to a "copyvio". Gatoclass (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not one or two sentences. That was a selection at random. It goes through the whole document, and my whole life deals with copyright. Taking phrases from a source and not quoting the phrases is the very definition of copyright infringment, Gatoclass. This needs to be stopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD text does not have to be blockquoted or put in quotemarks. It can be reused in any way an editor sees fit. However, in an article that includes both DANFS PD text and considerable amounts of text from other sources, it would obviously be helpful if the DANFS text was cited to source where appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD text does indeed have to be quoted. Think about it this way: Shakespeare's plays are in the public domain. You can't just quote Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" speech without putting quotation marks around it and saying it is from Shakespeare. Clearly, a rapper is free to adapt the speech, since it is in the PD, but when you cite it word for word, you need quotation marks and an attribution. This is simple and easy - when you quote something word for word, it requires quotation marks and a citation. Awadewit (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, you must distinguish original authorship of any work. Copyright vs Public Domain means the ability to -profit- off of another person's work without paying royalties. It does not mean that full attribution is no longer necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the use of unattributed public domain text is plagiaristic, can you guys point out which policy or guideline says attributed public domain text must be quoted and/or in blockquote format? I'm not aware of such a requirement. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of WP:V would put forth the need for a citation regardless if it is a quote or not. Now, This spells out clearly that it is any source, not necessarily a source whose copyright is still in existence. This essay discusses what a quotation should be (based on academic understanding of what could be considered material that is under the right of someone else) - "In general, using three or more consecutive words from a source is a quotation." Not having quotes does not mean that it isn't a quotation. It just means that it failed to cite the quotation properly, and can be viewed as a copyright problem. The only difference between "PD" quotes and "Copyrighted" quotes is that Fair Use limits how much you can take from a copyrighted source (a small number unless it is absolutely necessary for an educational point and only if it is appropriately done and does not violate the author's ability to profit) vs unlimited sized quotations if its from a PD source. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PD clearly states that For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for any purpose. Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism.

So, one must attribute a PD work, but one is under no obligation to place PD in quote marks, since you can use the text in any way that you see fit. End of story. BTW, instead of this nonsense, we currently need more hook reviewers, for anyone reading this. Gatoclass (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Gato that this discussion is not really productive. It seems that the discussion began as a discussion of how PD text should play into character count for expansion purposes, which is relevant here... but an extended discussion of whether PD text should be in articles or not, in terms of plagiarism issues and WP:V policy, is a broad discussion that is not really appropriate or constructive here, and has already been discussed numerous times in the places I linked above. The discussion could be carried on elsewhere. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 18:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, attributions means to label the source. This would require quotation marks also unless you are declaring that the whole document is from that source. And nonsense? Copyrighted material displayed on the main page is not nonsense. We have had over 4 ANI major consensus builds that almost removed the whole DYK process because of people allowing copyrighted material on the main page. As I pointed out, a -non-Public Domain source- had directly lifted passages in the page passed by an admin who didn't bother to check the page properly. The fact that you ignored that is highly troublesome. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, did we not go over this (sort of) on IRC? "Passages" is inaccurate - "one sentence" is closer...and to expect an admin to catch one sentence is unreasonable. Just leave this alone, for crying out loud. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment here. The DANFS is certainly in the public domain, and a can be copied by anyone without any copyright risks. So copyright is not a concern here. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on using the DANFS template versus inline citations. Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't copyright - we all agree it is in the PD. The issue is to what extent the copied text needs to be cited. All direct quotations, whether from PD text or not, are supposed to be surrounded by quotation marks and cited. The issue is not just one of copyright. We don't cite Shakespeare or Milton without quotation marks (texts in the PD) - why would we cite the DANFS without quotation marks? The point is that we can't copy word-for-word without proper attribution. Period. Awadewit (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is just not how we treat encyclopedic text that is copied from the 1911 EB or the 1913 CE or the DANFS, and some other sources. It should be attributed, and probably more clearly so than is often the case, but a major change in concensus is needed before it is treated as "quotations". In the case of the older encyclopedias that would be complicated because the text could not then be given the necessary updating, rewording for fancy language, & corrections, without the page looking an awful mess. Of course, ideally all such text would be replaced by proper new text, but we are a long way off that in some areas. Personally I don't feel overjoyed at new material being added from such sources, but that has the backing of concensus. Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the silliest conversations I have ever seen on Wikipedia, frankly. It doesn't matter if the entire community thinks it is fine to copy this text without quotation marks - it isn't - it is plagiarism. Plagiarism is entirely separate from copyright. Whenever text is copied word-for-word, it must be encased in quotation marks and its source clearly marked, however messy that may be. Consensus is not always right and in this case it is demonstrably wrong. Awadewit (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a term paper! Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How well I know that. This is a question of basic ethical standards as well as transparency. Our readers deserve to know who wrote what. Awadewit (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The resistance is the belief that using previously published material is good enough for Wikipedia meeting the idea that what we produce as amateurs could be much better. In disguise, it's called a question of ethics. Don't let what exists constrain you or your writing. Be better. Always. --Moni3 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not forget that there were passages that were taken from copyrighted sources, so its not just about PD text but about using sources in general. We are trying to create an -original- document. We can rely on quotations and blockquotes as part of that, but when we start passing it off as our -original- work, then thats a problem. Quotations and blockquotes are signifiers that it is not ours. Pages that relied on the 1911 were taken in whole and then marked as that. If we are to pass off a whole page as ours, then we need to have limited quotations so people can know. But none of this matters except that the text is not admissible for character count at DYK. Simply not blockquoting a section that should be blockquoted is not acceptable to get around the fact that blockquotes are not counted towards the character count requirement. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(@ copyvio from copyrighted sources) Ottava, I'll say it again with stronger wording. When talking about the copyrighted source that you claim I copyvioed from, you say that I took "passages" from it. That is totally and completely inaccurate - "one sentence" (on accident) is what you should be saying. Seriously. I'm going to go to AN/I if you keep on claiming that I copyvioed when writing that article, becuase this is ridiculously stupid and bordering on harassment. In essence: find me more evidence or back away from the dead horse. Thanks.

(@ copyvio from PD source) - Why don't you take this to a policy talk page if you guys feel so strongly...arguing here at DYK isn't going to alter the policy. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this clear - your wording took more than three consecutive words at a time from a clearly copyrighted source. This happened on multiple lines. If you were one of my students, you would have been recommended to be expelled. Regardless, copyrighted violation information does not count towards character count just as blockquotes do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this clear: as far as I know, it happened in one sentence on one line. What other lines would you be happening to refer too? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character counting is a matter for DYK consensus. Copyright rules are a matter for experts, preferably lawyers, and discussing a change belongs at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations. Art LaPella (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I agree with Art. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel here; go talk it over with the copyright mavens over at the appropriate page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was displayed on the main page because an admin here failed to check for copyright problems. There were problems with PD and still copyrighted texts. Although ed says "one sentence", I have pointed out two consecutive sentences that contain problems. That was from a cursory glance. This is completely unacceptable to have such things on the main page. We have had people banned from DYK for many months because of copyright problems. I would recommend that Dravecky be suspended from passing DYK for a month because he failed to check here, on Doug's pages, and on other pages. I would also recommend that Ed be suspended for a month for having multiple copyright problems on the page and still thinking that it is acceptable to contain full phrases without quotations from copyrighted sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? Me? The only thing I suspend around here is disbelief.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More random checking, you be the one to judge which one is from Wikipedia and which one is from a copyrighted text (p. 37):

"On April 25, 1907, President Theory Roosevelt officially opened the Jamestown Exposition. Battleship Connecticut was named official host for vessels visiting from other nations [...] Sailors and Marines from Connecticut took part in many events ashore. On April 29, the governors of Virginia and Rhode Island joined many foreign dignitaries for festivities aboard Connecticut'"
"President Theodore Roosevelt opened the Jamestown Exposition on 25 April, and Connecticut was named as the official host for the vessels that were visiting from other countries. Sailors and marines from the ship took part in various events ashore, and foreign dignitaries, along with the governors of Virginia and Rhode Island, were hosted aboard the ship on 29 April. Evans closed the Exposition on 4 May on the quarterdeck of Connecticut. On 10 June, Connecticut joined in the Presidential Fleet Review; she left three days later for an overhaul in the New York Naval Yard"

The similarities are far too close. I can continue, but I am finding that just about every use of this source contains passages in violation and this should never have been approved. Only an immediate prohibition on these members is an appropriate response to this. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The similarities are... similarities, at best, and hardly the kind of blatant copyright infringement that could reasonably be expected to be caught during the DYK review process. - Dravecky (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh… Both have the phrase "President Theodore Roosevelt" (assuming a typo in the former example). That's a copyright violation right there, isn't it, Ottava, since it's three or more words from the source? ;) Seriously, though, how would you suggest conveying the information from the source so that it passes your "copyright violation-smell-test"? Help us out here… — Bellhalla (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even more phrases. This is a severe violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I hadn't closed for renovation, last time I checked. Who do you think the Jets will start at QB with Favre retiring?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, since you think that calling for his ban from DYK for a few months in response to abuse of copyrighted information doesn't belong on the talk page anymore, I have taken it up at ANI. We all know that there will be a problem by having non-regular DYK analyzing if a ban. However, since no one was willing to take copyright problems on DYK seriously, it was a necessary move. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding, Ottava. By the definition you propose on your talk page, we can't include text from any source. Oops, there goes WP:V...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of thousands of critics that are able to publish while using such academic standards and not create copyright violations. It is quite easy. This is completely inexcusable. Five random passages looked at, all five had blatant lifting of phrases. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So take it to WP:CV. This isn't the appropriate venue for such concerns. Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

This is the current focus of discussion on this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

4 minutes only? --BorgQueen (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And were did this lot go after it finished its turn on the Main Page? It's not listed at Recent additions. Manxruler (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't someone just revert? [5] --maclean 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done the next best thing: I've queued them up to go back on the front page as the next set of hooks to be promoted. Some folks may (temporarily) get double credits on their talk pages but that can be resolved at the time, if it happens. - Dravecky (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the User:DYKadminBot (contributions) did not update the Wikipedia:Recent_additions (hist) and reset the Template:Did you know/Next update/Time (hist) at 16:56, as it should have. Somebody calling themself "toolserver" updated the archive from ip address User:91.198.174.194, but there was no substance in that update, and they did not reset the time. So when, after finishing queue1, DYKadminBot checked the vaue in Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, which was not reset, it just decided it was time for dealing with queue2, which it started on at 17:00. Maybe technical problems some time between 10:57 and 16:56 caused the bot to get out of sync. (Sorry for the bad prose above). Oceanh (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Made it to 8 minutes this time[6] Is one of those hooks jinxed? --maclean 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general hint, constructs like this: ?"? look suspicious and may give unpredictable behavior in parsing routines. To play safe in an unstable programming environment it's best to avoid ugly expressions. Oceanh (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

And what really happened to the group of hooks that included one I collaborated on, Fredrik Kayser? They should be listed at Recent additions, and they still aren't. Manxruler (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them to the archive. I also updated the "problem" set of hooks that was only on the front page for four minutes on two occasions, as the bot seems incapable of dealing with that set. Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely urgent request/plea for hook review

There are roughly 244 hooks on the suggestions page but only 10-12 of them have been verified—and several of those are being held provisionally for February 12th. I struggled to put together the set of hooks in queue 4 and there are now no longer enough verified hooks to assemble queue. If people could devote some attention and energy to this urgent matter, it would be greatly appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to zip through some now ... only have about ½ hour before bedtime though, so might not be able to look at many. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on it right now. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a whack at a few. By the way, I'm working on a script to help out with DYK stuff. Right now I've got it to show who created an article, the date the article was created, and the prose size at the click of a mouse. It also checks for some subtler things – if the article has been at DYK or ITN before, and if the article is a stub. The next feature I plan to add is the date the article was at 1x assuming the page is now at 5x. Other parts in the works include: checking if there aren't any inline references, checking if the article was moved from userspace, and checking if the article was first a redirect. I think I'll finish the script in a few weeks, but if you want to try it out, I can put it up early. Shubinator (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! I think checking for moves in the history will be particularly useful, as that always used to slip by me. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still nearly 200 unchecked hooks and only a baker's dozen verified ones. I do appreciate the efforts everybody had made so far but the situation is still pretty dire. - Dravecky (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV Image file name

I reviewed Abraham Lincoln Statue and am concerned about the name of the image file used File:Hodgenville tyrant statue.jpg as it seems very POV to me (just to be clear it is a photo of a statue of Abraham Lincoln, whom User:Bedford has called a tyrant). Since the image is on Wikipedia (not Commons), I can copy it to a new file name and delete the old file, but wanted to get consensus on that first. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the file name is inappropriate. Go ahead. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I copied it to File:Hodgenville Lincoln statue.jpg and will fix the alst link to it next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same, ~~and its parent article~~. Art LaPella (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the utterly ridiculous "War of Northern Aggression" in that link (it didn't even link to American Civil War...) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed out "its parent article" because it's linked so that fixing one fixes the other. Art LaPella (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to check... (Additional Rule D6)

I'm preparing an article in userspace ... well, a list with a large prose section. Anyway, in the list section, the text content is very nearly complete, but in the "Image" column—where a thumbnail pic is provided—I have only managed to provide 14 images out of about 40 so far. The intention is obviously to get a picture of every item in the list, but this may take a while (I have to travel to get them). If I moved it to mainspace now and submitted a hook, would it be ineligible per Additional rule D6 (There is a reasonable expectation that an article which is to appear on the front page, even a short one, should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress...)? If so, I could probably get another 10-12 images on Saturday... or should I hold back in userspace until all 40-ish images are in place? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if we could get a peek at the page it would be easier to make a judgment call. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hassocks5489/Brighton Church Sandbox 1, perhaps, looking at your recent contributions? Frankly, I wouldn't quibble if there were missing photographs (there are featured lists that don't have photos for each entry!) - D6 is more aimed at the article that's clearly half-written but is nonetheless over the minimum length requirement. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think this is a problem. Some images is better than none, and to me this list looks more complete than most of what passes through DYK. I don't think you have anything to worry about. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 04:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, no problems there. Gatoclass (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! (And yes, the sandbox has an inaccurate name ... my Crawley sandboxes are all full of other half-finished stuff!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray LaMontagne hook in Queue 5

I am not sure if this is the right place to note this, but I just wanted to point out that the Ray LaMontagne hook currently sitting in Queue 5 does not have a question mark at the end. -Whataworld06 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Fixed it. - Dravecky (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit button bug?

When I click the edit buttons for a select section, I keep getting the wrong section. Is there a bug somewhere?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because someone else is removing stuff to put on the next update page. When a section is removed and you're trying to edit an earlier version, you get the wrong section to edit. Try reloading the page when that happens. Chamal ^talk 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got the right section. That was a first for me, and I'm no newbie here.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections are identified by number not name. So if section XYZ is number 64, when you edit XYZ the web address it loads ends with "action=edit&section=64". But if between the time you loaded the main page and you edit XYZ, someone has added a new section before XYZ, the section you'll get is the one just above it and not XYZ.

What I do is I always edit sections in a new window so the main page is still accessible. Then if the wrong section is opened I look at the main page to see where this incorrect section is in relation to the one I want to edit. In the above example it is one above XYZ. Now I simply change the "64" in "action=edit&section=64" to "65" and reload, which should now give me XYZ. I hope this helps. --Bruce1ee^talk 06:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions

I'm working on a rules rewrite, including links to several new pages of explanation. One such page is for impatient nominators who can't wait for approval, or for selection for Next Update. That page would be easier to write, and sometimes it would be unnecessary, if Template talk:Did you know#Expiring noms were renamed "Nominations expiring if there are unsatisfied objections". But is that true? How often do we delete hooks with no objections, just because they have reached the bottom of the page?

My other question is, what does "history" mean in an approval, in a phrase like "Length, history, and references approved"? Art LaPella (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be a little misleading to name it "Nominations expiring if there are unsatisfied objections" IMHO. Most of the hooks there are ones that have not been reviewed at all, plus the problematic ones waiting for replies or corrections. Name it as you say would make it seem like that the unreviewed hooks don't comply with the rules and we are going to chuck them out.

History means just the date expansion/creation began, and also verifying if the person listed as the creator/expander is actually the one who has done it, right? Chamal ^talk 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Name it as you say would make it seem like that the unreviewed hooks don't comply with the rules and we are going to chuck them out." I'm puzzled. I thought that was the problem with "Expiring noms"; it sounds like everything, even the unreviewed hooks are "expiring" and we are going to chuck them out, which in turn inspires impatience as nominations (approved or not) near that ominous heading. That's why I qualified it with "if there are unsatisfied objections", thus excluding unreviewed hooks and approved hooks. But if it's unclear to you, it's unclear to nominators. Do you have another suggested wording, or do you think nobody would mistake "Expiring noms" to mean that everything is about to expire? Art LaPella (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Nominations over 5 days old"? From my brief experience, the vast majority of noms in this section don't really "expire" (either they get put up a bit late, or rejected for other reasons and with a "and oh it's also expiring" tacked on to the end of the rejection rationale), and people coming to DYK can check the rules to see what the significance of "5 days" is. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 04:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go back to whatever the "rules" used to be, back in the days when it was not too stressful for me to participate both in the checking and rewriting of hooks and in submitting my own hooks? Something has changed. In the past, I enjoyed checking and putting up ALT hooks. Now I would not dare step in. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of you (Matisse) in particular as I redesign, so I hope you like it when I'm done! My version has more explanation, but much less requirement for you to read through everything else first. Especially when compared to "whatever the 'rules' used to be", which required studying the suggestions page for weeks to predict what their decision might be. Art LaPella (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poli...Rjanag's suggestion works. Other ideas – "Old Nominations", "Stale Nominations"; maybe "Moldy Nominations"? When I use the phrase, history means checking if the date of expansion/creation matches up, if the expansion/creation was done by the correct user, and checking for moves from userspace. That reminds me, I got the script to check for moves from userspace and start of expansion date. Shubinator (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Old Nominations" works too, although "stale" and "moldy" might inspire impatience again. We could at least try it and see if people complain when their hooks disappear due to unanswered objections. Art LaPella (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think "Expiring noms" is causing panic, I guess you could just rename that section "Older nominations". If you call it "Old nominations", some people might think that means the same thing as "expired". Gatoclass (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backlogged?

Is it just me, or is DYK much more backed up than normal? Grsz¹¹ 03:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you. We need lots of folks to do a lot of reviewing, stat. - Dravecky (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYKbot skipped

Queue four appeared to have been deleted without actually being on main page. DYKbot skipped 4 by going from 3 to 5. What's wrong?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is going a bit daffy, but not quite enough to shut it down entirely. I've moved the missed queue of hooks to queue 2. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. - Dravecky (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, looking at the DYKAdminBot's contribs Queue 4 credits were given out 0-8 minutes prior to updating with Queue 5...

Also, can an admin check the DYK section of WP:ERROR? That lead hook is confusing w/o italics. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The italics issue was answered there, and removed later because the hook is no longer on the Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My new favourite spot

How can I get involved with non-admin duties here? I'd like to check articles and help clear out the backlog, but have little experience here. Any ideas would be appreciated, as I'm not sure how one becomes involved in DYK. Thanks! ^Law_shoot! 09:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at what people are doing on the Suggestions page. You can review hooks there, which means you make sure the hook is accurate and the article is presentable and meets DYK criteria. We are always happy to have more hook reviewers!

When you have a little more experience, you can prepare updates, which means moving a set of hooks to the Next update page. Welcome aboard! Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could use an extra set of eyes in for the hooks in the holding pen. These will need to be used within the next day. • \ / (⁂) 10:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed all those hooks now, so he'll have to start somewhere else :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So I can look at hooks and see if they are backed up with references? What is the holding pen? ^Law_shoot! 10:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very quickly, all the hooks are nominated on T:TDYK. The holding pen is something put in place for special events. We had a holding pen for Christmas hooks to run during the Holiday period. Currently we are preparing hooks for both Darwin Day and the Lincoln anniversary, here, for tomorrow.

Anyone can review them - all you need to do is check them against the rules. Prose length, date of creation/expansion, correct citations are the things to look out for; whether or not the prose has actually been expanded 5x, whether the hook is cited, all the rules are covered on the page. Some special exceptions are covered in the additional rules but they aren't something you need to worry about just yet. Once you have reviewed a page, you can use the ticks to indicate whether the article is worthy of inclusion, or requires further work. If there is any issues, this page is well read and can help out. :) • \ / (⁂) 10:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's e-one! ^Law_shoot! 02:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion hooks distribution

Don't forget folks that the 14 special occasions hooks we have need to be distributed over about another six updates (maybe five), so there should be no more than two or three special occasion hooks per update. Gatoclass (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to the Next update page so people can't miss it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's five updates to go on February 12, so it will be three hooks apiece per update. Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get a Lincoln hook leading atleast once with a picture? Grsz¹¹ 17:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prepared the first, with a Darwin picture, this one has a Lincoln picture. Alternating would be the best course of action. :) • \ / (⁂) 20:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now he tells me! :/

Okay, I have promoted some Lincoln pics so that Darwin/Lincoln hooks will lead alternately over the next few updates ;) Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nav box

Current box

One proposal

User:Rjanag/DYKbox

Popular proposal

User:Rjanag/Totally popular DYKbox

The rah rah rah up above is not much fun, and this other thing is something that still needs to get dealt with, so here goes:

Any more progress/thoughts about what to do with the nav box? We had a discussion here, back in the day, about it, and some good ideas were thrown around, but then we all got distracted and bla bla bla. Anyway, if we can reach an agreement on what to do with it, then I can whip up the new box and I'd just need someone with admin superpowers to edit the real box for me. To the right I've reproduced the current box, one idea that I floated back in the day, and a mock-up of what seems to be the most popular idea right now. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 20:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (plz post above the {{-}})[reply]

If we adopt my rules rewrite, the Additional Rules will be integrated, so there will be no need for them in the nav box. There may be a need for navigating among my subpages, but that can wait. For now, removing the Additional Rules is no biggie because they're linked from WP:DYK#DYK rules. Art LaPella (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a few sentences on when to delete nominations in the rewritten rules. Sometimes I'm confused about when I can/should. For example, the Jack Youngblood nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator. I don't want to delete it though because I found the problem. A good policy is that the DYK reviewer that found a problem with a nomination should not delete the nom. The Jack Youngblood case is pretty clear, but I could see editors getting angry if they think they've been misinterpreted. I have a couple more policy questions: does the 200 character hook length include "...", "that", or "?"? What about "(pictured)"? I know a few characters here and there don't matter, but I'd like to have the script I'm writing reflect consensus (I'm working on getting it to check hook length). Also, prosesize does not count reference marks like ^[1]; do we want to keep the policy as is or not? I can easily have the script do either way. Personally I think referencing should be rewarded. Shubinator (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About removing noms: what you've said about not removing a nom that you found the problem with is pretty accurate. My habit is to put {{DYKno}} on it, and wait 2-3 days; if no one else has removed it by then, I remove it. (Always be explicit in your edit summary, to make it easier for people in the future to go back and find that diff if there is an issue with it.) On the other hand, I sometimes would BOLDly remove hooks that are in the last day or two of Expiring Noms and haven't been responded to in days and still had pretty insurmountable problems (or at least problems that I didn't have the time or inclination to surmount, and no one else was working on surmounting). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can only rewrite the rules I know about (which helps motivate me to re-explain the rules I understand), and deleting nominations is among the many DYK tasks I have never tried, largely for that reason. Hook length I understand as well as anyone; it isn't in Additional Rules so others count in different ways. But as User:Art LaPella/Long hook explains, my habit is not to count "..." or the oft-forgotten space that comes after "..."; I do count "that" and "?"; I also count "(pictured)" to simplify a time-consuming job, but my guess would be that the automated ideal would be to not count "pictured" but do count any words that go with it (purple zebra pictured), (pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis pictured), although others have occasionally expressed an opinion on "pictured". And I interpret "about" in "about 200 characters" more loosely than others; I'm not sure that word makes any sense if we're automating. As for [1], unless you expect everyone to remember to use your script and never use prosesize.js and prosesizebytes.js again, the most important consideration is to keep both counts consistent. If referencing should be rewarded, then it isn't obvious why we exclude the references themselves – or all the other excluded things like categories and infoboxes, which should also be rewarded. If your bot can measure hook length, it must already be programmed to distinguish hooks, including ALTs and maybe even unlabeled ALTs, from comments, signatures etc. If you can do that, you've done most of the work necessary to go on and do proofreading like this. Art LaPella (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get the script to calculate hook length as you do. It is a script though, not a bot; no automated edits. It's a tool like prosesize with a button on the left. I suppose once I'm done it wouldn't be too much work to upgrade it, but I'm shooting for a prosesize-like tool. Much more powerful though. It will check for certain things and display the results at the top of the page. It's up to the human to act on the results; the tool does not make any edits by itself. Yeah, it makes sense to keep the script's count aligned with prosesize for now. I'll be able to get the script to pick out the original nominated hook...because nominators use DYKsug, the formatting should be exactly the same at the start. Now that I think about it, checking for ALTs is possible...I might look into it later. Right now I'm seeing if I can get around stray question marks inside the hook...for example, if the article is a poem with a question mark. (The script figures out the end of a hook by the question mark.) I'm pretty sure I can do this too as long as the stray question mark is bolded (in other words, part of the article's name). Shubinator (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, distinguishing hooks is the hard part. You seem to have overlooked this quote from WP:DYK#The hook: "... the first sentence should end with a question mark." Multi-sentence hooks are controversial but not unheard-of, and a nominator who doesn't know about the length limit (or perhaps doesn't take it seriously) is much more likely to use more than one sentence. He's also less likely to cooperate with DYKSug. The first sentence needs a question mark because anything starting with "Did you know" is an interrogatory sentence. The second and third sentences should normally end with a period. Art LaPella (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my script will not go past the first sentence. However, a nominator who ignores the rules will throw up multiple other flags that the script will catch. And I will be surprised if the script works 100% of the time...right now 90% or 95% accuracy is fine for me, especially if it notes an error in processing. Shubinator (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Popular proposal", er, proposal, is elegant and efficient in my view. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "popular proposal" looks good to me. Cbl62 (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me three. The popular proposal appears to be the popular choice! Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then my work here is done! Anyone with magic admin fingers can just take the code in Popular DYKbox and paste it in its entirety into Template:DYKbox. (After you're done you're free to delete that user subpage.) Then we will have a flashy new box to impress the natives. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prosody

A hook currently at T:DYK/N about Nagavarma II links to the prosody disambiguation page, but there aren't enough clues to determine how to fix it. Art LaPella (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dab'ed it to Prosody (poetry). While I don't have access to the original source to check, I think it's pretty reasonable given that the person was an 11th-century writer; even though the article does describe him as a "grammarian," AFAIK the study of prosody (linguistics) didn't really exist that long ago (what little linguistic study there was, was in most parts of the world based almost entirely on written language) so that only leaves the poetry kind. Plus, another recent DYK article by the same author, Nagavarma I, is explicity about the poetry version of prosody, so I imagine this one is too. If you want to make doubly sure, we could always contact the article writer/nominator. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again

[7]: Is the bot ever going to be fixed? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the hooks back in the queue and reset the counter. Let's keep an eye on it... and has anybody had any luck getting nixeagle to respond lately? - Dravecky (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking it over, I think you put the wrong set of hooks back up.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, DYKadminbot just re-posted the exact same hooks as were on the previous six hours, and recredited everyone.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Day/Lincoln anniversary hooks

All the available eligible hooks have now been promoted to the queue. Thanks everyone for your hard work in putting these articles together and getting them on the front page at the right time! Gatoclass (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot gave credits without updating ?

[8] - Did the bot just give credits and do other steps, but not update the actual T:DYK template itself? Cirt (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it was just a tad slow. Cirt (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been doing this for the last couple of updates. It'll take from one queue, and then eight minutes later take from another queue.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 09:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This time it looks like it worked okay. Cirt (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't worked okay at all. It skipped the hooks in queue 1 - and after I spent half an hour swapping hooks around like crazy to get lincoln darwin hooks alternating.

I have had it with this useless bot. We should disable it and go back to manual updating until it is FIXED. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it'd be best to fix the bot, so it can continue to be used, but in the meantime thanks for fixing that update. :) Cirt (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for change to mainpage layout

I have made a proposal at WP:VPR concerning a change to the mainpage layout to better showcase the effort that goes into commemorating anniversary days on Wikipedia. The proposal can be read here for anyone who would like to contribute to the discussion. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 392: / Line 392: @@
 :If we adopt my rules rewrite, the Additional Rules will be integrated, so there will be no need for them in the nav box. There may be a need for navigating among my subpages, but that can wait. For now, removing the Additional Rules is [[wikt:no biggie|no biggie]] because they're linked from [[WP:DYK#DYK rules]]. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 20:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 :::It would be nice to have a few sentences on when to delete nominations in the rewritten rules. Sometimes I'm confused about when I can/should. For example, the [[T:TDYK#Jack_Youngblood|Jack Youngblood nomination]] has been withdrawn by the nominator. I don't want to delete it though because I found the problem. A good policy is that the DYK reviewer that found a problem with a nomination should not delete the nom. The Jack Youngblood case is pretty clear, but I could see editors getting angry if they think they've been misinterpreted. I have a couple more policy questions: does the 200 character hook length include "...", "that", or "?"? What about "''(pictured)''"? I know a few characters here and there don't matter, but I'd like to have the script I'm writing reflect consensus (I'm working on getting it to check hook length). Also, prosesize does not count reference marks like <sup>[1]</sup>; do we want to keep the policy as is or not? I can easily have the script do either way. Personally I think referencing should be rewarded. [[User:Shubinator|Shubinator]] ([[User talk:Shubinator|talk]]) 01:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
+:::::About removing noms: what you've said about not removing a nom that you found the problem with is pretty accurate.  My habit is to put {{tl|DYKno}} on it, and wait 2-3 days; if no one else has removed it by then, I remove it.  (Always be explicit in your edit summary, to make it easier for people in the future to go back and find that diff if there is an issue with it.)  On the other hand, I sometimes would BOLDly remove hooks that are in the last day or two of Expiring Noms and haven't been responded to in days and still had pretty insurmountable problems (or at least problems that I didn't have the time or inclination to surmount, and no one else was working on surmounting). '''[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000"><span class="Unicode">ʨ</span></font>ana<span class="Unicode">ɢ</span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</small></sub> 12:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 ::::Unfortunately I can only rewrite the rules I know about (which helps motivate me to re-explain the rules I understand), and deleting nominations is among the many DYK tasks I have never tried, largely for that reason. Hook length I understand as well as anyone; it isn't in Additional Rules so others count in different ways. But as [[User:Art LaPella/Long hook]] explains, my habit is not to count "..." or the oft-forgotten space that comes after "..."; I do count "that" and "?"; I also count "''(pictured)''" to simplify a time-consuming job, but my guess would be that the automated ideal would be to not count "pictured" but do count any words that go with it ''(purple zebra pictured)'', ''(pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis pictured)'', although others have occasionally expressed an opinion on "pictured". And I interpret "about" in "about 200 characters" more loosely than others; I'm not sure that word makes any sense if we're automating. As for [1], unless you expect everyone to remember to use your script and never use prosesize.js and prosesizebytes.js again, the most important consideration is to keep both counts consistent. If referencing should be rewarded, then it isn't obvious why we exclude the references themselves – or all the other excluded things like categories and infoboxes, which should also be rewarded. If your bot can measure hook length, it must already be programmed to distinguish hooks, including ALTs and maybe even unlabeled ALTs, from comments, signatures etc. If you can do that, you've done most of the work necessary to go on and do [[User:Art LaPella/Proposed Main Page proofreading bot|proofreading like this]]. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 :::::I'll try to get the script to calculate hook length as you do. It is a script though, not a bot; no automated edits. It's a tool like prosesize with a button on the left. I suppose once I'm done it wouldn't be too much work to upgrade it, but I'm shooting for a prosesize-like tool. Much more powerful though. It will check for certain things and display the results at the top of the page. It's up to the human to act on the results; the tool does not make any edits by itself. Yeah, it makes sense to keep the script's count aligned with prosesize for now. I'll be able to get the script to pick out the original nominated hook...because nominators use DYKsug, the formatting should be exactly the same at the start. Now that I think about it, checking for ALTs is possible...I might look into it later. Right now I'm seeing if I can get around stray question marks inside the hook...for example, if the article is a poem with a question mark. (The script figures out the end of a hook by the question mark.) I'm pretty sure I can do this too as long as the stray question mark is bolded (in other words, part of the article's name). [[User:Shubinator|Shubinator]] ([[User talk:Shubinator|talk]]) 05:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
@@ Line 399: / Line 400: @@
 :::The "popular proposal" looks good to me. [[User:Cbl62|Cbl62]] ([[User talk:Cbl62|talk]]) 01:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 ::::Me three. The popular proposal appears to be the popular choice! [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 07:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
+:::::Then my work here is done!  Anyone with magic admin fingers can just take the code in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rjanag/Totally_popular_DYKbox&action=edit Popular DYKbox] and paste it in its entirety into [[Template:DYKbox]].  (After you're done you're free to delete that user subpage.) Then we will have a flashy new box to impress the natives. '''[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000"><span class="Unicode">ʨ</span></font>ana<span class="Unicode">ɢ</span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</small></sub> 12:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 {{-}}