User talk:Rjanag

Archives

1: August–October 2008 2: November 2008 3: December 2008 4: January–February 2009 5: March–April 2009 6: May–July 2009 7: August–December 2009 8: January–May 2010 9: June 2010 – present

Click here to leave me a message saying I'm great, or here to leave me a message saying I'm terrible.
Click here to leave me any other kind of message.
Please sign your message by typing ~~~~ after it.

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 05:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 06:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 06:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to My Name

Just passing by to offer my congratulations after after seeing "Nothing to My Name" on the WP front page. It didn't click until I began reading the introductory paragraph, but then I thought that it sounded familiar. Jumped onto the talk page to confirm and sure enough, I was the GA reviewer back in early 2009. It was a great article then, so it's good to see the work you've put in since has been rewarded. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey there... thank you for setting me straight on the new DYK drill. I appreciate it!! :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 01:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks. Question: If I submit two or more articles in one hook, which I often do, I think I should review at least one per submission. Can I add "| reviewed1 = " etc. to the template? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is possible the way the template is currently designed. For now, I would just recommend listing one review when you nominate, and then later adding the other reviews by hand (by copy-and-pasting the code that's already there, and just changing the article name and diff). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For being so patient with the mess I made last night at DYK. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Icelandic Phallological Museum

Any chance you could finish your review of Template talk:Did you know/Icelandic Phallological Museum? Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Sharktopus finished it before I saw this message. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences

I'm not sure how far I need to go with this. Would you mind having a look? Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking how much you need to add for the nomination to pass? I already rejected it and won't reconsider without a pretty much total rewrite with all new sources. By then, the article will be far more than 5 days old. Basically I'm just waiting for someone else to remove the nomination (I don't remove nominations I've rejected or promote nominations I've verified; I like to wait for someone else to do it just to ensure that someone else is taking a second look). I suppose it's possible that someone might come along and disagree with my assessment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Review template

I'm afraid the acrimony of the last few days, combined with the urgency with which some people are pushing their own agendas, has led to a lack of participation in the WT:DYK discussion about your proposed template, so I thought it might be just as well to bring the discussion here for now.

I like the format of your template, but I do think it needs greater differentiation. In particular, I think there needs to be a separate line for the hook and article checks or it's going to lead to confusion.

I've spent a few minutes thinking about the checks I consider to be essential and come up with the following summary. There may be some that I've missed but here's what I've come up with so far:

Hook: Clarity | Neutrality | Citation(s) | Interest
Article: Newness | Length | Cited paragraphs | Source formatting | Source quality | Article quality | Neutrality | Plagiarism

Some of the fields might require some explanation, but anyhow, please let me know what you think. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Those look good to me. I'll see what I can do about updating the template with them.

While I was putting it together, one of the main things I had trouble with was trying to decide which checks are redundant and which aren't. For instance, technically "source quality", "neutrality", and "plagiarism" are all included under the umbrella of the "within policy" rule (even though RS and PLAG are guidelines, not policy, everyone seems to feel that we should be enforcing them at DYK as well); thus, a check to ensure that articles meet core policies/guidelines should include all those. On the other hand, I guess they are different enough issues that a reminder wouldn't hurt, and I'm sure if I propose the template without all those things listed separately someone is going to scream and yell that I don't care about plagiarism/reliability/BLP/whatever their pet issue is. Thus, while DYK rules 1 (length), 2 (newness), and 3 (cited hook) get one slot each in the template, DYK rule 4 (within policy) already has at least 3 slots alloted to it.

On the other side of the coin, the template also includes a bunch of things that aren't in the official rules (which I noticed when writing up the documentation and trying to link each of the parameters to a rule). For instance, "cited paragraphs" isn't on WP:DYK#Rules, I think it's only in the Additional rules (if that...it might only be in the WT:DYK archives, I'm not sure); hook interest is only mentioned in passing, and on WP:DYK it's worded more like a suggestion than a rule (although in reality it seems we're getting closer and closer to enforcing it as a rule, I know I am). rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the point about some of these fields is to remind or alert reviewers that they need to be checked. I don't think it does any harm to include fields like "hook interest" - for one thing, the more radical reformers will make a fuss if it isn't included, for another, it's always been a consideration, just one often overlooked. The paragraph requirement is one that I have always been meticulous about, and that I know other longstanding reviewers feel strongly about (it had consensus as I recall) so I think it has to be in there.

I think at some point we will also have to author some explanation of the various fields, perhaps in the template doc, or somewhere else if that is unsuitable. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How are you going with this Rjanag? Did you get it done yet, or is there some holdup?

On reflection, I'm thinking the hook and article checks should be separable, for example for the use of alt hooks and multinoms.

On a related topic, I'm reconsidering the notion someone had of hiding nom discussons at T:TDYK to make the page smaller and more manageable. That would have obvious disadvantages, mainly that the discussion wouldn't be there to catch someone's eye and get them involved. But then, if just the hook and some additional info were present, it might make it easier for people to find something to review that interested them. I'm just mentioning this because if we went for such a system, it wouldn't matter so much if for example some people wanted to use a longer template like Tony's. Gatoclass (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted with some other stuff for the past few days. I got into a bit of a holdup with the template when trying to make it possible to add a signature, which Tony asked for at WT:DYK#Another template. Personally I don't think that's necessary, because I was still hoping people would comment below the template (e.g., fill out the template but also write something like "I checked for this, that, and this, and that, and they all look ok"); but it's not a clear-cut issue so I think it's legitimate for people to want signatures, even if I disagree with it, and anyway he seems to have a different idea than I do of what the template is actually supposed to be used for anyway. Anyway, to make a long story short, it is not technically possible to add a signature to this template in any way that I find satisfactory (all the solutions I've found are either very ugly, make the template more and more similar to Tony's, or double the size of the template and the amount of parameters people fill out; I'll spare you the details unless you want to know) so, if people prefer a template that editors can literally "sign off on" within the template itself, then this one might not be worth spending any more time on.

As for the other thing, separating hook and article checks would be easy (I could just give the table one row for hook checks and one for article checks, or there could be totally separate templates for hook-only and article-only checklists). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than a full sign-off, how about just a nic? - ie include a field with just three squiggles (~~~). It would still add the accountability, but without the clutter. Which reminds me, I'm not sure what the current status is, but I do think the article template at least will need a comment field where people can expand on their concerns and sign off. But the comment itself doesn't have to be "part" of the template - it can just be reproduced below the checklist itself. BTW I think we will probably need separate checklists for article and hook because of alts and multinoms. Gatoclass (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Technical stuff

The problem is getting both a ✔/✘ and a sig or nickname to show up. Basically, it's not possible to get the template to do automatically in a way that is convenient for the user. What would be ideal would be something like this:

1)

{{DYK review checklist
 | length=y ~~~
 | newness=y ~~~
 | hookfact=n ~~~
 | hookinterest= y ~~~
 | sources=
 | npov=
 | plagiarism=
}}

to create

2)

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔ rʨanaɢ (talk)	✔ rʨanaɢ (talk)	✘ rʨanaɢ (talk)	✔ rʨanaɢ (talk)

But this doesn't work well. Instead, you get

3)

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔ y rʨanaɢ (talk)	✔ y rʨanaɢ (talk)	✘ n rʨanaɢ (talk)	✔ y rʨanaɢ (talk)

In other words, it can make a ✔ or ✘ based on the first letter you put into the template, but it's still going to show everything (not just the sig, but also the text before it). If it's going to do that, I'm not sure this is a major improvement over Tony's, because the whole point of this template was to serve as a quick reference, not to just write comments with signatures (which can be done in regular discussion, without any template or checklist at all).

But because of limitations in WP's parser functions, the only way to implement the ideal table above is

4)

{{User:Rjanag/template
|length=y
|lengthsig=~~~
|newness=y
|newnesssig=~~~
|hookfact=n
|hookfactsig=~~~
|hookinterest=y
|hookinterestsig=~~~
|sources=
|sourcessig=
|npov=
|npovsig=
|plagiarism=
|plagiarismsig=
}}

which I think is too much of a pain to be worth the effort.

Another option would be to just sign checklist items without adding ✔ or ✘. In essence, then, a signature would mean "good to go on this thing" and a lack of signature would mean "not good" or "not checked" (we'd lose what I see as a benefit of version (2), which is that there's a clear distinction between items that have been identified as bad and items that have not been checked yet). So we'd have something that looks like (5), generated by code (6):

5)

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)		rʨanaɢ (talk)

6)

{{DYK review checklist
 | length=~~~
 | newness=~~~
 | hookfact=
 | hookinterest=~~~
 | sources=
 | npov=
 | plagiarism=
}}

This is one option. The other option (basically the original template, before I tried adding sigs) is just not to include a signature. As I explained above, I don't think signatures in the table necessary, given discussion below the table, but some people might disagree with that.

7)

Length	Newness	Cited hook	Interest	Sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism/paraphrase
✔	✔	✘	✔

6)

{{DYK review checklist
 | length=y
 | newness=y
 | hookfact=n
 | hookinterest=y
 | sources=
 | npov=
 | plagiarism=
}}

These are the various options that I think are available. (Also, of course, I can divide the template into hook and article checklists as discussed above; I think these issues need settled first, though.) Basically, I don't feel like I can go ahead with this until there is an agreement on just what the template should be used for and just how it should be used. In particular, the issue of whether or not to include signatures depends on how people imagine the template being used. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation - turns out this is more complicated than I expected!

I'm undecided right now, but I'm leaning toward the "sig only" method. It's not as pretty as the ticks and crosses method, but I'm thinking it would be more practical. Though I'm a proponent of the view that if one starts a review one should finish it, in practice I know this frequently doesn't occur for all sorts of reasons. And since a large part of the rationale behind these templates is increasing accountability, it's hard to see how an anonymous line of ticks and crosses is going to achieve that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Samples

Personally I think the signatures don't need to be in the box if someone leaves a note in the discussion saying, e.g., "I did a spot-check for plagiarism and it looks ok; I marked it off in the checklist above". But I agree others might not see it the same way.

Here's a sample for an imaginary two-article hook:

{{*mp}}... that '''[[ice]]''' is made of '''[[water]]'''?
created by some user
<!--
credits
-->

{{User:Rjanag/DYK hook checklist
|format=~~~
|citation=~~~
|neutrality={{subst:DYKX}}
|interest=~~~
}}
:*Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. ~~~~

{{User:Rjanag/DYK article checklist
|length=~~~
|newness=~~~
|adequatecitations=~~~
|formattedcitations=~~~
|reliablesources=~~~
|neutrality=~~~
|plagiarism=~~~
|article=Water
}}
{{User:Rjanag/DYK article checklist
|length={{subst:DYKX}}
|newness=~~~
|adequatecitations=
|formattedcitations=
|reliablesources=
|neutrality=~~~
|plagiarism=~~~
|article=Ice
}}
:*The article [[Ice]] is still a stub. ~~~~

• ... that ice is made of water?

created by some user

Hook review

Format	Citation	Neutrality	Interest
rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)	✘	rʨanaɢ (talk)

• Hook fact checks out but this reads like an advertisement for water to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Article review for Water

Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)

Article review for Ice

Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
✘	rʨanaɢ (talk)				rʨanaɢ (talk)	rʨanaɢ (talk)

• The article Ice is still a stub. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How does that look? rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How about just putting a simple "X" in place of a sig for fields which have failed? I'm thinking that if fields are just left blank, reviewers won't know at a glance which fields have been checked and which not, which may slow down reviewing. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good solution for that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that I see it, I'm no sure I like this format. Having the hook and article in separate boxes, as well as having separate review boxes for each article, makes this take up about as much space as Tony's checklist. I think having a single checklist for all articles would be fine (you simply wouldn't sign something off until it had been checked in all articles); likewise, I think the hook issues could then be part of the same template (they could always have a slightly different background color or something to separate them out). rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating the amount of space taken up by Tony's checklist, which is not only considerably longer IMO but which also encourages more extended commentary. I think we are going to need separate lists for hook and article because of alt hooks and multinoms. Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Rhetoric

It is studied widely in many American linguistics department. See Carnegie Mellon's Linguistics website here. Please change. No policy is being violated here. ElbowingYouOut (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, any single example is not going to prove "widely". Furthermore, that wasn't the only part of your edit I objected to; I also disagreed with your wording that made it sound like "grammar and rhetoric" are the major divisions of linguistics, which they are not (saying "linguistics comprises grammar and rhetoric" is just as silly as if I said "linguistics comprises pragmatics and phonology"...there's more to it than just two randomly chosen subfields).

Anyway, I already told you that you are welcome to start a discussion at Talk:Linguistics. I already know what your view on the matter is and you already know what mine is, so we aren't going to get anywhere unless you solicit more input. Continuing to edit war at the article, however, is no good. if you still disagree with me, just start a discussion at Talk:Linguistics. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand. No issues. I'm willing to discuss this on the talk page and list a number of suggestions to start sections on sub-fields, etc. Rhetoric and functional linguistics are some of these. ElbowingYouOut (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

email

• thou hast  – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion

Please explain how you are unable to discern at the very start of the first sentence in this text any reference to the Institute of Marine Science in Kiel. If you still can't see the reference, perhaps you might find it in the title of the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

At the time I didn't realize "Institute of Marine Sciences" was referring to this exact institute. I have already restored the reference. But I don't appreciate your snarky tone. There's no need to get snarky with me just because I pointed out legitimate problems with your article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You originated the snarky tone, which I don't appreciate either. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever being snarky with you, the only interaction I remember having with you is at Template talk:Did you know/Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences where all I did was review your article and point out problems with it in an objective way. Is this is the way you're going to treat every reviewer who volunteers to look at your nominations for DYK, good luck getting people to waste their time on your nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand how you guys operate this now. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)`

Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project DYK

It is listed as the last entry for July 22, and has been for over a week. VI_WS ^talk 03:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You are so great

You are a great guy! Thanks for being so excellent. LOL. Brilliant, can't believe I never stopped by to say Hi on your talk page. I'll play around with some ways to make it as unintuitive as possible. Maybe auto populate or something. Sorry about hijacking your earlier discussion thread and thanks for the time you put into making the nomination sub-pages possible. I know it has been discussed in the past, but you made it a reality. Kindly Calmer Waters 05:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Event-Related Potential

Regarding your edits on the page Event-related potential, I think the results were the exact type that encyclopedia readers would look for under the "Research ERP." I don't understand why you deleted them, could you let me know what you were thinking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journals88 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it for the reason I said I removed it. Thousands of ERP studies are published every year, and there's no point devoting a press-release-like paragraph in this Wikipedia article to the results of each one of them. ERP research has "found that it is possible to use EEG and EMG" to detect many things, and there is nothing particularly special about the one recent study you mention there. Wikipedia has a policy against devoting undue attention to minor topics. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gloria (Handel)

Thanks for a good addtion (s. T:DYK) - You reverted my change to an archived review, which I understand in general. But this now looks (how do I not say?) ugly, a line with a red link without content. Will that eventually be filled? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No; the original idea was that this line would be filled out and "signed off" by the admin who moves the article from the prep area to the queue, but at WT:DYK#Admins moving hooks from prep to queue: should they have to do this? there was consensus not to do that, so these lines won't get filled out; they don't appear anymore in newer nominations. If you want to remove them that's fine. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will, it's a work in progress, progressing a lot thanks to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry for all the trouble, and thanks for the assistance. - Chandan Guha (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Rowing about rowing

I find your reasoning for reversion on the hook about the distance rowed thoroughly illogical. You editwar on the grounds that it is inappropriate to editwar in the prep area (where there is no specific talk area of any duration). There is a reason why the prep areas are editable: so that they can be edited. You defend, and editwar to revert to, a hook that makes a claim absent from the article, which is contrary to the principles of DYK, and ignore the points made in the editnotes. Likewise, on the hook about deaths in custody in Malaysia, you seem to prefer to publish a false claim that the two year period in question is current so that you ban make some kind of procedural point. Kevin McE (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The procedural issue is, per WP:BRD, making a change to one of these pages once is ok, but once someone has reverted you that means there is a disagreement over wording and the original, status quo wording should be restored until the disagreement is resolved. It's not appropriate for two editors to revert one another over and over again once a dispute is realized; that is to say, once the first revert has been made, things should be taken to a discussion page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK changes

Hi and thanks for responding to my comments here. My main problem with the new system is with the extra headings which now appear. When scrolling down the page it can be confusing when some headings are main subject headings while others are shoulder headings, both of which have a similar appearance. I find it difficult sometimes to discern one from the other. With the old system when you saw a heading you knew it was the beginning of a new subject. Perhaps if the shoulder headings were a different colour that might make things easier. I know this sounds a bit confusing, but hope you get the idea. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "shoulder headings"? The only headings the page has are those for each nomination, and those for each date (e.g. "Articles created/expanded on August 5", and it's been that way for almost 3 years. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean the ones which are underlined. If you don't look at them closely they can seem confusing. Maybe it's just me. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a new review checklist which has been introduced by User:Tony1 without consensus, and is under discussion at WT:DYK. I'm working on a different version of a checklist (see #Samples) but I don't know what's going to happen. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think yours looks much better actually, and is a lot easier to follow. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I just opened a discussion about these at WT:DYK#Review checklist templates, you are welcome to comment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Another change: Can you check the ellipsis you put in front of the Dick Gordon hook in Queue 6? Looks different. BusterD (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Fixed now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for catching that. The Ilham Tohti page also got hit. Someone just has a bizarre sense of humor! David Straub (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I'd like to discuss the topic about Cai Changqing

Yes, you said that the case of Cai Changqing is certainly a child abuse, but it's not be regarded as a case of feral child since Changqing was suffering abuse after he was 10 years old.

From my view, I think that he can be classified into a new-found case. My explaination is, he is speakless since he was mentally-handicapped, while his uncle has locked him with a iron chain and ignore him. He didn't get any care from adults. He acts like an animal, and cannot contact with the others.

The above points are to support my own personal view. If your opinion is not the same with me, we can both discuss in this talk page again.

Talkback

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Message added 14:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The new DYK nomination procedure

Thanks for asking. And I can imagine how much work it took, so my sincere thanks for that, too.

This is Exhibit A, as far as I'm concerned. This poor kid (a freshman trying to get extra credit for a psych course by nominating the article he'd worked on at DYK) gave up. As you noted on his/her talkpage, Step 3 was never done. I think Template talk:Did you know#How to list a new nomination is admirably clear, so the problem must have occurred with filling out the template. I also see people at the talk page saying they can't handle that. And I get the impression from what I have skimmed that the template now requires inserting the name of an article one has reviewed? If so, that cuts me out—I don't often have time to meet the 5-day deadline and also take the time to do a proper review of someone else's baby within that same window. Also was there ever consenus for requiring the review to be done in advance of the nomination? And there was at one point consensus for considering alternate ways to satisfy quid pro quo that would be even harder to fit into a template. I suspect the freshman just didn't understand half of the template—his/her edits to the article suggest massive confusion (placing a reference before the first word of the text, for example), but it seems no one but you saw that nomination until I checked the article and the editor's contributions, because the mangled edit didn't send it to the nominations page. And it was a good hook. I don't think there's a procedural solution to people becoming so flummoxed that they don't add their nominations to the page. Because we need distinct subpages for each nomination for recordkeeping purposes. But it's indicative of the fact it's going to drive away some people. And if the template can be simplified at all, please, please do so. In particular let weirdoes like me fulfil the QPQ after getting the article ready and nominating it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the failure here is mostly the teacher's; if a teacher wants to use Wikipedia as a project, it's his/her responsibility to educate him/herself about the process and to let the students know that DYK involves more than just posting a nomination an hour before your class deadline and then wiping your hands of it.

As for listing the reviewed article in the template, I tried to be clear by writing "if you have reviewed another article, list it here" (emphasis mine), but I could try to make it more clearer, I guess. The DYK rules state that the review requirement only applies to editors who've had fewer than 5 DYKs. I think it also says it's ok to do the QPQ review after nominating. Anyway, I believe that at some point no amount of technology can make up for simply reading instructions, and therefore I tend to be hesitant to update the template to get rid of problems that could be avoided just by reading the instructions--it seems many people nominate DYKs without reading them at all, and maybe it's wrong of me but I don't usually try to hold their hand very much, I just tell them to read the rules/instructions.

As for simplifying the template, I've already tried to make it as simple as possible by marking the mandatory fields (e.g., article, hook, author) and not the optional ones, and the editnotice when filling out the template includes a link to Template:NewDYKnomination/guide, a step-by-step guide to filling out the template.

But anyway, it seems like most of your concerns are about the nomination template itself, not the new system per se. This template has been in use since late 2008, and the review thing was added to it last October, so there's nothing particularly new about any of these issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's simply the old template plus creating a subpage? That's not the impression I've had from looking over the talkpage! Maybe time for some damage control there.

I have tried very hard not to bite the instructor, but I really, really wish someone had spotted this situation before the course ended. I left him a long message with links and advice and he has now added himself to the list at WP:SUP. Also he will presumably next be teaching in the fall, when he and the students will have considerably more time, and he's agreed to add a copyediting step to what he has the students do. However, what these students did gives us points of data, particularly this one who gave up. And failing to do Step 3 happens often enough at AfD that I've noticed it. So this is a human failing that doesn't just apply to freshmen at a community college.

Is there any way to make incomplete nominations apparent to any do-gooders who might want to do what you actually did and go tell the nominator at their talk page? Does it come up on a list somewhere or could such a list be automatically generated? This kid was already way behind on the assignments and in the last week of the course—he may well not have seen your message. Other editors presumably will look at their talk, even if they don't go back to TT:DYK as they should. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of un-transcluded nominations (failing to do Step 3), there's not an easy automatic way to do it; as far as I know, it requires a bot. I am looking into getting DumbBOT (the bot that does this task at AfD) to do it here, but the bot operator hasn't yet responded to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd report back that partly as a test, I nominated Jan Buijs and it was eventually approved and featured at DYK. The transclusion step did indeed weird me out - it took me a total of 3 edits. The last one because for some reason I thought it would bold the article name in the hook, also. After going through the process I do feel it's a similar situation to nominating an article for deletion, with the last step being hard, but I note that unlike my memories of doing an AfD, you had a version of the final-step instructions be there when I needed to do it, whereas at AfD I was forced to have two tabs open because otherwise the instructions for Step 3 would be gone when I needed them. I'm not sure what more can be done to simplify things; I note an experienced DYKer recently forgot to put the article name in one place. I'm sure a lot of us were doing what I used to do and keeping a copy of the nomination template somewhere to be copied and pasted into Word to get the hook inserted. In short, it wasn't as difficult as I'd feared, but it was difficult enough that I made stupid mistakes. I think getting a bot to rescue incomplete nominations would be a good idea. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Review template (2)

Hi Rjanag, sorry for not getting back to you earlier on this, the reasons - apart from the fact that I'm getting tired of this whole debate about DYK's future - are firstly that I am not sure how to proceed from this point, and secondly that I was hoping maybe a few other people might carry the debate further forward for a few days and give me a break. No such luck.

Since you asked, I must say that I'm not terribly keen on the DYKX/Y templates. Couldn't you at least have a single template to which you provide a "y" or "n" field? Then the templates could be preloaded into the checklist fields and users would just have to add the letter, ie you would have something like {{subst:DYKfield|}} preloaded and users would just have to add the y or n, so it would be {{subst:DYKfield|y}} etc. Gatoclass (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also getting pretty tired and frustrated. It seems like when there's a big juicy argument going on everyone wants a piece of it, but as soon as you want to actually get something done or get people's feedback about something concrete, no one's interested any more (and I don't mean you, I just mean in general)...oh well, I guess we'll make do with what we've got (until someone comes along to complain about something I did months after I asked for their input on it :P).

As for having a single template inside the review checklist, that seems like a good idea, although I think people who find e.g. |length=<!--{{subst:DYKY}} or {{subst:DYKX}}--> will also find |length={{subst:DYKfield|}} confusing. Also, fields left blank would just become blank (i.e., I don't think there's a way to keep them there until they get filled out; once the page is saved everything would turn into Y, N or nothing). That might not be a problem, since if one or two fields are left blank then someone can copy and paste the other stuff to fill the holes. On the other hand, if someone only reviews one thing (or none) and then saves the page, then the next person might not know how to add a Y or N.

Overall, I think the best solution is to either go with the two templates (people got used to {{subst:DYKtick}} et al, I assume they can learn this as well), or to scrap the signatures entirely and go with a far simpler template (the thing that makes everything so complicated is trying to get the sigs in, and for reasons NuclearWarfare and I expressed at WT:DYK I don't think they're necessary). Or go with signatures but no Y/N; that would also be simpler (just ~~~s would do the trick). But those people at DYK are going to have to decide what they want. (Earlier today I asked Tony to respond there, since he was the main person who wanted signatures anyway...although now I kind of regret it. The people who should have the most say in the design of the checklist ought to be the people who keep DYK running and will actually use it, rather than the people who are just going to rub it in everyone else's faces when they have a bone to pick....oh well.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I would much prefer to go with the DYKfield option (although a better name might be DYKpass) because as a reviewer it means I only have to add y or n to each field and can do it quickly. I don't want to have to type out subst:DYKX/Y for every field or have to paste it in. This may not sound like a big deal but I think it would be a significant disincentive to participation for me to have to type all that out, and if it's a disincentive for me I'm sure it would also be for others. I'm not sure what you mean by some fields being left blank by that method but as I understand it a blank field is the desired result for an unreviewed field.

In regards to just the ticks without sigs, it's simpler and more elegant and at first I too thought it would suffice, but I can see Tony and Sandy complaining about it down the track, besides which, I think Tony has a point that different checks can be made by different users and sigs would make the accountability clear. For example, I might want to know, in an incompleted review, who had ticked off the various fields, because if it was someone I didn't know or didn't trust I could run a doublecheck. So I do think that system has advantages, but if you feel strongly about it I guess we could run a poll to see which method had more support. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding typing out the template or pasting it in, I think it will be less of a pain than you think if it's preloaded into every field (e.g., |length=<!--{{subst:DYKyes}} or {{subst:DYKno}}-->). The other nice thing about this is that if someone doesn't review a given thing, that code will still be sitting in the template (since it's commented out), so whoever comes along later and reviews it will be able to mark it off easily; the DYKfield/DYKpass option, on the other hand, would I think become Y rʨanaɢ (talk) for a yes, N rʨanaɢ (talk) for a fail, and disappear entirely if left blank, leaving no trace for later reviewers to use. (The only way around this would be to have it <!--commented--> out as well, but then it would require even more typing than the original option: one click to remove the <!--, one to remove the -->, and one to add the y/n on the inside.)

Regarding signatures, I posted some samples at WT:DYK of how I imagine the template working without signatures. I think if people are diligent about posting comments along with their review (e.g., not just filling out the template and then leaving without saying anything) it should still be clear who did what. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you persuaded me on the DYKyes/no front (I think they are better names than DYKX/Y BTW). I still think the signatures will be necessary though. Gatoclass (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion regarding these alternatives seems to have come to a screaming halt. How would you feel about a quick straw poll to decide on one of the two alternatives? I feel we need to resolve this issue quickly because it seems Tony's checklist is leading to discouragement across the board, from nominators to reviewers to admins, so it needs to be replaced quickly IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking of doing that too, although I'm not totally sure how to conduct it. I'll probably just list all four options (Tony's checklist, and the three I outlined on WT:DYK) and let people Support or Oppose as many as they want. But to be honest I think votes from people who actually do review articles should be "worth" more than votes from people who are just coming along to get in on some of the polling action (if that happens)...I wonder if I should make that clear from the beginning (although I think if I do maybe people will accuse me of being subjective or arbitrary...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it that way Rjanag - I would just confine the poll to whether sigs should be used with your checklist or just ticks and crosses. As you say, if you broaden it to include all options, we are likely to attract uninformed !voters at this point. Once we get a view on which of your two versions to use, then we can have a discussion about whether to use your checklist or Tony's, but quite frankly having looked at the mess at T:TDYK, I think Tony's checklist is a non-starter, and Tony himself seems amenable to the idea of dropping it in favour of something more concise, so we may be able to avoid a poll on that altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll post one in a minute. To be honest I'm not optimistic about getting many responses, given that right now it seems all people want to do is have big vague arguments about things that are never going to happen. I guess actually trying to get things done is too mundane for people...... rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For Rjanag, for superlatively reimagining the code for DYK. And for implementing great novelty with great restraint and ongoing good humor. In short, as somebody else remarked above, "for being excellent." Sharktopus talk 23:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bitrot on Template:DYK talk

Hi, I noticed that on Template:DYK talk you used {{BASEPAGENAME}} twice. If an article is moved after this template is added to its talk page, it will break the link. You need to use {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}} to get the current name, used in the nom. I can't make this change because the template is full-protected. You may even want to use the nompage parameter, if that's what it does. In any event, nompage should be documented in Template:DYK talk/doc. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good catch. There are several templates that need to be updated at once (this template is called from another template somewhere, etc. etc., and parameters get passed around), so I will need to make sure I change everything that needs to be changed. I'm about to step out; I'll try to get this done before I log off tonight. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I was incorrect before. The change you've suggested actually won't work, because {{DYK talk}} itself is not substituted (substitution only works when within templates that are also being substituted). In cases like you've described, the only solution is to add |nompage=. I'll add info about that to the documentation like you suggested; I think I can also look into getting the |nompage= to be filled out automatically. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I did this to add |nompage= into the preloaded text for this template (so that, most of the time, the |nompage= parameter will be specified...since this still relies on the same BASEPAGENAME trick it still won't work in cases where the page was already moved before the crediting was done, or where the nomination page name simply doesn't match the article title to begin with...but at least it will probably resolve the majority of the cases you were worried about). I also added |nompage= to the template documentation.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not a DYK regular, and I was just checking out the changes to the existing templates. The {{{article}}} parameter seems to try and accomplish the same goal of preserving the page's name at the time it was at DYK. Maybe {{{nompage}}} could become a simple "yes" and DYKUpdateBot can be given the task of checking whether an article has been moved since its nom, and update {{{article}}} accordingly? --Gyrobo (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm. In the majority of cases this would probably work, but there are some cases where the nompage name will not be the same as the article title (for instance, nominations of multiple articles at once), and nompage allows links to be added even in those cases. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe check views could be moved to the nomination page after a hook's promotion, along with the final hook and picture? This is the first time it's been possible to have a central location for everything related to a DYK hook (much the same way all other processes are handled), so maybe you could bypass {{DYK talk}} entirely and make it part of {{ArticleHistory}}? Then you could also view the article's status at the time of its DYK with an oldid. Semantically, I don't see why the discussion over an article's DYK is different from a discussion over its deletion, or a peer review: they're all actions which affect the article, and {{ArticleHistory}} should be keeping track of them. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}} is generally only implemented on GAs and FA/Ls (or at least articles that have been through those processes). Furthermore, there has been consensus (as far as I remember) not to include a whole lot of DYK information in {{ArticleHistory}}; it basically just includes the date, and we would have to get consensus to add the hook, views, link to the subpage, etc.

the things you're suggesting above are, I think, technically doable, but mainly I just don't see the problem they are meant to solve. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}} already includes dykentry, and {{DYK talk}} is generally removed when {{ArticleHistory}} is added. The transition removes check views, and now the nom page as well. I came up with a rough sketch of what I'm thinking–basically, now that DYK noms have there own pages it would be useful to keep track of the same things that other processes keep track of. Where would I go to propose something like this to the community? --Gyrobo (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems to me there are two separate issues here:

1. Should {{ArticleHistory}} include more info for the dyk stuff?

   I'm not necessarily opposed to that. You would have to raise the issue at Template talk:ArticleHistory, though, as I don't have control over what goes into that template; people may have issues there about what exactly should be included, how it should be worded, etc.

2. Should new DYK articles get tagged with ArticleHistory rather than {{DYK talk}}?

   I'm not sure this is necessary given that the majority of these articles will never go through any of the other processes that ArticleHistory records (e.g. GA, FA, etc.), and if the only thing there is the DYK entry I don't think it's any more informative than {{DYK talk}}.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I'll bring it all up on Template talk:ArticleHistory then. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dare I ask

... why there is something that looks disturbingly close to an edit war on my DYK nomination? I assume there isn't anything I should be doing about this, but if there is please let me know. --RL0919 (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

See Template talk:DYKrev#noincluded. Don't worry about it, you didn't do anything wrong and it won't affect your nomination. Some people are just stubborn. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WARNING

You are warned to cease and desist from deliberately and repeatedly breaching strong community consensus generated at an RfC only three weeks ago. This consensus determined that a list of aspects of DYK nominations should be explicitly covered by the use of a checklist.

If you continue to remove the checklist created pursuant to that RfC without replacing it with another checklist that also satisfies the community's decision, the matter will be raised at the Administrators' Noticeboard. This is likely to result in a block for the protection of the project. Tony (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we read the so-called consensus differently, s. WT:DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Chinese name

Hi Rjanag! I notice your removal of information at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_name&diff=443626095&oldid=443625648

You say there is more complexity in the issue than what the sources say. The problem is, what reliable secondary sources say things like "in reality there is a lot of variation, between people and between publications. many publications *do* reverse names"?

The main thing to consider is that WP:V says that verifiability NOT truth is the criterion for inclusion. If writers say "Generally Chinese names are not reversed" then Wikipedia says "Generally Chinese names are not reversed" - If there are exceptions that exist, let the reliable secondary sources say "Exceptions include X, Y, and Z" - If there are complexities, find reliable sources that say explicitly "X complexities exist"

Also personally I have not encountered publications that say "Zedong Mao" or "Enlai Zhou". While there are cases of reversed names, usually they tend to be Chinese who live and study abroad.

I am aware that many Chinese adopt "English names" but that is not a factor here. When considering the Chinese name itself, the name itself tends not to be reversed. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• And about "("Yao Ming Fred")." - What source says that people use that form? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V doesn't require us to include sources we know are making incorrect claims. You can link me to WP:OR if you want, but Chinese names are still reversed frequently in English-language media. I've noticed this especially in local news articles about non-famous people (e.g., you're not likely to see "Jintao Hu" in a newspaper, but I often see things like "Xin Yang"); in things like directories, lists of results at sporting events, etc.; and for some actors/actresses who are sometimes credited either way (e.g., compare google results for Zhang Ziyi vs. Ziyi Zhang, or Zhao Wei vs. Wei Zhao; I know the limitations of the google test, but this still clearly shows that the reversed spelling is used). I'm not making any claims about which is used more; the point is, it's misleading to say that the reversed order is not used.

Regarding the Yao Ming thing, I don't have an opinion and I don't mind if you remove it. I guess I just accidentally reverted that along with the other stuff. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The claim actually says that the reversed names are rarely used, unless the Chinese person lives or travels abroad (then it is not "rarely" if the Chinese person lives or travels abroad)

The original source is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=EzKBXxnkURkC&pg=PA632&dq=%22Chinese+word+order+in+names+but+also+the%22&hl=en&ei=KGo_TsyOLIOGsgK3wJHXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Chinese%20word%20order%20in%20names%20but%20also%20the%22&f=false

Please pay careful attention to the wording of these sentences; there is a difference between "rarely" and "never".

I am going to make a post on WikiProject China about this, so that everybody can see what's going on.

Also, about "WP:V doesn't require us to include sources we know are making incorrect claims." - People tried using that rationale in order to say "Barack Obama's not African-American" and the answer is "most reliable sources say so, so we say so" - See Talk:Barack_Obama FAQ Question 2: "Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say,[...]"

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Chinese_names_in_English - I will respond to the claim about Zhang Ziyi there - WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolving the issue of checklists in review templates

I was hoping, and in fact I proposed,[4] that you would include one of your own proposed table-checklist forms in the DYK review template that you created. It would be a mature and helpful step on your part toward peaceful consensus at WT:DYK. Sharktopus ^talk 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why I decided not to bother submitting a DYK nomination

Thanks for your swift response to my comments on the new DYK process. As I noted, I am not a newbie, but the requirement to review another submission (under the new system) was beyond me. I have no problem with the submission process itself; it's straightforward and I have done it a dozen times in the past. I also didn't mind when they instituted the requirement to review somebody else's nomination; that seemed like it had some basic fairness on its side, and it was fairly simple: article age, article length, hook length, hook facts cited in article, that was about it. The problem is the new, far more complex review process, the greatly increased requirements for review, and above all the template. I hadn't submitted a DYK for several months, so I was startled to find this massive template now in use. At first I spent several minutes just trying to navigate the Template Talk page - to figure out which nominations had been disposed of and which had been commented on and which had not. Then I tried to figure out how the templates work and what I was supposed to do; there are no instructions for the template that I could find. Was I going to have to find a nomination that had no commentary at all, and complete the whole friggin' process myself? Would it be enough to sign off on just one aspect of the review? Would it be enough to add a comment below the template? And what's with all the new criteria for the article itself - copyvio, and neutrality, and what-the-hell-is-vintage? Why do the newer nominations not appear to have a template attached; is that something I'm supposed to do? It shouldn't surprise anyone that after 15 or 20 minutes I said "The hell with it" and gave up. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Feel free to quote me. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with all your complaints about this issue. That template was put together hastily by someone with no experience in these sorts of things, and who insisted on adding it to every nomination he could find without waiting for a discussion to work out all the issues that you have mentioned. There are some discussions going on at WT:DYK regarding various aspects of this; personally I think these checklists shouldn't have been implemented until all these concerns had been discussed beforehand and a clear set of instructions had been made. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done about this? Sounds like a kind of rogue action, but it is going to scare people away from doing DYK nominations - possibly permanently. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This went on a lot longer than it should have, but it looks like the discussion here finally yielded a clear consensus that that user doesn't have the right to keep adding the template everywhere. I don't think it will be added anymore except by reviewers actually choosing for themselves to use it. (If I notice other editors blanket-adding it to all noms, I'll just remove it). In the meantime, I'm still working on trying to make a template that doesn't have the kinds of problems you mentioned above; there are discussions at WT:DYK#Straw poll on signatures in the review template, WT:DYK#The review checklist, redux, and WT:DYK#Review checklist templates. (Although those haven't gotten much feedback, since many people there right now seem more interested in having fights than in getting anything done....) rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm - I noticed that some nominations are being reviewed under the "old" system, without the template. So I went ahead and reviewed a nomination the way I used to, and then submitted my own nomination. Will be interesting to see if it gets accepted as a valid review. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's fine to review without using the template. Despite User:Tony1's threats to the contrary, no one has any right to reject a nomination for not using that particular review template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Rjanag. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

16 of 240

I see DYK only has 16 approved noms out of 240. And the backlog is about triple of what it was a month ago. Is that because of the effort to turn it in mini-FAs or what? PumpkinSky talk 15:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly part of it. Another reason is because there are people like SandyGeorgia and Tony1 just sitting around waiting for their opportunity to tell DYK reviewers how stupid they are. I can't blame people for not wanting to volunteer their time reviewing with people like that around. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said. PumpkinSky talk 18:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The backlog isn't actually nearly as bad as it looks, because hooks are now retained on the nominations page until all hooks for the entire day are cleared and moved into an archive somewhere. Which reminds me Rjanag, I still have no idea what the state of play is on this archiving system, has it been dropped, is it being replaced by something new, or what? I'd like to be able to start clearing the page but don't really know where to start. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the status of the archiving is, but it occurs to me that one way to greatly reduce the clutter on T:TDYK while retaining the archiving would be to delete the section header at the same time an article is promoted or rejected, if it's possible to do that. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's just recently been done (in response to some people's pointing out that the links to completed noms were unneeded, made both them and the section headers disappear when an article is promoted/rejected), although it won't actually start showing up for a while.

As for the archiving, I haven't done anything yet because I haven't really gotten any feedback on it (other than the two comments from you and Crisco, and Sandy's repeated instance that there must be an archive or the world will end, even though she keeps ignoring messages or questions I send her about the archive issue). I wouldn't mind getting rid of it, I'd just like to get feedback from more people before doing so, and I'm starting to lose confidence in the usefulness of WT:DYK for anything but drama recently. I've posted so many threads looking for constructive feedback about real issues and gotten almost no response, but the moment some idiot comes around shouting in all caps about something silly or just wanting to insult people then suddenly everyone has something to say... rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I guess I'll post a thread asking for opinions about this archiving thing now. I'll do that before posting the thread about the review checklist I mentioned on your page; I know it needs to be done, but I haven't really been eager to do it lately because I know as soon as a few particular people show up it's just going to turn into a big drama fest with a bunch of people insulting each other. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually they didn't wait, they started insulting each other pre-emptively :)

Can I delete the links which were put there for the archives at T:TDYK now? They are adding a lot to page clutter and I'm keen to get rid of them. Also, can I delete the instructions regarding the archiving at the top of the page? It appeared from the discussion at T:TDYK that nobody wants to retain the date archiving method. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I already deleted the mention of archives (in the comments at the top of each date header), and changed the instructions (so now they're no longer instructions for archiving, but instructions for removing a day). Are we thinking of different things? rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we must be. I'm talking about all the links left behind after an article is either promoted or rejected. I don't see that they serve any purpose if they're not being archived and they are what is creating all the clutter at T:TDYK. They also screw up the queue summary table because the code thinks they are still live discussions. I want to get rid of these links so I can keep track of just how many noms and verifications we have at T:TDYK. Gatoclass (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. I don't see anything wrong with removing those. It should be possible by doing this to all the old nom discussions: basically, removing the stuff from the <includeonly> to </includeonly>, and moving that whole chunk of stuff (from {{#if:yes to the end of the archive message) up above the header. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as a quicker solution, I can just remove the noms themselves like this. This won't be necessary in the future, but I ca do it now just to clean up the page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK looks so much better now, thanks! However, there seems to be one small problem remaining, some of the earlier hooks are still turning up, like William A. Caldwell for instance. I tried deleting them but can't do so as their appearance seems to have been coded somehow. Any chance you could fix this? Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, some older noms will end up like this. The easiest way to deal with them right now (other than letting them sit and be removed when the whole date is removed) would just be to un-transclude them from T:TDYK itself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I got them all.[5] I must say I really like this new system of separate nom pages, looks like I was wrong to resist this idea when it was brought up in the past. T:TDYK is very short and manageable now, and there are no problems with edit conflicts or moving headers anymore!

BTW I noticed when giving those old noms the flick a few minutes ago that there seems to be a number of different edit links on the page now, there is "edit nomination page", "Edit nom - Article history" and "Review or comment - Article history". Presumably you are responsible for these? Which is the latest version? I think I prefer the latter. Would it be possible though to include these links on the same line as the header? It would save quite a bit of space. Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, those links are my fault, I kept changing my mind or updating them every few hours one day. The most recent one is the "Review or comment - Article history". (And I don't know if there are any multi-noms on the page right now, but if there are they look slightly different, like this...I put the article history links on a separate line for multi-noms because I thought it might look cluttery to have a lot of history links on the same line with the other links, although I'm not sure now).

I haven't really tried it but I think putting the links with the header might be awkward. I thought about trying that (similar to the edit links in the headers at T:DYK/Q but, since the links are made by a template, I have a filling it would mess up people's ability to click a section link from an edit summary or article history and get to the right section. Another thing I've thought about is making the links into some sort of "toolbox" (similar to the "previous AfDs for this article" box at AfD, or the toolbox at FACs) on the right-hand side of the nom, but that would compete for space with the image in noms that have images. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A toolbox sounds a little like overkill to me, unless you were planning on adding additional doodads to it. And yes, it would compete with images for space. But it sounds as if you are giving plenty of thought to these issues so I think I'll leave you to it, at least until you do something I have an issue with :) BTW, I suggested at WT:DYK that we add one of your checklists to the nom template to trial it (see the "Next step" discussion if you haven't already), but I thought it might be best to leave it for a few days as I think everyone is a bit tired of all the changes and we could probably all use a few days' break. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering if you could answer this. I created the secondary account User:Joe Chill Secondary. I was wondering how I can get rid of the new Wikipedia view on that account. I changed it on my main account because I found it awful and I forgot how to. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An admin complained about me using it to welcome editors with templates and was assuming bad faith. I removed the user page. I was just trying to be helpful. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean the page layout? That is changed in Special:Preferences; click the "Appearance" tab and select "Monobook" (that's the old skin, t he new skin is Vector). rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your other question: no, there's nothing wrong with using a different account for something like this, as long as it's clear the account is yours and you don't use it for anything that could be perceived as sockpuppeting or votestacking. Since it seems you only used the account for welcoming new users, that shouldn't be a problem. It's not necessary to have such an account, but having such an account is not against the rules either. Other editors have their own opinions about welcome templates and stuff, but adding welcome templates isn't against the rules; all they can say is that they don't like it, they can't punish you for adding the templates. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for informing me about the DYK nomination. -- James26 (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Children's Museum backstage pass

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!

The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

• Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
• Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
• Watching out for the class as a whole
• Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

A pod suggestion for you: Cognitive Psychology

Hi Rjanag! I'm in the process of trying to find Online Ambassadors to support each of the classes for this coming term, and I thought you'd be a good fit for this one: Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Courses/Cognitive_Psychology_(Greta_Munger). If you're up for it, please check out the Memorandum of Understanding (linked above) which sketches the expectations for Online Ambassadors this term, and then you can sign on to class and get in touch with the professor.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Coding issue?

Hi Rjanag, I have noticed that although some promoted/rejected noms are no longer appearing on T:TDYK, their templates still exist on the page. For example, on August 12 there are only five noms remaining, but in the edit window there are still 16 noms listed. Is this WAD, or something you have overlooked? If it's WAD, we may have to add something to the instructions with regards to the promotion/rejection procedure. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this is intentional. I wanted to minimize the number of edits needed to promote hooks, so all promoting happens from the subpage itself (promoting the subpage causes it to become invisible on T:TDYK); otherwise I think it would have been a pain for people assembling preps to have to not only copy hooks and credits from a subpage and paste them to the prep, but also open another window to find the templates on T:TDYK and remove them. The idea is then that the templates won't show up at all on T:TDYK, and they can all be removed together when all the noms in that day are resolved; people doing the promoting or rejecting never have to worry about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I thought they might need to be removed to make the DYK table on the queue page work properly, but I guess Shubinator is going to have to completely rewrite that to make the table work with the new system anyhow.

The T:TDYK instructions however still include the following statement: On Template talk:Did you know, it replaces the full discussion with just a link to the discussion, indicating that the discussion is no longer active. I think that is redundant now isn't it? In which case you won't mind if I remove it? Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that part should be updated now that we got rid of those leftover "promoted by..." links. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem with template-less reviews

I don't know if you saw this recent sampling of quickie review summaries: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Depth_of_review. Could you please soon add some review guideline of some kind to the nomination template? Sharktopus ^talk 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look back at those older discussions and make an executive decision about which version to use (or which versions to trial). I'll try to have a look soon. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response -- and also of course for all the work you have already done on this. Sharktopus ^talk 01:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rodney King and Red Links

Thanks for the user talk. The guy who undid the last two times it is a wiki-undo-stalker with an personal vendetta. He offers no positive help or reason why he undo's things, so I gave it no weight. The edit prior said that my intro had some typo's so I corrected them. I really could care less. There was flag on top of the current into that I am about to put back up there saying that it was inadequate and didn't comply. Tried to help, but oh well. God Bless. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that info! Thought they were previous articles that were broken. Will be more careful. Thanks!

Conflict Resolution Request

Could you take a look at the ORIGINAL Rodney King edit and assess whether that flag needs to be removed, per discussion notes. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GrubHub Food Delivery nomination

Hi Rjanag, I've fixed the referencing for GrubHub Food Delivery & Pickup at Template:Did you know nominations/GrubHub Food Delivery & Pickup. Is it ready to be passed? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It still needs to be reviewed; I just noticed a referencing issue, I didn't do a full review. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks. BTW: since when has the kind of nomination (expanded, new, BLPx2) stopped being entered into the template? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it from the preload a couple days ago [6] because I thought it's probably not needed in most cases (once a reviewer opens the history it should be obvious whether they're looking at a new creation or an expansion, and in the rare cases where it's not obvious--such as a move from userspace--the user can leave a |comment=). I figured I'd try to make nominators fill out as little stuff as possible. It's still possible to specify the |status= when nominating and it behaves as usual; it's just not required. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I worry for all those articles that have sat in user space for a while before being moved to article space; even when its pointed out it can be overlooked. Thanks for all the work on the template. Works great! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Template question

I am unfamiliar with the template used at Template:Did you know nominations/Ye Olde Tavern (Iowa). The Neutrality part says that it is a bit weasely, but the reviewer fixed it himself. The Interest area is blank. I have no idea if it is a pass or not and what to make of the template. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It can't be passed until all areas have a green check. If an area is blank, you are free to review it or check it itself; if an area has a concern (e.g., "a bit weasely") but the concern has since been addressed, you are free to remove that concern and replace it with your own green check (using the code that is already included there inside the <!- -> marks.

I haven't yet gotten around to writing up clear instructions on the usage of this template because, to be honest, I haven't even finished making the template yet. I didn't really get much feedback on the questions I had when designing it, and I didn't expect that people would be using it now when we haven't yet reached an agreement on how the template should be made. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, I only came here to say that I use the templates (Template:DYK article checklist and Template:DYK hook checklist) as they are as good as anything that allows me to be sure that all the critical points have been addressed. I like it because it's visual, concise, and encapsulates all the points. As to the two boxes I left blank in my review, I'm a bit unsure as to the credentials of the Sterns, but I just assumed that they were fairly well regarded but local food boffins. I'm a bit wary of the use of passive voice, but this still exists in the hook, which is what that problem was referring to. I'm not sure how that can be addressed, or whether that's the usual DYK way of creating 'interest'. I found the hook marginally interesting, so I left it blank in case anybody wanted to express their opinion for or against. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Gerrymadering (film) DYK

• You are quite right, sorry I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Do you think the district map would be an appropriate image then to go with the DYK?--Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 21:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally I think it's not a great image to use; it's not actually an illustration of the subject of the article, it's just an illustration that is somewhat related. Plus, it doesn't show up well at small size. Some DYKs are just better without images. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • sorry about moving the template. --Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 23:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK Notice

Thank you for your info. Will i have to repost the DYK? Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Review template preferences

Hi, it was suggested we put feedback on the issue of what template to use here? I do appreciate your trying to come up with templates to satisfy the mandate of the RfC (which I never even saw, I was staying away from that awful discussion page at the time on principle). The trouble is I don't really have any preference, except insofar as both of the alternatives I've seen you put forward in the last couple of weeks are relatively unmassive and therefore vastly preferable IMO to Tony1's. I'd really rather the use of templates in reviews be the reviewer's choice. Some people like them, some people don't, I don't consider the RfC to have been a very good expression of the feelings of those who have to do Quid Pro Quo reviews but if it's going to stand, I understand what it actually said was that reviews must explicitly refer to all the items on a list that amounted to Wikipedia policy plus DYK policy, so I see no reason why that should compel all reviewers to do it either with a checklist template or without one. But I genuinely don't have much of a preference when it comes to deciding between your templates - which is why I have never spoken up when you've asked. So there's my feedback, pretty useless though it is :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Further to my comment above, as a reviewer, and as somebody who occasionally looks over reviews, I prefer the presence of a template such as yours to no template. The lack of a review template makes me uncertain what work has been done by a previous reviewer and what remains to be done. I guess Tony's template looks more intimidating, but the work behind it works out to be the same because you can't skate over or fudge the requirements any more. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK Canadas Wonderland

Sorry about that, please review the DYK again as I added the statement to the most appropriate place I could find within the article. Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I know this probably sounds stupid, but can you explain to me what exactly fivefold means?--Dom497 (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is all explained in the DYK rules. To put it simply: if for example an article is 1,000 characters long, to nominate it for DYK you'd have to expand it until it's 5,000 or more. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please don't. --John (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's useful to bring this up a day after the fact, when the discussion is already long since over. And I'm quite aware that I was insulting that user, but if you actually read the rest of the discussion you will better understand what's going on. No offense, but I don't pay a lot of attention to "warnings" based on comments taken out of context by people who are more interested in playing "spot the bad words" than taking the time to actually read the surrounding discussion. Anyone who actually does read the surrounding discussion will easily see that that user was trolling, was being deliberately stubborn (i.e., pretending not to understand a simple concept) just to prolong an argument, and had no intention to contribute anything of value. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you would assume I didn't read the whole conversation. I don't agree that Malleus was "trolling". Have you read WP:NOTTHEM recently? I see you have never been blocked. I don't think I have ever blocked another admin. Let's both try to keep these records, ok? --John (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to the DYK nomination review for West Wing Week.

Thanks for letting me know not to use symbols I did not know that. I understand that the hook may not appeal to all refers interests so I shall add some alternative hooks some time today or tomorrow, in order for a consensus can be reached as to which one is most appropriate. Please suggest an alternative hooks if you think of any.

Kind regards, --Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Insulting?

I think we need to take this here. I understand you've worked very hard to make change at DYK and I've said multiple times that the new page templates are a fantastic edition. Can you please give me diffs of where I was insulting. I don't generally try to insult people and if I was I'd apologize. First though, I'd need to know what I'm apologizing for. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Here you both suggested that I don't respond to anyone's requests or concerns regarding proposed changes, and that I was "shooting down" someone's idea when really I was just trying to point out what I saw as legitimate concerns (which I consider a way of respecting and acknowledging an idea; if I just wanted to shoot it down I would have said it was a ridiculous idea). I am not looking for apologies, though, and I understand that maybe you didn't realize what you were saying, so let's just forget about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)