Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 358: Line 358:
::It could be beneficial to tweak the [[User:AlexNewArtBot/Good|rules]] to decrease the emphasis on formatting niceties and find a way to give more weight to features like the presence of multiple citations. I don't understand the searching protocol well enough to suggest changes to the rules, but some of the rest of you might be able to parse the rules and figure out what could be done differently to improve the usefulness of these results for DYK. Suggestions ultimately should go to [[User talk:Tedder|Tedder]], who is currently running this search.
::It could be beneficial to tweak the [[User:AlexNewArtBot/Good|rules]] to decrease the emphasis on formatting niceties and find a way to give more weight to features like the presence of multiple citations. I don't understand the searching protocol well enough to suggest changes to the rules, but some of the rest of you might be able to parse the rules and figure out what could be done differently to improve the usefulness of these results for DYK. Suggestions ultimately should go to [[User talk:Tedder|Tedder]], who is currently running this search.
::A work-around for NPP is to decouple DYK identification from patrolling new pages. I've found that there are enough details in the current list of new pages that I can skim quickly to identify some of the relatively small number of pages that might possibly be long enough and good enough for DYK. That's not as efficient as the GnodSearchResult, but it could work. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 01:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
::A work-around for NPP is to decouple DYK identification from patrolling new pages. I've found that there are enough details in the current list of new pages that I can skim quickly to identify some of the relatively small number of pages that might possibly be long enough and good enough for DYK. That's not as efficient as the GnodSearchResult, but it could work. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 01:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

== SS Gallic in Prep 4 ==

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

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

Revision as of 11:32, 15 July 2013

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut


This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

Crisis looming

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

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

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

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

Copyvio check (Earwig @ toolserver) on Priyanka Chopra filmography

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

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

Civil War hooks

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

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

Nominations needing DYK reviewers

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

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

Editor closely paraphrases sources

Strike Eagle has been nominating articles with close paraphrasing issues. His articles have been promoted since June and possibly earlier. These are examples of close paraphrasing from promoted articles - [1] (INS Chennai) and [2] (Russian submarine K-51 Verkhoturye). The issue was pointed out to him on June 25 - Template:Did you know nominations/INS Kamorta. I reviewed a July 6 nomination with the same problem - Template:Did you know nominations/Russian submarine K-18 Karelia. SL93 (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something amiss on July 5 noms

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

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

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

Hook pull off

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

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

DYK criteria on "newness"

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

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

Copy editing

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

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

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

Is there something that I'm missing?

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

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

Queue 5 request

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

Backlog?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Fourth opinion requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William de Courcy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second opinion

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

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

Manual update overdue

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

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

Prep area 2 - Vegard Lysvoll hook

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

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

Prep area 1

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

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

Why is this tiny image acceptable on the main page?

Casa del Arte (Concepción, Chile)

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

Maybe because you haven't popped up to suggest an alternative :-). Replaced, there are many other choices in [3] and [4]. Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Disengaging from certain reviews

I'd like my fellow DYK participants to know that in the future I'm not going to involve myself with the approval or improvement of DYK nominations from Dr. Blofeld, and that I may extend my non-participation to other nominations produced by the "Rosblofnari" group. This is due to a growing concern I have had about the quality of this group's articles and is precipitated by some recent negative interactions with Dr. Blofeld (notably on my talk page, but also in certain nomination templates), including his declaration to me that "If I see you so much as breathe in one of our DYK nominations again I'm going to withdraw it the moment you start commenting". I am further concerned by a recommendation by Dr. Blofeld that the group members should aim to maximize the "efficiency" of their DYK production by limiting the lengths of the articles they nominate at DYK and the amount of time they spend on researching each article.

Accordingly, I will not be responding to other users' requests for help with review of any of these nominations. I will, however, look into these noms/articles if I am reviewing approved noms before sending them to a prep area or to the queues, so you may see my comments on these noms from time to time. --Orlady (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that editors have those rights as volunteers. I never reviewed their articles, but I can say that I won't promote them anymore if this goes through. I partly understood what Blofeld was getting at although the vast majority of what he said was wrong. In response to my comment about quality articles, Blofeld tried to defend the benefits of quality articles, but this new project of his makes it clear, that at least now, he only cares about making a point. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sl93, again you've misinterpreted the situation. Rosblofnari has existed since April, it isn't new. I most certainly wouldn't make changes to prove a point. I've proposed changes based on experienced of what works and what doesn't at DYK and that none of us want to have to spend days fixing issues with a single article just for the sake of a DYK credit. You told me I was "wrong" yet admitted that you yourself have been experiencing the same stalling which I find highly hypocritical. You know I'm right, but for some reason you want to continue to bow down to Orlady and defend her as if it improves your status on here or something.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well..."flabbergasted" comes to mind, but I guess it shouldn't. I didn't know they had a "group" that they're actually calling a WikiProject, but have wondered about the sheer volume of DYKs. I had started to back off from reviewing them about a year ago for a much milder reason. I had questioned a reference, and I got blowback for challenging it. And...you know...why spin your wheels on that kind of thing. To the best of my memory, that was before the campaign on this page to honor Dr. Blofeld's contributons with a mention on the main page. I momentarily forgot about that when I posted at This Here One, and you see the reaction. And in spite of the denial, Dr.B did delete the article sentence in question and removed the photo in question. It's just easier to review others. But I'm still agape at what was posted on your talk page. DYK isn't THAT big of a deal to get that whacked. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I also was unaware of this "group" that they're calling a WikiProject until less than 24 hours ago. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady. You not only bullied us into submission on the Mink industry in Denmark in particular, checking every source and blowing it up into a massive problem despite a lot of effort to correct the problem, but you've also targeted us on the Eagle Peak (Wyoming) article, say that we've bloated it just for the sake of DYK. You admitted on your talk page you dislike the fact that I have a high DYK count and a "sort of cult status" on wikipedia and DYK as you put it which makes you less inclined to help us than oppose us and you wouldn't have brought this up here if you were really constructive and amicable. I told you to stay away from our nominations because there is a difference between constructive criticism and excessive badgering, making little effort to really solve what you are apparently concerned with, and you've admitted as such that you have issues with us personally. You claim that you have all of these life commitments yet you had the time to check every source and stalk me, otherwise you'd not have known about my latest proposal. Yes, DYK needs critical editors who can help identify inaccuracies, poor sourcing etc, but you represent the extreme end of it which crosses over the line into deliberately stalling articles and being excessively picky. As identified on your talk page I could find multiple issues in your own DYKs but I don't hound you about them because I'm just not that sort of person.
Frankly we're sick of reviewers like you moaning about the quality and bloat of expansions, portraying articles with minor problems as disastrous. So from now on we're going to produce new articles which are basic but meet requirements. This will give us more control over content and sourcing which we hope will improve the quality of text and sourcing in the eyes of DYK reviewers, even if the articles are not detailed. I've concluded that DYK generally prefers simple sound quality/sourcing than comprehensive/detailed articles. We're going to work on GA article separately and not put them through DYK. Obviously you've posted here to try to lure reviewers to take a leaf out of your book and impede progress and the number of DYKs we produce which you strangely seem to exhibit some sort of jealousy and contempt for which I find rather pathetic. Above all, our Rosblofnari group work together in good faith to produce an interesting variety of articles for every entity in the world. We work together in a good, collaborative spirit and try to rub that off on others and try to help other editors out with their proposals and however much you do profess to improve DYK quality your attitude at least to us is not what I'd expect of an atmosphere in which everybody helps each other out. I'm very disappointed in you Orlady, given that I had a lot of respect for you and always assumed good faith, which was why it took me so long to speak up about it, but when you insulted us claiming we only cared about DYK count not quality that was the last straw. And it's not as if we're the only victims of your bullying, the copy editing thread further up the page somebody notes how you degraded a contributor by comparing his work to an 8th grader. As somebody said about Orlady "Comments like "Excuse me for assuming competence on your part" and "if I wrote like that in my 8th grade English class, I would have had red marks all over my paper" by User:Orlady on that DYK review are profoundly unhelpful and inappropriate for a collaborative project. (On a separate topic, the prose really is not so disastrous at all - no comment on the now-possibly-fixed close paraphrasing issues.) Possibly Orlady didn't intend them that way... who knows." My sentiments exactly.
Can I just remind you all here that none of us have to contribute to wikipedia much less to DYK. I've long wanted to focus on GA articles myself, but at present DYK seems the only mechanism in which we can work together to produce a series of organized articles together and try to tackle systematic bias and "open up the world". I created my project to better organize our work and keep tabs on everything. If you don't respect us and see our many contributions to DYK as a good thing then that's your problem, but none of us are being paid to produce what we do so you should be grateful rather than hostile towards our efforts. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about DYK and NPP

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

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

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

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

SS Gallic in Prep 4

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=564347581"