Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

2011 DYK reform proposals

Numerous threads moved to the Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals subpage:

• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Good articles redux
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal - minimum character requirement increase from 1500 to 2500
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Some thoughts from a semi-regular
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal to replace DYK with new Good article DYKs and demote the current system to a sub page
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Multiple RFCs confusing, simply remove DYK from the mainpage
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Brainstorming related to RFC

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

HKT48 (Prep 2)

The average age of the members of the group is sourced in the article as 13.8 years, but the method of calculation is so mathematically incompetent (can't be bothered typing it all again here, see the article's talk page) that it does not merit main page attention. Do we have an ALT? Frankly, I'm not very happy about giving main page attention to something so promotional of sexualised presentation of pre-teens and early teens at all, but if we must, let's retain at least mathematical dignity. Kevin McE (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have an ALT, but that was not the approved hook. Returned to T:TDYK for now. --PFHLai (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:HKT48. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've given several alts. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Queue 5

• Template:Did you know nominations/Solamente Tú (album)

Sample from Solamente Tú (album): "The songs are mostly inspired by heartbreak, romantic disillusionment, troubled or failed relationships."

Sample from the source: " ... and prominent country themes (heartbreak, romantic disillusionment, troubled or failed relationships, loneliness, drinking to forget the pain) are also prominent regional Mexican themes."

More importantly, although these words are taken from allmusic.com, they are never cited to allmusic.com, and although the text appears in the lead, it is nowhere in the body of the article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you know this comes from allmusic.com, and not from one of the other 181 sources about "Solamente Tú" that come up in a Google search for the exact phrase "heartbreak, romantic disillusionment, troubled or failed relationships"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you should examine those hits more carefully to understand what's going on there ... so, it's the same deal ... it's not quoted or cited anywhere in the article-- it's just dropped into the lead. Does anyone read these things before they are placed on the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I did some copy-edit in the lead, replacing the original phrase "the songs are mostly inspired by heartbreak, romantic disillusionment, troubled or failed relationships" for something different. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

But the question is why that isn't cited ... which it can be to several sources. See WP:LEAD-- you don't have to cite text in the lead, but you do have to summarize text from the article (where it should be cited) to the lead.

Thanks for the rewording and for responding here, but the concern here is that reviewers aren't reviewing. We can see from the section just above this one that some reviewers are just moving too fast and not really checking nominations at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be precise in your criticism. What you can say based on the datum you've presented is that a single error has occurred, so that there is evidence that the reviewers are not completing their assigned tasks at 100% accuracy. Is an accuracy rate of 100% your personal goal? If so, there are other projects of higher profile on Wikipedia that have failed to achieve this level of accuracy, and your time might be better spent improving those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, more precisely, SandyGeorgia is taking for granted without saying so, that we have read her repeated complaints such as #Accountability, which can be found in great quantity by searching this page or any recent archive for her name. I don't know how valid her endlessly repeated complaint is, but I will note that her specifics are occasionally, but not regularly and categorically, objected to. I will also note that her allies may sometimes prefer to complain without bothering to research such specifics. But one datum isn't the problem. Art LaPella (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Errors and errors and more erras, no one here is perfect. I'm not concerned about the numbers of errors we fail to spot but the number of articles we fail to encourage. Is the major problem on DYK the number of errors, the poor morale or the lack of contributions? Errors are found by editors. Not sure if "the plan" is to get rid of the editors first or the articles. The Perfection we associate with a vacuum awaits anyone who achieves either. The feature article process fails to find every error. Lots of DYK editors used to find errors in lots of new articles and repair them. Some are solving that by whipping the editors and making sure new articles are published without any oversight. Its good to find errors - we don't need this level of public lynching and hand -wringing everytime someone finds an error. Victuallers (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Silly Art, it's apparent several "regulars" posting to this page aren't concerned that DYK is a training ground for cut-and-paste editing and that the review process here is deficient. It's the strangest mentality here, where folks want to "punish" editors, or deny copyvio, or come up with an endless stream of excuses to avoid discussing the fact that problems with copyvio at DYK predominated in the archives here long before I became aware of how bad the problem was. The "plan" is to encourage people here to review articles correctly so that DYK can be the teaching place it should be, where new editors can learn correct editing before they go on to create hundreds of copyvios. @Victuallers, of course no one is perfect and no article is perfect, but that's not an excuse to continue failing to review at one page on Wikipedia where we have a chance of educating new editors early on so they can avoid becoming serial cut-and-pasters like those that predominate the DYK Hall of Fame. Now, y'all can focus on the nominators, who really aren't at fault, if you'd like, but I say the problem is with Koolaid-drinking reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, may I ask you not to throw accusations here or anywhere, at least without providing reliable evidence to back it up, and if thrown, withdraw and/or apologize? Let us start with your message above. How about "Silly Art" and "serial cut-and-pasters like those that predominate the DYK Hall of Fame"? Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What accusations? What lack of evidence? Shall I retype everything from archives, or can you read them yourself? "Silly Art" refers to "SandyGeorgia is taking for granted ... " SandyGeorgia is doing no such silly thing. Now, back on topic: the problems with DYK are very well documented, have been for years, and yet when I reviewed and found plagiarism over and over (a year ago) on the main page, I was encouraged over and over to bring it here first-- to review articles in prep and queue and raise the issues here first. But lookie there-- see what happens when I do that?

Resistance is futile-- DYK will continue to be a training ground for quick cut-and-paste editing because reviewers don't want to slow down the volume to a point where nominations can be properly reviewed before running on the mainpage. Why is it that the mentality here is that any new article is entitled to mainpage space, no matter the quality, no matter the sourcing, no matter the prose, no matter the lack of paraphrasing, no matter the lack of review? What exactly is the resistance to reviewing articles for compliance with core policies and for elementary grammar? They aren't typically long articles, DYK is a place where we frequently encounter new editors, it has often been pointed out that it's the best place to detect problem editing early on and guide editors towards our policies, yet just a small handful of editors continue to support the status quo. Theoretically, that would be because they value any content-- no matter the quality-- over teaching editors Wikipedia policy early on, so that we don't end up detecting another Billy Hathorn after so many copyvios have been created that we'll never be able to clean them all up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we stay on topic please? We can make a poll, and I bet most would take "Silly Art" as "Art LaPella is silly", or maybe as "what Art LaPella said is silly" how about withdrawing that? We know about Billy, but "serial cut-and-pasters like those that predominate the DYK Hall of Fame" targets a much wider audience of respectable editors. Do you mean what you say, or shall we ignore what you say? Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Rereading, "taking for granted" seems neither unlikely nor hostile (the quote was "We can see from the section just above this one that some reviewers", not "reviewer" singular, which makes it technically false but understandable). Whatever. I think Sandy confused me with Victuallers, who used the word "plan" for instance. I don't believe I have outright denied the substance of her comment above. Rather, I have denied knowing how much rewriting is required to avoid plagiarism, questioned whether any of us really know that, and if not then how does getting moralistic about it help us understand the unknown. Art LaPella (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Sandy is pulling things together in a single page, as I suggested earlier. That should clarify her views and make it easier to refer to them (when that is finished). But I would encourage others to summarise progress (or lack of it) over the past year or so as well, if they disagree with the opinions of others (and to similarly provide data and links to back up what they are saying), or to collaborate to produce a summary page (if it is too much for one individual to do). My view is that something needs to be done, as the aggravation and problems are not resolving themselves and it is (slowly but demonstrably) affecting things around here. In other words, those saying there has been no progress or insufficient progress need to show that, and those saying things are improving need to show that as well. I'm personally more concerned that since CorenSearchBot stopped working, lots of copyvios were not caught in recent backlogs. There is a recent article at The Signpost (see here) that mentioned the copyright problems that came out of a recent (large) education outreach program in India. It is things like that that people here need to be aware of as well. Carcharoth (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been some progress. Rjanag instituted the subpages, so we can at least now determine where to focus our education efforts, and Nikkimaria is catching all of the plagiarism/close paraphrasing/copyvios that are still being approved, while Kevin McE is catching all manner of everything everywhere on the mainpage (not just DYK). But we still don't have accountability at the level of admins posting DYK hooks to the mainpage, and it still doesn't seem that folks are even reading these articles-- which still suggests to me that volume is too high for DYK to serve its most useful purpose-- we don't need new content as much as we need editors who know correct editing, and DYK could be the best training ground for new editors. (I doubt I'll find time to finish that page, because there are just too many-- and the whole problem would go away so simply if folks would just stop denying the problems and start tackling them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A higher standard of evidence would also help. There is a claim there that a DYK was passed by a reviewer without being checked, but if you look at the section above, you will see that this has been rebutted (I think). Someone needs to check that and remove the false claim if it is indeed false. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC) To be clearer, I'm talking about the inclusion of the bit above concerning Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi at User:SandyGeorgia/Didyouknow before the full facts were in. Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Sigh, you (Sandy) keep ignoring my comments and pretend you know what is right for the project. Efforts of Kevin McE and Nikkimaria are visible, what you miss is that this area has always been more stressful than others, that best editors and reviewers have left the project because of that, and that what you do is overstressing those remained - I am not the first to tell you that. Be sure, you would be treated much nicer if you tried to fix the errors yourself (you can copyedit, can't you), and if not evident how, diplomatically point to a problem, without rushing to blame for it. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I "pretend" ... oh, my, I feel a "silly comment" coming on. No, I don't miss that it's stressful-- of course it is, it's pushing more volume than it can handle. And the best editors I know left because the plagiarism at DYK disgusted them. And there are far too many errors for any one editor to take them all on ... suppose I had to fix every FAC myself? The reviewers need to learn to review, and that is done via accountability. And Carcharoth, you can claim or see or read whatever you'd like, but I suggest that you, um, do your homework first. I have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's the problem isn't it? It is up to the FAC delegates to assign and coordinate the reviews. Whether or not they do the reviews themselves, it is up to the FAC delegates to certify that the reviews have been carried out properly and the articles are front page worthy. And they have to produce a featured article every day. That is what you are demanding that the DYK delegates do, and therefore it is both fair and reasonable to demand that of the FAC delegates. And if they cannot do it, and they cannot seem to do it at the present time, then we need to get a set of FAC delegates who can. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What "DYK delegates" are you talking about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Meant the "DYK admins". Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the point, no such thing, any admin can pass a queue to the mainpage. No accountability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My point about the inclusion of Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi at User:SandyGeorgia/Didyouknow is that it would be sensible to at least wait until the discussion here has concluded before including it at that page. That is reasonable, surely? Bushranger reviewed it and you should at least reply to what he said up there before including a criticism of him on that page. If your work was being criticised, you'd want others to extend you that courtesy, wouldn't you? Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just don't speak this punishment/criticism/blame language that is the respone to every issue raised with the content and the review process here. This is Wikipedia, right, where our concern is the content, or did I land somewhere else? An uncited hook went on the mainpage (read the DYK rules and the hallowed rule that the hook *must* be cited in the article and present me a diff showing where that occurred). If some of those who are on this adversarial bent of viewing problems with the process in terms of "punishment" or "blame" of individual editors would focus instead on the review process and the content that we're putting on the main page, you might start to see ways to correct the process and "educate" instead of "punish". We look at content on Wikipedia-- everyone makes mistakes (more here because the process encourages cut and paste editing)-- focus on how to fix the process so it doesn't keep happening. Anyone can review, anyone can pass a hook to prep, and then an admin puts it on the mainpage without necessarily having to even glance at the article-- see a problem there? When you have long-time, serial offenders, then worry about this need for "punishment" or "blame"-- open copyright investigations, put restrictions on nominations for repeat offenders, put restrictions on reviewing for sloppy reviewers, whatever is needed when repeat offenders are identified, as in the most recent serial plagiarism case, that was only detected after years because people who didn't regularly review DYK looked at one nom. Short of that, I just don't understand this blame mentality-- it was the process that encouraged the serial plagiarizers because they were never detected or educated-- this need for blame seems to be to deflect from actually adapting the process to something more workable, apparently stemming from the notion that all new or expanded content is entitled to run on the mainpage. I don't understand it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There has always been a system of spotting mistakes and suggesting how to correct them. I don't recall anyone asking to be "educated" - perhaps you could drop that line you keep repeating. As to "blame", there were specific claims of wrongdoing which did not appear so. There were unsupported claims of plagiarism - a blockable offense, mind you - which is why my request not to throw unsupported claims here. Materialscientist (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that your response is framed in terms of "wrongdoing" instead of "lack of review" (you focus on the editor, not the process or content) ... if you don't recall seeing any calls for DYK to "educate" perhaps you can peruse Moonriddengirl's writing on the subject. You will find it in DYK archives, the long ANI subpage, as well as many other places. And plagiarism is a blockable offense when it's repeated in spite of warnings: there's no need to overstate the case for dramatic effect.

So, the discussion here is always diverted away from improving the process (shoot the messenger, deny the documented issues, claim no one ever called for DYK to help educate on plagiarism), and it never seems to relate to what is clearly documented in archives on all of these discussions, nor do the defenders of rewarding cut-and-paste speedy editing with mainpage time ever acknowledge it no matter how well documented. It would be jolly to review DYK next month and find one queue without the recurring issues (non-reliable sources, uncited hooks, hooks unsupported by the citation, copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and nothing done about it-- just a new cast of characters to defend it), or find the Removed hooks declining, or find at least less issues. We are at least seeing less now, since Nikkimaria is catching lots of them, and at least we now have some means of documenting and checking to see if the trend is subsiding, so that is some progress. And we can put to rest that claim from last year that if I would review prep or queue before they went up, that would be appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah! You mean like when Sandy was here making claims of plagiarism that even Moonriddengirl said wasn't? Sandy never did apologise or retract her claim. --LauraHale (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You have a strange way of reading those posts: there's nothing to retract. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The criticism was actually here. Though criticism is too strong a word. Advice is a better word. My point being that Bushranger appears to have responded to that post from you by making the posts here and here. That is not at all clear in the section above, nor on the page in your userspace. This is what I mean about it being difficult to keep track of things across multiple pages. Carcharoth (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're following the wrong things because you're so worried about blame instead of facts. It's simple-- do you or don't you have a diff where the hook is cited in the article when it was reviewed or when it went on the main page? Stick to the verifiable content facts rather than speculation and blame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a moot point in that story: the IP said that the ref was broken, The Bushranger said he did verify the fact, but can't recall how. If I were in his shoes at that time, I would paste the 404-error link into the wayback machine (a 2-second routine for me) and this would get the correct webpage (because wayback machine also fixes caps problems). Materialscientist (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are we going in circles over this small issue from another thread, avoiding the broader issues I've documented? It seems that all paths at T:DYK lead to denials that there's room for improvement rather than discussing ways to educate and improve. It's strange that I should have to do this on this particular talk page, but quoting from the DYK rules (emphasis is original, not inserted by me):

The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it ...

If you did what you said you would do, you would be putting a hook on the mainpage that doesn't comply with DYK's most basic rule (and why on earth would you notice a hook wasn't verified in the article, go elsewhere to verify it, and then still approve the hook without citing the hook?). There is no moot point: do you have a diff showing that the hook met DYK rules at the time it was reviewed? If not, why is this dead horse still being beaten? I just want reviewers to review. Mistakes happen, acknowledge them, move on unless you have a repeat offender (like this sample). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For whatever little it's worth, while most of my slowdown in contribution (I've never been very prolific) has been due to changes in personal time, I'm willing to state for the record that the atmosphere here makes me extremely reluctant to contribute to DYK nowadays. If I want to submit an article, I'm obliged to do a QPQ review. Fine, that's only fair. I'm reasonably confident I can sport obvious copyvio/plagiarism (e.g., the Victorian-flavored prose in the church article above not in direct quotations). I'm not confident I can spot, say, close paraphrasing from an offline source, and if I miss that and someone else finds it, I'll be touted as an example of a culture-of-copyvio, etc., at DYK.

OK, so maybe the problem is QPQ, and people like me shouldn't be allowed to touch these things, and it should be left in the hands of well-trained reviewers. Fine. Except the way we're "educating" the reviewers, apparently, is to say "You're wrong! Culture of copyvio!" every time someone slips by them. If you're convinced that the regular reviewers are truculent chuckleheads who are failing to check for copyright violations out of spite, then perhaps the 959th repetition will cause the scales to drop from their eyes. If you're open to the possibility that the regulars are well-meaning but doing a poor job, then an explicit effort by people who are good at catching plagiarism to engage them ("This is what made me suspect this, and this is what I looked at to confirm it. Do you see how you could spot this in the future?") would more closely conform to what I would term "education". (And expanding the number of people who are good at spotting copyvio/plagiarism is probably more efficient than trying to dragoon the current people into an increasing quantity of content review.) As it is, all a regular reviewer can expect is to generate a snarky thread here whenever they slip up, which does not seem like a terribly well-designed incentive structure; it bears about as much resemblance to education as Hugh Pigot did to a professor.

I hope the record will show I've contributed to DYK judiciously, when I had a new article I thought might convey something interesting and quirky to the reader (who gets lost a lot in these discussions), and that they haven't been plagiarized or unreliable dreck. But it's just not worth the hassle for me anymore, and I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way. Choess (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Would linking to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing help? Not that I would use it myself; I have always avoided deciding if something is closely paraphrased, or even referenced adequately. Art LaPella (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Maybe you're following the wrong things", I would like you to look at a few notes on attitude which help(ed) me a lot, thanks Materialscientist, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't find Sharktopus's attitude concerning? Some of that might help nominators, reviewers, and prep composers if you could get them to read it, but the problem on this talk page is that when all parties (being other parties who don't support the status quo) "think of ... the project in general" (ie the quality of what we're putting on the mainpage and whether we're enabling poor editing practices), the messenger is shot by the defenders of the status quo at DYK. Done here-- the monthly denial has run its course, but progress is occurring in ever-too-slow bits and pieces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I miss Sharktopus here, too, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow

Just a query. How did the template nominations grow so big? Simply south...... "time, department skies" for 5 years 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it's so that new reviewers (doing QPQ reviews) will see the criteria. Or maybe it was added there when the gynormous nomination checklist was removed. Either way, it seems to be attempting to address the problem of reminding new editors who review a nomination because of the QPQ requirement to know what they're expected to review and where to find more info. (A simpler solution to the QPQ problem would be to eliminate QPQ reviewing, but that proposal has gone nowhere.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? What's big? The wikitext? The edit notice? The instructions? rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant the area where the nominations were, dating beack as far as the start of October under the Old Discussions section. Normally I'm used to seeing only an extra week. Simply south...... "time, department skies" for 5 years 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a backlog. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Poppy Factory

It would be nice to get this on the Main Page for Remembrance Sunday. Does it qualify? What would I need to do? -- Ferma (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I worked the templates out. Anything else to do? Remembrance Sunday is 13 November this year - this coming weekend. -- Ferma (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look and note that the article needs inline citations, at least one per paragraph and one supporting the hook fact at the end of the relevant sentence(s). Mikenorton (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

More general: at the top of the nominations there are three links to detailed instructions, very helpful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Zangar has helped out substantially here, adding some additional information and footnotes.

What can we do to push this through the process for Sunday? -- Ferma (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's now on P4. Pls move to Q1 for Remembrance Sunday on 13 November as appropriate. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Death of Wang Yue (Q2)

It seems inappropriate to give a Christian bibliocentric clichéd name too a proposed Chinese law. The proposal is not, as I read the article, for a China-wide law: it would more accurately be described as a proposal for a bystanders' intervention law in Guangdong, China. Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Good Samaritan law" is a general term for these kinds of laws, it's not just something a Wikipedia editor made up. No one is "giving it a name", just describing what kind of law is being discussed, using a term that readers are likely to understand (unlike "bystanders' intervention law", which as far as I can tell is an ad hoc term and which isn't going to help readers understand what the hook is about). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Considering the article is at Good Samaritan law... Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:NewDYKnomination

When I click the "Create nomination" button, I get a preloaded {{NewDYKnomination}} with many missing parameters, including the necessary |status= parameter. How can the preloaded list of parameters be modified to include this parameter? Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly, the new/expanded parameter was deprecated as it was felt that reviewers could figure it out themselves. Sound and video are there but almost never used (never seen them used), so they aren't preloaded. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed notification template

DYK can get better and accountability here can improve via recordkeeping like at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed, but it could be better if there were a standard template for notifying nominators and reviewers when problems are detected. As far as I can tell, when a reviewer has passed a faulty hook, we don't have any standard, well written, polite way of guiding them towards better reviewing and knowledge of the DYK rules. I'm not the person to write such a thing-- it would be grand if someone could. I'm thinking of something along the lines of {{FAC withdrawn}}. (This was not optimal, and methinks someone here can come up with something that will help improve reviews without offending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a standardized template might cause more offence than it alleviated. I'm seeing more and more invocation of "don't template the regulars," and those subject to QPQ clearly fall under that definition of "regulars." Also there's a whole range of things one might wish to say about someone's review, from "I'm not sure you understood the topic of this article" through "You seem to have had an off day in this instance" to "Please take another look at this nomination; you appear to have missed a lot." Too many variables and gradations for a template, IMO. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not something completely neutral then, to the effect of "just letting you know" to have a look at the subpage? There's nothing to bring a reviewer back to the page once it's been approved (unless they keep it watchlisted), so no way to let them know to correct their misses. It should be possible to do it neutrally, and DTTR applies more to warnings, not notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The current template for alerting DYK nominators of any issues is pretty neutral "Hello! Your submission of 'article' at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ", I don't think that I would be offended by something like that. Mikenorton (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Could we not get something similar for inviting reviewers to re-visit, re-engage, or re-review their review? I tried to do it myself from the FAC withdrawn template, but don't speak the language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that something like that could be produced, after discussion of the wording here, but I'm afraid that I don't speak template either. My suggestion would be "Thank you for your review of 'article' at the [link to nomination template|Did You Know nominations page]]. There are still some issues concerning this nomination that may need to be clarified, please respond there as soon as possible". Mikenorton (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mikenorton-- I figured out how to do it by copying from {{FACClosed}} (the FAC withdrawn template was complicated when other processes adopted it, so it has more variables).

Template:DYKReviewNote has one variable for the nom page, which from this:

• {{subst:DYKReviewNote|African Wildlife Foundation}}

would produce this:

• DYK review note: Thank you for your review of Template:Did you know nominations/African Wildlife Foundation. There are still some issues concerning this nomination that may need to be clarified; please respond on that page as soon as possible

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Poppy Factory again

I've reviewed and passed the nomination for Poppy Factory. I've suggested an alternate hook but leave the choice between that and the original up to the promoting admin. The creator nominated the article in the hope of its appearing this Sunday, 13 November, as that is when Remembrance Day is observed in the UK. But I haven't moved it to the special occasions area because many Commonwealth countries still observe the original date, 11 November. Is there any way this could be fast-tracked and go up tomorrow? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I second this, just to make sure we get some fast action on this, to put it in for one of the above days. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it missed going up today (very short notice, but I thought it was worth asking), I've just moved it to the Special Occasions Holding Area; could whoever assembles the preps that will go up on November 13 please tuck it into one? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just added some images. Thirding the requests above for this to go into a queue on Sunday, ideally the one that spans the 11am GMT time-slot when the silence is held on Remembrance Sunday. Today was Armistice Day, which is what was originally (and is still) observed in the UK, with Remembrance Sunday being the Sunday closest to Armistice Day (except when the two fall on the same day). So either is acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's now on P4. Pls move to Q1 for Remembrance Sunday on 13 November as appropriate. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for rule clarification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is that the proposed wording change is rejected. There is unanimous agreement that articles that consist largely of public domain material do not qualify for DYK. There is general (but not unanimous) agreement that short snippets of verbatim text from public domain sources, as in quotations, may be acceptable. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Greetings all, I was wondering if we could clarify current rule 1e, which states "Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience." At Template:Did you know nominations/African Wildlife Foundation, an issue has been raised that this rule does not permit inclusion of any free data, including (in this case) data which consists of less than 25% of the article, whereas the article itself is well over the DYK minimum. From my understanding of the current debate, there are two main positions:

1. That any and all inclusion of information from free data sources without paraphrasing fails 1e
2. That inclusion of information from free data sources without paraphrasing is permissible under 1e, provided that the information does not make up the majority of the article and the remaining original text is greater than the minimum length requirements.
   

As such, in the interest of avoiding further disagreements I humbly request that the community give feedback regarding the spirit of the rule, which currently appears rather ambiguous. Although these are not formal suggestions, if the community decides that position one is the spirit of the rule, then it should be reworded to something similar to "Nominations should be original work (not include any information from free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience." If position two is decided to be closer to the spirit of the rule, then a wording like "Nominations should be original work (not include an abundance of information from free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience", with a supplementary guideline decided by the community as to how much free information is allowed.

Thank you for reading, and I hope we can come to a consensus. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat here what I just wrote in that subpage: we want better content, if it is achieved by proper use of PD texts - fine. We do not want editors to play silly games of removing (or not adding) a PD-based section so that the article passes the DYK check and then re-adding it after - our readers will not benefit from that. Thus we should allow any "abnormal" additions (PD texts or texts from other WP articles) and count the expansion by subtracting them. I believe our current rule of "5x expand whatever you borrow from other WP articles" is also detrimental, for the same reason. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that "play[ing] silly games" is generally a problem, but does that mean we tailor our approach to pander to those who play these games? Your argument on that point seems flawed - should we remove the "no copyvio" rule in case someone removes it just so the article passes and then reinstates it? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a flaw - adding attributed PD text or part of other wikipedia articles does comply with WP policies, adding copyvio does not, no matter the DYK process. Materialscientist (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And no matter the process involved or its requirements, gaming the system does not comply with WP policies. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct, and "my" proposal aims to reduce the chances of it. Please keep in mind that we are discussing DYK policies - general WP policies stay above that and should be regulated and enforced by other means. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And I argue that that approach is wrong-headed - we shouldn't be relaxing our rules to make deliberately contravening WP policy (gaming) less appealing, we should be addressing gaming through proper channels when it occurs. It is incumbent upon the contributor to not act in bad faith, not on us to remove all temptation. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Crisco, your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the difference between "information from free data sources" and "verbatim copying/very close paraphrasing of free data sources". The former, if properly cited and paraphrased, is unproblematic. The latter is a problem because it is quite clearly not original work, as the rule requires. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This thread aims to decide whether it is a problem - this is entirely up to the project (house rule). The requirement on minimum original text required from a DYK nom remains the same. Materialscientist (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree as to whether or not I am misunderstanding the rules. When I read the rules (present tense), I read them like MSC explained at the nomination page; the content should not exclusively be copied from free information sources. If historically this is what is meant by the rule, then by all means it should be clarified in the rule as written.

The DYK criteria naturally have to fall in line with general Wikipedia policies and guidelines; one of them being that PD or CC-BY/CC-BY-SA text is able to be copied, with attribution. This exists in numerous long standing articles, such as Bone state, and is in accordance with the copyright and plagiarism policies/guidelines. If DYK consensus is that free text should not be accepted in any way, shape or form, that is still within policy; the same holds true if the consensus goes the other way. It is a matter of consensus within the DYK project / community.

Naturally, copyvios and extensive close paraphrasing are beyond the pale and should be addressed with a vengeance. However, for free sources there is quite a bit more leg room. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Side note: "without paraphrasing" added to initial post. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Adding that does clarify things, as without it your original post was wrong. However, you are incorrect to assert that DYK criteria "naturally have to fall in line" with WP guidelines; we can't contravene policy, obviously, but we can assert higher standards than the policy baseline - and in fact we do so on a number of levels, for example in our minimum length requirement, which is not policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agree: DYK is meant to highlight new work. Wikipedia does allow verbatim copies of public domain material that is accurate, neutral, uses modern language, and is properly attributed, formatted and wikified, but we don't want people nominating articles for DYK that are mostly just copies of PD content. On the other hand, editors should be able to nominate articles that include some verbatim PD material if the material is well written and the source is reliable and independent. I would go with the proposed wording, but suggest rather than "does not make up the majority of the article..." it could be "makes up less than 25% of the article..." Aymatth2 (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• "DYK is meant to highlight new work" - exactly. Copying PD content is not new work. I apologize if it feels like I'm picking on you here, as your nom was more closely in line with policy than most that include PD text and you've been quite responsive to concerns, but the fact remains that the rules as currently written specify original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• An article assembles, arranges and presents information on a subject. The organization may not be particularly original: on some types of subject we encourage a standard structure that is widely used in other reference works. Some parts may not be very original, for example an alphabetical list of islands in a group: mere facts. Quotations are acceptable within reason. PD material may be reproduced verbatim if properly attributed. To qualify as "new work" for DYK purposes most of the article should be written in the editor's own words. It is not reasonable to insist on 100% if that forces the editor into dodges that detract from the article quality. Crisco is proposing a reasonable clarification. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly. If, for example, we are going to write an article on a US court decision, naturally there will be verbatim copying of PD text. Changing the meaning of what is written even in the slightest will cause it to misrepresent the subject (just like a law, a little semantic change can have big effects). This should not disqualify such articles.

• I don't know what you're talking about that court decsions must have verbatim copying of PD text. The most recent law FA I can recall didn't seem to have a problem quoting the relevant portions of the court decision: Pepper v Hart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the extent allowed, I was also considering 25%; however, that will likely require a separate decision if it is decided that the rule means minimal copying of PD text. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of which way this issue is clarified, there's a separate wrinkle to be accounted for in the decision: many reviewers currently do not check all sources for copyvio, close paraphrasing, or reliable sources. (QPQ reviewing may be part of the problem, and there is no template for notifying those reviewers how they may improve, but there is still an alarming amount escaping review-- four to five DYKs shouldn't still be found in one day in queue considering the attention now focused on the problem). Content expansion is sometimes based on non-reliable sources; I don't understand why some reviewers fail to check for that, but neither do I understand why some reviewers don't check all sources for copyvio when it's usually apparent from reading the article.

So by allowing even some portion of PD text, how will we know if the expansion criterion is met when reviewers won't typically do a thorough enough review to check the prose size of PD vs non-PD text? The expansion criterion ia already too easily gamed with non-reliable sources and copyvio/plagiarism/cut-and-paste/close paraphrasing, and reviewers don't always check for these, so how will we also assure they are checking for PD vs non-PD?

To Rjanag, to avoid responding off-topic on the African Wildlife Foundation subpage, cut-and-paste editing of PD text in ship articles (DANFS) is an old problem, well discussed at FAC after the Halloween 2010 FA debacle that followed on the DYK-inspired copyvio concerns. If that has occurred since November 2010, please let me know on my talk which ship FAR you are referring to. FAC can't prevent ship article authors from defending the practice, but without knowing which article you're referring to, it seems that was resolved at FAR from what you say. I don't think that discussion belongs on the African Wildlife Foundation DYK subpage, but the issue at the FAC level is that cut-and-paste content can't be "Wikipedia's best work" and shouldn't be featured on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it was a much bigger problem in Geology FAs that used USGS PD sources, that was a well-accepted practice until November 2010, and to my knowledge, those FAs have been cleaned up since the Halloween debacle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

Selection criterion 1e) in the guideline for this template says "Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience". The first clause can be interpreted as "original, not simply inclusions" or as "no inclusions allowed". The second clause implies that DYK is for readers, not just for editors. If DYK were only for readers, when we found an source of excellent and encyclopedic public domain material we might simply publish their articles with thanks and acknowledgement. But "excellent" is hard to define and allowing articles that simply reproduce public domain material is risky. At the other extreme, prohibiting any verbatim use of material from other sources, even when that is what best serves our readers, may also be unreasonable. Crisco's suggestion attempts to strike a balance. Let's do a straw poll. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"1e) Nominations should be original work (not include an abundance of information from free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience".

• Support. For reasons stated above. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. 'Abundance' is hopelessly vague here and will lead to more arguments. My view of 1e is that it means a new article shouldn't be 100% copied verbatim from older public domain sources (like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica articles and the 1903 DNB articles). Anything other than that requires judgement on the part of the article writer, nominator and reviewer. Some articles benefit from quotes or paraphrasing of freely licensed (or public domain) sources. Others don't. This should be tackled on a case-by-case basis, not generalised. The only general rule of thumb is that articles copied 100% verbatim from a single freely licensed source will need rewriting. Anything else requires discussion, especially if the freely licensed source text is from a modern reliable authority. The current wording is fine. Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that "an abundance" should have a rule of thumb definition, as I suggested above. The suggested 25% above sounds okay, but that's another discussion. I agree completely with Carcharoth insofar as articles which are entirely copied and pasted from PD sources should be ineligible. However, if we do this on a case-by-case basis then we get several respected editors with different interpretations of 1e, arguing about how much is too much. The African Wildlife Foundation nomination shows that this could be a bone of contention between editors, which results in unproductive Mexican standoffs. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - change creates more problems than it solves (will likely expand on this later). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Makes a confusing system more confusing. To open to interpretation for what it means. --LauraHale (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This would not be a simple rule to follow for either nominators or reviewers. There is a case for the inclusion of small amounts of material from PD sources in some articles (assuming that they are properly attributed), but that can be discussed on an individual basis without changing the rule. The aim should be to have no verbatim material at all in my view. Mikenorton (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose on two grounds: Firstly, however much of a problem one thinks it is, it's not the source of information that's the problem, it's the use of wording by others. I would support the first half of the proposal if it were changed from "information" to "wording." Although I think "not include an abundance" could usefully be changed to "not consist for the most part of". I don't think text taken from other sources should count toward the minimum length requirement whether it's in quotation marks or not. Secondly, interest is hopelessly subjective and specifying "a wide audience" makes the problem worse by requiring one to imagine what might interest a hypothetical average person. In any case no such creature exists. Cut it back to "and should be interesting" and let reviewers and nominators fight it out in doubtful cases, which is what already happens anyway. Or if we used to have wording that makes clear that "interesting" does not mean "personally interesting to the reviewer," return to that wording. We have had some hooks at DYK that bored me silly, but I think Tony1's critiques of interestingness revealed nothing so clearly as that his taste differs from others' . . . as I am the first to admit, does mine . . . and that therefore neither of us and by extension none of us can presume to speak for "a wide audience." Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Fussball-Bundesliga clubs eliminated from the DFB-Pokal by amateur sides

This article is currently listed at Preparation area 4. I have corrected several typing/spelling errors but I have marked the article as a candidate for copyedit as some of the tone is not IMHO appropriate; e.g. what does the sentence "From the start, the new match ups Bundesliga versus amateurs, most usually third division clubs, became a source of surprises" in para. 3 actually mean? Phrases such as "Hertha BSC suffered the ultimate humiliation when it lost at home to amateurs . . ." and "Bayern Munich became a reliable source of cup surprises . . . " need re-wording to become more neutral. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Pulling. "a season of surprises" is another. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK Nom Florya Atatürk Marine Mansion

User:TonyTheTiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) complaints in relation to my DYK Nom Florya Atatürk Marine Mansion. Can someone help and advise what to do since I am not aware of what is messed up. CeeGee (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed the mistake you made. For next time, please read the instructions at the top of the page. In short:

1. Create a subpage using the form at the top (the bar where it says to create the nomination there)
2. Fill in the automatically generated template. Save
3. Transclude the nomination by putting {{Did you know nominations/Florya Atatürk Marine Mansion}} or whatever your nomination's title is in the subsection on T:TDYK, at the top of the section. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Joshua_L._Goldberg

Very interesting DYK, but full of spelling and format errors. PumpkinSky talk 12:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to correct some of them. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and the DYK criteria do not include criteria for spelling or formatting. If you believe they should, you should start a poll. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I did fix several of them. SOYOUFIXIT. If you guys want to promote articles with sloppy spelling and formatting, that reflects poorly on you, not me. PumpkinSky talk 15:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the DYK criteria do not include anything requiring that an article be free of spelling errors. I'm not sure what you mean to accomplish by reporting an article that doesn't meet criteria we don't have, unless you think we should add new criteria. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Old nominations awaiting review - 12 Nov

The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks and have yet to receive a comment:

• Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong
• Dominica tea culture
• List of flag bearers for the United States at the Olympics
• Casey Redford
• Larry Jacobus
• Grand Prix of America, Port Imperial Street Circuit, 2013 Formula One season
• De Havenzangers
• Corporal Punishment (wrestler)
• Steve Graham
• Galeria Copiola
• Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General
• Snipe Hansen
• Mark Shrader
• Phil Manning (musician)
• Oil shale in Morocco
• 2011 Halloween nor'easter
• Bubba Monroe
• Left brain interpreter
• Ayu Ting Ting

violet/riga _^[talk] 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Q1

Poppy factory

Use of the indefinite article renders this as a common name, not a proper name, so it shouldn't be capitalised. It might be plausible to have The Poppy Factory, if there is evidence that that abbreviated name is in use (although I don't see such evidence): a Poppy Factory however cannot be correct. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article it is clear that there are two separate places called Poppy Factory, and this is one of them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take an insolent approach. I did look at the article, and there are no places whose name is simply "The Poppy Factory". Furthermore, that is not the point that I made: my point is that the indefinite article is inconsistent with a proper noun. Kevin McE (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not always. "'Malachi' isn't a weird name! I roomed with a Malachi in college." rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In this context, it is. Kevin McE (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless the two factories are part a company, i.e, The Poppy Factory, which they don't seem to be, it should be a lower case "f". Truthkeeper (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

But that would imply that the produce of the factory commands a capital letter in its own right. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. There doesn't seem to be a reason for poppy to capitalized. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two factories that produce remembrance poppies, one in England and one in Scotland. Each is commonly called the Poppy Factory (with capitals). -- Ferma (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Aerial victory

This appears to be an extraordinarily ill-defined term. There is no attempt to define it in the linked article, nor is it explicit in the article on Fraissinet. The article Aerial victory standards of World War I starts with the words During World War I, the national air services involved developed their own methods of assessing and assigning credit for aerial victories. Thus our hook is unclear. Suggest ... that Jean Alfred Fraissinet, who had a part in the destruction of eight German planes during the First World War, was elected to the National Assembly of France in 1958? Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Its meaning seems pretty obvious in the DYK article, Jean Alfred Fraissinet. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

An aerial victory has no universal defined meaning: why use a phrase that is equivocal in preference to one that is explicit and clear? Kevin McE (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who clicks the article will see quite easily what is being referred to. The point of a DYK hook is to get people to look at the article. There is nothing inaccurate or deliberately misleading in the hook. You may want to take a look at User:Balloonman/DYK hooks. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One should not have to go investigating to find out what the things in an encyclopaedia mean. That defeats the point of an encyclopaedia. As is clear from Aerial victory standards of World War I, there is a variety of standards that comprise an "aerial victory", and so the hook is ambiguous. What is wrong with a hook that is clear and explicit? Kevin McE (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

From the link: French victory confirmation standards were strict. Credit was given only for the destruction of an enemy aircraft, and the destruction had to be witnessed an independent witness, such as an artillery observer, infantryman, or another pilot. Pretty straightforwards. However, I do see the point, since some of the kills were shared - I've changed the wording to "...credited with eight aerial victories..." including a link to the standards page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

An improvement, but we still have a phrase (aerial victory) that is not in common usage, linked to an article that doesn't define or explain it. I'd ask again: why use a phrase that is equivocal in preference to one that is explicit and clear? Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Aerial victory" is in common useage - the only term more common is "kills" and that would be less explict I'd think. I did try to find a more appropriate link, but Aerial victory doesn't exist, and Shoot Down is something completely different...Flying ace isn't the best link, I'll admit, but it does mention the term in the lede (the actual number of air victories required...) in a fashion that makes it clear how the term is related and what it's referring to, I think. (Also, we don't know that all the kills Fraissinet had were German - it's WP:COMMONSENSE but you can't 100% rule out Austro-Hungarian aircraft.) It also makes it clear that, by his number of aerial victories, Fraissinet was considered a World War One Flying Ace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The light bulb went off after my last comment there - I made a very slight tweak to the way the link was presented (from eight aerial victories to eight aerial victories), that makes it clearer I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the population within which the phrase has been in common use in the last 60 years or more is negligible, and would not include most main page readers, but whatever... Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

George Spencer

Surely this man's misfortune was that the piglet was thought to look like him. Even if he had fathered the animal, it is not normal to say that a father looks like his young child, but the reverse would be a common observation. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That's overly pedantic - if A looks like B then B looks like A. Reversing the wording would lessen the impact of the hook. There are alternatives on the nomination page if you care to look at those. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not overly pedantic: it is the way the language is used. Trying to twist the language to serve the purposes of a hook is unworthy of an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's pedantic, for the reason violetriga pointed out. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Answer the point that I made, otherwise this is simply a !vote, and we don't do those. Kevin McE (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that we can't 'twist' the language then you really don't understand the beauty of the English language. The hook is fine. I await your verdict on the alternatives that were suggested. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Kevin: I simply don't agree that this is twisting language or that it's inconsistent with the way language is used. To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty sure you just go through the queues every day trying to see how many things you can challenge, without stopping to think about whether the hooks are actually problematic. Do you really think this hook is misleading, or are you just challenging it for challenge's sake? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from petty personal prejudices. Yes: I do believe that this hook is problematic, as is the prejudice of some at this talk page that anything that has emerged from the tiny coterie involved in mutual support at T:TDYK has some sort of assumption of preferability. The hook is misleading anyway: even in C17 Connecticut, looking like an animal was not, per se, a capital offence: he was executed because he was believed to have engaged in bestiality. Kevin McE (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a "personal prejudice". I'm merely pointing out the impression your behavior has given me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Because of the similarity between him and the stillborn animal it was assumed that he committed a crime. He was therefore executed because he looked like a deformed piglet. Shall I now ask a third time for your opinion about the alt hooks or am I just wasting my time? violet/riga _^[talk] 19:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

He was executed for having committing bestiality and the one-eyed piglet was considered God's proof of the act. This is according to the source. I'd suggest rewriting the hook. Note: I've removed material cited to the source but not in the source and now the hook doesn't match the source (which was being misrepresented) so it should probably be pulled. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the original wording was wrong because one thing led to the other. However, I have reworded the hook to satisfy the quibble. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Far more accurate: thank you. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that it's on the main page - FYI. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Review the oldest!!!

There is a hook that was nominated on the 10th and is already in a prep area! Meanwhile, there are some two weeks old that have not been touched! I think if people would review from the back, the oldest nomination would be from October 30th or so. That's my two cents. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 03:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Did three of them yesterday on the list of older nominations. Would be nice to see articles moved to the prep area faster so we could see unreviewed ones easier, but sometimes, they get missed. Easy to happen when you get a nomination squished between two noms that have a lot of issues. --LauraHale (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

quid for quo

Ok, I've asked this before, but basically these days, I nominate an article once in awhile so I'm not keeping up with the latest developments - are we still doing Q4Q or did it get scrapped? If it's still in effect, can we please put a notice somewhere in the nomination process which alerts the nominator to that effect (if there is one and I missed it, can we make it more prominent)? Otherwise I'm going to follow the assumption that unless it tells me explicitly and obviously somewhere that Q4Q is still a requirement, it isn't. Volunteer Marek  01:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's still required; see Selection criteria number 5. There shouldn't really be any ambiguity about it, as the nomination template has a line for it: "| reviewed = If you reviewed another article before listing this DYK nomination, put it here. Otherwise leave this blank." What I find odd, though, is that when you leave this line blank, there's nothing prompting a reviewer to check whether a nominator has a QPQ requirement or not. It would be much better, in my opinion, if the template produced one of the possible four outputs:

• I have reviewed such and such, or
• I have yet to review another nomination, or
• I don't have to review another nomination because I have nominated somebody else's article, or
• I don't have to review another nomination because I have not had 5 DYKs myself.

Just my thoughts; this might well help with the backlog. This might well have been discussed before, but I gave up watching this page a long time ago. Schwede66 03:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to add that feel free to work on it. I won't be on-wiki much for the next several weeks, and even if I am I'm feeling a bit jaded about working on this stuff now. Even if we add such options to the |reviewed= parameter, good luck getting anyone to actually look at the instructions and fill them out properly. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Female impersonator

I may be the only one who didn't know what a female impersonator is (now last hook prep3). If not I recommend a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I inserted the link. But I must say that you lead a sheltered existence! --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In German, yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Time between updates

We have 282 noms (104 approved) at the moment, which means we have to reduce the time between updates, perhaps first to 8 hours. I'm going off-line now, and thus don't want to make a rushed change, but I believe it has to be done very soon. Materialscientist (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but we'll need to step up the pace on prep areas and queues! --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. Will try to help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Gosh yes, it's way past time for increasing the cycle! I've been on an enforced wikibreak for the last month, looks like there's been a bit of neglect here, that's a shame, I was hoping some new people would have stepped up by now. It really should be a six-hour cycle with nearly 300 submissions, but of course that's going to mean a little more work for updaters. Gatoclass (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

.. this was the reason I haven't changed the cycle yesterday - we had no prepared sets and I couldn't make one. I've changed the cycle from 12 to 8h (not 6 for the same reason - lack of sets) forcing the bot to update now and keep in synch with UTC 0:00 (well, I was a minute late, delaying the bot by 5 min, but he should autoerase this margin soon :-). Materialscientist (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Goodness me, the outstanding submissions stretch right back to October 7! That is really unacceptable. We need to attract some new blood to this project, or get some former contributors to return, we could start by adding a request for assistance to the next Signpost. In the meantime I will try to prepare a few sets and perhaps review some submissions. I haven't done anything today because I've been too busy catching up on various other tasks since getting a net connection back today. Nice to see you at least are still helping out MatSci :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of those very old noms are submissions that stayed on the noms page after a reviewer found serious problems (sometimes after somebody else approved them) and while reviewers and nominators continue to try to resolve the issues. This is more common than it used to be, as a result of more rigorous review than existed here historically. It is safe to assume that several of the "approved" noms in the noms count will never make it to the main page, and a higher fraction of the unapproved noms will never get there. --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you really sure?

... that the upcoming commercial video game Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is based on a free game modification? - I'm going with community consensus here. I even had someone move it out of the prep areas yesterday at my behest for being too advertisy/spammy. But are you really sure? Cause if so I will leave it in there. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It does look kind of advertorial to me. I'd probably pull it until there were at least some reviews of the game. Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it to Prep1 for now awaiting more input. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This nom has bounced around quite a bit by now: Template:Did you know nominations/Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. There apparently are no reviews of the game, which has not yet been released; the article is mostly about the game's innards and development. Thus, a hook that (1) emphasizes technical aspects of the game and (2) has a minimum of brand names and advert words like "upcoming" seems best. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent solution. I've changed the hook to ALT2 now. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page

Hi, can we move the hook for Help Me Anthea, I'm Infested in Q1 to the last position, as it better fulfils the "funny or quirky hook" suggestion in J3 of the Supplementary guidelines. Also we might want to think about rearranging the other Q hooks, as I don't feel it's that great to end on a hook about concentration camps (even if it is the survival of), as in Q3. Thanks Zangar (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Help Me Anthea, I'm Infested hook is now on the main page. Zangar (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Princeton/Penn (Q3)

When listing them as rivals, it needs to be Princeton and Penn (not or); suggest ...that one or other of men's basketball rivals Princeton and Penn won the Ivy League regular season all but two years between 1963 and 2007? Kevin McE (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Bencherlite^Talk 19:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Double Dutch (Q2)

While I would not be surprised to hear that many Dutch singers perform in other languages, is there really any merit in clarifying that a group with an obviously Dutch name who have a Dutch lead singer sing in the national language: Dutch. Kevin McE (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I also removed the wikilink to "melody" in another hook. Bencherlite^Talk 20:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Formatting...

Ok, I've put this in prep and attempted to mark as promoted but something's not happening...? Template:Did you know nominations/Mexican tea culture. Any ideas? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the third time I've seen this happen. One person tries without any errors and it doesn't work. Another tries and it does. Very odd. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Cas, you didn't subst: it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

aaah, thanks all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, if that's what happened; why did it have the template up the top with subst written in it? I swear these templates have a mind of their own. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 04:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"subst:" has to be written in the wikitext (the edit window). The "subst:" that you were seeing is something different (it's another template within the main template). To make a long story short, if there are templates inside templates, subst'ing the inner templates doesn't work unless the outer templates are also subst'ed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Romania articles and December 1

As we speak, I am working hard (and have persuaded others to work hard) on getting some articles on Romania's WWI era ready for DYK, in the hope that they would form a special queue, or even two queues, on December 1. That being Romania's national holiday. I am not saying that we ought to be doing this this way, but it would be nice if I would at least get some comment on that before the articles I create for that purpose are moved to random queues. At this point, Romanian Volunteer Corps in Russia was moved, just like that, to Prep 2: I specified on the nomination page that I would have appreciated it if this went front page on December 1, and the reviewer (User:Piotrus) endorsed that project. But there was no comment, the hook was simply promoted and picked up, to the bottom of a random queue...

Is there any resistance to the concept, or was my request simply not noticed? I would appreciate some feedback, even if you don't move the article back to T:TDYK, so as to know if I and anyone else should bother with the other articles. The T:TDYK line has Gherman Pântea, Samoilă Mârza, Nicolae Fleva, Rodion Markovits, Democratic Union Party (Bukovina), and Cathedral of the Unity of the People, Alba Iulia. That's in addition to the Volunteer Corps. I have two more articles sandboxed, and will have more ready by December 1 - which should give us two potential all-Romanian queues.

Even if that doesn't happen, to at least have those articles on front page around December 1 would be nice, but in any case I would appreciate some sort of discussion. In fact I would expect it. Dahn (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly; my mistake. I apologise for any offence caused. I reviewed the article, was thoroughly impressed and then took a cursory look over the discussion before moving it. Not something I make a habit of but as I said, thoroughly impressed. It's been moved back to T:TDYK now.

Having said that, can we have a little discussion about (an) all Romanian queue(s)? I'm happy to create a special area for it but am unsure on consensus. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken. I was generally puzzled as to whether it was a blunt rejection or a mistake - I would have accepted the former as well, but not without a comment. That said, I would also welcome any little discussion on the subject, to assess or determine consensus. I can easily see that other editors might not appreciate the special queue(s), and I'll gladly accept any ultimate resolution, positive or negative. And there's always the plan B, whereby we just get an assorted mix of Romanian-themed and other articles, but concentrated around Dec 1. (Before you ask: I'm not proposing all of this out of patriotic fervor, but for sheer fun.) Dahn (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• I set up a special holding area for December 1. There may not be enough articles for a full "Romania" queue (and that might not be a good idea, regardless), but surely we can feature these hooks on that day. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a good idea, I'll leave other decide, but: we currently have 7 (listed in my first comment in this section), which I believe is more than enough for one DYK queue. We could end up with enough "material" for two queues (I'm working on two more as we speak). I'm not saying we should, just noting that we could. Dahn (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Christmas-themed articles for DYK

Back in 2009, Mindmatrix posted a list of potential DYK's for Christmas. I found it extremely helpful, and I'm sure others did, so I've gone back to that list to see which articles could still be a good case for expansion for DYK and also to add a few I've found myself. Anyone is free to grab any articles off this list to work on, all I ask is that if you do, please strikethrough the article so that we don't get a couple of separate editors working on them in userspace etc. And of course, feel free to add other suitable articles.

Food related: Sugar plum, Rosette (pastry), Bûche de Noël, Peppermint bark, Szaloncukor, Awwamaat, Banket (food), Bethmännchen, Boiled custard, Bolo Rei, Bread sauce, Bredela, Christmas ham, Rumtopf, Magenbrot - those are just for starters, there are loads in Category:Christmas food

Non food: Père Noël, Old Man Winter, Krampus, Tree topper, Suzy Snowflake, Santa Claus rally, Santa Claws, North Pole depot, North Pole Stream, Reindeer Island, Santa Claus (horse), Schwibbogen, Räuchermann, Pasterka, Operation Christmas Drop, Orphan's Christmas, Mettenschicht, Misa de Gallo, Cavalcade of Magi (actually better for Jan 5), Carol service, Ashen faggot, Jingle bell - those are just a highlight, there are plenty more in Category:Christmas traditions and it's subcategories.

Have fun! Miyagawa (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Error in Q1

Aussenkehr already appeared on the main page on 15 November 2011. --Pgallert (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaced. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)