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N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

PD text redux

A few weeks ago, we had a brief discussion concerning the use of PD text in DYK submissions. I think it clear from that discussion that a consensus emerged that some PD text was acceptable in DYK submissions, but no consensus was reached as to precisely how much. In spite of this, SandyGeorgia reverted my restoration of the longstanding consensus version which reflected prevailing consensus, back to a version which clearly does not in that it effectively prohibits the use of any PD text. Having restored the longstanding consensus version a few minutes ago, Sandy has now immediately reverted back to her preferred version.[1]

There have been two recent discussions about this issue, here and here. The following summarizes what most other users have said about this issue:

• we should allow any "abnormal" additions (PD texts or texts from other WP articles) and count the expansion by subtracting them - Materialscientist
• 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 - Aymatth2
• 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 - Carcharoth
• There is a case for the inclusion of small amounts of material from PD sources in some articles (assuming that they are properly attributed) - Mikenorton
• 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 - Yngvadottir
• Per this discussion last month, it appears that consensus is that the inclusion of some PD material is fine, although an article copied entirely from other sources (even if the license is acceptable) is not good for DYK - Crisco 1492

AFAICT there were only two users who were opposed to any use of PD text in DYK submissions - SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria. In these circumstances, it should be clear that the longstanding consensus version, which includes the crucial caveat "Try to" is the version which still has consensus. I am therefore reverting Sandy's edit. Gatoclass (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the "Try to" locution is tonally at odds with the rest of the section. It's supposed to be about "new" articles and what qualifies, yet this is talking about what might be appropriate, only doesn't explain what happens if you don't try hard, or if you do but can't find what you need. For a new person who wants guidelines on what to do, this is a singularly confusing entry. The other wording appears more helpful, with "should". Can we get a "should" or two in this entry, even if the rest needs some rewording to meet whatever consensus exists? And do note: "should" is not "must", and does allow for variance, though new DYKers will be less likely to stray from a strong guideline, at least when they're starting. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "Try to ... " is far from ideal, indeed I think its inadequacies were already recognized in previous discussion. That doesn't alter the fact that substituting "should" for "try to" is even more problematic in that users are inevitably going to interpret it as meaning "must".

I'm more than happy to discuss alternative wordings, provided that the basic principle that some PD text is acceptable is retained. Gatoclass (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

People should not interpret "should" as "must", and we should discuss before getting into another edit war about this (per BRD). I should also point out that you're misstating my position on the issue. I do not wish to argue that DYKs must not include any PD text at all, but a) these must be noted/attributed according to best practices, and b) per Materialscientist (quoted above) this text should not be included in the minimum character count. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't clear on your position to tell the truth, and I'm still not sure what you mean by "noted/attributed according to best practices". Other than that however, it's fine by me if we deal with PD text simply by not including it in the character count, in fact, in reviewing the various suggestions, Matsci's stood out to me as the most reasonable and practical solution. Gatoclass (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nikkimaria, and seriously, Gatoclass, propose and gain consensus for text before you add it again with a claim that it is "long-standing". My personal view is that no PD text should count towards expansion or characters ... it encourages cut-and-paste editing rather than teaching editors (new and old) to correctly paraphrase sources in their own words, and shouldn't be highlighted on the main page, since it's not our own work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well if there's a consensus that we will deal with PD text by not including it in the character count, we can adjust the wording of the clause accordingly and put this issue behind us. Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem becomes, then (in an environment of Quid pro quo reviewing, where not all reviewers are well versed in all things) how to make sure that reviewers are accounting for PD text when counting expansion or characters. I've not highlighted any of them lately, but we still have lots of issues getting by new reviewers, resulting in last week at least one hook that was just ... wrong. So, if you allow any PD text, how do you know reviewers check the word count/expansion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How do we know reviewers do anything properly? We don't, a certain amount of trust is necessary to the running of this project. We can deal with substandard reviewers, where identified, as we always have done. In terms of the technical issue, it's not difficult to delete discounted text before running DYK check, I do it all the time - which is why I've described Matsci's suggestion as probably the simplest solution. Gatoclass (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't PD mean anyone can do anything they want with it? Is that true for both images and text? PumpkinSky talk 15:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For the encyclopedia at large, that is correct. For DYK in particular, some users feel the emphasis should remain on original text, which is basically why we are having this discussion about where to draw the line. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

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.

Proposal passed. Gatoclass (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

---

This issue needs resolution, so based on the above discussion, I am proposing that we formally adopt Materialscientist's suggestion that text copied from PD sources be dealt with by excluding it from the minimum text count.

• Support - Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I really don't care whose proposal it is, but it is logical. If PD text improves the article - add it, we just subtract it to promote creativity. Subtraction is a hassle, but also an unfortunate reality, as we have to subtract many other kinds of text and code while evaluating DYK noms. Materialscientist (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This makes sense. While DYK is meant to showcase new material, it is also meant to showcase newly written material. PD material doesn't count as written, its just been copied. Therefore, PD material is allowed, but it doesn't factor into the 1500 character count requirement that we have for DYKs. We should require a minimum of 1500 characters of sourced, originally-written (not original research, but text written in one's own words from the sources) material in order for an article to qualify for DYK, along with the other requirements we already have (New/Expanded, ect.). Silverseren^C 01:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support; I think this is the best solution. I'm happy for PD content to be spread around, but DYK is supposed to be about recognising newly written content, rather than the ability to copy & paste. Subtracting means that new articles which have had PD content added to them can still qualify as DYKs, if the author wrote the same-sized chunk of their own text that any other DYK writer is expected to write. bobrayner (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Is the proposal to add a rule saying text copied from PD sources should be excluded from the minimum text count, or to replace the base rule "Nominations should be original (not inclusions of free data sources)" by this rule? I support addition of the minimum text count rule, and would also support rewording of the base rule by something softer, like "Nomination should mostly be original content with limited content included from free sources". There has to remain an assertion that the article should be mostly original. Otherwise I could write a 500-word preface and then dump in 20,000 words from some old book. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  Something like Nomination should contain minimum amount of new original prose text, and the "minimum amount" explained elsewhere (depends on whether it is a new or expanded article). I see no problem with the ratio. We did and do accept list and summary articles (many articles on sport events are like this), which mostly consist of some huge "copy/pasted" table. Materialscientist (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, weakly accepting Materialscientist's argument above. If I write a preface that meets the original text length requirement, I suppose there is nothing wrong with that being followed by a whole lot of PD. Most readers would not care, although a few might think we were somehow cheating. Too bad War and Peace is taken already. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Consistent with DYK's aims, hopefully will settle a perennial point of dispute. The Interior (Talk) 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support the principle. Comment: But how are reviewers to know which is PD text and which is original, especially if its used in small chunks (one, two sentences at a time)? Yazan (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to be fanatical about it. We don't get that many articles based on PD text anyway, for those which are, it should usually be pretty clear whether there are 1500 characters of original text in addition to the rest. In cases where it may not be so clear, I would just go on the overall quality of the article. Gatoclass (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I can live with that, Support it is. Yazan (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Rationale well explained by others above and parallels DYK policy on long quotes. However, in reference to the question of how reviewers are to know, it should always be made perfectly clear in the attribution, just like any other kind of quotation; otherwise it's plagiarism. The two issues are not the same, but the other one does also matter. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Gatoclass has correctly quoted me and to be quite honest I suggested something like this before. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Somewhat weak though, as I would not be personally be comfortable with seeing articles promoted that had the bare minimum 1500 characters of non-PD content followed by say 9,000 characters of PD text, however well attributed. I would prefer something that required the non-PD derived part to be in the majority at least. Mikenorton (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support as a start. I would also support a limit on the total % of PD text acceptable at DYK - maybe 50% max of the prose, but not tables and lists. It also needs to be an obligation of nominators to declare that PD text is present in the nom. Fiddly I know. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

The proposal is well intended, but I have reservations about whether it will be implemented in an environment of quid pro quo reviewing, and where there is no oversight of reviews. Here is the latest faulty hook reported at WP:ERRORS [2]-- showing a lack of rigour in review: Template:Did you know nominations/Phoenix United Mine. The hook appears faulty. Beating the dead horse once again that some sort of accountability at the level where hooks are passed to the mainpage would behoove this process. (See the quid pro quo review by the nominator with the faulty hook at Template:Did you know nominations/St Mary's Roman Catholic Church, Monmouth). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that hook fact looks funny to you, but the main element of that hook fact for Phoenix United Mine, about the rarity of Cornish path moss, checks out with reliable sources. It's not at all clear to me that it is possible to walk on the stuff, though... --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem-- unverified hooks on the mainpage, still, and I don't think an experienced reviewer would have missed that, and wonder if novice reviewers will even know how to check for PD text. Keep it simple seems a better approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not wishing to detract from the discussion on PD, but with regards to the Phoenix United Mine hook the facts were all verified in the references, even if the dots weren't all fully joined. It has been stated in the text that the moss grows in spoil-tip soil (eg, on the ground) and even the name "Cornish path moss" indicates that it is a moss, that grows in Cornwall, somewhere around foot-fall level. Also, if wanting to find out whether the site is actually open-access to be walked on, looking at the OS map reference, used for the location description, it can be seen that it is on access land. OK, this possibly could have been stated in the article to lead the reader by the hand, but the hook was IMO certainly not unverified and I think the reviewer did a reasonable job. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't believe that the reviewer checked the google map. It might be a happy coincidence that the statement was true (has it been established that people can walk anywhere at the other site where the moss grows?), but the hook was chosen, I strongly belief, to make a pun on the word path, not because it was known by the composer, and even less because it was proven by the reviewer, to be true. Besides, the Rules for DYK state The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. This was not the case in this instance, or so many others, and reviewers habitually ignore the issue. Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2012 (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.

Hook is too long

The hook for Frédéric Banquet, currently in Prep 2, is too long to attract attention, IMO. (It reads "...that rugby player Frédéric Banquet scored the first ever try in Super League history when he scored for Paris Saint-Germain against the Sheffield Eagles at Charlety Stadium on 29 March 1996?") I don't think that most of that detail adds any interest, but I can imagine that rugby fans might disagree. Would there be anything wrong with trimming it to "...that rugby player Frédéric Banquet scored the first ever try in Super League history?"?? --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the abridgement. With the longer version, I feel I know enough already and don't care about the article enough to read it, with the shorter version I'd be tempted to click through and find out the details. Isn't that what we want? GRAPPLE X 04:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

spelling change on main page

Ocak Işık Yurtçu was moved to a new spelling while on the main page. Can someone tweak the spelling of the main page accordingly? Thanks! Khazar (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

copied to Main page errors, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Khazar (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification about double nominations

I just reviewed my first double nomination. Does the proposed hook need to be present in both articles, or can it be present in only one? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

One article is sufficient. There have even been cases where the complete hook fact is not present in a single article but spread across multiple articles (e.g. a set of biology articles where the hook fact is that all the species in the set share an unusual characteristic and each article only specifies said characteristic is present in that article's subject). --Allen3 ^talk 20:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hook pulled from main page for copyvio issues

A heads-up to the regulars here: The hook from Template:Did you know nominations/Bozeman Carnegie Library got pulled off the main page a few hours ago (after being there less than 2 hours) due to copyright concerns. The hook set is now off the main page; this hook was not restored or replaced. The only discussion of the issue seems to be at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations#Just pulled_Bozeman Carnegie Library from the main page -- input, please?. The issue identified is best described as a borderline case of WP:close paraphrasing. --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And it looks like the editor has (possibly) quit over this: [3]. I think we need to discuss a better way of dealing with this, especially the borderline cases. The Interior (Talk) 17:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering the allegations that PumpkinSky is Rlevse, methinks the problem might be in here, that you need better scrutiny towards copyvio, and you all might want to revisit consensus on any decisions that were made in the last month in which he participated. [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's Rlevse for sure? For pete's sake... The Interior (Talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was dubious when I saw this claim advanced without any supporting evidence, but Amalthea seems to be pretty definitive about it: User talk:Amalthea#Pumpkin Sky CCI. Prioryman (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I admit ... it really bugs me that we had our suspicions over at FAC, knew something was amiss, but from reviewing the archives here, nothing changed from 2010-- y'all let him waltz right back in here, take up where he left off (promoting and defending copyvio) and didn't even wonder. For gosh sakes, this was his hangout-- could y'all keep a closer eye in the future? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it really fair to blaming this group of people for his actions? I mean, if someone decides to game any of Wikipedia's processes, it can be done. The whole AGF thing. To our defense, I think we're always happy to see someone new participating here. The Interior (Talk) 21:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Personally I'd prefer not to have to spend my editing career perpetually suspecting my fellow editors of acting nefariously. I think, to be honest, there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether we are overreacting - copying the odd sentence here and there is certainly very bad practice and has to be discouraged, to be sure, but it's so minimal a proportion of the source works that it wouldn't present any realistic legal threat. When we talk about copyvios we're usually thinking of people copying wholesale from the web or uploading images without permission. I wonder if we're overreacting by treating the copying of odd sentences as being just as heinous as wholesale copying of masses of material? That's not to make excuses for Rlevse but I'm not at all sure that the reaction is proportionate to the offence. Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess this means I can remove Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PumpkinSky from my watchlist. (I expected it to be created soon and wanted to comment that the user wasn't ready.) --Orlady (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still laughing about this one, Orlady-- a former arb who isn't ready to be an admin :) But not laughing about the fact that it's impossible to get folks in here to see the light about copyvio ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure people do see the light, but I'm just saying that we need to maintain a sense of proportion. It seems the ongoing CCI into this user isn't finding much of substance - is that correct? Prioryman (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to look at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky and add. To me it summarizes to 560 articles touched in half a year, (quoting from there, starting at the end): "constructive", "improvements", "gnoming", "helpful", "good". That Wikipedia can let such people go makes no sense to me. I looked at some a little closer, including the one pulled. Two editors including me improved the article slightly, here is the comment of the other editor: I suggest to place it in the archive, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion mentioned above is now on Talk:PumpkinSky, The alleged PumpkinSky copyvio,

Template problem - help!

I've been trying to close Template:Did you know nominations/eRulemaking but adding no to the passed= line breaks the template. Is it me or is the template itself broken? Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I think you were probably forgetting to subst the {{DYKsubpage}} (see Template talk:Did you know#How to remove a rejected hook). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked the nomination's history, and that was the case. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for fixing that. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

1989 Helena Train Wreck

Hi, I moved the page for this article but can't figure out how to update the nomination template. Please see the red link under Articles created/expanded on January 21. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. You just needed to move the nomination template so that the name matched what was being transcluded on T:TDYK. You had updated the transclusion to read {{Template:Did you know nominations/1989 Helena Train Wreck}}, but the nomination was still at Template:Did you know nominations/Helena Train Wreck. It's sorted now. GRAPPLE X 00:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

so ... whatrya gonna do about the fact that the title is wrong (1989 Helena train wreck)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. GRAPPLE X 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, there are instructions for this: T:TDYK#How to move a nomination subpage to a new name. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 2, February 2

The fourth (Vashon High School) and fifth (Ibiranu) items have been accidentally combined into a single DYK. It would be great if someone could separate them. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The sixth (earthquakes) item: shouldn't the final word, 'patches', be in double quotes rather than single quotes? Since it's an article about American earthquakes, I believe "patches" would be more appropriate punctuation. (Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done. --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Prep 4 February 3 morning

In the fifth hook, "fifty-seventh" and "second" have been changed to "57th" and "2nd" with a citation of "WP:ORDINAL".

As I pointed out in the review of that particular hook,

• That section says "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred ... )", so both "57" and "fifty-seven" are acceptable. (The next sentence notes that the above quote applies to cardinal numbers as well as ordinals, so "57th" and "fifty-seventh" are also fine.)

If DYK is one of those places, like infoboxes, where the numbers get preference over the words, then I'm fine with it, even if WP:ORDINAL doesn't mention DYK by name. But if it's just "WP:ORDINAL" that's being cited, my feeling is that you want the consistency of both words or both numbers. I frankly think "2nd" looks silly which is part of why I prefer words here. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've always preferred using words over numerals where possible. I'd second a request to restore these. GRAPPLE X 06:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As I was the one who made the change, I've restored it back to what it was. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't want to simply revert, in case DYK policy was an unwritten exception like those referred to in the initial WP:ORDINAL paragraph. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for 2nd view on DYK nomination

I started out reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Sisingamangaraja XII but ended up making many changes to the article myself. Could someone else please take over completing the review, since as I'm effectively now a co-author it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do so? Prioryman (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Two quirky in prep1

I see two quirky hooks in Prep 1, do we have too many of those? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible nomination for DYK

Would José Manuel Martín be ok to add to the DYK page? I went through the article and picked out these facts.

1. Spanish character actor José Manuel Martín has appeared in over 100 film and television productions during his career.

1. Spanish character actor José Manuel Martín starred in one of the earliest Spaghetti Westerns, Savage Guns (1961), and went on to become one of the most prolific villains of the genre.

1. José Manuel Martín, one of the most recognized character actors of Spaghetti Westerns, made his final appearance in the Italo-Western Amigo, Stay Away (1972) in an uncredited role as a peddler.

Martín's IMDB profile lists his appearances at a total of 113. Since the site isn't a reliable source, and I can't find another reference which specifically claims this number, would I need to cite each individual film for the first hook to pass? For the third hook, I cited his appearances in the "twilight" Spaghetti Westerns, specifically Amigo, Stay Away, though the source doesn't specifically say he played a peddler. Would I have to cite the actual film and the timecode for his cameo? I believe it's been in the public domain since 1992 but I could be wrong. 72.74.199.46 (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)