Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

Shortcut

WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

DYK queue status

There are currently 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 06:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 6 hours ago(

)

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:

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

Plagiarism Dispatch

Another copyvio removed from the mainpage today: Template:Did you know nominations/Musa Muradov

It would help if folks would understand that copying the entire structure of a source is copyvio. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches:

Adapting source text, whether by paraphrasing or summarizing, is a valuable skill, and contributors to Wikipedia need to be alert to the potential for inadvertent plagiarism. Many editors believe that by changing a few words here or there—or even by changing a great number of the words found in the original source—they have avoided plagiarism. This is not necessarily the case. Nor does the mere rearrangement of clauses, sentences, or paragraphs avoid the problem.

In other words, just because the duplication detector shows only a few words similar, we're not out of the woods.

In terms of both plagiarism and copyright, the author of a text not only "owns" the precise, creative language he or she uses, but less tangible creative features of presentation, which may incorporate the structure of the piece and the choice of facts.

and

In evaluating copyright concerns, the United States courts adopt a "substantial similarity" test that compares the pattern and sequence of two works, finding such similarity where "the ordinary observer [reading two works], unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same."[17] Even if all of the language is revised, a court may find copyright infringement under the doctrine of "comprehensive non-literal similarity" if "the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar".[18] Likewise, plagiarism may exist if readers comparing the two works would come away with a sense that one is copied from or too heavily based on another.

Every DYK I have examined from this nominator has the same problem: if you read the source, and then read the article, you are reading someone else's work, with a few words juggled. See examples at Template:Did you know nominations/Nosa Igiebor (journalist) and Template:Did you know nominations/Aboubakr Jamaï.

It's hard not to despair when no amount of scrutiny has brought any change to bear on DYK, in spite of at least three years of attempts to stem the tide here. Folks, you have a training ground here for new editors, and they continue to be rewarded for not learning how to paraphrase correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to uphold these standards and stay sane, when many of the contributors are crybabies. A few months back I had to put up with a bunch of lame drama, including an ANI thread, when I rejected a copied-the-structure-of-the-source case (Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner) that was even more obvious than this one. In the end it looks like they just ignored me and passed the plagiarized article anyway. No wonder I don't bother with reviewing anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know-- I've asked Moonriddengirl to come over here and put in a word. Perhaps she will shed some light. Maybe I'm wrong :) But when you read a source, and you can tell the structure is the same, but then the authors claim, well it's chronological order, what are you to do? It's as plain as day that the structure is identical, with a few words changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did the comparison suggested by SandyGeorgia and I find no copyvio there. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be too much to ask someone to post a list of articles that have been removed from Wikipedia at the request of the source author for "close paraphrasing" or "structure" copyright infringement? This is a gray, subjective area, and we may be discouraging good faith editors who are sensitive about being called thieves when they are not thieves. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having gotten seriously rattled recently when a DYK reviewer declared an article of mine to be a verbatim copy of the source (in fact, it was identical to itself -- a plagiarism-checking software package found it to be identical to a page of the same title on a Wikipedia mirror site), I endorse Kenatipo's plea for gentleness in interacting with article creators on this issue. We all are capable of mistakes of judgment. --Orlady (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list can be found at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. However, most were not removed by the source author. Froggerlaura (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to that page, Froggerlaura. I don't know why anyone would sue Wikipedia anyway (the Foundation doesn't have any money, does it?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just off the top of your head, did any of the "removed" articles get fixed? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)What's funny is that I actually re-read the close paraphrasing policies two weeks back to try to stay on the right side of this. I have to admit I missed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, though.

I'll be happy to have my work reviewed by others, and if it's found to be too close to original sources, I'll be glad to get some guidance on how to avoid it in the future. Sandy has already made fun of my response above, but I do find it legitimately difficult in the articles I'm writing on--which often involve a series of crimes or court cases in which journalists are involved--to avoid chronological order. Aboubakr Jamai is a good example; wherever I could find information about his litigation in another source, I added it in, but CPJ had written about several of these incidents, in chronological order, and so I used them as a source multiple times. I did separate direct censorship incidents and litigation into separate sections, sourced from multiple places, but found it difficult to have them make sense without appearing in roughly chronological order. If the resulting article is still too close to the CPJ source, I'm not sure how to get there without deleting the facts themselves from the Wiki.

Given my past run-ins with SandyGeorgia, however, I hope nobody minds if I ask for a second opinion. I'll see if there's a copyvio report board or someone similar who can give this a once-over. I don't know what else to say except that I am a good faith contributor doing his best. If I have been unintentionally violating Wikipedia policy here, my apologies in advance. Khazar (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware we had had "past run-ins" (I interact with boatloads of editors, so don't remember all of them), but knowing that raises a concern-- were our past encounters related to paraphrasing? Anyway, Moonriddengirl has promised to pop over here later to help educate us, but she's busy for the rest of the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sandy. I don't think Khazar has any malicious intent and from his previous DYK that were linked previously, the closely paraphrased passages are like the one discussed below (BLP with few sources to draw from). Please weigh in on the discussion below where the problem (which was identified by you) is being addressed. Froggerlaura (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specific example

This is a specific example of the closely paraphrased article source structure in the Musa Muradov article.

Wikipedia: Background section

“Muradov graduated from Moscow State University's journalism department in 1982. He then returned to his home town of Grozny, Chechnya, where he began work for Groznensky Rabochy, a weekly newspaper established in 1917, then controlled by the Communist Party. After the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, Muradov became the paper's editor-in-chief. However, Dzhokar Dudayev, president of Czechnya's new, unrecognized secessionist government, soon attempted to make the paper an official publication of his party, and Muradov and most of his staff quit. For the next two years, he worked teaching journalism at a local university as well as reporting for a small regional publication. In 1994, he fled the growing violence of the First Chechen War with his family, moving to Moscow.”

Source: “Awards 2003 – Muradov,” CPJ (2003).

“In 1982, after graduating from Moscow State University's journalism department, Muradov returned to Grozny and began reporting for Groznensky Rabochy, which, like all Soviet publications at that time, was controlled by the Communist Party. Following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Groznensky Rabochy became an independent publication, and Muradov became its editor-in-chief. Two years later, as secessionist movements in the region gained momentum, Chechnya's separatist leader Dzhokar Dudayev attempted to convert Groznensky Rabochy into his administration's official publication. Muradov and most of his staff refused to compromise the paper's newfound freedom and walked away. Groznensky Rabochy was consequently shuttered, and Muradov took a job as a correspondent for a regional publication while teaching journalism at a local university. In 1994, with the situation becoming increasingly violent in Chechnya, Muradov and his family fled to Moscow.”

The question is does CPJ "own" facts pertaining to Muradov's life. Is there any other way to convey the same information in a coherent manner (probably chronological) that would not be too close to the source but still accurately reflect (no OR or opinion) what happened in the man's life? Froggerlaura (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a full biography, it needs to be in chronological order if it is the only way to convey the information properly especially if it goes from year to year. It's not like, for example, an editor should start writing about someone in his 60s, then his 30s, then his 20s, then back to his 60s, and then his early life. What I mean is that not following the same structure at all is impossible. SL93 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking a stand on whether I'm doing right or wrong in my editing, that's a good example of the sort of paragraph that leads to tough decisions for me. I was very frustrated not to find his earlier history in other sources in a significant way. I do my best to rewrite the source information, but it's difficult given chronological, factual events from a single source; the choice then appears to come down to whether to include it in a form that's rewritten to the best of my abilities or to omit some information. It's entirely possible I'm erring on the wrong side of this choice, however, and I'll be glad to hear the feedback of others on this. Khazar (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "example" here covers most of the problematic passage, which deals with the early part of his life and career. As others have noted, it is difficult to present a biography without being chronological. A particular challenge in this instance is that there seems to be only one source that documents this part of the subject's biography, and there are gaps in this part of his life story. Khazar has endeavored to reduce the resemblance to the source by restructuring and rewording. I fooled around with additional modifications to some sentence structures and wording, but the changes are only incremental, and I find that some of my rewording inadvertently took Khazar's text back closer to the source:

“Muradov was born c. 1958 in Grozny. He studied journalism at Moscow State University, graduating in 1982. He then joined the staff of Groznensky Rabochy, a weekly newspaper in Grozny that had been established in 1917. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Muradov became the paper's editor-in-chief. It was expected that the newspaper, formerly controlled by the Communist Party, would be independent. However, in 1993 Dzhokar Dudayev, president of Czechnya's new, unrecognized secessionist government, attempted to convert the paper into an official publication of his party. In reaction, Muradov and most of his staff quit, leading the newspaper to shut down. Muradov found work for a time teaching journalism at a local university, as well as reporting for a small regional publication. In 1994, amid the growing violence of the First Chechen War, he and his family left Grozny for the relative safety of Moscow.”

IMO, additional creative restructuring and rewording is likely to distort the facts, which I believe is a more serious error than generally reflecting the structure of the source. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find Orlady's rewrite acceptable. Compounding matters, the CPJ website article is a shortened (bad IMHO) version of an article by CPJ journalist Olga Tarasov (which the website does not attribute the text to, plagiarizing themselves?). Information very close to the source could also be directly quoted. Nice quote by Muradov in article lead. Froggerlaura (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlady: good job on the re-write!

@Froggerlaura: your example paragraphs make the problem more evident to me—it's more borderline than I first thought. My method of comparison was to tie each of the cpj refs in our article back to the CPJ source article one by one. My review should have been a little more "macro" in addition to "micro". --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find that I erred in one sentence. Instead of "It was expected that the newspaper, formerly controlled by the Communist Party, would be independent", say "Initially, the newspaper, formerly controlled by the Communist Party, was independent." --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Froggerlaura and Orlady do a good job here of demonstrating that the article follows a bit closely on the structure of the original and also that the creativity in the original is fairly low. I think it benefits from the change, but that the issues would be very unlikely to rise to the level of a copyright concern, which a court would probably determine with an "ordinary observer" test of the look and feel. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological structure in biographical articles

I've made a post here which may be of interest. What I've asked there is whether it is actually possibly to copyright a standard structure to an article such as chronological ordering frequently used in biographical articles? My view is that this is not in fact possible, as many biographical dictionaries and articles published in many different places, by different authors, all claiming their own copyright, frequently follow the same chronological structure when describing a person's life story. Biographies when they are in a stub state are essentially collections of facts about a person's life arranged in chronological order. As a biography develops, it is possible to make some sections thematic, or to follow the 'house style' that Wikipedia biography articles tend to adopt, but in cases where there are few sources, and those sources do nothing more than arrange facts in chronological order, the structure of a Wikipedia article will of necessity also follow that structure. Care should be taken to avoid exact duplication of structure, but some duplication will likely always be present. It might also help to be clearer what level of structure is being discussed. You can have duplication of structure at the clause level, the sentence level, the paragraph level, the section level, and the article level. The approach to avoiding or fixing such duplication of structure can vary, which is why being precise on what structure is being discussed is important. What level of structure was being duplicated in the examples above? Carcharoth (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's down to sentence level with some clause repetition in this case. Each sentence in the source is mirrored (not verbatim but with same elements) in the the wiki article. The problem is mostly confined to the Background section where there is only one source to draw from, so mixture of source info is difficult. Froggerlaura (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I might as well copy over some of my personal opinion there. :)

In terms of chronology and no other way to tell the story, there may be room for disagreement as regards plagiarism, which is not my major focus, but copyright law doesn't care about the ethics of whose work it is. :) All it cares about is whether or not the content is creative enough to warrant protection. If everybody writing a biography would include the same facts in the same order, the presentation is not regarded as creative. If I read a biography that says, "He was born. He went to school. He worked. He died," I can use exactly that same structure in writing my own biography, because there would be little to no creative thought in it. They are what we would generally agree are the major points of outlining a life.

It's a very delicate balance, deciding when the organization becomes creative. The longer our source is and the more closely we follow it, the more likely we are to be running into problems. Did he hold 12 jobs and they list 6? That begins to show some subjective thought. For the same reason, it is not a copyright infringement to reproduce a complete "list of works" in a biography, but may be to reproduce a "selected works", if the selection criteria is creative. The core question you have to consider when thinking about copyright issues in terms of structure is "how much thought went into this?" The more creative the content, the stronger the copyright protection. If multiple sources use the same structure, the case that the structure is uncreative is actually strengthened. :) But I still try to mix it up a bit by adding in unusual facts I dig up from obscure sources, and if I can only find one source that discusses a subject in depth, I will take only the most important facts. Sometimes detail is lost. :/

What usually raises my concerns in close paraphrasing issues is a blend of copied expression and duplicated structure. The more similar the pieces would seem to an ordinary reviewer, the more likely it is to be an issue. In determining substantial similarity, courts will often ask for an entirely subjective review of whether or not the overall look and feel of a piece is the same. If it is substantially the same, and there is not some legal defense (such as fair use) successfully advanced, then infringement has occurred.

I have only just today found this essay, "WHEN IS A KNOCK OFF AN INFRINGEMENT", and at first blush it looks like a good one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just save you all some trouble here

While I appreciate the discussion here and below, I may as well make this decision moot by simply leaving Wikipedia. I'd been off for a while anyway, and was attempting a return after a diagnosis of chronic illness left me housebound for life this month. In retrospect, this is a silly place for me to be at this stressful juncture of my life, and facing discussion because I'm found to be in violation of a policy SG had to go back to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches to find is just the last indicator.
I've never claimed to be a perfect editor, and I do think Sandy's concerns here are valid ones that are worth discussing. I've edited in good faith, but it's still quite possible I'm on the wrong side of this gray area. So why not talk to me directly and calmly (on this page or elsewhere), give examples, and make suggestions for improvement instead of posting a public shaming that condemns my work as a whole, treats all my attempts to discuss the issue as bad faith, and offers no constructive suggestions? I'm tired of admins who are more interested in "Gotcha" than in actually helping editors improve their work, and tired of a community that lets such people run the place.
Anyway, the debate goes on, but if people feel that my case turns out to be actionable, I'm willing to return for whatever RfC, AN/I, etc. you wish to convene so that I can apologize and accept responsibility and punishment for any mistakes I've made; just e-mail me through my page. Other than that, I'm out, yos.
Sandy, just to set your mind at ease, our only previous encounters were in the Great DYK Flame War of Summer '11 when you repeatedly accused everyone involved in DYK of lacking any decency. I asked you a few times on this page to take the hostility down a notch, to which you never responded.
Good luck to all still fighting the good fight to create new content for the wiki. I do sincerely apologize for my shortcomings as an editor that have caused this kerfuffle. It's been a pleasure working with all of you, Khazar (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, not again... I hope you at least check your messages, as MRG is liable to reply soon. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sad! I was soooo happy to see you return, Khazar, and you noticed. All the best for you personally, for health and well-being. (I don't want to spoil your clean talk, hope you look here.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave! I don't think this kerfuffle is that serious in the grand scheme of things and can easily be fixed (per Orlady's suggestions). There will be bullies in any forum, don't let them get to you. Froggerlaura (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your health problem, Khazar. Don't let the Plagiarism Paranoiacs get on your nerves. Let's assume they only want what's best for Wikipedia. But, it's a gray area, it's subjective, and, it's a matter of opinion. Take a break, then come back. Your humility alone makes you unique here! --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is most regrettable, but I can quite appreciate Khazar's preferring not to deal with this stress at this point. This is, after all, a volunteer activity. I'm not sure where best to note that I personally cannot see a problem with the passages reproduced above. When we get to "Do the new sentences have different information" I think we're setting the bar unreasonably high - and in effect requiring people to adopt as turgid and winding a writing style as I tend to have . . . I have looked hard for the passage seeming to be an echo or obviously derived - and it doesn't. I appreciate the seriousness of copyvio; I have raised the issue earlier on this page of plagiarism being important and distinct from whether the text is common domain; but with this sort of instance, I cannot see a problem. In my view Khazar did an adequate job telling the story in his own words. Orlady's (with the change made) seems to me equally good, not better. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with close paraphrase

Regardless of how this case works out, I think it illustrates that we as a project need to be on the same page about how we handle close paraphrase when we find it. Can we all agree that the above method, where posts where made to the nom page, the author's page, WP:ERRORS, another editor's talk, and here, is not how these situations should be handled? This is the worst possible outcome out of many. The above author was ready and willing to discuss the issues at the nomination page, but was instead forced to defend his writing choices on a widely-watched noticeboard. To be blunt, this shouldn't happen like this again.

Suggested best practice - if you find problems related to plagiarism in a nomination, first try to address them on the nomination page. If the author is reticent, or denies that there is a problem, then seek a second opinion. Terminology is important too - if the problem is close paraphrase rather than blatant copy/paste, use "close paraphrase" rather than "copyvio". Close paraphrase can be inadvertent, but copyright violation is a real-world crime, and we don't want people to feel like criminals. Thoughts? The Interior (Talk) 03:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggested best practice, TI. (It should be adopted by SG immediately!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useful to distinguish "close paraphrase" from "copyvio," even though, legally, a sufficiently close paraphrase may be regarded as a copyright violation. Wikipedians are used to thinking of copyright violation in terms of cutting and pasting material verbatim, an act both bright-line (it's quite obvious when this has occurred) and deliberate (it really can't be done accidentally). Close paraphrase is far more subjective—intelligent people acting in good faith can easily disagree on whether a particular piece of writing too closely follows the structure of its source—and need not be deliberate, particularly in cases where there are only a few obvious ways to structure the material. While maintaining this distinction might be argued to trivialize close paraphrase, I think it's also less likely to lead to reflexive hostility and indifference from those accused of doing it.

On a side note, could I make a general appeal not only to avoid personalizing this, but to avoid imputing motives in general? During some of the previous iterations of this debate, various motives have been ascribed to the "FAC people" or the "DYK regulars". While such nebulous terms do circumvent Wikipedia's prohibition on personal attacks, in practice, it simply means that many people are likely to read into them a veiled attack on themselves. I think we can discuss this reasonably without assuming other people in the discussion are tyrants, monomaniacs, or morons. Choess (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but unworkable suggestion; once a DYK goes to the mainpage, the nomination page is closed, the nominators frequently unwatch (and don't return to) the articles, and the nomination page has nothing to do with WP:ERRORS. Also, reporting problems on the nomination page doesn't get issues addressed at DYK, which is where they are occurring. A more workable solution for dealing with the recurring issues would be to put procedures in place at DYK that address the long-standing issues (which do not only involve copyvio/plagiarism/cut-and-paste, but also involve reliable sourcing, faulty hooks, unsourced hooks, and glaring prose errors) going on the mainpage. There have been many suggestions over the years, a bit of progress (at least we have a nomination page now and an archived record of the unabating problem), but no substantial change in the problem affecting the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you feedback. I would disagree that this is unworkable, though: in the above example, the author responded to comments on the nom page within hours. Speaking for myself, 100% of my nom pages and their articles are still watchlisted. I appreciate efforts to solve problems and welcome discussion on concrete and well-thought out proposals for change. But when offering criticism, it very important that the criticism be a) constructive, and b) de-personalized. With the subject of close paraphrase and structure, a theoretical example is far more desirable than using a specific editor's product to illustrate a point. These are tried-and-true basic management techniques. The Interior (Talk) 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may offer some general feedback, I strongly advocate trying to minimize shock and shame for people who may have issues with close paraphrasing, and wherever discussion may best take place do like the emphasis on neutral terminology. My own practice has generally evolved more and more in that direction over the years I've worked copyright issues on Wikipedia, as I've had plenty of opportunity to see what gets the best result. (In my opinion, the best result is good practice for writing free content and a happy, productive contributor. If we both walk away feeling good, then it's a "win" for Wikipedia. :)) I really like the way Choess succinctly describes the issues with close paraphrasing and especially the difference between that and copy-pasting from a "good faith" perspective. Besides my work on Wikipedia, I've taught college composition and know that the art of paraphrasing is a difficult one...and sometimes most difficult for the best students. Students are taught for most of their lives to accurately recount what they're given, but then suddenly required to do it in different language. This is a hard-won skill for many people. Most of the contributors I've found with close paraphrasing issues (though not all) can and will moderate their approach if issues are explained constructively. If people are inadvertently made to feel ashamed, it can sap both their motivation to contribute and their belief that they have something worthwhile to contribute, and that's a shame.

In terms of the poll below, unfortunately, best language approaches for the problem is also not always an inborn skill. :) Just as I've seen a lot of people with copyright issues in my four-whatever years of doing copyright work, I've seen a lot of people trying to address copyright issues, and they are also doing important work. I try when I can to encourage good practices with them in neutral terms that avoid shaming or demotivating them from keeping an eye out for issues. If you're going to add language to guide whistleblowers, for lack of a better term, I would really suggest adding concrete guidance, because I would swear that in even the most abrasive, accusatory confrontations I've seen (and I've seen some doozies), the contributor thought the language was appropriate to the situation.

I think we need to avoid here shaming people who fall at either end of the "close paraphrase" continuum - whether that's those who need to come towards the "stricter" side to meet community standards or those who are already too strict. Insofar as we possibly can, we must take the conversation out of the realm of emotion and keep it firmly grounded in reasoned conversation. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A poll

In practice, all decisions on what should be regarded plagiarism, and how bad it is (say, acceptable, must be rewritten, or so-so but should not be repeated, or etc.) are a matter of on-wiki consensus. However, this is just a part of a more general issue of phrasing concerns with a DYK nom. Such concerns have bordered the line of direct accusation way too often in the past. Thus my suggestion is as follows: whoever is the whistleblower, he/she must follow the line "not guilty until decided so by consensus" and use an appropriate language. I believe this is part of the unspoken wikipedia civility code and therefore suggest a poll on that

Support. The hostility atmosphere is becoming intolerable. People rush to accuse (say an "incorrect" DYK fact) even when they can't possibly know they are right. Materialscientist (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. We really should not need to explicitly remind editors of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and the legal standard of innocent until proven guilty, but if more editors remembered them we'd probably get more done. And we'd lose fewer editors... August saw us lose 10 - 15 regular editors for a while, and that could have been reduced if everyone AGFed and was civil. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the consensus for this would be decided at WP:CIVIL or WP:COPYVIO, not here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky CCI

Please help with checking in the Contributor copyright investigation, The alleged PumpkinSky copyvio, 28 articles (of 729 touched) need to be checked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5 left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original Reviewer's Take

I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion (my house's internet is being all finicky lately); I was the one who originally reviewed Musa Muradov, so I figure I should at least say something in this discussion. I received the following message from User:SandyGeorgia yesterday: "Structure of almost the entire article copied from one source, removed from the mainpage". I feel that this is an egregious broach of WP:AGF, as I had obviously reviewed the exact same article and come to a completely different conclusion. A much better way of wording this would be, "The article Musa Muradov has come under scrutiny for being too closely paraphrased to the original article and has been removed from the queue. Could you comment on the discussion as the original reviewer?" Also, instead of "Plagiarism Dispatch", why not name this section "Possible Paraphrasing Issue?" I think it's obvious that there was no intention to copy the original source verbatim, and plagiarism has a negative connotation to it which implies exactly that.

With regards to whether or not this is paraphrased too closely, I stand by my original assessment. The article is in an encyclopedic form in its chronological order and I see no way of rearranging the fact of his life to avoid minor paraphrasing (the re-write examples shown up top are actually quite impressively done). It is all cited in-line with proper references (without such, it would actually be plagiarism and I would have duly reported it). It meets the DYK criteria otherwise, and I found the hook to be insightful and interesting. If there is consensus to reverse my original decision, I understand, but I feel I should make my opinion known. Nomader (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it's obvious that there was no intention to copy the original source verbatim, and plagiarism has a negative connotation to it which implies exactly that." This is an example of the problem we face with language and a diverse community. :) While this is true in many places, on Wikipedia, it does not necessarily imply that; we accept that "inadvertent plagiarism" is possible here (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#How to avoid inadvertent plagiarism). If plagiarism requires intent, one can't inadvertently plagiarize. :) There was a lot of ink spilled over the issue back when that guideline was coming into being, and at one point it explicitly noted that some people have different definitions of plagiarism, but that was lost along the way. Calling this section "Possible paraphrasing issue" might have been better, though, to avoid the all-too-common confusion between plagiarism issue and copyright concerns. While often related, these are not at all the same, as citations may eliminate the former but not the latter. (Outside of linking to the guideline, I almost always avoid the use of the world "plagiarism." It just means too many different things to people, and to those who believe that plagiarism must require intent, it is a highly insulting word in itself.)

Regardless of the issue of whether and how much paraphrase exists in this article, though, I'm not sure I see how it would be an egregious breach of good faith to call out a potential copyright issue. WP:AGFC notes that it is not an assumption of bad faith to raise copyright concerns, but only to begin from the stance of presuming that copyright problems are intentional. Certainly, if somebody accused you of willfully overlooking copyright problems, that would assume bad faith! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! I was mostly referring to the tone in which I was notified and not the actual plagiarism notice, but I understand your point, and I apologize for coming out guns blazing with a link to WP:AGF and for using phrases like 'egregious breach'. These sorts of things only fan flames. That said, it might be worth it to have a discussion about the language that we use to discuss these sorts of things; I think tempers can easily flare when editors are informed that their work might be accidental plagiarism and there should be a more civil way of informing them. Maybe it would be worth it to dredge up that old conversation? But I understand your overall point and agree; thanks for the response! Nomader (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Over the last few weeks I have noticed multiple 'Did you know?' items that I felt were borderline advertisements. In particular, product and company-related entries written in such as way as to place the focus on other aspects of the statement(s) whilst still mentioning (and linking to) said companies and products. I would like to know if anyone else has noticed this and/or feels that policy should be revised; my motion is that 'Did you know?' nominations should not include trivia regarding present day companies and their (present or historic) products. prat (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple mention is not advertising. If I'm going to write an article about bullets made especially for use against zombies (they're out there, hint hint), I should put the product name in the hook. For me, advertising is like "Did you know ... that Wikipedia has been called "the wave of the future" If it's "Did you know ... that Wikipedia has more than 5 million articles in over fifty languages?", that's fine if independently verifiable.

Do you have any specific examples? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a terrible counter-example as it's a non-profit community. I don't have time to wade back through the last few weeks but I will make a point of collecting any I feel are a bit questionable here in a list over the next few weeks. prat (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK so an immediate example ... that the video game Dustforce won the $100,000 Independent Game Developers prize at the 2010 GDC Online conference? ... to me this is the effective promotion of a very current mass market product. prat (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wrote and nominated that, I take exception to be it considered as Advertising (Disclaimer: beyond having played the game myself, I have no connect to its developers) "Advertising" would be if the hook was "...that Dustforce is now available on Steam for the low price of $10". The fact that the game won a prize that helped to fund its developing is an interesting hook and in no way related to advertizing. Yes, it's a recent product, but at the same time, only until recently would I have been able to write the article. So of course if there's going to be a hook about a recently released product, it may seem promotion, but that would limit any article that has any hint of commercial interest about a recently released product. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you take exception. Perhaps wait for some more examples that are less personal. I am not insinuating that you put this there on purpose, merely pointing out that the massive first-page traffic probably resulted in a sales burst for this (digital download) product. (I believe someone working on Wikipedia's behalf could probably verify this with Steam, if so motivated.) I believe that policy should recognize this significant covert-monetization potential and guard against it. prat (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the caution you're trying to raise is going to be a problem for any currently-selling commercial product that gets a DYK at the front page - regardless if new or old; the product gets mention, ergo traffic is driven to its page. What our aim in DYK is to make that driver not related to why a person should buy the product, but to read about an encyclopedically-interesting fact and seek out more information. Thus, we do need to be concerned about a hook written to direct entice sales for any commercial product, but that doesn't mean that all hooks for commercial products are bad. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is Wikipedia a terrible example? Non-profits and not-for-profits still benefit from advertising, even if Wikipedia itself can generally depend on word-of-mouth. As for the video game hook, winning a large prize is considered interesting, especially since we aren't supposed to focus on plot elements in hooks. Not all games have interesting backstories, like perhaps a game written by Noam Chomsky or Stephen Hawking (theoretically) or one which supposedly had a cursed production. Just having hooks about new products are not automatically advertisements, just like having hooks about Indonesian lit is not an attempt to force people to read the works Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without agreeing or disagreeing, I feel that continuing this thread of discussion is tangential to the original concerns raised. prat (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that's not really avoidable. Without commenting on it being a positive or a negative, it's simply down to the fact that new articles are very often going to be about new things—films, games, books, products, etc—and they might seem to tie in with release in a promotional way when it's often simply because something that's a new and current topic will be reported more widely than something old and forgotten, or else those older topics will already exist and not be DYK-valid. GRAPPLE X 21:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point on new pages. If it really becomes a problem, though, maybe the community could consider looking at 'new content' and not necessarily 'new articles'? prat (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done—expanding a stub to five times its length also qualifies an article for DYK (and none of my own DYK noms were for anything you could really call new, now that I think of it). But since new material tends to come from newly-released or newly-pertinent topics, it's always going to go hand-in-hand. GRAPPLE X 08:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I've had several like that, including award-winning songs and films (US ones [i.e. the ones we expect to be in good condition] to boot) that were expansions. They weren't advertisements when given main page exposure. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original comment wasn't about newness, but about commerciality. I don't think newness is the issue, really (except insofar as recentism means we get a disproportionate percentage of new articles about new things). If I read this section correctly, it would also be a concern if older companies get a bounce from exposure on the main page of Wikipedia. First of all, I think that bounce is vastly overrated; a hook is only there for 6–8 hours, and the majority of site visitors bypass the main page; of those who do look at it, the majority don't click on a DYK (compare page views typically in the low thousands on the day an article was featured in DYK with the million site visitors a day). Secondly, of course a DYK placement will pique some interest - that's what it's all about; the hooks are supposed to be interesting, not just "Did you know that X exists?" I think the contention that this is bad when the subject of the article is a company or a product is over-sensitive. I doubt anybody ran out and bought a mop just because Freudenberg Group was on the main page, and if they did, I'm no more upset than if they tried to find some of La Jana's movies because she sounded hot or put the Stone Bridge in Regensburg on their bucket list - to name 3 of my DYK's. I'd be a little sadder if folks decided to avoid Helmut de Boor's scholarship because he was a Nazi, but them's the breaks; it's all information, and informing through interest is what we do at DYK. Ultimately it's up to the consumer of the information what to do with it - or even whether to read it - so providing it's accurate, I don't think we should censor it because it might give someone an idea what to spend money on any more than because it might be disturbing or include rude words (like the recent Ulenspiegel hook). --Yngvadottir (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1 down to six slots

Should we be reducing to six slots on all prep areas going forward until there's a better supply of completed DYK noms, or does the seventh slot need to be restored here. We seem to be running low on supply for the prep areas, though not on total nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea in adding a seventh slot was to help take care of the backlog, but if there's not enough reviewed hooks, the seventh slot is useless, and will actually make things worse if there are empty slots and no hooks to add to them. I owe a few QPQ's myself, so I'll review a bunch tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I have changed the 'clear template' to have six (instead of seven) hook slots. Lord Roem (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeckendorf Towers (Queue 2)

The hook for Zeckendorf Towers currently reads "[DYK …] that the outdoor space of Zeckendorf Towers make up the largest residential green roof in New York?" Should that be "outdoor spaces"? Or possibly "makes up"? As it stands, I think something grammatical is missing! HTH Nortonius (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "makes up" would be the correct choice. The original sentence started with "14,000 square feet", which is why "make up" was used in the article, though it should have been changed here. I wouldn't modify "outdoor space"; I think, based on the article's wording, that it's a single seventh-floor rooftop between the building's four towers. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "makes up" would be the correct choice. However, I don't think that I have the right credentials to edit the blurb, so maybe someone could help? --Bruzaholm (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only a select group of people do. And at least some of them can update the main Wikipedia page with the set of DYKs that include this one, which is overdue at the moment! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Update is overdue!

The Bot didn't update at 16:00 UTC, so the update is over 50 minutes late as I write this. Whoever updates the page with the material currently in Queue 3, please note the correction that needs to be made (see Queue 3 section immediately above this one). Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Uddin Queue 2

This actor is fairly young: it is very likely that his father is still alive. As such, anything we say about him is subject to laws of libel. We can say that Jan Uddin has said this of his father: there has never been a court case, so we can't say that it happened. Mr Uddin senior might choose not to take action against his son, but that does not prevent him doing so against those repeating the claim. Kevin McE (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be worth tweaking the item to read something like "... that actor and model Jan Uddin, best known for playing Jalil Iqbal in EastEnders, says that he was was beaten by his father, who also refused to let him watch television or read books?" It seems to be well enough sourced, to a UK newspaper [1], and we must presume that it has been signed off by their lawyers. Prioryman (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the first two sources cited by the article,[2] and [3], both state that Uddin's father is dead. As such this can not possibly be a WP:BLP issue. --71.96.130.140 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to change the hook under the circumstances; Uddin himself has said his father is dead. Far more important is that fact that this queue should have been put on the front page over two hours ago... BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still rather see it as Prioryman suggests, but the revelation that his father has died makes that less imperative. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4: Pain in My Heart

I've just done an edit to the Pain in My Heart hook, since it was comparing apples and oranges—an album to a song—but even now that it's song to song there's an underlying problem with it: you don't accuse a song of copyright infringement, you accuse the songwriter, in this case, Naomi Neville. You can say that a song was thought to be an infringing work, I suppose. Before this hits the front page or even gets promoted to a queue, either the hook needs to be reworded or the entry needs to be pulled temporarily while a better wording is found. Since it's an article about the album, the album/song differentiation needs to be maintained. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK update late

It's been 9 hours since the last DYK Main page update. I don't know if the bot is down. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was watching the bot and got distracted elsewhere. Last 2 updates went manual, and I'll keep an eye on the next few updates. I've left a note to Shubinator. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 and Prep 4 are both full and ready to be moved to a queue. Lord Roem (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK credit error

Just a note, I got a credit for a DYK that listed Monkey Island (series) as the DYK, but in reality, it's Game Dev Story which is the main article (and the bolded one). I guess it somehow got screwed up when it was transfered to the queue or maybe I made a mistake inputting it? Either way, I'm not sure how to change these sorts of records. Nomader (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/Edin Osmanović

Hi, can I get the opinion of an image copyright expert on Template:Did you know nominations/Edin Osmanović? The nominator apparently knows the subject of the article personally and claims to be a photographer. Should I just assume good faith in that case? Thanks! — Toдor Boжinov — 11:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to verify the submission, I made the nominator remove the two images for which I had copyright doubts. Right after the article appeared on DYK, he readded the image (File:EdinOsmanovic.jpg) back, which pretty much renders my verification invalid, as I do not believe this image is free of copyright. Right now the article with this image (Edin Osmanović) is being linked to from the Main Page. Is there anything that should be done about it? I have asked over for assistance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyright of images on Edin Osmanović, but so far nobody has replied. — Toдor Boжinov — 16:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user says that the photograph is one that he made 12 years ago, then scanned and uploaded here. Do you have a particular reason to doubt the uploader? If not, we can assume good faith. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't appear anywhere online that I could find. Boжinov, do you think it's scanned from a magazine? The quality looks too good to have been scanned from a magazine page. Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I mean is that while he clearly possesses a physical copy of the image, I do not think he is the original photographer. I guess it was the nominator's unusual explanation and his overall odd behaviour that led me to suspect this. You are right that I cannot prove my doubts, though, so I have no choice but to assume good faith in that case. Thanks to both of you for your opinions on the issue! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 22:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Günther Strupp - prep 1

I'd like to have this returned to the nomination page. It was approved, but with a caveat. I did not see the approval tick till just now and the reviewer wrote something that had missed my notice before and I'd like to address it so that my first proposed hook, which I think is more interesting, can be used. The fact was not cited in the story, which was just an oversight and I can easily fix this (and will get to it as soon as I post this). Thanks in advance. Marrante (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed the problem. The ref for Herbert Sandberg now states that he was a Buchenwald survivor and co-founded the magazine Ulenspiegel. I also see the article is out of prep 1, but the template page is still blue. Marrante (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted this information to the talk page of the template. Marrante (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The hook got moved to Queue 3 because there were too many hooks from the same era (early 20th century) in P1. I think the hook approved by Schwede66 is fine. I can certainly un-promote the nom if you want to talk Schwede66 into approving the original hook. Let me know. --PFHLai (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did it get moved to queue 3? I thought I had checked that, but maybe I looked while it was "in transit". Actually, I would like to use the other hook if I can. I have written to Schwede66, but have not yet heard back. He's in NZ, so he's probably asleep at the moment. Marrante (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's now un-promoted and no longer blue. I am not putting this on {DYK Removed} as I expect this nom back on prep very soon. --PFHLai (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Marrante (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication Detector

Just a reminder to reviewers: you can't always rely on Duplication Detector to tell you when there's a problem with an article. Take for example this nom: the size of the source prevented the tool from working properly, but a manual check showed large-scale near-verbatim copying. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, prep areas are now empty. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording in two queues

Could some admin, assuming they agree with me, make the following changes please?

In Queue 5, Marco Dane, remove the before "daytime's answer to Al Pacino".
In Queue 6, Whisker (horse), add as after described and before "as near perfection as a horse could be" - or substitute called for described, since I know some break out in hives at as as. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 Cuyopsis

The Prep 3 Cuyopsis hook "that shells of the extinct Argentinian bivalve Cuyopsis are symmetrical enough to be named for it?" left me scratching my head: the final "it" seems to me to be referring back to the Cuyopsis shells, so I was left to conclude that, somehow, symmetry is related to Cuyopsis in some mysterious, indirect fashion. In fact, the article says the genus Cuyopsis was named for the region; it's the species name Cuyopsis symmetricus that comes from those symmetrical shells.

I have edited the hook accordingly, with the added "rectangular" description (from the article's mention that these shells were "rectangular in outline") to add interest—not a typical shape—while still keeping the symmetry. I mention this here so that if I've gone astray, corrections can be made before it's too late:

... that the extinct Argentinian bivalve Cuyopsis symmetricus was named for the symmetry of its rectangular shells?

Hope it works! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good to me.--Kev min § 23:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 National Movement for the Liberation of Azawa

As Lihaas has pointed out on Orlady's talk page, the Queue 6 entry (from the template National Movement for the Liberation of Azawa) has problems that need addressing.

The hook in the queue (number five of six) is currently as follows:

... that following the 2011 Libyan civil war, Tuareg fighters for the defeated government became members of the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, seeking an independent Azawad?

While the suggestion there is to add a parenthetical element—instead of "for the defeated government", change it to "(mostly for the defeated government)"—I'm not sure "mostly" is justified either, and I feel that parentheses should be avoided in DYK entries. My suggestion, for a variety of reasons, is instead to use the sourced allAfrica characterization (ref 4) and make the sole change the addition of the word "many" before "Tuareg":

... that following the 2011 Libyan civil war, many Tuareg fighters for the defeated government became members of the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, seeking an independent Azawad? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why this was brought up on my talk page, as I have had no involvement with the article or the review of the hook. Please don't wait for comments from me. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edited per BlueMoonset's recommendation. --Orlady (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not for you per se, just needed urgent attention. as a DYK admin i thought youd be online soon.

Anyway, we can take out the paranthesis and just put "mostly."Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. As it happens, I've been offline quite a bit in the last few days. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Color me confused, due to conflicting theories on how to change the wording. The current version reads:

... that following the 2011 Libyan civil war, many Tuareg fighters for the defeated government became members of the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, seeking an independent Azawad?

If there are problems with those words, please explain what is wrong with them so that appropriate corrections can be made. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i didnt read fully. Your suggesting of many is good (which is the same as mostly) so thats great. Thx.Lihaas (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 : Whisper

The word described needs a preposition before the description: you cannot say the noise was described "ear-splitting, but the noise was described as "ear-splitting". However, since the description is a simile with the word as twice already, suggest that the horse was said to be " as near to perfection..." Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Edited as suggested. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 : Needing/Getting

Rally driving is one discipline of motor sport; stunt driving is another altogether. Which is the singer claimed to have trained in? Having endured the video, I can't see anything in it that would be normally considered to be stunt driving. Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For insurance reasons, in the movie/tv biz, any type of driving that would be considered remotely dangerous (i.e. the controlled slides you see in the vid) must be done by a trained "stunt" driver. The term "stunt" is used very widely, not just for sweet barrel-rolls. The Interior (Talk) 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in that case, why is there a link to rallying? Kevin McE (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The course that Kulash was trained to drive and the one use for the video was a rally car course, which requires certain skill sets (driving dirt roads, tight corners, and in this case, keeping a steady mph during sections of the track), compared to your normal "stunt driving". --MASEM (t) 17:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Yeah, it sounds like he was trained in stunt driving, and drove on a rally-style course. It's probably not completely accurate to say he was trained in "rally car stunt driving" (which probably isn't a separate discipline), just "stunt driving". The Interior (Talk) 17:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done The article says he was trained in "stunt driving" and drove on a rally car course for the video. I removed "rally car" from the hook, since the article doesn't specify what kind of stunt driving training he received. --Orlady (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't see that as a problem in creating the hook but it clearly better w/o it (in DYK terms). --MASEM (t) 17:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ

I was curious to note that the QPQ requirement is only applied to self nominations, and not nominations by a separate party. Is there a reason that they are not included in the requirement?--Kev min § 09:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was because we didn't want to do anything which might discourage third party nominations. Gatoclass (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand and appreciate that... but I think if you get to the point where there is a backlog of over 50 unreviewed DYKs and you've nominated over 50 yourself but aren't reviewing any in return, it is creating a bit of a problem of not fixing unreviewed ones, especially unreviewed older ones that might otherwise not appear because they are high up... On a side note, related to backlog potentially caused by that, User:LauraHale/DYK pass fail indicates old UNREVIEWED DYK nominations are not filled with problem nominations that people should be scared to touch. --LauraHale (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe people submitting nominations should be required to do a review if they've submitted a certain number of nominations. It could at least be required if they've nominated more than a few articles written by the same person—otherwise, someone could easily act as another's dykpupppet. 159.83.4.153 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of QPQ is for people to contribute to making DYK work. IMO, nominating other people's work for DYK is contributing to the process here by helping to maintain throughput and by diversifying the content that gets nominated. When we get lucky, it even induces people who don't participate here to get involved, thus increasing the volunteer pool.

Furthermore, it's not easy to nominate someone else's work -- in fact, just creating the nomination is very much like reviewing a DYK nomination, except the nominator often also has to clean up the nominated article, address reviewer comments, etc.

There may be a few cases where article creators are nominating one another's work to avoid QPQ reviews, but that's hardly a reason to create a Universal Rule that will discourage a lot of positive work. If we see people doing that, we can tell them individually that we don't like what tget ae doing. --Orlady (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it will discourage others, and it seems that if someone is consistently doing noms of other peoples articles then they have developed a very good feel and flow for it. Currently the noms page has a month and a half worth of hooks while the prep areas a consistently low to empty when it comes to updates and queuing. This seems to indicate to me that we need more reviews of hooks.--Kev min § 21:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on QPQ's for multiple noms

In my first double article nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Jordy Mercer, Matt Hague, the reviewer said I only needed to have performed one QPQ review rather than two. Is that the case? I have a nomination up right now with ten articles and I've so far performed six reviews for it. I don't have a problem doing four more, but I am curious about the distinctions regarding multiple articles in a nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed several times but I haven't paid attention and don't remember what the conclusion was. Once someone answers this, please also update the rules so that the information is easily available and we don't have to keep having the discussion again. (Although, given how good most DYK nominators have been at reading the instructions, I imagine writing this down won't actually change anything.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion IIRC was that QPQ reviewers only have to review one article, but are encouraged to review someone else's multinom when submitting a multinom themselves. I don't have time right now to search for the relevant thread though. Gatoclass (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lat time I asked I was told that it was an article for article review, thus a 2 article hook would require reviewing 2 other articles in some combination of hook/s(e.g. a 2 article hook or two 1 article hooks). The problem is that different reviewers have differing options on how it works and most the original players in the discussion that lead to QPQ are gone. I would suggest review per article with the new focus on review quality that has come about. Also I would suggest every nomination should be accompanied by a QPQ review, whether a self nom or a second party nom.--Kev min § 01:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For now I think someone who remembers where the last discussion was should just let Muboshgu know what the current consensus is, so he can handle his nom. After that we can get into discussing whether or not it should be changed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for myself. I'll do the four more reviews to make ten reviews for the ten articles nominated. This should be clarified, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] I think Kevmin's referring to this discussion last September, which did say one review per article, but there was an earlier discussion that categorically stated it was one review per nomination. Frankly, the change in interpretation led me to avoid multi-~~hook~~article nominations like the plague. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the September discussion is the one I was referring to.--Kev min § 03:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was always told multiple expansions in a single nomination are treated as one nomination and require one. (And when I did a multiple nomination recently, some one commented I should have reviewed two, but some one else commented to say no.) It doesn't particularly fuss me either way, but helpful to know when nominating. (I'll take the additional review count for having done that one if it does.;) --LauraHale (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't review or make multiple nomination DYKs, but I do know that TonyTheTiger likes to review multiple nominations because he uses each article in the multiple to match the equivalent number of his single nominations. If that isn't the way it should work, we should probably make it clear so everyone knows the rules regarding multiples, both reviewing and being reviewed (and checking for same). BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to nominate a few articles in a few days. (waiting on pictures before moving over and nominating.) I think I did two double nominations to help get the total. I was operating under the understanding that they could for one review each. The amount of work is probably worth two, so I don't see a problem with giving credit for having done two, three or four credits for a DYK review on multiple articles in a single nomination because it does require that extra work. But yes, having a clear answer one way or another would be handy. :) --LauraHale (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its looking like we should make a !vote on if we want to go with the original hook for hook QPQ or to formally adopt a article for article QPQ. Yes/no?--Kev min § 20:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it all depends. Some multiple-article hooks are not much more work to review than a single-article hook -- those are the cases where all of the articles are based on essentially the same sources, so the reviewer needs to check no more sources than if there was just one article involved. On the other hand, I've reviewed some multiple-article nominations where each article used a different set of sources. Recently I did one for a 6-article hook, for which there was almost no overlap in sourcing; just checking sources for that hook was a lot of work (and I wasn't even claiming one QPQ credit, much less six). IMO, honest Wikipedians would try to do review work that is at least commensurate in complexity with what the reviewer(s) of their own nomination(s) are likely to have to do. Most of the time, that will mean reviewing as many articles as you nominated.

Note that when QPQ was introduced, there was no expectation that each DYK review would include a thorough examination of the article for copyvio, close paraphrasing, etc. At that time, it seemed reasonable to say that review of one hook would suffice for a multi-article-hook submission, but with the emphasis on article reviews that we have under the current regime, that no longer seems as reasonable as it did at first. --Orlady (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This last part. Some reviews can take 5 to 10 minutes. They have no images, use three to five sources all available online, the hook is almost copy pasted from the text, the topic isn't that controversial, it isn't a BLP, and the nominator has a history of doing acceptable DYK noms. Other ones are basically GAs, with 30 to 50 citations, with 20 images that all need a copyright check, with half the sources used things that are online but need verification as the duplicator check doesn't work on them, have to be checked for POV pushing, and require some learning about a subject. These can take 15 minutes to 30 minutes. It is hard to tell what you're getting in for when you review just looking at the nomination itself. --LauraHale (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have been reading its looking like the article for article thing is instruction creep that has seeped into the process at times. In light of the new procedures for review I wouls say we should go with the hook for hook requirement. I still say it should be for all hooks and not just self noms though.--Kev min §

I like hook for hook and if we were doing a vote, would be inclined to support it. I'm good with giving new self and new nominators the first five nominations for free, IE no requirement to review. Great that people want to nominate new articles that the creators might not. Their options should be: 1) Encourage new DYK person to self nominate and help fix up the nomination if problems, 2) Review a nomination. Otherwise, it creates a bit of a backlog and an imbalance in reviewers/reviewees. :( --LauraHale (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Chalmers hook fact not cited

This is on the main page now. I checked it earlier, but could not log on because I was on a hand held (and can only rarely log on successfully from it). The hook fact can be cited (I've found a ref for it) and I'm about to take care of it, but I just wanted to state that it is not there now. This should have been taken care of in the review stage or while it was in prep, no? Marrante (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look. It was cited way down in the body of the article. It was also added, with a ref, to the end of the third paragraph of the intro with this edit. Then Marrante referenced its pre-existing occurrence in the first paragraph of the intro (which is an actual lede para and thus my understanding is should not have refs except in cases of dispute, such as about where and when someone was born). In reviewing articles, I've started to see these long intros that summarize the article in detail after summarizing it briefly in the first para.; not my usage, and I commented on it in one review, but clearly a popular style of presentation. The danger is in terms of verifiability that the reader is going to want a reference on the version of the piece of information that doesn't happen to have the ref. That's what seems to have happened here. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I was on a handheld when I first looked at it and had very little time when I finally got on a computer to make sure of what I thought was the case. Had that lede paragraph not had the ref, I'd have looked harder for it in the body, but seeing the ref on the lede paragraph, and it was a long-ish article full of unfamiliar names and such, making such reading hard, especially under my time constraint. I'm glad to hear it was cited properly then, but then these lede refs really should come out. Marrante (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A template advertising DYKs

I've designed a template that can be dropped on a user talk page, accepting an article name as a parameter, thanking the editor for his new article and suggesting they nominate it for a DYK. Feel free to tweak it directly, and if you like it, we could consider mainspacing it and/or linking it from one of official DYK pages. The current use for syntax is {{subst:User:Piotrus/TDYK|ArticleName}} . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical query

I cannot determine from reading:

this DYK topic ban discussion

what the consensus was on that, and don't know if that consensus has since changed. I had encountered that before, but the recent mainpage

Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer Worth

leads to my question. The Jennifer Worth nomination was presented initially with paraphrasing issues (subsequently cleaned up by others), but nonetheless went on the mainpage with text sourced to personal blogs, which was generally trivia. I'm unaware of how to check if the word count was met with the blog-sourced trivia removed, but I'm also unclear on what happened to Wilhelmina Will's topic ban proposal based on these same issues years ago (I was aware that Blechnic left Wikipedia after being one of the first to raise these concerns). Could someone who knows the history explain the consensus on Wilhelmina Will's proposed topic ban? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I even knew DYK existed back then (you linked to an AN/I discussion that began on August 3, 2008). However, we have an archive index for this page, and it showed me this announcement that her ban was lifted, dated August 19, 2008. Also I'd point out that with rare exceptions, her recent activity at DYK has been to nominate articles written by others; that includes the Jennifer Worth nomination. She does not appear to then follow up on those nominations when concerns are raised - at both Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer Worth and Eugene Eisenmann, for example. But nominating others' articles is not a problem, it's to be encouraged (although I'll admit I was a bit startled when she nominated one of mine!) and I see no mention of its having been included in her DYK ban. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yng; much appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to check in future how large an article is with certain content removed, Dr pda's page size script also works on preview screens, allowing you cull out the content in question, preview the abridged article, and check its size in preview without saving the changes. GRAPPLE X 17:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word in queue should be removed or moved

In the fourth hook of Queue 5 (for Similodonta), "in" should be removed or moved between "down" and "a". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by Floquenbeam a few minutes ago, after it moved to the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup

An approved hook needs to get to the Main Page by the 26th for an editor to advance in the WikiCup. Any help for them? BCS (Talk) 21:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been added to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3, which should, I believe, be featured on the Main Page within 24 hours (I may be wrong). GRAPPLE X 21:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, six minutes after I posted here the hook was approved. BCS (Talk) 04:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be out of line for me to politely request that an approved hook of mine, Template:Did you know nominations/List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft, also be placed in queue by the 26th? :-) I also need this promoted to advance in the cup. –Grondemar 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Prep 1, due to be on the Main Page on the 26th. It was approved before you made that comment, though. That's what I call quick :) BCS (Talk) 04:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about DYK

Would Sir Francis Verney be eligible for this page? I think there are several facts which would make interesting hooks. 71.184.38.227 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that article is brand new, yes. Go to Template talk:Did you know to start the nomination. Someone here can help you if needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried following the directions to submit the article but I can't create the subpage. I entered the name of the article but I couldn't fill out the form. The save/preview buttons were also missing. I was going to post it directly to "Template talk:Did you know" but when I edit the main page it tells me to create a subpage. 71.184.38.227 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if an (unstated) requirement for entering a DYK nomination is that you are logged in—that is, that you need a Wikipedia account in order to nominate, which would effective prevent IPs from nominating? I couldn't find a specific mention of this, and it may well be some other problem preventing the nomination, but I thought it was worth asking. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to be logged in. Anonymous users can't create new pages, including new templates. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So would someone else have to create the subpage or do I just copy the form to the main page? 71.184.38.227 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that now's as good a time as any to create your own account. Alternatively, you can give us a few possible hooks and one of us can open the nomination for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's a few that stand out:

Did you know ... that following a legal dispute with his stepmother over his inheritance English adventurer Sir Francis Verney left England to become a Barbary corsair?
Did you know ... that despite having no background in sailing English adventurer Sir Francis Verney became of the most feared Barbary corsairs of the early-17th century?
Did you know ... that English adventurer Sir Francis Verney was one of four leaders of a Barbary pirate fleet headed by John Ward?
Did you know ... that rumors of Sir Francis Verney and John Ward's conversion to Islam caused a sensation in their native England?
Did you know ... that Sir Francis Verney is the only English aristocrat to have supposedly converted to Islam?
Did you know ... that English adventurer Sir Francis Verney spent two years in the Spanish slave galleys for two years before being rescued by an English Jesuit priest?
Did you know ... that English adventurer Sir Francis Verney's final days were recorded by Scottish traveler-writer William Lithgow?
Did you know ... that several personal effects of English adventurer Sir Francis Verney, sent back to England after his death, are still preserved and on display at Claydon House for over 400 years?
Did you know ... that Sir Francis Verney was chosen by Disney imagineer Marc Davis as one of several real-life pirates for Disneyland's "Pirates of the Caribbean" amusement ride?

71.184.38.227 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody got a minute to help a DYK newbie?

Would somebody here be so kind as to take a look at User talk:HJ#Beebuk and see if everything;s in order with the nomination the editor is enquiring about—I'm not familiar with the new nomination system (even though it's not that new any more!). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Step III (posting the nomination template on the Template talk:Did you know page) hadn't yet been done, so I explained what needs to be accomplished at this point. I did have a thought while explaining, though: I'm wondering whether the bot message should say "step III" rather than "step 3"; some people are very literal-minded, and there is no "3" there. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with changing it to III, but you'll have to contact User:Shubinator to get that done, he's the one who operates the bot.

How much do we need to hold editors' hands? The instructions are quite simple and a bot told the guy quite straightforwardly "you need to do this step"... rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with prep area 4 entry

In prep area 4 there is an entry which reads:

"... that Alison Quinn (pictured) was an Australian Paralympic athletics competitor who began in gymnastics to improve her coordination and symmetry?"

I think the use of "began" in this sentence is what they call a dangling modifier. Anyway, the sentence can be read in two completely logical ways with very different meanings:

...that she took up gymnastics because she thought it would improve her coordination and symmetry; or

...that after she took up gymnastics her coordination and symmetry began to improve.

--108.54.19.166 (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of past tense is also awkward and symmetry?, suggest ...that Australian Paralympic athlete Alison Quinn (pictured) started gymnastics as a child to improve her coordination? Froggerlaura (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is in prep, so anyone can edit it without needing to discuss here. As a two year old, she had no particular objective in mind. I have changed it to ... that Australian former Paralympian Alison Quinn (pictured) was brought to gymnastics as a child in the hope that it would improve her coordination and symmetry? (but that is not a dangling modifier) Kevin McE (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1: thematic imbalance (now Queue 3)

3 out of 6 hooks in this batch are sports related: an imbalance that should be addressed. Kevin McE (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that these have since been moved to Queue 3, and can now only be modifed by an administrator. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I swapped one of the sports hooks to Queue 2. --Orlady (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Hook

Please can an administrator change the hook on Zennor Head (in queue 1) back to the one it was promoted with, i.e "that Zennor Head, Cornwall, is the largest coastal feature in the United Kingdom that begins with the letter "Z"?" rather than the new one it has been changed to. It was changed by an editor who did not believe the book it was referenced from was a reliable source, because of a humorous comment made by the author in the introduction, but I have explained that the joke (see my edit summary on the history) about subjective opinion only related to the 4/6 picturesque rating, rather than facts in general, and an exhaustive examination of the OS maps of Britain have supported the hook as true. Thanks --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 14:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected project page at Wikipedia:Did you know. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

i.e. here, change

{{*mp}}... that French general [[Hubert Lyautey]] ''(pictured)'' described his defensive tactics in the '''[[Zaian War]]''' as analogous to hollowing out a lobster? {{*mp}}... that in 1936, '''[[Mahmoud (horse)|Mahmoud]]''' set a course record at [[Epsom Downs Racecourse|Epsom]] and became the third of four [[Gray (horse)|grey]] racehorses to ever win the [[Epsom Derby|Derby Stakes]]? {{*mp}}... that actor [[John Abraham (actor)|John Abraham]]'s first production '''''[[Vicky Donor]]''''' deals with the concept of [[sperm donation]]? {{*mp}} ... that in the '''[[1991 PBA First Conference Finals]]''', [[Barangay Ginebra Kings|Ginebra San Miguel]] became the first team in [[Philippine Basketball Association]] history to win a championship series coming from a 1-3 deficit? {{*mp}}... that the plot of the [[adventure game]] '''''[[Undercover: Operation Wintersun]]''''' focuses on a nuclear physicist trying to destroy [[Nazi Germany|Nazi German]] prototype [[nuclear weapon]]s during [[World War II]]? {{*mp}}... that '''[[Zennor Head]]''', [[Cornwall]], is named after a woman who was reputedly washed up there after being thrown into the sea in a barrel by her husband?
to
{{*mp}}... that French general [[Hubert Lyautey]] ''(pictured)'' described his defensive tactics in the '''[[Zaian War]]''' as analogous to hollowing out a lobster? {{*mp}}... that in 1936, '''[[Mahmoud (horse)|Mahmoud]]''' set a course record at [[Epsom Downs Racecourse|Epsom]] and became the third of four [[Gray (horse)|grey]] racehorses to ever win the [[Epsom Derby|Derby Stakes]]? {{*mp}}... that actor [[John Abraham (actor)|John Abraham]]'s first production '''''[[Vicky Donor]]''''' deals with the concept of [[sperm donation]]? {{*mp}} ... that in the '''[[1991 PBA First Conference Finals]]''', [[Barangay Ginebra Kings|Ginebra San Miguel]] became the first team in [[Philippine Basketball Association]] history to win a championship series coming from a 1-3 deficit? {{*mp}}... that the plot of the [[adventure game]] '''''[[Undercover: Operation Wintersun]]''''' focuses on a nuclear physicist trying to destroy [[Nazi Germany|Nazi German]] prototype [[nuclear weapon]]s during [[World War II]]? {{*mp}}... that '''[[Zennor Head]]''', [[Cornwall]], is the largest [[coastal feature]] in the [[United Kingdom]] that begins with the letter "Z"? (the original succesful nomination is here) Thanks -- Gilderien Talk|Contribs 15:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objective way of measuring the size of a coastal feature? Where does it start and finish. And an editor looking at OS maps can only be OR. By what criteria is the author of this book authoritative or reliable? Light-hearted books carry all sorts of statements that cannot be considered to have been enyclopaedically verified. [User:Kevin McE|Kevin McE]] (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Length of coast? Area? I just did that to confirm the facts in the hook as correct. I will have a look for some more sources regarding this.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 16:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)_{And OR? Surely it is OS who have gathered the data? Correct me if I'm wrong, since I am quite a new and inexperienced editor, but OS is the publisher of the information.}[reply]

Like I asked, by what definition are the start and finish points of such measurements determined? If you are confident of the terms in which it is the largest, can you source those measurements? Kevin McE (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For islands, like Zacry's Island, it is pretty simple. For headlands, it is harder, but I have seen area measured as a line drawn from the furthest point inland from the adjacent coves, out to sea. I will endeveour to provide sources for measurements of the respective page, but does gathering and comparing count as OR?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 16:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2: Pythagoras for ET

... a proposal to signal aliens by drawing a massive representation At least in UK English, it is usual to signal to somebody. Signal also seems to suggest a more active mode of communication than simply putting something on the ground and passively waiting to see if someone/thing happens to notice it. Kevin McE (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I checked (not all of them) use the word "signal", which is also the word used in the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources accessible without book or subscription, so I don't know, but the normal meaning of the word signal remains. What of the grammatical issue of the need for a preposition: is this an ENGVAR issue? Is a Version Neutral English solution possible? Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte (Queue 3)

Inconsistent to compare the "actor" Brigitte to the character Eddie. Either compare Stella to Eddie, or Brigitte to Moose. Kevin McE (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but the fact is that Brigitte was compared to Eddie. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is what happens if we use the gossip column of a sensationalist Murdoch tabloid as a "reliable source". It is still inconsistent, and not an example of what an encyclopaedia should do. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]