Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
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
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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

2011 DYK reform proposals

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

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

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

PD text redux

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

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

• we should allow any "abnormal" additions (PD texts or texts from other WP articles) and count the expansion by subtracting them - Materialscientist
• editors should be able to nominate articles that include some verbatim PD material if the material is well written and the source is reliable and independent - Aymatth2
• The only general rule of thumb is that articles copied 100% verbatim from a single freely licensed source will need rewriting. Anything else requires discussion - Carcharoth
• There is a case for the inclusion of small amounts of material from PD sources in some articles (assuming that they are properly attributed) - Mikenorton
• I think "not include an abundance" could usefully be changed to "not consist for the most part of". I don't think text taken from other sources should count toward the minimum length requirement whether it's in quotation marks or not - Yngvadottir
• Per this discussion last month, it appears that consensus is that the inclusion of some PD material is fine, although an article copied entirely from other sources (even if the license is acceptable) is not good for DYK - Crisco 1492

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hook is too long

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

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

spelling change on main page

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

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

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

Clarification about double nominations

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

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

Hook pulled from main page for copyvio issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I laughed, too, Sandy. By way of explanation, my radar goes up whenever I see a relative newbie who shows an eager appetite for Wikipedia recognition, such as, but not limited to DYKs, FAs, and adminship. Sometimes they turn out to be retreads posing as newbies (as in this case), but more often they are just immature and eager. Either way, I characterize them as unready for adminship. Of course, if PumpkinSky had requested adminship, I would have looked more closely at his record before commenting on the RfA. --Orlady (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

You are welcome to look at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky and add. To me it summarizes to 560 articles touched in half a year, (quoting from there, starting at the end): "constructive", "improvements", "gnoming", "helpful", "good". That Wikipedia can let such people go makes no sense to me. I looked at some a little closer ("User talk:Amalthea#Paraphrase, but how?" in the history, for a link see below), including the one pulled. Two editors including me improved the article slightly, here is the comment of the other editor. I suggest to place the hook in the archive, and will do so if there is no concern raised within three days, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The alleged PumpkinSky copyvio

The discussion mentioned above is now on Talk:PumpkinSky, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Template problem - help!

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

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

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

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

1989 Helena Train Wreck

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

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

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

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

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

Queue 2, February 2

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

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

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

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

Prep 4 February 3 morning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for 2nd view on DYK nomination

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

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

Two quirky in prep1

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

As you have seen, I agreed with your judgment and moved one of them to another hook set. --Orlady (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible nomination for DYK

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Did you know nominations/José Manuel Martín has been created for you, and then posted on Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on February 1. Please wait for your nomination to be reviewed. The hook fact is scrutinised more than the rest of the article, but the rest of the article still need to be adequately cited. I'm pretty sure that this article won't get onto MainPage till the entire article gets properly referenced. Please add more refs. Happy editing. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Boilerplate on Nominations page for each day's list

I was wondering whether the boilerplate instructions under each day's header on the nominations page should be updated, at least going forward. They currently read:

• After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment}}

In particular, I think the "e.g." should use the new-style "Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE" format, and while that's being changed, the final two closing braces should be changed to a single closing paren. That would give:

• After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment)

I would also add a period at the end—"section (after this comment)."—but that's comparatively unimportant and there may be reasons not to.

One reason I'm suggesting this is that I think people are hand-deleting "Template:" from the version that's displayed for them to copy on their template creations page in order to match the example, when it's unnecessary for them to do so. I seem to remember doing just that hand-deletion on an early nomination of mine, before I had a better understanding of how the process worked. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The changes you suggest would restore it to exactly the way it used to be. The final braces are definitely wrong. This error was accidentally introduced on December 4, then the next edit fixed it incorrectly, and the minor error went unnoticed and has been propagated ever since. The "Template:" was removed on January 22. I personally prefer it without, but it may be easier for newer nominators to understand with. As I don't think there was ever a discussion to remove it, and it's really pretty unimportant, I'm restoring everything as you suggest. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! Looks good; I just saw it on the new day's header. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Unverified hook?

Not sure what happened here: [5] Also, text contains verbatim text from a source without quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording of the hook tweaked based on your suggestion at WP:ERRORS. Is there verbatim text apart from the block quote? (lack of sleep catching up...) Shubinator (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have time to check further ... I'm kind of all over the place trying to catch up on multiple today. That one was close enough that if someone has time to check, it would be good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I combed through and found one more sentence. Both plagiarized sentences have been removed. Shubinator (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you let the nominator and reviewer know? (Educate, educate .... :) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope that I'm not counted as the reviewer. I didn't review it, I only mentioned the unformatted references. SL93 (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Wasserman

Question: The source upon which the hook is based, and upon which much of the page is based, was a newspaper article that the page creator accessed online a week after it was posted. Two weeks later, the article was already dropped from the newspaper's website. Can I go ahead and accept the nom AGF? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

While it is convenient for sources to be available online, there is no DYK requirement for this to be the case. In fact, previous attempts to create such a requirement have been met with strong opposition. Based upon the relatively recent removal you can check to see if your favorite search engine has a cached version still available (my checks found no useful results) and if that fails then AGF is the correct action. --Allen3 ^talk 00:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Did you try the wayback machine (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php)? Usually that works for major sites. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The wayback machine didn't find it. I'll go ahead and accept the ref; I see I can verify the hook through other sources as well. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Kirk (folklorist)

Hello. Is this the place to discuss contested hooks? I've tried contacting User:PKM with no response, probably due to the time zone difference. I'm hoping someone can help me out here. Basically, PKM has rejected my hook because she says it requires a fivefold expansion. However, this is not the case. In the comments section, I made a note that this was moved from user space within the five day nomination period. Per the rules, this is a new article that is eligible due to its initial (and current) character count. I think PKM missed the note and assumed it was an older article, which would make it subject to the fivefold expansion rule. Could someone take a look? Thanks. I'm currently reviewing Xinye Village. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Noone's failing this immediately, so no need to rush. I agree that the reviewer probably missed the move date. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. In the future, I think I should just finish it in user space to avoid this kind of confusion again. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• It may not necessarily help. I've had reviewers misinterpret or misremember the rules before, such as at Template:Did you know nominations/Khalifah (film). That's one of the flaws of QPQ reviewing... not everyone remembers what to look for. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

(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)

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)

@ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)