Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 72

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 65 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75

Contents

Sexism

Is it too much to ask that we not include blatantly sexist statements in DYK like "Did you know that Flat Horse dance may represent male virility or female irrationality?" Lest we forget, DYK already has a long history of misogyny thanks to the reign of King Bedford.[1] Perhaps we could be a bit more thoughtful in the future. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It did not occur to me that this hook would be read as DYK's endorsing "female irrationality." But then I just got yelled at yesterday for a hook that mentioned "the ten plagues of Egypt" without mentioning disputes about the Book of Exodus. Bear in mind that a hook about the ballet Swan Lake might say it represents magical swans; few people would interpret that to mean that DYK claims magical swans exist. But your interpretation is also a possible one. Could you suggest an alternate hook that you would like better? Sharktopus talk 18:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Think of it this way: If the hook had said "Did you know that Hoohaa dance may represent white virility or black irrationality?" do you think it would have made it to the main page? There are plenty of other interesting hooks that could have been made from that article. At the very least, we could have changed it to "Flat Horse dance has been said to represent male virility or female irrationality". Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Edited on main page. Kaldari could have fixed the problem by editing it there, too. (Wink) --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Orlady! Kaldari (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Also thanks to Orlady, and thanks to Kaldari for bringing to our attention something that may well have been offensive although it was not intended to be so. Sharktopus talk 20:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't intended to be sexist; it was just an amalgamation of Spiller and Richter's interpretations of its meaning. Perhaps subordination would have been a better choice, but it seems that Richter's main point was the irrationality. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I read the article so I understand where the hook came from. The problem was lack of context given in the hook. While lack of context may sometimes be useful for creating humorous or intriguing hooks, it can also lead to hooks which sound quite offensive on their face. Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Very well. I will try to keep an eye on things like that (if I see them). I hope the revised version was acceptable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template for noms

The above was done fast and efficient, thank you! The template for noms results, if "diff" is filled, in a lot of blue clutter. Could that be reduced to a piped link to, let's say, "diff". Or can we even drop it, now that we have the subpages? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; could you show me an example? I agree that a diff is probably not necessary anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Just go over the suggestions page and look for "http", example Template talk:Did you know/Shinde Chhatri. I never filled "diff" because I reviewed articles with subpages which carry the hstory. But there are people who fill out everything ... and then complain that it's so hard, smile. Let's take it easy, go slowly over the summer and make decisions when people are back, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not a problem with the template; it seems to be an temporary error on Wikipedia itself. I assume it'll be fixed soon. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the problem is definitely specific to this page. It only just happened recently, though--it wasn't happening before--so I'm going to have to try to figure out what's causing it. The links themselves are not malformed; there must be something on the page (maybe a recent change to {{DYKsubpage}}) that's causing them to not render correctly. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking! Yes, I saw it only today, first in an article I reviewed. I changed the "naked url" to piped "diff", but next time I looked it was as before, I didn't bother to question if it was reverted. That article was promoted already. The link doesn't look malformed, just too blue, and I don't like clutter, I guess I said so before. - I liked your "snippy" comments, btw, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Something's happened to T:TDYK that's messing up the rendering of links within the subpages. When you open the subpage itself it doesn't have these problems (the example you gave was just a typo in the external link itself; the other subpages that have links, display correctly); the problem only happens when viewing T:TDYK. I'm looking into it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It's fixed now, and I didn't do anything. Must have just been some problem with the wiki. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you know: Don't believe in miracles. Rely on them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Otis (song) in Queue 2

Could an admin please change Otis to "Otis" in Queue 2 (last hook)? Otis is the name of a song, not an album. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, but that is a very poor hook. Band releases a song? What on earth is unusual about that? The hook should be replaced. Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The original was "from The Throne", but Kevin MCE changed that too. At the very least, we have "... that (person name) was released by (word possibly meaning government)?" Better than "... that "Highway to Hell" was released by AC/DC?", which would not be able to be misinterpreted. If we have another quirky approved, it could be changed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I have replaced the hook with a new one. Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I got the inverted commas/italics convention wrong: my recollection was that all works (songs, paintings, scultures etc) were to be italicised. But of course I would change the preposition: does anyone claim that any linguistic convention is being followed by saying (track) is released from (band) ? Kevin McE (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

By is probably the more appropriate. An album might be from (maybe, at least Billboard thinks so), but I doubt a song could be released from someone. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Quite so: is the latest release from (which could apply equally to a single) is a very different grammatical construction than was released by Kevin McE (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
True, true. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

An article you may want to read

Churnalism. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And one you might want to read: meta:What is a troll?. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I call. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth Shadrick (prep 2)

There seems to be no real evidence of causality between the theft of some kit and the decision to join the army. His parents had power to veto his signing up, so there was, we assume, some deeper level of conversation than "I don't like it at school: the big boys took my stuff". The nearest we have to a causal link is "It was probably the football uniform, his father decided, that started Kenny on the way" [2]: starting on the way is not a firm cause, or a claim to such. Kevin McE (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass has addressed it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
His edit is an improvement on what was there before my edit, but I think still overstates the situation. "Starting someone on his way to doing something" is not the same as "doing something because of..." Kevin McE (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
What about: "... that Kenneth R. Shadrick, the first U.S. foot soldier reported killed in the Korean War, joined the Army after his football uniform was stolen?". The inclusion of the football shirt theft implies a link but the hook is strictly factual. Yomanganitalk 12:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
What is hooky about that? The current hook is a simple statement of fact - that it was thought [by his Dad] that a stolen football uniform led to his son joining the Army and getting killed. The hook is accurate, factual and hooky, and that is all that is required. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to: "... that after Kenneth R. Shadrick became the first U.S. foot soldier reported killed in the Korean War, his father traced the tragedy back to a stolen football uniform?" I don't think there can be much argument about that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Yomangani's proposal, but this one is OK by me. Kevin McE (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
But looking at that again, it seems less than even handed to have mentioned an award given for killing 250 Koreans a couple of days ago, and then describing this unfortunate young man's death as a tragedy. Kevin McE (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Queues 5, 6

Q5: When we talk about a public building, especially one that is named according to its function, we generally assume that we are talking about the function of the building unless otherwise specified. That being the case, the phrase "the Hartington City Hall and Auditorium is a Prairie School design" seems at best counterintuitive: the auditorium is not its architectural design. Suggest ...that the Hartington City Hall and Auditorium was built to a Prairie School design when that style was in decline... Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Q5: Waxworks: one word. There is nothing in the emboldened article to suggest any persuasion/convincing on Philidor's part, although it is hinted in the Tussaud article. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Q6: "Spans" seems an odd choice of verb, especially as the road does not actually reach the third city in question: suggest "links" Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Q6: It would appear that no building work has started: suggest that Kingdom Tower is to be built by.... Building projects do not always go to plan: and is planned to be the world's tallest building. Also suggest that we should give some location information, per rule C2. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Q6: Typo: is noted for having very similar Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased all (hopefully). Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Change to Queue 4

Can someone change the hook for HMS Phoenix (N96) to

... that HMS Phoenix (N96) (pictured) fired upon multiple ships in World War II before she was sunk, but didn't hit any of them?

relevant discussion can be found at User talk:Crisco 1492#DYK Review. I also left a note at User talk:Reaper Eternal so it may be dealt with. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Separating out reform discussions

Just a note to say that the separating out of the reform discussions to Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals. is not yet finished. If no-one else does it, I hope to carry on doing it tonight. But it is possible the archive bot may sweep up some sections and dump them in the archives if this is left too long. The sections can be retrieved from there, but it would be better if the moving of various sections from here to there carried on. Also, note some people are starting to edit that other page, so people here need to watchlist that page as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Turned out I had no time this week for anything on Wikipedia. What do people here want done with the threads at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals? Currently, some of the threads that I had intended to move there have ended up in the archives (due to the archive bot). If you want those threads that I moved to the subpage to be archived in the archives, I'm happy to do that. I do think that some list of the reform-related threads should be made and a summary written to help keep track of all this. But what I want first is to get everything in one place, rather than the half-moved stuff (which is my fault really, for starting and not finishing, though that was because I underestimated how long it would take and how much there was). There is a partial list of the reform threads at the top of this page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
If no-one replies before this section is archived by the bot, I'll do my best to tidy up what I started, probably by just adding the subpage to the archive box above (along with the partial list at the top of this page) and making clear that it is incomplete, and that other reform discussions are present in the archives. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Plan B didn't work. The archive box is one of those auto-generated bot ones and I can't work out how to manually add a thematic archive link like Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals to the numerical list of archives. So maybe it is time for plan C, which involves dumping the subpage threads into the main archives and then using the subpage to link to all the reform discussion threads once archived. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Main issue: copy vio on main page

Frankly, I've lost track of all the proposals, polls, particulars, problems, predicaments, quips, qualms, quandaries, queries, qoncerns about ques and qriticisms, rebukes, ripostes, replies and remonstrations, statements, side discussions, serious and silly scrapes, and all that else that has been raised lately.

In the interest of refocusing the discussion: in my opinion the most serious problem with DYK is the potential appearance of (links to) copyright violations on the main page. Other stuff like some minor grammatical issues or spelling errors in the articles themselves (in the articles themselves, not hooks) as long as it doesn't rise to the level of "embarrassing" are secondary. I guess another serious matter is the potential for POV pushing in hooks etc. but that appears to be more minor and mostly confined (so far) to the I-P dispute; there, it's probably enough that reviewers are aware and pay special attention to the articles in this area.

So the questions is how to best ensure that no copy-vio-articles get promoted. The checklist was supposed to be a way to remind reviewers to check for that, though now it has taken a life on its own. Some other possibilities potentially are:

  1. Get User:CorenSearchBot to also automatically run through all articles currently in the nominations page. Currently it just runs through newly created pages but this will miss any copy-vios added to x5 expansions, and to articles which are created initially but expanded after a pause of a day or so.
  2. Somehow get Duplicate detector [3] to check all nominations. This can be done just by including a link somewhere to it and asking reviewers to run it on the most used online cite in an article (if there aren't any then AGF). Maybe it would be possible to write a bot to somehow do this but that's outside my expertise.

Any other ideas?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are fine ideas. CorenSearchBot is regrettably out of order and has been since July, but once it comes back online I hope we can use it here. I have found DuplicationDetector very useful in checking DYK articles. One caveat is that it will flag as "duplication" direct quotations enclosed in quotation marks and properly cited to the source. Therefore the reviewer should check the article before flagging it as a copyvio/CP. Sharktopus talk 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, still need human eyes - DD just suggests some things to watch for (another false positive is long titles of sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that Template talk:Did you know/mChip is a blatant copyvio. The article is now listed at the copyright problems page and the article has been blanked with a copyright notice. I'm guessing that it is safe to close the nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have rejected all nominations by that author and moved the involved articles to their userspace with a request to rewrite them ASAP. (This is a compromise solution aiming not to scare a prolific newcomer contributor). As far as I can see, there are no nominations of this author in preps/queues/archives. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyvios are bad but are not lethal to the project. If the source material is offline there is no mechanical way to spot it. Every so often copvios will find their way onto the main page. Some will be spotted and removed quickly, not all. Original research and unsourced content are also bad. Poor spelling and grammar, garbled wording and poor overall organization are not good either. It would be nice to also avoid incomplete or biased articles, but often only an expert can spot these problems. I don't see copyvios as the main problem. The problem is striking the right balance between fresh new content and quality content. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Uhhh, the crucial difference between copyvios and poor spelling and grammar, is that the latter are not breaking the law. So yeah, I'd say copyvios are the main problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
A law we inevitably violate occasionally, because for one thing, "If the source material is offline there is no mechanical way to spot it." Could that be "lethal to the project"? Unlikely, because we've survived for years in that condition. But I suppose it could be lethal, if someone sued Wikipedia for millions. And anything that's referenced could conceivably be called close paraphrasing. I wish we had some professional legal opinions, which no one here has claimed to have. Art LaPella (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Health of DYK

  • House has made his diagnosis; it's not just the new nominations format or the new reviews that are causing the patient to be sick, it's a combination of both. DYK has seen a lot of treatment recently, and the life-support is wearing thin. Question: Can DYK stand on its own yet, or do we require further intervention?
Translation: We've discussed what's wrong with DYK up the wazoo, and it is showing signs of improvement. We have a somewhat decent amount of reviewed hooks under the newer nominations section, but the total number of nominations is down. A goodly number of DYK regulars are MIA, including some admins. Is DYK stable enough running as it is, or should we do something more drastic, like reducing queue rotation? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll repeat a comment I made above where it may have been missed: the new procedures, new requirements, and new template are going to prevent me, and many other editors, from submitting DYK nominations at all. I came here yesterday to submit a nomination, but I was completely baffled by the new template for reviewing someone else's nomination - which the rules require me to do. There are no instructions, I couldn't tell what I was supposed to do, and after 15 or 20 minutes trying to figure out what was required of me I said "the hell with it, I just won't submit my nomination." I suspect there are many like me, occasional DYK submitters, who are turned off by the complexity and incomprehensibility of the review template and the added burden of doing a full review of all the sources in the article. If you want to continue to get DYK nominations from regular editors like me, as opposed to DYK specialists, you need to either relax the requirement to review another submission, or else return to a simpler process. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You could ask another editor to nominate for you. I've seen it done a few times since the new review template started to be used; people who usually collaborate instead have one as maker and one as nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but it seems like that would add still another burden to those few of you that are comfortable with the new system. It's really not important to me; when I create an article it's because I want to create the article, not because I want to chalk up another DYK. If I ever have one that I REALLY think needs to go to DYK I'll let someone know - if there still is a DYK feature. Good luck to those of you trying to maintain it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
A low number of approved hooks and of reviewers is nothing unusual; this has happened many times in the history of DYK, and DYK has kept plugging away. We certainly don't need to hastily implement more drastic changes and we don't need people from the FA crowd to come "rescue" like they seem to think they are. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
True enough, but it is rather frightening when one can scroll halfway down the page and not find a single unreviewed article, only "promoted by", "rejected by", and problem articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
One thing that bugs me about the current arrangement is having to scroll through all those "promoteds" and "rejecteds" in order to find nominations that are either ready for promotion or needing to be reviewed. In the old days (for example, a month ago), the page wasn't cluttered with the skeletal remains of old noms. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I could edit the template so that those don't show up. I don't remember off the top of my head why they are there; they weren't there in early versions of this system, but eventually something prompted me to add them. I think it was in response to some issue, but I don't really remember what. If anyone can brainstorm pros and cons of having these links to completed noms, it would be nice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to do? It's hard to keep track of how serious the situation is with all the passed and failed reviews still on the page. DYK bot seems confused too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it. Noms posted after now won't have this behavior any more. Unfortunately, current noms will still show up like this (since the templates are all subst'ed) unless someone wants to go through with AWB or something and remove it from all of them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My article is still sitting there unreviewed - not sure if it's because I did something wrong or what.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Mine too. I'm going to try and find yours and review it, since I should try this new review system. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The whole process seems to be ridiculously bureaucratic and rule-bound now – as well as baffling – and I too really can't be bothered with it any more. A shame, it used to be a nice place and fun. The arrival of the jobsworth literal police was a harbinger of this kind of nonsense, I guess, the ones who frowned on hooks such as "... that A. Forward was a forward". Ericoides (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That comment sounds like it's directed at me. For what it's worth, I and several other editors have been pushing for hooks to be "hooky" for at least two and a half years; this is not a new development. I'm fine with people complaining about the recent changes that have been made to the review system—I've had complaints too—but if that's what we're doing, let's try to focus on the ones that actually are recent. A lot of people seem to be wanting to use the "oh, there are so many recent changes" meme to vent complaints about entirely separate issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You are quite mistaken in thinking the comment was directed at you. In fact, you altogether misunderstood the thrust of what I was saying. We sail towards the same object; I too am for hooks being hooky (hence my phrase "the jobsworth literal police" for those who felt it necessary to specify exactly in which sport A. Forward was a forward – the humourless and mechanical application of some obscure ruling at the expense of the hook). Ericoides (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
My mistake then; I misunderstood your comment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to echo what MelanieN says above, after making two recent noms, and reviewing two articles and looking at all the changes, I doubt I'll be making any further nominations. Too convoluted, too complicated. Frankly, all of these templates and changes and subpages have created a situation where the solution is actually worse than the problem it is intended to fix. I have great respect for most of the editors attempting to improve the process, but there is a long way to go yet. Resolute 01:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Concerning reducing queue rotation: It might last another week at this rate, but I expect enthusiasm for elaborate reviewing to peter out after the excitement is over. We can always adjust the queue rate then, if there's anyone left who feels like adjusting it. Art LaPella (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hopefully. I have tried to keep the queues from faltering, but it's rather hard to fill a queue with no noms. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • One bizarre contributing factor in the current dearth of hook nominations has been the continuing dysfunction of User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult‎, which is normally a source for potential DYK candidates. That bot service was completely unavailable for a time. Now that it has been restored through the good offices of User:Tedder, it doesn't yield the same quality of results it used to provide. Recent results included very, very few articles even remotely suitable for DYK. I've discerned that the bot wasn't scoring new articles for size, which meant that it wasn't providing nearly as many results as it used to -- and the vast majority of the results were actually too short for DYK. Tedder confirmed that it wasn't implementing the size parameter; that issue may have been fixed, but there may be other issues waiting to be identified by tech-savvy folks in our midst. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we come back to discussing the archiving procedure? I agree with Orlady that it's creating a lot of clutter, and unnecessary red tape. Why do we even need archive pages for individual days anyhow? We already have the archives for the individual noms, surely that is enough? I have gone to the nom page three days in a row now with the intention of doing some reviews, and just given up in disgust at the mess on the page. I only managed to do a few reviews tonight because I went down to the bottom of the page to review some "clean" noms, but if I'm finding this new system discouraging, it must be a nightmare for less experienced reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Agreed. (I think we are at August 2nd now; I've been hammering away at them for a while). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The main reason I made archive pages for individual days was become "some people" (User:SandyGeorgia) were insisting on it. I did explain to her (here) that I don't see any usefulness of daily archives. If no one other than her likes this daily archiving thing, I'd be happy to go back to what it was before. (If desired, days could still be archived after they go empty--at that point it wouldn't make a difference to nominators and reviewers anyway--but while they are going on, they would be sections of T:TDYK like before, rather than their own subpages like they are now). rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Special request

Would it be possible to add Whorlton Castle (approved at Template talk:Did you know/Whorlton Castle), which I wrote, to a queue this weekend? I intend to do some more work related to it but I would like to get the DYK out of the way first. Prioryman (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much, it's appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why no timestamp with signatures?

Any reason people are signing without the time when promoting or rejecting a nom? Tony (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

People are not signing when promoting or rejecting a nom. The signature is automatically added by {{DYK top}} ([4]) as part of the promoting process. The template can be changed to make a full signature (including a timestamp), although I don't know if it makes a big difference either way. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make this slight change? It would improve the tracking of the history of noms in the process, and would improve accountability, especially where an article is found to be wanting in a prep room or queue. Tony (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I already did. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved some stuff around

In case anyone is confused: I just changed something to new nominations subpages will be at Template:Did you know nominations/some article (list) rather than Template talk:Did you know/some article (list). This is mainly in response to complaints about the nom subpages having no associated talk page (since they already are talk pages), particularly with people who want to leave comments somewhere after the the nomination is completed and boxed out (see, e.g., this discussion, and edits like these).

I don't think it will be necessary to move old noms (as far as I can think of, the only thing that needs to know the name of the nomination page is {{DYK talk}} and the other credit templates, but I just edited those so they will work with both). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the rationale for making them go at Template:Did you know nominations/... rather than just Template:Did you know/... was so that it would be easy to separate them out from maintenance-related pages (e.g. Template:Did you know/Queue, etc.). I used Template:Did you know nominations/... rather than Template:Did you know/Nominations/... because that's the only way I'm aware of to make a group edit notice that will show up on all nom subpages (showing, e.g., the ticks and stuff) and not show up on pages where they're not needed such as the queues and the main template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Instructions need to be updated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you see any places that are out of date? I tried to update them when I made the change (although just now I found one spot that I had missed, and updated it), but if you notice anything else feel free to change it or to point me to it. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Archiving may need to have the instructions changed a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Waclaw in Queue 1

I've got a quick question about a review I did for a DYK (and many thanks for the work you do on this). It was Template talk:Did you know/Wacław Gluth-Nowowiejski, which you promoted. I think I might have used the wrong symbol there, as I thought a couple of things needed discussing or changing first, but as they were minor I assumed the promotor would have looked and made the changes themselves? I'm referring mainly to the hook comments I made (the wording is not so critical, but the overlinking I pointed out was later fixed here and I made another change here. Looking closer, I see you had delinked World War II, so maybe you did see the comments and silently made some changes and not others? If so, did you consider the alternative hook wording I had suggested, and was there a better place for me to suggest that? What I also want to know is whether I should have used a different symbol, or asked the nominator directly for input about some of that? Possibly the changes made to the hook as it progressed to the queue is a feature of the system, but maybe it would be better if the hook was settled at the time of promotion? I'm going to ask Tony1 (who removed the other example of overlinking) and Volunteer Marek (the article nominator) to comment here (as the nomination subpage is now closed), as they might have some thoughts on the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page. Would a shorter hook be better? I left the longer hook as we are at 6 hooks per set right now, and OTD keeps using long hooks (and thus us being too short would be an eyesore). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I actually saw Carcharoth's comments and wanted to respond to them but the nom page looked "closed" (in fact I think it said something like "discussion is closed") so I went to sleep instead then didn't think about it today. One thing I would change - and thanks to Carcharoth for pointing this out - is that it should be "short comic" rather than "comic book" (basically it was one comic among others in a comic book anthology/magazine kind of thingy). I can't make the change in the que either as I'm not an admin. But yeah, basically I was left wondering myself as what the proper way to address these was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Preceding copied from my talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(Having said that, I think "short comic in a comic book" vs. "comic book" isn't THAT crucial so... not sure if this is a big deal).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I changed it here. It's not critical, as you say, but I didn't want to make the hook any longer as it might then unbalance things on the main page. This was mainly my fault for not using the right symbol. I should have put a "hold" or "discuss" symbol on the hook bit at the review. Would have held it up for a day or two, but would have avoided the messier "tweak things in prep and then queue" method. Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Separating out reform discussions

Just a note to say that the separating out of the reform discussions to Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals. is not yet finished. If no-one else does it, I hope to carry on doing it tonight. But it is possible the archive bot may sweep up some sections and dump them in the archives if this is left too long. The sections can be retrieved from there, but it would be better if the moving of various sections from here to there carried on. Also, note some people are starting to edit that other page, so people here need to watchlist that page as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Turned out I had no time this week for anything on Wikipedia. What do people here want done with the threads at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals? Currently, some of the threads that I had intended to move there have ended up in the archives (due to the archive bot). If you want those threads that I moved to the subpage to be archived in the archives, I'm happy to do that. I do think that some list of the reform-related threads should be made and a summary written to help keep track of all this. But what I want first is to get everything in one place, rather than the half-moved stuff (which is my fault really, for starting and not finishing, though that was because I underestimated how long it would take and how much there was). There is a partial list of the reform threads at the top of this page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
If no-one replies before this section is archived by the bot, I'll do my best to tidy up what I started, probably by just adding the subpage to the archive box above (along with the partial list at the top of this page) and making clear that it is incomplete, and that other reform discussions are present in the archives. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Plan B didn't work. The archive box is one of those auto-generated bot ones and I can't work out how to manually add a thematic archive link like Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals to the numerical list of archives. So maybe it is time for plan C, which involves dumping the subpage threads into the main archives and then using the subpage to link to all the reform discussion threads once archived. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning: Deliberate Breaching of RfC Consensus

The bulleted checklist that has been included in DYK nominations for some weeks now has the explicit endorsement of the "checklist" RfC. While it is not the only checklist that could be produced in line with the community's overwhelming decision, it follows the wording of the RfC text closely: text that the community has endorsed.

It has come to my attention that User:Rjanang has been unilaterally, without consensus, (1) removing the template from DYK nomination pages, without substituting another template that does justice to the community's insistence on a checklist; (2) fiddling with the original template (created by Carcharoth) by inserting "noinclude" to blank it out in display mode; and (3) revert warring over the past half hour when I attempted to reinstate the checklist. This is despite Rjanang's noinclude admission that the RfC produced "consensus to include a checklist". Rjanang has used several spurious reasons to justify his actions. Among them are "there is no rule that the decision of every RfC needs to be implemented immediately" and "You don't have consensus to force this version of your checklist on everyone, until you actually ask if there is consensus for it." The latter is despite the fact that the checklist comprises what the community decided on, plus a few DYK rules for convenience and thoroughness, and which need to be ticked off explicitly in any case.

The proper course of action for Rjanang would be to hold an RfC to reverse or modify the community's overwhelming decision only three weeks ago that a checklist is required before main-page exposure.

If Rjanang's behaviour persists, I will launch an AN action against him within 36 hours, since he is clearly going against strong community consensus, and in a way that again renders DYK liable to serious breaches of policy. I believe that nominations stripped of the checklist (or any template that satisfies the consensus of the "Checklist" RfC without replacing it with another checklist that also satisfies the community's demand should 'not be moved to a prep room. They are, in effect, rendered illegitimate by his actions.

Another alternative would be to terminate DYK altogether. I'm not averse to that option, even though I've put considerable work into shoring it up against the many editors at WP who are complaining vociferously about it. Tony (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion is at Template talk:DYKrev#noincluded. I have nothing to say that I didn't already say there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Tony has been informed on numerous occasions that his RFC on the checklist was malformed and a breach of WP:POLL, but he has continued to play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT over that issue. Moreover, there was never any consensus to use the particular checklist that Tony is using, nor was there a consensus that it be used immediately and without further discussion. My opinion is that the checklist has made T:TDYK quite chaotic and difficult to read, and been a leading factor in driving many of our most longstanding contributors away from the project. I support Rjanag's position that the use of the checklist should be suspended until all the outstanding issues have been resolved and there is clear consensus on the use and format of a checklist, doing otherwise is just going to lead to further chaos. Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • (e.c.) **Gatoclass, you make those assertions without backing them up with facts or references. They are not credible. Go back and examine the RfC, and observe the > 3/4 majority that demanded a checklist. This will go to ANI if there are further reversions, and I am about to warn nominators individually that there nominations are likely to be ineligible for main-page exposure if their nom page does not include a required checklist. Silver seren, until another RfC overturns the first one, the requirement for a checklist remains. Materialscientist, I'll disregard the implied personal attack and assumption of bad faith. If you think proper reviewing, as demanded by the RfC, is unwieldy, we'll need to close down DYK. Tony (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Truly extraordinary Tony, that you think it appropriate to threaten other users here if they don't agree to immediate and unconditional surrender to all your demands. I've been increasingly concerned with your attitude over the last couple of weeks, to the point that I myself have been considering applying to AN/I to have you blocked for disruption. If you are foolish enough to take this matter to AN/I, that's precisely what I will be proposing. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think another RfC about the new DYK template would be useful at this point in time, considering that there have been a number of complaints about it since it was put into use. An RfC on whether editors wish to continue using it would be helpful in determining if it has been successful in its intentions or not. SilverserenC 06:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I think a new RFC would be premature, since as you can see from the above section we are still in the process of refining an alternative checklist. At the very least we need to have a couple of alternatives to choose from rather than a yes/no !vote for just one. But we can't do even that much until we have settled on what those alternatives will actually look like. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Tony, this all does look like a few editors were dropped here with machine guns to shoot the regulars, scare newcomers and either terminate or hijack the project. This all goes back to being friendly and accepting criticism. The checklist is unwieldy. It helps reminding issues to check, but also does clutter the page, and the same old errors are passing through as before. So please take it easy. I might add suggestions to the list a bit later, just one note for now - I suppose "vintage" is a dubious and obscure term, especially for non-native speakers. Something like "nomination date" sounds better to my ear. Materialscientist (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Everybody calm down a bit. There's no need for the section header to be in all caps. It's the tone of threads like this that drives contributors away. (Now back to my bot coding...) Shubinator (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I note that the Proper reviewing checklist RfC has been archived and explicitly excluded from the links on this page to RfC reform proposals. That looks like an agenda-driven omission to me. DYK regulars appear to be in denial. That's too bad, I'm sorry: the community determined in no uncertain terms that a checklist must be used. Perhaps you need reminding of the text:
RfC
DYK quality assurance and archiving

Extensive discussion above shows that there are serious quality and policy-compliance problems in the current DYK process, and that many editors are concerned that plagiarism and close paraphrasing, sourcing issues, verification issues, copyvio, and wrong facts are regularly going through under the radar. This RfC is to determine whether there is consensus for two changes to the process as partial steps towards fixing these problems.

The RfC does not cover issues that might need to be resolved if one or both of the current proposals gains consensus. These include whether:

  • there should be a directorate;
  • nominators (after their fourth successful DYK) should still be required to review another editor's nomination when they nominate a DYK;
  • a template should be created to provide for the explicit checking off of the explicit requirements listed in the first proposal, below; and
  • the system of pasting in coloured ticks and crosses should be binned or modified.

Implicit in the proposals is the likelihood that the maximum four six-hour shifts per day of five to eight hooks (≥ 32 DYKs) will more often than now be altered by the queuing admins to longer exposures and fewer shifts per day, and be treated as normal practice. This would not be necessary if there is a sudden influx of reviewers and more nominators who can manage the time to respond to the issues they raise. However, please note that the primary consideration of the two proposals is effective quality assurance and compliance with site-wide policies, not reduced flow. ...

RfC proposal: a proper reviewing checklist

Proposal: "No DYK article should receive main-page exposure unless the article has been checked and explicitly passed for:

  1. adequate sourcing, including verifiability, reliability of sources and BLP policy;
  2. neutral point of view;
  3. plagiarism and close paraphrasing;
  4. other copyright violations, in files and text; and
  5. obvious faults in prose, structure, and formatting."

These checks are in addition to the existing requirements concerning hook length, hook source, article length, and time since article creation/expansion.

_______________

The template that User:Rjanang has taken upon himself to remove (twice in some cases) was designed to precisely do justice to the text that !voters endorsed with a resounding majority. Tony (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the RfC was archived by a bot (who I don't think has an agenda), as all discussions at this page are eventually; it's still visible here. The moving of proposals into Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals was handled by User:Carcharoth, who I don't think has any agenda and who left several messages at this page beforehand asking for input about which proposals people thought he should move and which they didn't. If you think he had some agenda, though, you're free to check with him. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
As it specifically says there, the RfC was not to be about the inclusion of a checklist template, just that DYK noms should be checked for those things. Thus, there is no consensus for the current arrangement of the template and users are free to change it (or even blank it) if necessary in order for there to be more discussion in order to improve it. As I stated above, there appears to be extensive problems with the current template that are not helping matters or DYK process. SilverserenC 07:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) OK, granted (I endorsed the proposal too), but it seems to me that that the nub of the dispute is simply whether this particular template is the best way of going about it. I don't see an endorsement above of a particular template and I was a bit surprised to see the one you came up with suddenly appearing on every DYK nom. Tony, nobody's disputing the valuable contributions you've made to this discussion, but I do think it would be helpful to reach agreement on how this checklist should be documented. Let's have that discussion and come up with something that works for everyone. Prioryman (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I see that the points I was about to make have been pre-empted by several other users, in which case I will confine myself to simply endorsing their comments. Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that Silver seren is playing with words. For sure, generally speaking as a project, there is no deadline. However, as events have proven time and again, the inertia for continuing to do things 'the old way' remain strong. It was only a few days ago, in the background of severe bludgeoning from certain quarters about "Plagiarism Central", that Tony was held out to be the extremely constructive and helpful 'saviour'. I note Rjanag, in editing the template as he did, was reacting to some [persistent] complains from the regulars here about the complexity of the procedure.

One might continue arguing about the legitimacy of the disputed template, but there's no shying away from the fact that the community is explicitly wanted each article to be checked for those issues appearing in the checklist. It is the procedure that is the cause of this apparent malaise, not the template itself, which is but a vector. Implementation can't be put off forever. In view of the seriousness of the problems, it ought not to be put off at all because the form isn't exactly right or has everyone's endorsement. With the incessant criticism about the template, the adoption of a 'consensual version' of the checklist which could take the rest of the year... I'm pretty sure it's not the response hoped for by the community. I could be wrong, but my reading was that an urgent fix was necessary. My suggestion: grin and bear the template for now, pending an 'agreed' version that satisfies the concerns addressed at the RfC. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

These "urgent fixes" have already led to the resignation of four of our most longstanding DYK admins, not to mention the other contributors who have left, including at least one quality contributor who has retired altogether. This kind of haphazard approach to change, as users try to force their own vision onto the project without regard to practicality or consensus, is leading the project to disaster. Well perhaps that is the intention, but if so it is not a goal that has the community's endorsement. Nothing is lost by slowing down the process of change and proceeding more carefully; the same cannot be said for the alternative approach. Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Put the blame anywhere except where it belongs. The patient was suffering from an ailment. Previous attempts at self-medication didn't fix it, so it became a chronic and more aggravated condition. The new medicine, it seems, is making the patient worse à la House for now. Look at the self-medication if you want to point fingers. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the example of a Vicodin-addicted felon who always gets it wrong the first few times when not sexually harassing nurses or unprofessionally berating his colleagues while acting outside the law or medical ethics is an apt one. Nobody is disputing that the 'patient' needs 'treatment' but the exact form of the template to be used was not the subject of the faulty RfC. - Dravecky (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well caught... I did say that the problem lay with the self medication, didn't I? ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Aside from the issue of the RfC being malformed, the RfC merely stated that reviewers must have "checked and explicitly passed" an article on five points. That does not necessarily suggest any template, much less this particular template. Rjanag has been hard at work creating a more compact template that still meets the RfC's requirements. Beyond that, it would be entirely sufficient for a reviewer to type (or copy and paste) "I've checked and explicitly passed this article for sourcing, NPOV, plagiarism and copyvio, and obvious faults in prose." That meets the RfC's requirement, and it takes up a lot less space (and is a lot less difficult) than your (Tony's) massive template. cmadler (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for this! (said several times). Also: run a RfC in summer when nobody is active, run several at a time so people don't bother to even look, let alone vote, if you want to push something. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat, and there are certainly methods that don't involve excruciating pain for the animal. ;-) What's being suggested above isn't so bureaucratic, and is more like the 'I hereby do solemnly swear that I have exercised due care and attention in my review, and so be it' type declaration. One of the key advantages of the "massive template" is that the review using said template doesn't have to be all performed by one person. It allows the job to be split up, and it's transparently and obvious if something hasn't been checked, and equally obvious who claims to have done which part. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Also said before: in that case, a review not completed by one person, a template showing what was reviewed by whom is a good tool. But, to my experience, those are only a few. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with this as well. The RfC covered what needs to be explicitly reviewed, not whether this or any particular template was required. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Opposed to the new templates and instruction creep

While I understand and even support splitting each nom into a subpage, and the requirement of "submit one, review one", speaking a rather prolific DYK creator (350+) I want to express strong objection to the new complex templates. I saw this monstrosity added and thankfully reverted from a DYK, and I was strongly hoping that the addition was some sort of weird experiment that will not be seen again. DYK reviews are no GA reviews, they are supposed to be quick. I refuse to spend more than one minute on them, and if you introduce this complex template, I will most likely stop bothering with nominations. Please stop pushing so much instruction creep into what was once a relatively simple process; at least not without a better advertised poll among DYK creators, and analyzing some numbers on how the current creep is affecting DYK nominations. Recently, another DYK writer told me that he stopped nominating DYKs because the rules became too complex, and I fear few do-gooders are merrily creeping DYKs out of existence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I also happen to agree that this quid pro quo reviewing wasn't working. I would quite happily say goodbye to it, but the community still saw a value in it. Without QPQ reviewing, you can submit any number of articles without the need to reciprocate; reviews will be done by editors who want to review. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps that isn't a bad thing. Not everyone is competent to review; forcing everyone to do so inevitably means that people who aren't any good at it will end up doing it and making mistakes. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
"DYK reviews are ... supposed to be quick. I refuse to spend more than one minute on them"—In that one statement, Prioryman Piotrus, I think you've given those who want to close down DYK the greatest propaganda coup they could wish for. Tony (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You need to read more carefully, Tony. Piotrus said that, not me. Prioryman (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Prioryman: fixed. Tony (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Piotrus asks for a "poll among DYK creators". Herein lies the problem. (Personal attack removed) Presumably there are plenty of non-problematic DYK creators under the easy system. But how do you propose those shortcomings are dealt with if only the opinion of the existing club of "DYK creators" matters? FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, I had only one DYK article that was considered too close to the original sources. I would have fixed it, but guess what - I took a break from Wikipedia. I never told other editors to fix it which one of them that fixed it didn't complain about it till yesterday. Joe Chill (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have redacted a claim that two specific editors are examples of problematic creators. I think nearly everybody in Wikipedia considers some other Wikipedians to be problematic, but RfCU and ANI are the places where such allegations can be made appropriately, giving the people thus named a chance to defend themselves. Sharktopus talk 02:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It's becoming tiresome to see this self-serving falsehood trotted out day after day: "Tony's forcing his checklist" ... note forcing and his. I'm sorry, it's not my checklist: the checklist was approved by massive consensus in the RfC. Tony (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Not exactly. The "checklist" RfC calls for a checklist, not the checklist, explicitly passing an article for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. So at least the word "his" (meaning Tony's specific checklist) seems undisputable, especially in a context where the alternative is Rjanag's table rather than nothing. Did I miss something? Art LaPella (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, Art, for several weeks now Tony has had his fingers stuck in his ears and been singing "La la la la la I can't hear you!" regarding this point. Above everyone told him the same thing you and I just did, so now i think it's sufficient just to ignore his strange messages and revert him if he actually is stupid enough to keep edit-warring over adding his templates. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, maybe, but I have more patience than most. Tony, did you "hear that", and why doesn't Rjanag's template comply with the RfC? A better point for Tony is that last time I looked, not all of the approvals on the nominations page did comply with the RfC; some don't even mention copyvios. Art LaPella (talk)
Rjanag, now you're calling me "stupid". Isn't that a violation of WP:CIVIL? I think the time is coming to ask you not to participate at DYK. Tony (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't call you stupid. I said continuing to edit-war over these templates after numerous editors clearly told you above that you have no grounds for doing so would be stupid. For an editor who is known for his clear eye for these sorts of details in article writing, I'm surprised you'd jump to such a silly conclusion here, so I can only assume you're being deliberately stubborn. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Interesting sense of humour, to ban the one who is working and helping the most here, for just a word, and not even a strong one. Todays Bach cantata translates to "It has been told to you, mankind, what is good" (not even reviewed yet, btw), my "words on Sunday", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • So now he's calling me "silly". Right. Tony (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • A Wikilawyer would emphasize that he called the conclusion silly, although that defense doesn't apply to "deliberately stubborn" (but maybe the AGF exception does). I don't think Rjanag has Tony's experience concerning what you can and can't say under Wikipolitics. Why doesn't Rjanag's template comply with the RfC? Art LaPella (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving toward consensus on improvements to WP:DYK

I'd like to start by expressing great respect for the contributions of both Tony1 and Rjanag. I hope that the intelligence and generous spirit that has motivated both of you in your efforts to improve Wikipedia and DYK will also guide you toward a satisfactory conclusion of your current disagreement.

Tony1 created a checklist in response to many requests for something like a checklist on this talkpage. As was to be expected, many people had ideas about improving it after Tony had done the work to create it. Rjanag, who had been doing the coding to implement the new page-archiving feature, proposed quite a few different ways of implementing the checklist, with discussions evident here, here, and here.

If I could summarize a hopeful consensus for this thread, it is that the review template should include some checklist for reviewers, but not necessarily the format created by Tony1. For example, there seems to have been consensus in the discussions cited that using a table format, as proposed by Rjanag, saves white space and usefully segregates longer-form comments into a space separate from ticked-off requirements. Instead of waiting until a new-form review checklist has consensus, I propose that Rjanag insert one of his own updated review checklists into the review template. Something not perfect will be better than nothing. Sharktopus talk 14:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Good suggestion, there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Good idea, but I still believe it should be removable; or better yet that the reviewer should have the choice of using a template or not (that would also be the best way to determine which format people like best). There's also more than one way to do a thorough review. Also, see above section, where the idea of abolishing QPQ comes up yet again. If that can be revisited, some of the argument for a template - reminding people of what-all they should check - may become moot. Both the QPQ discussion and the whether to have a template discussion drew limited participation and consensus seems likely to have changed with respect to both issues. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Sharktopus: I do intend to add the review template to {{NewDYKnom}} at some point, but, per Template talk:NewDYKnomination#Review template, I'd prefer not to do so until there is a clear consensus about which template to use. Unlike some other people in the discussions above, I don't want to look like I'm forcing my preferred version of a template on anyone. More seriously, since it's a protected template people wouldn't be able to revert that addition without wheel-warring, which I think makes it even more important to secure clear consensus here before adding it. The whole reason for the silly shouting thread above was someone wanting to force his preferred template on all reviewers without any regard for the community's feedback. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect, even the most carefully pre-vetted checklist will have things people want to change once it comes into use--so giving your in-process checklist a public tryout will bring consensus much sooner. Also, inserting a checklist will short circuit any claims that you are defying previous consensus to have some checklist. As a practical matter, and also in the kindly interest of reducing further dissension, I ask you to insert your own preferred checklist into the current template, with whatever disclaimer you wish regarding its provisional nature. Sharktopus talk 22:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I just don't agree that it's appropriate of me to insert my preferred checklist into a template that everyone has to use, when even I haven't yet figured out how people want the checklist to work. I think it would do quite the opposite of reducing quarreling. Given that everyone is already complaining about Tony forcing his checklist on everyone, I don't see how myself doing it is any different.
As for "short-circuiting claims that I am defying previous consensus", I hope I made it clear through my lack of participation in most of the discussion above that I am not concerned about those claims anyway. It seems pretty obvious to me that no one other than Tony has a problem with what I did. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just noting here that I think a period of consolidation and review of previous discussions is needed before charging ahead with any new RfCs, though some new RfCs may be needed. I would encourage anyone to help out with the plan C mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Separating out reform discussions. Once we have an idea of what was discussed, it will be easier to see where attention is needed going forward. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Main issue: copy vio on main page

Frankly, I've lost track of all the proposals, polls, particulars, problems, predicaments, quips, qualms, quandaries, queries, qoncerns about ques and qriticisms, rebukes, ripostes, replies and remonstrations, statements, side discussions, serious and silly scrapes, and all that else that has been raised lately.

In the interest of refocusing the discussion: in my opinion the most serious problem with DYK is the potential appearance of (links to) copyright violations on the main page. Other stuff like some minor grammatical issues or spelling errors in the articles themselves (in the articles themselves, not hooks) as long as it doesn't rise to the level of "embarrassing" are secondary. I guess another serious matter is the potential for POV pushing in hooks etc. but that appears to be more minor and mostly confined (so far) to the I-P dispute; there, it's probably enough that reviewers are aware and pay special attention to the articles in this area.

So the questions is how to best ensure that no copy-vio-articles get promoted. The checklist was supposed to be a way to remind reviewers to check for that, though now it has taken a life on its own. Some other possibilities potentially are:

  1. Get User:CorenSearchBot to also automatically run through all articles currently in the nominations page. Currently it just runs through newly created pages but this will miss any copy-vios added to x5 expansions, and to articles which are created initially but expanded after a pause of a day or so.
  2. Somehow get Duplicate detector [5] to check all nominations. This can be done just by including a link somewhere to it and asking reviewers to run it on the most used online cite in an article (if there aren't any then AGF). Maybe it would be possible to write a bot to somehow do this but that's outside my expertise.

Any other ideas?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are fine ideas. CorenSearchBot is regrettably out of order and has been since July, but once it comes back online I hope we can use it here. I have found DuplicationDetector very useful in checking DYK articles. One caveat is that it will flag as "duplication" direct quotations enclosed in quotation marks and properly cited to the source. Therefore the reviewer should check the article before flagging it as a copyvio/CP. Sharktopus talk 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, still need human eyes - DD just suggests some things to watch for (another false positive is long titles of sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that Template talk:Did you know/mChip is a blatant copyvio. The article is now listed at the copyright problems page and the article has been blanked with a copyright notice. I'm guessing that it is safe to close the nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have rejected all nominations by that author and moved the involved articles to their userspace with a request to rewrite them ASAP. (This is a compromise solution aiming not to scare a prolific newcomer contributor). As far as I can see, there are no nominations of this author in preps/queues/archives. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyvios are bad but are not lethal to the project. If the source material is offline there is no mechanical way to spot it. Every so often copvios will find their way onto the main page. Some will be spotted and removed quickly, not all. Original research and unsourced content are also bad. Poor spelling and grammar, garbled wording and poor overall organization are not good either. It would be nice to also avoid incomplete or biased articles, but often only an expert can spot these problems. I don't see copyvios as the main problem. The problem is striking the right balance between fresh new content and quality content. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Uhhh, the crucial difference between copyvios and poor spelling and grammar, is that the latter are not breaking the law. So yeah, I'd say copyvios are the main problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
A law we inevitably violate occasionally, because for one thing, "If the source material is offline there is no mechanical way to spot it." Could that be "lethal to the project"? Unlikely, because we've survived for years in that condition. But I suppose it could be lethal, if someone sued Wikipedia for millions. And anything that's referenced could conceivably be called close paraphrasing. I wish we had some professional legal opinions, which no one here has claimed to have. Art LaPella (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Health of DYK

  • House has made his diagnosis; it's not just the new nominations format or the new reviews that are causing the patient to be sick, it's a combination of both. DYK has seen a lot of treatment recently, and the life-support is wearing thin. Question: Can DYK stand on its own yet, or do we require further intervention?
Translation: We've discussed what's wrong with DYK up the wazoo, and it is showing signs of improvement. We have a somewhat decent amount of reviewed hooks under the newer nominations section, but the total number of nominations is down. A goodly number of DYK regulars are MIA, including some admins. Is DYK stable enough running as it is, or should we do something more drastic, like reducing queue rotation? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll repeat a comment I made above where it may have been missed: the new procedures, new requirements, and new template are going to prevent me, and many other editors, from submitting DYK nominations at all. I came here yesterday to submit a nomination, but I was completely baffled by the new template for reviewing someone else's nomination - which the rules require me to do. There are no instructions, I couldn't tell what I was supposed to do, and after 15 or 20 minutes trying to figure out what was required of me I said "the hell with it, I just won't submit my nomination." I suspect there are many like me, occasional DYK submitters, who are turned off by the complexity and incomprehensibility of the review template and the added burden of doing a full review of all the sources in the article. If you want to continue to get DYK nominations from regular editors like me, as opposed to DYK specialists, you need to either relax the requirement to review another submission, or else return to a simpler process. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You could ask another editor to nominate for you. I've seen it done a few times since the new review template started to be used; people who usually collaborate instead have one as maker and one as nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but it seems like that would add still another burden to those few of you that are comfortable with the new system. It's really not important to me; when I create an article it's because I want to create the article, not because I want to chalk up another DYK. If I ever have one that I REALLY think needs to go to DYK I'll let someone know - if there still is a DYK feature. Good luck to those of you trying to maintain it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
A low number of approved hooks and of reviewers is nothing unusual; this has happened many times in the history of DYK, and DYK has kept plugging away. We certainly don't need to hastily implement more drastic changes and we don't need people from the FA crowd to come "rescue" like they seem to think they are. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
True enough, but it is rather frightening when one can scroll halfway down the page and not find a single unreviewed article, only "promoted by", "rejected by", and problem articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
One thing that bugs me about the current arrangement is having to scroll through all those "promoteds" and "rejecteds" in order to find nominations that are either ready for promotion or needing to be reviewed. In the old days (for example, a month ago), the page wasn't cluttered with the skeletal remains of old noms. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I could edit the template so that those don't show up. I don't remember off the top of my head why they are there; they weren't there in early versions of this system, but eventually something prompted me to add them. I think it was in response to some issue, but I don't really remember what. If anyone can brainstorm pros and cons of having these links to completed noms, it would be nice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to do? It's hard to keep track of how serious the situation is with all the passed and failed reviews still on the page. DYK bot seems confused too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it. Noms posted after now won't have this behavior any more. Unfortunately, current noms will still show up like this (since the templates are all subst'ed) unless someone wants to go through with AWB or something and remove it from all of them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My article is still sitting there unreviewed - not sure if it's because I did something wrong or what.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Mine too. I'm going to try and find yours and review it, since I should try this new review system. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The whole process seems to be ridiculously bureaucratic and rule-bound now – as well as baffling – and I too really can't be bothered with it any more. A shame, it used to be a nice place and fun. The arrival of the jobsworth literal police was a harbinger of this kind of nonsense, I guess, the ones who frowned on hooks such as "... that A. Forward was a forward". Ericoides (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That comment sounds like it's directed at me. For what it's worth, I and several other editors have been pushing for hooks to be "hooky" for at least two and a half years; this is not a new development. I'm fine with people complaining about the recent changes that have been made to the review system—I've had complaints too—but if that's what we're doing, let's try to focus on the ones that actually are recent. A lot of people seem to be wanting to use the "oh, there are so many recent changes" meme to vent complaints about entirely separate issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You are quite mistaken in thinking the comment was directed at you. In fact, you altogether misunderstood the thrust of what I was saying. We sail towards the same object; I too am for hooks being hooky (hence my phrase "the jobsworth literal police" for those who felt it necessary to specify exactly in which sport A. Forward was a forward – the humourless and mechanical application of some obscure ruling at the expense of the hook). Ericoides (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
My mistake then; I misunderstood your comment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to echo what MelanieN says above, after making two recent noms, and reviewing two articles and looking at all the changes, I doubt I'll be making any further nominations. Too convoluted, too complicated. Frankly, all of these templates and changes and subpages have created a situation where the solution is actually worse than the problem it is intended to fix. I have great respect for most of the editors attempting to improve the process, but there is a long way to go yet. Resolute 01:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Concerning reducing queue rotation: It might last another week at this rate, but I expect enthusiasm for elaborate reviewing to peter out after the excitement is over. We can always adjust the queue rate then, if there's anyone left who feels like adjusting it. Art LaPella (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hopefully. I have tried to keep the queues from faltering, but it's rather hard to fill a queue with no noms. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • One bizarre contributing factor in the current dearth of hook nominations has been the continuing dysfunction of User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult‎, which is normally a source for potential DYK candidates. That bot service was completely unavailable for a time. Now that it has been restored through the good offices of User:Tedder, it doesn't yield the same quality of results it used to provide. Recent results included very, very few articles even remotely suitable for DYK. I've discerned that the bot wasn't scoring new articles for size, which meant that it wasn't providing nearly as many results as it used to -- and the vast majority of the results were actually too short for DYK. Tedder confirmed that it wasn't implementing the size parameter; that issue may have been fixed, but there may be other issues waiting to be identified by tech-savvy folks in our midst. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we come back to discussing the archiving procedure? I agree with Orlady that it's creating a lot of clutter, and unnecessary red tape. Why do we even need archive pages for individual days anyhow? We already have the archives for the individual noms, surely that is enough? I have gone to the nom page three days in a row now with the intention of doing some reviews, and just given up in disgust at the mess on the page. I only managed to do a few reviews tonight because I went down to the bottom of the page to review some "clean" noms, but if I'm finding this new system discouraging, it must be a nightmare for less experienced reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Agreed. (I think we are at August 2nd now; I've been hammering away at them for a while). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The main reason I made archive pages for individual days was become "some people" (User:SandyGeorgia) were insisting on it. I did explain to her (here) that I don't see any usefulness of daily archives. If no one other than her likes this daily archiving thing, I'd be happy to go back to what it was before. (If desired, days could still be archived after they go empty--at that point it wouldn't make a difference to nominators and reviewers anyway--but while they are going on, they would be sections of T:TDYK like before, rather than their own subpages like they are now). rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Special request

Would it be possible to add Whorlton Castle (approved at Template talk:Did you know/Whorlton Castle), which I wrote, to a queue this weekend? I intend to do some more work related to it but I would like to get the DYK out of the way first. Prioryman (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much, it's appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why no timestamp with signatures?

Any reason people are signing without the time when promoting or rejecting a nom? Tony (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

People are not signing when promoting or rejecting a nom. The signature is automatically added by {{DYK top}} ([6]) as part of the promoting process. The template can be changed to make a full signature (including a timestamp), although I don't know if it makes a big difference either way. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make this slight change? It would improve the tracking of the history of noms in the process, and would improve accountability, especially where an article is found to be wanting in a prep room or queue. Tony (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I already did. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved some stuff around

In case anyone is confused: I just changed something to new nominations subpages will be at Template:Did you know nominations/some article (list) rather than Template talk:Did you know/some article (list). This is mainly in response to complaints about the nom subpages having no associated talk page (since they already are talk pages), particularly with people who want to leave comments somewhere after the the nomination is completed and boxed out (see, e.g., this discussion, and edits like these).

I don't think it will be necessary to move old noms (as far as I can think of, the only thing that needs to know the name of the nomination page is {{DYK talk}} and the other credit templates, but I just edited those so they will work with both). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the rationale for making them go at Template:Did you know nominations/... rather than just Template:Did you know/... was so that it would be easy to separate them out from maintenance-related pages (e.g. Template:Did you know/Queue, etc.). I used Template:Did you know nominations/... rather than Template:Did you know/Nominations/... because that's the only way I'm aware of to make a group edit notice that will show up on all nom subpages (showing, e.g., the ticks and stuff) and not show up on pages where they're not needed such as the queues and the main template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Instructions need to be updated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you see any places that are out of date? I tried to update them when I made the change (although just now I found one spot that I had missed, and updated it), but if you notice anything else feel free to change it or to point me to it. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Archiving may need to have the instructions changed a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Waclaw in Queue 1

I've got a quick question about a review I did for a DYK (and many thanks for the work you do on this). It was Template talk:Did you know/Wacław Gluth-Nowowiejski, which you promoted. I think I might have used the wrong symbol there, as I thought a couple of things needed discussing or changing first, but as they were minor I assumed the promotor would have looked and made the changes themselves? I'm referring mainly to the hook comments I made (the wording is not so critical, but the overlinking I pointed out was later fixed here and I made another change here. Looking closer, I see you had delinked World War II, so maybe you did see the comments and silently made some changes and not others? If so, did you consider the alternative hook wording I had suggested, and was there a better place for me to suggest that? What I also want to know is whether I should have used a different symbol, or asked the nominator directly for input about some of that? Possibly the changes made to the hook as it progressed to the queue is a feature of the system, but maybe it would be better if the hook was settled at the time of promotion? I'm going to ask Tony1 (who removed the other example of overlinking) and Volunteer Marek (the article nominator) to comment here (as the nomination subpage is now closed), as they might have some thoughts on the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page. Would a shorter hook be better? I left the longer hook as we are at 6 hooks per set right now, and OTD keeps using long hooks (and thus us being too short would be an eyesore). Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I actually saw Carcharoth's comments and wanted to respond to them but the nom page looked "closed" (in fact I think it said something like "discussion is closed") so I went to sleep instead then didn't think about it today. One thing I would change - and thanks to Carcharoth for pointing this out - is that it should be "short comic" rather than "comic book" (basically it was one comic among others in a comic book anthology/magazine kind of thingy). I can't make the change in the que either as I'm not an admin. But yeah, basically I was left wondering myself as what the proper way to address these was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Preceding copied from my talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(Having said that, I think "short comic in a comic book" vs. "comic book" isn't THAT crucial so... not sure if this is a big deal).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I changed it here. It's not critical, as you say, but I didn't want to make the hook any longer as it might then unbalance things on the main page. This was mainly my fault for not using the right symbol. I should have put a "hold" or "discuss" symbol on the hook bit at the review. Would have held it up for a day or two, but would have avoided the messier "tweak things in prep and then queue" method. Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1

Sanjak of Dukagjin in prep 1 isn't homepage ready, but needs a good copyedit by a native English speaker first. Schwede66 16:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to ban Billy Hathorn from DYK

Ban of indefinite duration enacted. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

It was suggested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Billy Hathorn concerns that User:Billy Hathorn should be banned from DYK, and I agree. I propose that Billy be indefinitely banned from editing all DYK project pages for reasons documented higher up in this discussion, in the AN/I discussion, and in the many past discussions linked from AN/I. He may request that the ban be reconsidered any time after 3 months, and no more frequently than every three months, upon demonstrating an understanding of WP:N (particularly as relates to biographies), WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:PLAGIARISM (including close paraphrasing), and the DYK community will reconsider the issue at that time. cmadler (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me. Billy has made some good contributions here (some of his DYKs that I reviewed were OK, or at least I was able to make them OK without enormous effort), but the positive value is now greatly outweighed by the problems created by his poorer-quality contributions. I can imagine one exception to the proposed ban: If another contributor happens to nominate one of Billy's articles for DYK, he should be allowed to participate in the review discussion. --Orlady (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't consider the possibility of another editor nominating Billy's articles. I would go so far as to say that, as part of the DYK ban, his articles should simply be deemed not eligible. cmadler (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Cmadler. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, perhaps with some of the conditions Orlady suggested at AN/I: Billy be required to create articles in his userspace for others to review first, and submit images to FFU. Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment While I'm sure any discussion here should be limited only to Billy's DYK-related activities (this is not the place to ban him from all unsupervised article creation) it would be beneficial if the discussion were made a top-level item in the talk page's table of contents and moved to the bottom of the page for ease of location by interested editors. I was surprised to find this discussion ticked away so far back on the page, given the forward chronological flow. - Dravecky (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Moved section to a top-level item at the bottom of the page, as suggested. cmadler (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Not just as nominator but also as "maker" of an article somebody else nominates. Maybe reconsider in six months, if he can show he's reformed. For now, I don't want to see re-working his work and then giving him credit drain off even one reviewer's time here. Sharktopus talk 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Since comments here seem to have petered off, and there seems to be support for a DYK ban, I'll turn the question around: is any at DYK opposed to a ban of Billy Hathorn from DYK, both as a nominator and as creater/expander of an article nominated by someone else, open to reconsideration after 3-6 months if Billy demonstrates an understanding of the applicable issues? cmadler (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
He's got (at least) three nominations up now (who's watching the store here?), I continue to find sourcing, copyvio or plagiarism issues, his nominations and reviews demonstrate amply the problems with this new templated checklist (not limited to the fact that his nominations aren't identified), and not only should he not be nominating DYKs considering his history of not understanding Wikipedia sourcing policies, he is not qualified IMO to be reviewing them either. How do we check off the list that sources are reliable when text is not cited? How do we determine that expansion/size crit. is met when articles are padded with uncited text? Anyone can check the templated checklist: hopefully DYK will have reviewers checking that list who understand Wikipedia policies. I support a ban from DYK all together: nominating and reviewing, and ANI action should be next if copyvio continues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • He has three submissions on the nominations page at the moment: Template talk:Did you know/Dan Taylor (rodeo), Template talk:Did you know/Biff Baker, U.S.A., Template talk:Did you know/Chris Roy, Jr., so if he is banned somebody should tell him. Yomanganitalk 10:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the heads up. I have rejected all three and left a note on his talk page. As Sandy says, his three reviews should probably also be re-done, but I will leave it to somebody else to flag that one, as I have a work/travel day to get started on. Sharktopus talk 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Update, I did also flag his 3 reviews as needing to be redone. One review in particular he had marked the "plagiarism/close paraphrasing" checklist item as "NA". Good grief. Sharktopus talk 12:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
        • He marked one as N/A where I was able to find the source, there were numerous issues including uncited text and text not representing the sources correctly. When sources aren't given, there's nothing wrong with asking the nominator to quote some of the source (although it's not that hard to find them). And I'm curious why there are so many nominations without signatures identifying the nominator. The checklist is still silly-- anyone can check anything, as Hathorn is doing. Scrap the checklist; address the problems: QPQ reviewing doesn't work, accountability is needed, DYK is pushing through too much volume and needs to reduce the number of queues, and experienced reviewers should be reviewing for DYK criterion (is expansion based on reliable sources, are sources accurately represented without copyvio) before crappy stubs gain mainpage exposure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The nominator is separately identified only in cases where the nominator is not already listed as one of the authors. Sharktopus talk 12:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • On his nom pages I saw no author or editor or anything: what did I miss? By the way, I slightly disagree with your post to Hathorn; DYK has not come under criticism *because* of Hathorn. The problems have long been prevalent and long criticized-- he is only the latest example, the difference being that DYK was more reticent this time in addressing the problems than it has been in the past, and the problems were exacerbated by QPQ reviewing. Hathorn is not the cause-- he's a symptom and byproduct of a broken system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't actually seen that much evidence that Billy is a serial plagiarizer, and a "three month ban" sounds too harsh to me for someone who after all is a prolific contributor. My suggestion would be a temporary ban while someone helps explain to him the issues involved. I don't see any reason for a long ban provided he clearly demonstrates that he understands what he is doing wrong and makes a commitment to reform. Wikipedia is not in the business of punishing users for past sins, but if someone has a problem the solution is to educate them to do things properly, only if they prove incapable of learning should we be talking about extended bans. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I haven't actually seen that much evidence that Billy is a serial plagiarizer, ... Nothing short of amazing-- is it that you haven't looked, or you don't think cut-and-paste is copyvio? And what steps has DYK taken to do said education? And what is your take on the years-long efforts to rehabilitate and educate this user? You did read the ANI links, no, and review his talk page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say there wasn't any evidence, I said I hadn't seen much - no evidence, at least, that he's been doing this for a long period - although the probability is that he has. I didn't read the AN/I threads, and there is no evidence presented on Billy's talkpage - just a few assertions. Certainly I accept that he's been caught engaging in close paraphrasing in a number of recent articles, but when I looked at his CCI, very few of his contributions had actually been checked. Regardless, that is not the issue. The issue is what to do to ensure he does not continue to close paraphrase or engage in copyright infringement. Billy is one of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors, I don't want to drive him away with draconian sanctions, I want him to keep contributing, but in a way that conforms fully with policy. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you chose your words carefully! It seems like you are burying your head in the sand... so is it that you chose not to look so as not to find? I'm not sure there's much we can do to help him wise up. We're all adults here, and if he still doesn't 'get it' after a 3 month DYK ban, that ban can be extended and widened. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So you don't want to drive away a serial plagiarizer and routine violator of copyright just because he does so prolifically? Why not ban him until he cleans up the mess he made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.133.40 (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, step up and sign up or shut up. Dear Gato, you are a great collaborator and a compassionate human being. I happen to disagree with you on the topic of Billy Hathorn. My wish is not to "punish" Hathorn or drive him away. My concern is for our finite resources here at DYK of reviewer time and energy. I haven't seen any signal from Hathorn that he appreciates how much extra effort has been spent here reviewing his articles, and rewriting great chunks of them. DYK reviewers spent the time, Hathorn got the credit, and DYK got the incoming torpedos. DYK needs reviewers' time. If somebody wants to spend time mentoring Hathorn, god bless that somebody. He has not responded to many requests in the past to stop copy/paste creations. Maybe an interruption in DYK credits will be the signal he needs to get serious. Sharktopus talk 01:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
An interruption to his DYK credits - fine. A three month-to-indefinite ban - not.
I appreciate the fact that Billy has shown little interest in cleaning up his act in the past - however, I think it's also the case that there has been little in the way of a sustained attempt to get him to do so. A ban on his articles at DYK should be a useful way of getting his attention and impressing on him the importance of this issue. But a long pre-emptive ban, which is essentially punishment for past transgressions, would be neither helpful nor appropriate in my view. He should be given a chance to rectify his approach first, if he proves unwilling or incapable of doing so, that's the time we should be talking about extended bans. Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
If temporarily banned, it shouldn't be lifted until those hundreds of articles are checked and cleaned. CCI is a copyright area that in particular has an enormous back-log.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a thought: ban to be reconsidered not after three months or six months, but at the conclusion of the CCI? cmadler (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
How many other users are banned from contributing to Wikipedia until their CCI's are complete? It doesn't seem to be the prevailing practice, so I don't see why Billy should be singled out for sanctions. Gatoclass (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I've already said so earlier. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - does anyone know if Billy Hathorn plans to respond here? I've been holding off until I see some sort of response from him, but I've seen nothing so far. That doesn't impress me. If someone is a prolific contributor, they need to make sure they aren't making work for others, and if they are, that they respond to those concerns to either rebut them or acknowledge them, and that if they accept that the concerns are valid, that they then make changes and improve as an editor over time. I've looked at his contributions to article talk pages, and there are very little. Does he always discuss article concerns when they are raised? He has only ever made nine edits to the Wikipedia talk namespace. Over 5 years, a massive 94.62% of his edits (95064) are to article space, with around 8000 in other namespaces. What seems to be needed here is less editing and more discussion of areas where people have raised concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. One of the problems with Billy is that he's difficult to engage. He tends to respond only minimally if at all to concerns of other users, he's totally focussed on content creation. That's why I said that something needs to be done to get his attention, such as suspending his right to submit DYKs until he does respond appropriately. Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Consideration should also be given to removing his name from the showcase Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs as it would appear many of the articles have copy vio problems. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Ummmm, don't look now, but if you removed all of the copyvio DYKers from that list, DYK might be known as Plagiarism Central. Oh, I forgot ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC) PS, Gato, oh, you didn't bother to look, but you see no evidence of long-term plagiarism. Do you see anything wrong with your logic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you asked those editors you think are copyvio DYKers to address the problems you saw in the articles they submitted and the problems in the way they write and edit? If not, then they have no way of knowing that you have these concerns. I realise that your concerns are that DYK as a system is enabling this sort of editing, but surely you can see that without specifics it is difficult to assess such claims as the ones you are making. It would help greatly if for each example of a "copyvio DYKer" you have a diff where someone pointed this out to them and also a diff where it was pointed out to the DYK editors. This would be far more helpful than generalised hand waving. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't support removing anybody's past DYK trophies. This thread is about banning Hathorn from DYK with the purpose of motivating him to change and saving DYK reviewers from wasting time until he does. Please let's keep this thread on-topic so it can converge. Discuss other matters in a different thread. Sharktopus talk 13:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
@Sandy - my previous comment was inaccurate, in fact I did read the AN/I thread, but since you've chosen to make an issue out of it, I've gone back through all the threads presented to ensure I didn't miss any, and my opinion is still the same - quite a few assertions but not much concrete evidence. Once again however, I have to wonder why it is you want to focus on a couple of casual comments I made rather than on the issue at hand, which is what to do about Billy.
Since I'm still not sure of the extent of the problem, I'm reluctant to go with draconian solutions that may have the effect of driving a prolific contributor from the project. We need to tread carefully here. Billy may just need some firmer guidance than he has received in the past, the acrimony generated on this page over the last couple of weeks has already driven a number of valued contributors away, I don't want to see yet more collateral damage. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
@Gato: Yes, he may well be a 14-year-old kid who loves creating articles, whether for the DYK brownies or for its own sake. He probably reads about a topic elsewhere and then searches to see if there's already an article, and sets about copying it into WP only making small adjustments. He's been active on WP for five years, so by that first assumption he would have been about 9 at the time. He doesn't engage on talk pages, including his own, and I don't know if anyone has attempted to email him. As you seem to be all too willing to continue assuming good faith in light of the revelations, perhaps this is an additional avenue for you to pursue? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, he's not a "14 year old kid", he's an academic, so he surely has the capacity to contribute appropriately if he puts his mind to it. Gatoclass (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Then why does he not understand the idea of copyright? Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Why ask me? I can't read his mind. But I don't think it's important to know why he does something - what matters with regard to this project is that he conforms to our standards and policies, and not to some other notion of what is or is not acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Quite. And he clearly doesn't, so let's get rid. Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
If it's true that he's an academic, then there really is no excuse. By not communicating and continuing to contribute copyright violations after repeated warning, he is not demonstrating any modicum of emotional maturity compatible with this project. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, WP:Close paraphrasing is not even a guideline, it's only an essay. Does Billy even know it exists? Has anyone pointed it out to him? Should we be slapping bans on somebody who has apparently only breached the recommendations of an essay? Perhaps the situation isn't quite so black and white as you think. Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes Billy has been informed of the existence of the essay, and has been provided with a link to it and to other relevant pages. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That diff is from only two weeks ago, and it's clear he is yet to be persuaded he's done anything wrong. I already acknowledged that Billy is harder to engage than most, but he has demonstrated an ability to modify his approach in the past, so there is reason to believe he can do so again, provided of course that the problems are pointed out courteously. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support ban. Take a strong line on this. Tony (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Having had cause to interact with him in the past, I have to think that the proposal below is more than likely going to wind up an informal indefinite ban, as Billy simply dosen't communicate very well. That aside, I don't want him anywhere near an edit button of any type in at any page until we can be sure he's no longer a walking copyright problem. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


Proposal by Demiurge for a temporary ban

This discussion seems absurdly disjointed. On the one hand, we've got people who agree that Billy shouldn't contribute any more articles to DYK until he is prepared to discuss the problems properly; but don't want an "indefinite ban" or even a lengthy one. On the other hand, we've got people who advocate a lengthy or indefinite ban because Billy won't discuss the problems properly. So, rather than make this contentious decision now (three months, six months, indefinite, indefinite+20days, whatever)... why not simply agree that no more nominations of Billy's articles will be accepted until he is prepared to discuss the problems properly? Call it "indefinite" (until conditions are met), call it a temporary injunction, call it what you want, but basically everyone here is already agreed that it needs doing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I support Demiurge's proposal--which is a de facto temporary ban, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Demiurge's modification/clarification of the initial proposal to ban Hathorn's articles. I think we had near unanimous support for the previous unspecified ban proposal. What I understand this to be saying is that the question of undoing the ban can be proposed here by anybody at any time to see if consensus has changed, which will presumably happen after some acceptable demonstration by Hathorn that future articles will be informed by Wikipedia policies regarding CP/CV. Sharktopus talk 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I've rejected his three nominations already. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. as potentially being more constructive in arriving at a satisfactory outcome for all concerned. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Clarification Needed Is the ban contingent on him fixing the problems and demonstrating that he's no longer a cause of concern, or just on discussing the problem? Sven Manguard Wha? 07:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is proposing that Billy go through all his past contributions to edit them in conformity with WP:PARAPHRASE before he is allowed to nominate here. The proposal is basically that Billy acknowledge he has read and understood PARAPHRASE (and other relevant pages) and that he agrees to ensure that future noms of his will conform to it. If it turns out he isn't doing that, his DYK privileges can be suspended again until he shows sufficient evidence of having "got it". Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Gatoclass (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - good enough for me. cmadler (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no copyright violations. The challenge on Bill Noel was dropped, and the one on Phil Preis apparently has one paragraph in dispute. I didn't even create the Preis article but added to it. No errors have been shown in any of the articles to my knowledge. Everything is sourced and documented. Plagiarism is passing off the words of others as one's own without any attribution. All is atributed. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved this comment to the bottom of the section (Billy Hathorn had placed it at the top). I will leave a note pointing out that he needs to read and respond to the ANI thread. Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The challenge on Bill Noël was not dropped; offending text was removed over a series of edits by User:NortyNort. Likewise other editors have removed three paragraphs of offending text from Phil Preis -- text you (Billy) added. cmadler (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Renewed general discussion of Hathorn issues

Mystified why Gatoclass continues to focus only on the copyvio aspect of Hathorn's DYKs, when the other aspects are just as problematic (failure to use reliable sources after five years of editing? padding of articles with irrelevant text? is that to meet the DYK size crit?). I don't know why he's still allowed to edit at all, particularly since he won't discuss and the cleanup effort will be massive (and will never be done). The DYK aspect is that DYK enabled this to occur and never even noticed it, but the real ban should be beyone DYK IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a ban beyond just DYK, but we can't do that here. I requested the CCI, which is now open, and I attempted to get a broader ban at AN/I, but the section keeps getting archived there. cmadler (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe that consensus is already quite clear that people support Demiurge's proposal, above, but if others want to continue to engage with that proposal, could they add !votes to the section above? Sharktopus talk 15:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Are we going to start penalizing editors because they occasionally add content that someone thinks irrelevant? As for use of iffy sources, outside the hallowed halls of FAC, there's rather a lot of it going on. As long as the important info in an article is reliably sourced, it's of little consequence whether an article contains a source or two that doesn't pass muster; certainly it's far from sufficient cause to start talking about banning people. Gatoclass (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I've de-archived the Billy Hathorn thread at AN/I. Since he's now indefinitely banned from DYK, there's nothing more we can do here except make sure the issue doesn't die there. cmadler (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
He still has at least one nomination on the board. His name somehow got added to hidden text. Speedy closure of Template talk:Did you know/James M. Flinchum welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I've not yet figured out how to reject/archive nominations under the new template/sub-page system or I'd do it. cmadler (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. Yomanganitalk 12:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
"Dear anonymous, step up and sign up or shut up." Sharktopus, if this is how DYK people treat other editors, it's no wonder you're short of nominations. Tony (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Tony, is your comment just slightly off-topic or misplaced? My annoyed remark was to an anonymous making a snarky comment mocking another contributor. Anonymous people making remarks relevant to improving DYK are of course always welcome by me and by everybody else. Sharktopus talk 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust

As per Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Right to Vanish, yet another DYK regular is gone. --Allen3 talk 17:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Five edits to T:TDYK and none to WT:DYK in the last 11 months is hardly a recent "DYK regular". Xe appears to have been a prolific editor and article creator, but given that xyr DYK contributions largely stopped almost a year ago, it seems inappropriate to link this RtV to the recent changes here. cmadler (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Whorlton Castle

What is it that makes Whorlton Castle unusual among motte and bailey castles that continued to be used in the Middle Ages? The article does nothing to explain: the cited source says that it is unusual "in that it continued in use throughout the medieval period", which I would contend is a very different claim. The source is the body charged with ensuring its conservation, and therefore with raising funds for its conservation: does that raise issues over whether it is sufficiently disinterested to be a RS? Kevin McE (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

English Heritage is a non-departmental public body and can certainly be relied upon for neutral descriptions. The English Heritage description is in fact based on a Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England publication. The hook should be closer to what the source says. I'm not sure I would completely agree with the claim, but it is impeccably sourced. Nev1 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
English Heritage is not responsible for the conservation of the castle, which is privately owned, so it doesn't have any role in "raising funds for its conservation." Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if I misinterpreted EH's interest in the castle. Nevertheless, the essence of my observation about the hook, with which Nev agreed, has not been adressed and it is now on the Main Page. Kevin McE (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Once again, although there was agreement here that the wording was inadequate, and although it had also been flagged up at WP:ERRORS, it has sat on the Main Page for 8 hours unaddressed. Kevin McE (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why it never got corrected. The only thing I can think of is that it is a fairly subtle distinction. The phrase "in that" is not that common a construction. If you had formulated it as "ABC is a castle that is unusual because of XYZ" (not perfect, but still understandable), then you might have got a better response (to be honest, most people reading the technically incorrect hook would probably interpret the continuing medieval usage as the unusual aspect, though technically the connection needs to be made explicit). The issue of lag time in responses at WP:ERRORS should be raised at WT:Main Page, rather than here. What should be discussed here is the response time at WT:DYK, which I would say is lagging partly because of the other issues being discussed here and partly because there was the distraction of the English Heritage stuff you raised (which turned out to be an unneeded distraction). Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One more checklist question

My sense is that we are subjecting DYK nominators to steadily higher acceptance citeria, but are not giving more encouragement and help in meeting these criteria. Perhaps one more checklist question should be added:

  • If you have pointed out a problem, what have you done to fix it?

This may be too aggressive, but there must be a good way to convey the intent: "don't just whine, do something useful". Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Years ago I wrote User:Art LaPella/Is this criticism constructive? and referred a few people to it, but notice that it isn't primarily about those who want to remove DYK, or by extension, to slow DYK down. Art LaPella (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I think our goal should be to make the checklist as short and clear as possible (by which I mean covering the issues that people believe need to be reviewed as concisely as possible, and avoiding unnecessary review points or redundant ones), rather than adding more things to a list that people are already complaining is bogging things down. A lot of people are finding the pages overly complicated and I'm working on several things to simplify them. What you've suggested would be a great thing to include somewhere in a separate page with instructions/guidelines for reviewers, but I don't think it belongs on the review page itself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I was not clear. I was thinking of the checklist that is sometimes added to nominations to guide reviewers:
  • Length, format, content rules
  • Source
  • Interest
  • Image suitability, if applicable
  • Length
  • Vintage
  • Sourcing
  • Neutrality
  • Plagiarism/close paraphrasing
  • copyvio (files)
  • Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting
The question was whether this checklist should have one more entry:
  • If you have pointed out a problem, what have you done to fix it?
Why not? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I know that's what you had in mind. Like I said above, I think it's too much. In fact, I'm pretty sure most reviewers would find that tedious. Again, it's a good addition for a guidelines page elsewhere, but shouldn't be in every nomination. (And, for what it's worth, the checklist you are thinking of is being rethought already anyway.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The guidelines should cover the complete process and the review criteria in tedious detail. The "form" for nominations should give highlights of the process and criteria. Where is the discussion page for this rethink? I would like to contribute. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I thoroughly sympathize with Aymatth2's objectives here, as recently I have seen too many DYK reviews becoming attacks on the nominator instead of collaborative efforts to develop good DYK content. However, this suggestion impresses me as undesirable instruction creep (and instruction creep is even more problematic when it is piled on top of the instruction creep embodied in certain proposed templates). --Orlady (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have not seen these proposed templates. I agree that the checklist is awkward and do not want to make it worse, although the items in it are things that should be checked. Perhaps the list of things to check belong in the instructions, not in the "form". If reviewers start checking some aspects of a nomination and not others the overall process can get quite confused. Assuming the first review will cover all aspects of suitability, telling the reviewer to check off a list with an entry for each step they have followed is a bit insulting. Simpler if they report the outcome of their review, with notes where needed.

There are four possible outcomes:

  • Not yet reviewed
  • Hopeless: e.g. copyright violation, way too short, incomprehensible
  • Needs fixing: e.g. hook wording, sources, grammar, organization
  • Good to go

There must be some simple way to provide instructions, let reviewers record which status currently applies, and encourage them to fix rather than to report "needs fixing". Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Same old same old: quick and dirty

I see an example here of the rushed, unthinking approach taken to promoting noms, even when copyvio is explicitly pointed out.

Carcharoth has pointed out on my talk page how his review points were initially ignored by the promoting editor, and how his own nom was waved through by a QPQ "ready to go" review that blatantly breached the RfC insistence that a list of aspects be explicitly checked off.

It seems a culture of resistance to the community's decision has set in. Tony (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And this attempt to forbid critical commentary on "closed" nom pages concerning serious flaws in the system is part of the rot here. Tony (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that reversion probably wasn't best there. Note that the system was tweaked recently to allow nomination subpages to have talk pages, which is where that sort of commentary would go now. Think of how post-closure commentary would be handled at FAC. Where would comments go there? Probably on the FAC talk page. As for the example I pointed out to you, I think any discussion needs to focus on moving forward constructively, rather than pointing fingers. The key point seems to be how long someone should be expected to spend reviewing a new article at DYK. If it is short, a DYK review could take 10 minutes. If it is a longer article, it could take 20-30 minutes. The point is that if people submit long new articles, they should expect a review to take time. They can't expect long new articles to be waved through just because they are long. If an article is based only on a few sources, a review will taken less time than if it uses 20 different sources. This is the sort of thing that DYK reviewers should be discussing. But at the end of the day, DYK reviewing can't take too long. Detailed reviews should wait until later in the editing process. Carcharoth (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we know that the DYK process has some flaws, but we can't expect things to change overnight. There's been a lot of changes made at T:TDYK recently, some of them without adequate discussion, and we need to iron out the existing problems before discussing what other changes may be desirable. However, for the record, I have said on multiple occasions that articles which contain copyvios should be disqualified outright, as long as there is no sanction for text theft there is no incentive for users who engage in it to reform. We may also need to eventually introduce penalties for reviewers who fail to adequately review articles, but again, I think it's too early to talk about such measures right now, we need to ensure the changes already introduced are working smoothly before going on to the next step. Gatoclass (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"introduce penalties for reviewers who fail to adequately review articles"—So will these penalties apply also to editors to shift noms to a prep room when they've been reviewed thus: "Hook length, article length, dates check out: good to go."? Tony (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It's the reviewer who has the responsibility of doing a thorough review. The promoters already have enough to do without rechecking a nom. Currently I'm thinking only of penalties for QPQ reviewers to ensure they are doing an adequate job. However, use of a checklist template may render penalties unnecessary. I'm just saying let's take things one step at a time, try something out, if that's not doing the job, then go onto the next step. Gatoclass (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Earl Best in the queue

We seem to be going in circles with this nom. It was put into prep and then removed because of close paraphrasing concerns. Eventually the nom was returned to the submissions page and then moved once again to prep. It is now in queue 2 (as the "Street Doctor") having had no work done to correct the problems that initially led to its removal. Can somebody remove it from the queue (and hopefully avoid starting iteration 3 of its never-ending story at the same time). Yomanganitalk 17:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it, but I'm not sure what for, as no plagiarism concerns are mentioned on the nom page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
This underlines one of the pitfalls of the fancy new template-based system for managing and archiving DYK nominations. There no longer seems to be any clear documentation of the history of a nom that is returned to the noms page for re-review after being moved to the prep areas. It's not uncommon for DYK noms to be returned to the noms page from a prep area or a queue, so the system should be designed to accommodate these moves. --Orlady (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed this issue above as well, and added instructions on T:TDYK about how to return hooks from the prep/queue. These instructions include leaving a comment to indicate that the hook was remove from the queue, and why; in this case it looks like the second time it was promoted was because the promoter was not aware of these discussions (which is understandable, since apparently no one raised the issues on the nomination page itself, they were only raised here, the article talk page, and on T:TDYK). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I fear it's actually becoming harder to participate in DYK than it is to propose articles for deletion... --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In my view, addition, promotion and rejection of all nominations should take place on a single page so all the history can be kept together. How the archives are set up is of secondary importance to this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Most of this all does happen on one page (e.g., discussion, promotion, and rejection), but some things necessarily span multiplate pages. For instance, since the goal of a DYK nomination is to get to the template, of course at some point something other than the nomination page itself is going to be edited. Likewise, I think we all agree that all nominations must be listed somewhere, so T:TDYK also needs to be edited at some point so the nomination is listed there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I was responding more to what you said below: "The issue of being able to see when an article was promoted by looking at T:TDYK, rather than the nomination subpage, is a little more complicated. I intentionally made the subpages so that promotions could be done from the subpage itself, without ever editing T:TDYK." For some reason, I thought that was being discussed in this section. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
That thread is specifically about the archives, not the other issues. Review, promotion, and rejection are all handled on nom subpages and aren't affected by how the archives are set up. all the archives really affect is where an editor adds his/her nomination (directly to T:TDYK, or to one of the "daily log" pages). rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The Earl Best snafu actually illustrates some of the forms of confusion that can exist in the current situation. First off, it's unclear why the comment about that hook wen on the article talk page instead of at DYK, but the template that said "Please do not modify..." probably was a factor. Then, look at the situation that existed prior to this edit -- a user who wanted to comment on Template talk:Did you know/Earl Best ended up commenting on the Template talk:Did you know page under the heading for the date. These were Wikipedia veterans making these mistakes, not bewildered newbies. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice

The tick shortcuts aren't showing up (or at least they didn't at Template:Did you know nominations/List of places of worship in Rother) Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is probably because I moved the nom subpages from "Template talk:Did you know/" to "Template:Did you know nominations/". The thing about the ticks was handled by an editnotice for all T:TDYK subpages; I'll set up a new one that works for the new nomination setup. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Should be working now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes they are. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Would this be OK to nominate for DYK?

I have been working on expanding S&Man since August 11 and managed to get it to B-class. The article is still in the 5 day time frame for DYK, but I'm not sure if it can be nominated or not. Even though it hasn't been expanded five fold, I am wondering if it might still count as that since the original content was a non-notable unreferenced stub. Some statements that I added are unreferenced, but I will add them soon. I have all five of those sources open. Joe Chill (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, not yet at least. Expansion is less than fivefold, and improvements in quality (adding references or notability) don't count extra. (The only exception to this is that the expansion requirement is apparently reduced to "twofold" if the article was an unreferenced BLP, which this was not.) You can either see if there is more material that it can be expanded with (it looks like it needs about another 1,000 characters of prose to reach 5x expansion), or consider WP:GAN. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok. That is completely fine. I am considering Good Article status, but I need someone that is experienced with it to tell me if they think that it is ready. I have never ventured into Good Articles so I am not sure what is normally considered acceptable. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I find the best way is to look at WP:GA and check some articles on similar topics that have already achieved GA status. From a quick glance at your article it looks like it's probably doable. It doesn't need to be perfect before you nominate it; there will be a GA review during which the reviewer will point out things you can do to bring the article up to par if it isn't already. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit concerned about having a long list of things that I still need to do to the article, but I guess I will most likely nominate it at some point. I think that it just might show some members (not going to name any of them) that deletionists don't just spend most of their time getting articles deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, articles on film and television usually take a month or longer to get reviewed after they are nominated, so even if you nominate it now you have lots of time to work on it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
That is good to know. Joe Chill (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thematic balance in prep rooms

Three of the four prep rooms currently contain a hook about Indonesian history. Why? Tony (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed above in advance: #Indonesian independence day. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Caribana

I'm finding it very difficult to verify the hook in the article. The impression given by the hook is that a record was set in 1967, which was surpassed in '68, which was surpassed again in '69 etc up to 1971. The greatest figure for one day referred to is 38,000 on 14 July 1968, which was not during the carnival. By 1970 and '71, the aggregate attendance over the course of a week was 45,000. This claim needs either explanation or rephrasing. Kevin McE (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignored here for c 28 hours: it got picked up and changed on WP:ERRORS about 8 minutes before it was rotated off. Quality control is sorely lacking. Kevin McE (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Are daily archives needed?

Ever since about a week ago, every day's DYK noms appear on their own page (e.g. Template talk:Did you know daily log/2011 August 15) and those are all gathered in an archive at Template talk:Did you know daily log. (This is the same basic setup as AfD.) Given that every nom already has its own archive page that can be found easily, do we need this? Looking for feedback before I decide whether to get rid of them.

Cons:

  • Some people seem to be finding it confusing (see bottom of here)
  • Makes it harder to track new nominations since there's not one page where they're all posed (see here)
  • I don't really see what the use of them is (see bottom of here)

Opinions? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the motivation for these changes, and I appreciate all of your efforts to set up the daily archives, but I don't think the daily archiving is needed AND I think that this new arrangement has made almost everything harder. Everything Rjanag has said about "cons" is true, IMO. Additionally, one new frustration for me is that I find it more complicated -- not easier, as I believe was intended -- for me to figure out when a hook was moved to the prep area and which prep area it was moved to. In the old days I could find that information by searching (or even skimming) in the history of the DYK noms page, but now I need to find the nom for the specific item (which may not have the exact name of the article), open up that nom to find out who "promoted it" (but not when), open up its history to find out when the "promotion" was made, then go to the Queues and possibly the archives to see where it was promoted to.
I would like to have a single noms page again within a single consolidated history. With each nom on its own page now, that history would include a record of when the nom was transcluded to the page (and by whom), when it was removed (and by whom); the edit summaries for removals of promoted noms should indicate which prep area the nom was moved to (and for rejected noms the edit summary should indicate the rejection). --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Regarding the issue of finding out who promoted it but not when, I recently updated the template so it adds a full signature (including time stamp) of the promoter, rather than just a signature without timestamp, so I think this problem should be mitigated (although right now it will only be noticeable on the most recent noms). Regarding finding which prep a nom was promoted to, I've noticed that some editors leave this in their edit summary and some don't; I just added a bullet to the instructions on T:TDYK asking that they always leave this information in their edit summary (who knows if they actually will, though).
The issue of being able to see when an article was promoted by looking at T:TDYK, rather than the nomination subpage, is a little more complicated. I intentionally made the subpages so that promotions could be done from the subpage itself, without ever editing T:TDYK. I did this because I was concerned that otherwise the new system would be a hassle for reviewers; as I mentioned in several of the previous subpage proposals (all of which I opposed until about a year ago), reviewers would have to edit multiple pages (the subpage to get the hook and credits, the prep to add hte hook and credits, and T:TDYK to remove the nom), whereas under the original system they didn't have to edit as much ("getting the hook and credits" and "removing the nom" were both on the same page). It sounds like a small difference, but given that 24+ articles are promoted every day, I think it would be noticeable. It does perhaps make it slightly more complicated to find when a hook was promoted, but since the need to promote hooks is a regular occurrence and needing to find out later who promoted them is not (it mostly happens when someone wants to know whom to criticize for a hook they had a problem with), I think it's a net benefit. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I did suggest putting a link to the nom page in the DYK credit notice that goes onto the article, I'm not sure what happened to that suggestion, though I recall Rjanag had some sort of technical difficulty with ensuring the link was valid. But that would be the best method if it could be properly implemented IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I did something for it, but I think it only works for links added by hand. From what I can tell, it looks like DYKUpdateBot isn't doing it my way; I'll check with Shubs about this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the link to the nom page is "mostly" implemented by now, by which I mean it appears most of the time; for instance, from the last update, 4 out of 6 articles have it (example). Right now the links are not stable (if those pages get moved they'll break) and I'm still working on ways to get around this issue. Right now it's possible on any talkpage {{DYK talk}} tag to add |nompage=, which makes a stable link to the nomination page, but it has to be done by hand. The best thing to do would be to have the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates have {{FULLPAGENAME}} in them and let that get passed on to the prep, then the queue, then the |nompage= argument of the article talkpage tag, in a way that's automatic; I'm still trying to figure out just how to do that, though. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, here's hoping you can figure it out :) It would certainly be the most elegant way of dealing with this issue. Gatoclass (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the point of the daily logs. You've listed the Cons, what are the Pros? Yomanganitalk 11:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't think of any (that's what I meant by the third Con :) ). A few weeks ago a couple editors insisted on having something like this, although I think maybe they didn't understand exactly what they were asking for. I set it up because it was easy and I didn't think there would be any problems; it wasn't until later that I became aware of the issues I listed above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd get rid of them. (I "support" their removal...so...the community has spoken. Quick, delete them before anybody else comments.) Yomanganitalk 11:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Of all the conceivable ways old nominations might be listed, sorting by the nomination date seems like the least useful. I support removal of this item. cmadler (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your input. I've gone ahead and discontinued the daily archive, moved all the transclusions back to T:TDYK, and informed User:Mandarax of the change. I don't think anything special needs to be done to transition back to the old system. If anyone notices any problems or any instructions that I forgot to update, just let me know (or feel free to update them yourself). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work, Rjanag! I fear that transition is going to be confusing for a while. One issue is navigating between recent templated noms like Template:Did you know nominations/Golden Domes and the main noms page -- there's no easy link from that template to Template talk:Did you know. Should the templated noms be renamed, perhaps? --Orlady (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that's a good point. I fear moving the nom pages back to being subpages of T:TDYK is not a good option, per #Moved some stuff around: when like that, they don't have talk pages, which some people don't like. What I can do (later tonight, I'm on the way out right now) is update the template so it produces a link "back to DYK main page" or something .rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Your plan makes more sense than what I suggested. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I just took a stab at it, you can see the results at {{Did you know nominations/Test}} (transcluded here). How does this look? rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Is that really necessary? Isn't it going to create redundant links to T:TDYK when already on the page? Gatoclass (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
They'll be bold rather than links. I'm just about to play with making those links not show up on T:TDYK, and making the "view nomination" and "edit nomination" links not show up on the nom page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, here's a nicer example than the one before. As you can see, when viewing the nom from T:TDYK (the transcluded page) you get a link to the nom subpage. When viewing the nom from itself, you instead get a link back to T:TDYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That's an improvement, but I still have a couple of issues with it. Firstly, why the "view nom" link? You can already see the nom discussion at T:TDYK, so there's no need to "view" it somewhere else. IMO only the "edit nom" link is required. Secondly, rather than a generic link back to T:TDYK, would it be possible for the link to go back to the particular nom? When I am working at T:TDYK, I usually work methodically up or down the page from one nom to another, a link to the top of the page would not be much use to me, nor I suspect to other reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Both good ideas. Done rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! No more having to reload pages after forgetting to right-click the link! Thanks Rjanag :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Time taken over reviews

Would it be possible to discuss the time taken to do reviews of DYK nominations? Do reviewers tend to spend about the same amount of time on each review, or take longer for longer articles, and articles with more sources, or for BLPs? And are regulars and experienced DYK editors faster and more reliable at reviewing than new editors that get pulled into reviewing by the QPQ system? These questions are ones that I've been pondering following a discussion here and here (split over two talk pages, sorry). In particular, I think MelanieN is correct to say:

"...the stringent review process is prohibitive.
Maybe the "regulars" don't see that as a problem; maybe they would rather keep the review process in the hands of people who specialize in it. In that case they should repeal the "nominate one, review one" requirement, because you are NEVER going to get the level of review you want from people like me." (that is, occasional submitters rather than DYK regulars).

Is this a persuasive argument against the QPQ (quid pro quo) reviewing system? Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an important question but not as a matter of "regulars" vs. anyone else. A review is a review, and some former DYK regulars are still unfamiliar with reviewing. Personally, I've never set a timer. For one thing, Wikipedia is a discretionary activity and I frequently get interrupted. Also my editing pattern is recursive; I'll often make edits to other pages as I find them while checking the article I'm "working on," and I don't see the utility in a wiki project of just reviewing, while not fixing anything I notice that I feel is fixable—typos, English errors, clunky phrasing. Chacun à son goût and QPQ forces some people who do not feel confident of their English to review others' articles, but I continue to be surprised by reviews that note easily fixable problems of this nature where the reviewer didn't at least start fixing them. . . . So both of those make my reviews take longer than others may take. However, I've always checked sourcing—and that has always included noting close paraphrasing as well as inaccuracy (why would it not?) and those processes take a long time, particularly since I am a good and fast copyeditor, and particularly since few editors do what I do and search for things on Google Books and pin the page ref. to a GoogleBooks link (in fact that seems to be so rare that I've had reviewers of my articles AGFing on non-web sources when there's a link right there in the ref.), so when I review I am spending quite a bit of time searching to see whether I can see the referenced text. I know I recently took a good 3 hours for a simple copyedit with, as I recall, no checking of sources, because the nomination had received the red X by the time I got back to it to report that I had done the copyedit the reviewer had originally requested, so that gave me a measure of how long I'd taken. That was while doubletasking (weekly discussion in a chat space) but it wasn't a review, so that can serve as a data point. Set beside that the statement higher up on this page by someone saying they are unwilling to spend more than 10 minutes on a review. And Tony1, who has been one of the biggest proponents of thorough reviewing, has not only often done only partial reviews, but linked elsewhere on this page to a thread on his talkpage in which he himself says "I'd hope for 5–10 mins per review". I don't think it's possible to do a thorough review in 10 minutes, even if one doesn't fix anything, or look at the broader issues that I think one should always consider: balanced and adequate coverage of the topic, clarity of exposition, and so on. (If one is going to vet someone's work I think one should give it a real look, not just a check-off, and these are pages in the encyclopedia like any others, so if they have, for example, bare URLs or obvious stuff missing, one shouldn't ignore such things.) I don't think it's possible to do a search for copyvio or even find unreferenced statements in 10 minutes unless the article is extremely short. Let alone evaluating the reliablity of the sources under WP:MEDRS. And checking for deficiencies in the prose/English usage takes most people much longer than it does me (I have academic experience in that.) So I think there is a disconnect here, or possibly two. Editors may not be aware of how long they are actually spending on a review. And/or they may not be aware how long a careful review actually takes, possibly because they only do partial reviews. I do think QPQ should be revisited, but perhaps it needs stating that since I was compelled by QPQ to do reviews, I have always done a thorough review, and I believe the vast majority of people required to review under QPQ have, too. It is, however, a more time-consuming task than even Tony1 appears to realize. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
"And Tony1, who has been one of the biggest proponents of thorough reviewing, has not only often done only partial reviews, but linked elsewhere on this page to a thread on his talkpage in which he himself says "I'd hope for 5–10 mins per review"." Yes, the shorter ones should be doable in 5–10 minutes. Even the longer ones, by spot-checking (you can never check every source for CP and plagiarism, since they're not all online). That is the basis of reviewing under stress, when the waterfall of nominations is moving down the line so fast. Frankly, if you slowed down the pace to two shifts a day, we might have a better chance of reading through a whole article at leisure. What I'm primarily looking for are negative instances. If I glide through quickly and find none, and do a couple of duplication checks where there are online sources, that's about what can be managed at the moment. Partial reviews: yes, partial reviews can be thorough: partial does not equal superficial. But my chief problem is that spot-checks are not done at all and not checked off at all on whole aspects of DYK rules and site policies. Tony (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Tony, how would slowing "down the pace to two shifts a day" provide more time to read through articles? The number of needed reviews is based upon the pace of incoming nominations and not the rate of promotion. Artificially throttling below this level simply leads to either perpetually growing backlogs or starvation. Your logic is analogous to saying WP:FAC can only review one article a day as that is the pace at which they become TFAs. --Allen3 talk 02:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
@Allen: For what it's worth, I think technically FAC and TFA are separate processes. FAC reviewers are not responsible for what happens at TFA and TFA people aren't responsible for what happens at FAC reviews. Of course, many of the same people are active in both, but I don't think it's quite the same situation as this one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
@Allen: The number of needed reviews must average out to the number of both nominations and promotions (in the latter case, minus rejections), to avoid growing backlogs or starvation. At present, we are close to running out of reviews but not yet nominations. Nominations are lower than before, because of quid pro quo review. But the nomination shortage isn't as critical as the review shortage, presumably because new contributors don't need to quid pro quo. So sure, 2 shifts a day (I suspect even 2 is too many in the long run, as people lose interest in this drama) would help avoid the need for emergency-mode reviews to keep up with the promotions, and also help avoid running out of nominations. Art LaPella (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia works because most people try to improve it. New editors may need help and everyone makes mistakes, but few editors are destructive. A reviewer can usually make a good judgement from a quick scan of the article. A 3k write-up on a 13th century Swedish manor, impeccably organized and sourced by an experienced editor is unlikely to cause problems. Other articles set off alarms. But the most stringent review may miss serious problems in an article such as copyright violation of an offline source, omission of important information, inclusion of outdated information or use of plausible but biased sources. With so much to do, so little time to do it, we have to use common sense on how long to spend on a DYK nomination. I start a lot of articles, and generally review DYK articles as if I had written them - do they at least meet my own criteria for sourcing, flow, grammar etc.? For me, it varies from a ten minute check to a two day rewrite. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is, but one can't mandate a set time for doing reviews. Some reviews can be done very quickly - no more than perhaps two or three minutes if the nominator is trusted and the main sources are offline. Other noms can take much longer. Ironically, it's some of the crummier noms, with the most iffy sources, that take the longest, because you have to check those sources' websites to try and figure out whether or not they meet WP:V. Other problems include tracking down the verification for hook statements, which is often surprisingly difficult. I might spend 40 minutes or more on some nominations, but not necessarily all at once. My modus operandi is to leave a note as soon as I find a problem I can't be bothered fixing myself, when the nominator addresses that I continue with the review, and sometimes it turns out the nom fails in some other respect in any case. I'm sure everybody has their own methodology, but the bottom line is that there is no set time for doing a review, it depends very much on the individual nom. Gatoclass (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion springs from a discussion between Carcharoth and myself, in which we compared my review of an article by him to his review of someone else's article. My review of his article consisted of what used to be the standard review: verify dates, article length and hook length; verify that the hook facts are sourced and the sources actually do confirm the facts; and note that the article appears to be adequately sourced to reliable sources (without personally viewing each source and comparing it to the relevant passages of the article in a search for copyvio, or analyzing every sentence of the article for possible tweaks in the wording). That review took me 10-15 minutes and was accepted by the promoting administrator. Carcharoth was disappointed because he had been hoping for a much more thorough review/critique of his article, similar to the one he did on someone else's article, which he admits took him more than an hour. My point (speaking as an occasional DYK nominator, not a regular) was that I would simply refuse to do a review that took that long; I'd rather not submit a nomination at all than jump through all those hoops. 10-15 minutes is OK; an hour is not. As he correctly quoted me above, such a time requirement would be prohibitive for an occasional submitter like me, and would simply result in people like me not submitting DYK nominations any more. At this point your choices seem to be: allow simple reviews like the one I did for articles by established editors that show no obvious problems; require the entire checklist, keep QPQ, and scare away all "non-regular" submitters, making DYK a place for specialists only; or require the entire checklist but waive QPQ. Another option would be to allow for "partial" completion of the checklist to count toward QPQ. Still another would be for occasional submitters to dodge QPQ by getting a friend to nominate their article, thus putting the review burden back onto the "regulars." BTW I also pointed out that it appears the expanded requirements were added without any thought about where the additional manpower is going to come from. --MelanieN (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. There are no "expanded requirements" - at least, none that have been formally adopted. The checklist is only a means of ensuring that reviewers are checking all the things they are already supposed to be checking. I don't know where Carcharoth got the idea from that an hour is an appropriate length of time for a review but if it was, DYK would come to a screaming halt. As I've said on multiple occasions, DYK is not GA Lite, we don't have the resources for it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

DYKproblem template broken

Could someone please fix the DYKproblem template - it is currently broken and not creating the right links back to DYK nomination pages. Prioryman (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for sorting it so quickly. Prioryman (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is a checklist compulsory?

There will be an opportunity to discuss these issues at the appropriate time, until then it's just leading to more mutual recrimination.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sorry, I have lost track of all the discussions. Just wanted to point out that it is mentioned nowhere on T:TDYK and on Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide that the usage of a reviewing template with explicit ticking-off of certain points, is compulsory. If it is, it should be added somewhere at a prominent place. --Pgallert (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not. I understand it's a try-out period, and I think the template is clutter for most noms, but helpful (!) for a new reviewer or a new contributor to point out what needs to be checked. In addition, I think that a new reviewer looking at the article of a new contributor should be avoided, or a second opinion asked, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
There was consensus in an RfC that editors should explicitly indicate each point of the DYK criteria that were reviewed, but so far we haven't come to an agreement on the form that this "checklist" might take. So you can do it by physically including a checklist, as has been done in some noms, or by just stating e.g. "article length and age ok, hook fact is referenced, article meets policies on NPOV, plagiarism, reliable sources" etc. Things are still a bit chaotic right now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
There was consensus among those who spoke up. Others stopped commenting or even watching this page, some stopped nominating and even contributing. I don't remember what I said at the RfC (if at all), so repeated above what I think. I recommend to ask people what they think after vacation time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
A checklist is compulsory. Please see the overwhelming consensus for this in the "Checklist" RfC from three weeks ago. Gerda Arendt, please do not wilfully misrepresent the truth. Tony (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
@Tony: you react strongly to being called silly, I react strongly to "wilfully misrepresent the truth". Say what was not true in that very few people bothered to take part in that RfC, so which weight does a "consensus" carry? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
In this case it would be nice if it was pre-loaded into new submission pages, or added by a bot, or at the very least mentioned at T:TDYK, the place where people start to review submissions. Not everyone remembers the epic discussions and their outcomes. --Pgallert (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
A checklist received support during the RFC. Use of a specific template or any template did not (that's not say there wouldn't be support for it, but anybody trying tell you that you must to use a specific form to indicate that you have completed the review checklist is talking out of their ear). Yomanganitalk 10:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Use any form of checklist that includes all of the specified aspects, and you're in. Fail to use one, and you're in serious breach of community consensus. Gerda, you're in denial. Thus far, we've had reactions such as "ill formed", and "not enough !voters bothered". I'm sorry, face up to the result. BTW, Rjanag called me "silly and "stupid". He has not yet apologised. Waiting. Tony (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Only quoting from above: "As both Gatoclass and Sandy have repeatedly pointed out, the RfC was malformed for a variety of reasons. Further, as several editors have repeatedly pointed out, the RfC asked whether reviewers should explicitly confirm that they had checked a list of items. The specific form of the template was not part of the RfC, and we've wasted an absurd amount of time debating this because you refuse to "get the point". cmadler (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)", end of quote. The waste of time seems to continue. - Please explain what "in denial" means. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Will you please stop trying to beat everyone over the head with the RFC Tony? It's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that the poll was flawed. Apart from which, I took a quick look through the poll again and it's not nearly as unequivocal as you claim. There was a total of 38 support votes, but at least a dozen of them expressed significant reservations or supported only the general principle. Add those to the 10 or so oppose votes and you get a 26 - 22 split - hardly the ringing endorsement you claim. Yes, most people want better quality control - it's a motherhood issue after all - but the nuts and bolts of how best to implement it are still far from decided, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you keep pointing it out, and I've asked for evidence and reasoning—but none has been forthcoming. Sorry, I'm an evidence-based guy, so no go. People knew exactly what they were voting for; the text was there, plain as day for everyone to see. Even if they had reservations, they knew something had to be done to a deeply flawed process. Now you and a few others are trying to claw back the old ways:

  • no accountability;
  • no checking for compliance with major site policies and DYK rules;
  • quick, easy, superficial reviewing, together with a QPQ system that doesn't seem to allow for collaborative reviewing.

Your 26–22 split is self-serving invention. If you want to close DYK down, or have it radically changed, you're going the right way about it. Tony (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know what "in denial" means which you used in the edit summary for this and above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
A few editors here seem to be in denial about these matters:

(1) DYK is letting through policy violations;

(2) the reviewing system seems to be in a state of collapse;

(3) there is no directorate to take responsibility for what is a multi-layered process;

(4) the QPQ system is encouraging poor reviewing practices;

(5) the RfC has determined that a checklist is required. Tony (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know what "in denial" means but wonder how we came to such general statements (and none of them new) from the simple question: is the checklist compulsory, and the simple answer: no, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
If the reviewing system is "in a state of collapse" it's because of ill-considered changes which have driven many of our regular contributors away. And far from trying to "claw back the old ways", I've been working to try and stop DYK collapsing altogether while practical solutions are developed and put in place. I've spent much of the last month working on those solutions, while you have done little else but return here every few days to repeat the same criticisms. Regardless, I think we are making some progress, though it's certainly much slower than I hoped, in part because of the exodus of regular contributors. Gatoclass (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Tony, your repeated refusal to "get the point" regarding that RfC is verging on disruptive. It's been pointed out to you ad nauseum that 1) the RfC was malformed for a variety of reasons, 2) the RfC determined that reviewers must explicitly pass nominations based on certain criteria but not that any checklist was needed, and 3) that even if a checklist is to be used, there is no consensus for requiring that particular checklist (in fact, I'd guess there's close to a consensus against using that checklist). I accept that you want to improve DYK and Wikipedia, and that you're trying to do that, but "[t]he fact that the disruption is done in good faith does not change the fact that it is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia." As far as I'm concerned, your participation in DYK is currently every bit as disruptive as Billy Hathorn's copyvios were -- perhaps more so -- and I know that's not your intention; I hope you'll accept some friendly advice and WP:DISENGAGE from DYK for a few weeks. In the meantime, the project will continue to implement the improvements already in progress, including refining the new sub-pages and instructions, and applying the RfC, as interpreted by the community. cmadler (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Gratuitous advice (and don't kid me it's "friendly"—that is spooky). I certainly won't be succumbing to such threats, thanks very much. It's one of a number of dysfunctional reactions by people here. Let's list them:

    • Be rude to people who criticise the current state of affairs.
    • Threaten people who criticise the current state of affairs (I was threatened with a topic ban by Sharktopus, was it, a couple of months ago).
    • Characterise criticism as "disruption".
    • Claim that the Checklist RfC was illegitimate (without convincing evidence or reasoning).
    • Claim that critics, and the community-imposed checklist (in whatever form) is "driving contributors away" (that's a beat-up, and people who leave are probably the ones who need to leave for the good of the process). In particular, claim that a more professional, thorough approach is driving away new editors (despite the dominance of repeat DYKers who boast about their accumulation of trophy numbers, and the almost complete absence of mentoring and training in an environment that is ideal for these purposes).
    • Revert insertions of the checklist (that almost exactly duplicates what the community has insisted on)—a breach of the RfC consensus.
    • Continue to promote to the main page DYK noms that have been reviewed in only the most cursory fashion by editors who are ill-equipped to conduct entire reviews for quality and compliance (another breach of the RfC consensus).
    • Stall progress towards whatever checklist system and other set of reforms are required.

In short, shoot the messengers, and look anywhere but within for targets to blame. The current tendency towards increasingly shrill rudeness is showing just how defensive and resistant to change the DYK culture is—although I must say it's less self-satisfied than before. The more I see of it, the more I believe DYK needs to be dismantled, or at the very least main-page hook-spots be partly given over to newly improved articles and lists that have their act together, are professional in their reviewing, and are unencumbered by this extraordinary QPQ system.

The ball is in your court. I've done enough to prompt change. You need to decide on the future, or the community will come in and decide for you. Tony (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The only threats and rudeness I see are from you, Tony, and the above offers several prime examples.
If the minutiæ of ndashes and mdashes are so important, fix them when you review an article. A review that only covers some aspects and does not fix anything is less than helpful and falls more obviously under "cursory" than does a careful explanation of all issues or a rewrite for, say, English usage and statement that only that was reviewed. Checklists are only checklists, reminding the reviewer what to check.
If the people who have been driven away are dispensable, then you should write or expand an article and submit it to serve as an example. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no wish to submit DYK noms; only to assist those who do in a system that works for the project and the main page. You say, "The only threats and rudeness I see are from you, Tony, and the above offers several prime examples."—well this is a good example of the shoot-the-messenger behaviour here. I speak plainly, but I fail to see where my rudeness or threats are; I just point out the inevitable, and it's certainly not directly personally, as the comments have been at me over the past two days: "stupid" and "silly". Apparently that's fine, though. It's an odd way to see things. Tony (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There seems to be rather a strong amount of wishful thinking here to say that no template is compulsory. Standardised checklists exist in every profession, from mechanics and accountants to hospitals, to make sure that essentials are not inadvertently omitted. There are those who wish DYK will improve and be something we can all be proud of; there are those who see the change – mandate to explicitly state what has been checked, carried by an overwhelming majority of the community – a threat. They want to fight the principle and are targeting the template – saying it's too cumbersome to work. There are those accustomed to getting a free pass with mediocre reviewing who are baulking at having to spend more than a minute on a review. In fact, all that reviewers are being asked to do is sign against each item checked, and filling in that template doesn't take any longer in the overall scheme of a thorough review. The problem here is General Custer's last stand; a lot of injured pride and resentment because the historical problems are leading to an influx of 'outsiders' telling the regulars what to do. The message is clear enough that this house has to be put into order internally, for there are wolves outside ready and waiting to blow the house down, yet still some live in denial. SO SAD!!! --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding expansion

I'm curious about The Handley family of Sleaford currently on the main page. Two questions: why does it link to a subsection and not to the article, and how is this a 5 x expansion? Have I missed a move from a sandbox again? Only asking .... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The subsection link is a bit daft, but the article was moved from User:ErrantX/Sandbox/The Handley family of Sleaford on August 7, 2011. Yomanganitalk 13:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The link is no longer to a subsection. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, for some reason I'm having trouble loading pages today, and didn't see the page in the history with the move from the sandbox. It's displaying now but wasn't earlier. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Express yourself

There are three songs called "Express yourself" according to our disambiguation page, and multiple cover versions of the one that this hook is about. Suggest ... that the music video of Madonna's song "Express Yourself" had a budget of $5 million, making it... Kevin McE (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary for a hook to disambiguate all the facts; in fact, some users believe leaving some facts out can improve hooks (see, e.g., User:Balloonman/DYK hooks. Therefore, I think this particular issue is more a matter of opinion than one of right/wrong. I personally don't have a strong preference for either one.
Also, I would like to remind you to please always indicate the location of the hook you are raising an issue about (i.e., the prep or queue it is currently in); as some editors have noted before, it is not always clear to us what hook someone is referring to. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Where do we create nominations?

If one follows the instructions using the input box for creating a new nomination page, it is created at Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE. However, many editors are creating it at Template talk:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE because the boilerplate on the current nominations page says "After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., Template talk:Did you know/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE) to the TOP of this section (after this comment)". So, could someone clear this up? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be at Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE. I'll correct the instructions now. As a rule of thumb, just create the nominations at the place it is created automatically; fill out the form and click the button, it will create it in the proper place by itself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian independence day

Indonesia's Independence Day is in roughly 2 days, so the Preps should be built soon. Any suggestions on which hooks to use as leads and which to keep for the middle? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How many Indonesian hooks do you have altogether? IIRC there are currently three updates a day, so you should divide the number of available Indonesian-related hooks by three and that will be the number to go into each update. It doesn't matter a lot where they go but if there are three or less per update, you should not have them adjacent to one another. Hope that helps. Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Might I ask where this principle was established? Is there a history of loading DYK with a theme on the day of a particular anniversary? I am aware of the idea of holding an item back until a significant date, but this seems a very different proposition. Kevin McE (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a long established tradition at DYK. In fact, one of my very first acts as a DYK contributor was to load a full day's set of Christmas hooks, somebody gave me a barnstar for it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
While not universally kept, of course, recognition of Christmas and new year according to the general western calendar are far more widely observed, especially among our readership, than Independence day in Indonesia (or any other country). What proportion of hooks are envisaged as being thus "themed"? Kevin McE (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It all depends on what's available. A great many anniversaries pass with no relevant hooks at all, but sometimes one or two users will be motivated to create one or more articles to coincide with an anniversary. So maybe it will be only one or two hooks, maybe it will be a lot. But usually not that many. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec)@Gatoclass: Since I'm not supposed to load my own hooks to the prep, I figured we might as well discuss it here first in case it is necessary. I was planning on spacing them, but inserting three Indonesia-related images would probably be considered a bit much (and more controversial than when it happened for the US and Canadian independence days)
@Kevin: I am asking for input so that it doesn't go too overboard. The 4th of July page got some negative feedback, and fewer Wikipedians would let an Indonesian front page slide. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, there are currently 4 Indonesia-themed hooks in storage. They each have different topics (one is biography + song, one is a flag, one is a list of politicians, and one is a discography) Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Generally speaking, it's fine to load your own hooks into the queue, it's verifying your own hooks that isn't permitted. There is obviously a COI however with loading your own hooks into the picture spot. Since the hooks are topical, I'm fine with you loading two Indonesian-related hooks into the image spot for the anniversary, but it might be just as well if you left the third to a different topic. Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I think there is a total of six or seven Indonesian-related hooks on the nominations page right now, I know I verified a couple today. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Gato, I'll probably use the flag and Sukarno pictures if I build a prep. (I know there are, most of them are mine; however, they aren't all the relevant to the 17th of August) Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, in case you didn't know, anniversary hooks are usually loaded according to UTC time rather than local time. Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Done adding them. Hope I timed and balanced it right. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. And thanks for all your assistance at DYK over the last couple of weeks :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for everything. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I know the Indonesian government is very keen to promote a favorable image and that casual checking will allow claims made in better funded publications to supersede conflicting facts stated in other publications. Given the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller promotion of Indonesia since the 1940s, should people checking facts be conservative when reading US publications? Corporate US interest in Indonesia can also be seen if you check the funding & membership of lobbies such as the US Indonesia Society. Daeron (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) Any particular facts that give you pause in particular? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Daeron (and his IP accounts) is a WP:SPA account and self-declared activist advocating the western New Guinea's secession from Indonesia. Among his more fanciful assertions is that Indonesia itself is a fraudulent state. Grain of salt I say. --Merbabu (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
PS - don't be surprised if his next step is to complain about this discussion on Jimbo's talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Current review status

By my count, all articles from August 6th and earlier have been reviewed. That means we have ten days of nominations taking up the last third of T:TDYK, of which a fairly good portion have been reviewed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like all of the articles on those dates have received some amount of "review," but many of those reviews have not yet been concluded. Many of those hooks/articles have excellent possibilities (and some were approved at one point), but the reviews are pending for miscellaneous reasons. --Orlady (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
A goodly number (perhaps 70%?) are waiting on nominator feedback. The majority of the remaining articles are waiting for the reviewer to give feedback. Perhaps two are waiting for a complete review, including one that I cannot do. (hopefully DYK is somewhat stable right now) Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that since the QPQ system began, there has far too much reliance on (and deference to) the first reviewer of a nomination. Rather than waiting for that first reviewer (who may be trekking through the Himalayas right now, for all we know) to reappear, or expecting that person to resolve all issues, other contributors can examine the situation. Similarly, the nominator is not the only person qualified to fix the problems identified by reviewers. Sometimes reviewers raise irrelevant concerns (a phenomenon that has become more common with QPQ, as well as from Tony1's template that has induced reviewers to worry about things as irrelevant as hyphen and dash format in the article) that can be dismissed via a second opinion, and in other cases the issue with an article or hook can be resolved fairly quickly by a DYKer (for example, sometimes issues are attributable to the article creator being a non-native speaker of English, and can be resolved easily by someone with native facility in the language). Older DYK noms often can be daunting to read through, but I've often found it rewarding to play "fresh reviewer" and resolve old issues by repairing articles, rewriting hooks, etc. --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
That is probably true; I will take a look at some of the hanging noms (although I cannot do anything with the double nom for the Sulawesi terrorist attacks as it was my nomination). Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Orlady, why are you accusing me of inducing people to "worry" about typography? It raises several problematic issues: first, that concern about typography is bad in the first place; second, that DYK articles don't deserve proper treatment before they're exposed on the main page—but rather should be assumed to be mediocre, to lack much care or thought; and third, that the checklist aspects for which there is now strong consensus induce people to worry about details. Really, this is the stuff of second-hand clothing shops. Tony (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This dichotomizing is ridiculous. One reason it is good to have more than one person look at an article is that people vary in what they care about or even notice. Dash format is not very important to most; if it is important to you, Tony, you should fix it when you review an article, the way someone else commonly adds metric/Imperial conversion templates, and the way I usually fix typos and comma flaws that many other readers demonstrably miss. The second-hand clothing shops metaphor demonstrates the black/white thinking involved in the accusation about assuming mediocrity: clothes in such shops were sufficiently well made to be re-sellable, and in any case are by definition not analogous to new articles; insofar as they are analogous to expanded articles, that's a point of praise not of rejection. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
A simple proposition: DYK articles need not be, and indeed should not be, perfect. They are a start, not an end point, so there is no need to insist on the highest standards as you would in the case of a featured article (if you consider FA to be an end point). Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Such issues are trivial but not irrelevant. Bringing these to the attention to nominators and fellow reviewers alike heightens awareness. Tony, I and others do go around making such stylistic fixes; people have built scripts that do the job. If we were to do these silently in the background, then a)newer contributors may not be aware that there are 'house' ways of doing things b)there may be an increased reliance on others to execute what is an essentially simple task that can be built into one's routine, using those simple tools. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
No one is saying these issues are not irrelevant. People are saying they are not DYK criteria and thus articles shouldn't be rejected or put on hold for, e.g., punctuation problems (unless the problems are so egregious they make it difficult to read the article). There's nothing wrong with pointing out these problems to article writers, but they shouldn't be a mandatory part of the review and they shouldn't be a basis for rejecting nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Translation: let crap through onto the main page? BTW, I think your triple-negative is the opposite of your intended meaning. Tony (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • corrected rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • No, not at all. I agree with Rjanag's point. Having a few stylistic errors in an article does not make it "crap". God knows I've made enough such errors, and I don't think anyone would call my articles crap. If an article has so many errors that it's painful to read then of course it needs fixing before being allowed onto the Main Page, but issues such as minor grammatical errors, missing commas or using hyphens instead of en dashes – all mistakes that I've made – do not make an article "crap". Remember, we're not asking for featured article quality here! Using perfect style is simply not a reasonable requirement for DYKs, and isn't required of any other Main Page content other than FAs. I fail to see why DYK should be singled out this way. Prioryman (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • (ec, @Tony) In response to your first question: no matter how much you may care about MOSDASH, articles that (for example) use hyphens instead of ndashes or things like that are not crap. Articles with plagiarism or copyvio are crap, articles with severe NPOV issues are usually crap, articles without references are usually crap. Articles that have minor MOS issues but are still legible are imperfect; they are not "crap". One of the reasons communication is repeatedly breaking down at this page is that you and some other editors have a habit of belittling others' contributions by insinuating that any article which doesn't meet every minute style guideline is worthless garbage. It's important to realize the difference between article problems that are serious problems for the encyclopedia and those that are just minor problems. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
      • ^^ This. Yes, exactly. Tony, I appreciate that you sincerely want to improve DYK but quite honestly you need to look at this in perspective. The current discussions began over issues of copyvio, plagiarism, missing references and NPOV problems in DYKs. Those are significant threats to Wikipedia's integrity. Missing punctuation is not. It simply isn't. From your perspective as a professional editor I'm sure it's a big deal, but the only place on Wikipedia where the minutiae of style are mandatory requirements is FA. It simply isn't necessary for the purposes of DYK or any other Main Page content, nor should it be. The Main Page is not a showcase and never has been. Prioryman (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Actually, the Main Page follows obscure Manual of Style guidelines pretty well, because I edit it myself for that purpose. But I don't try to make anyone else do it. Art LaPella (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Good for you. But my point stands that it is not mandatory for anything other than FA. Nobody is making you or anyone else do that MoS implementation work, after all. Prioryman (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
            • My style philosophy is that either we have a guideline or we don't. If you want Wikipedia to follow the Manual of Style, then do unto others as you would have others do unto you. If not, then do unto others as Tony did unto you. That is, edit the Manual of Style to restrict it to featured articles, or to whatever level of authority the consensus decrees. Either way, the rules should match the real world.
            • Of course we shouldn't reject a nomination for something the reviewer can fix in seconds, and that the nominator is unlikely to understand! The old DYK consensus on simple corrections (to hooks, in this case) is described at paragraph 2 here. Art LaPella (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Interesting how dashes and hyphens are used to beat people over the head. "Crap", in my usage, involves the full gamut, not hyphens and dashes. And no, we're not insisting on FA standards, or my reviews would be much more time-consuming. Tony (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sukarno image on main page now

Per this report, it appears that the image currently in use is a fair-use image. As a quick fix I just removed the image. If we want an image in the current update, someone will need to find an eligible, approved lede hook (preferably from one of the prep areas, to avoid messing up queues that are already ready) and put it here. I think that's probably not necessary since this update will be over soon anyway; we can maybe just let it run with no image. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Any explanation how this image is fair use? Materialscientist (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand it myself, but File:Presiden Sukarno dyk.jpg does have a template that seems to say the image is pretty much copyrighted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if there is some template confusion going on here. The local image (which I linked above) includes a template saying the image is copyrighted. The version on commons that it's derived from, File:Presiden Sukarno.jpg, includes a template which is nearly identical but says the image is in public domain. It seems that {{PD-IDGov}} creates different output here than it does on Commons. The version here was recently changed by User:Zscout370 ([7]). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is bloody inconvenient that some templates are not uniform between en.wiki and Commons [8], and some wiki image templates are not updated copyright-wise as they are at Commons. I don't want to make drastic moves at {{PD-IDGov}}, but am thinking it should be updated (so as {{PD-Italy}}, etc). Materialscientist (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
When the picture is on the main page is certainly not the best time to find out that the templates are different. However, the {{PD-IDGov}} template is not protected on Wikipedia, so we could copy the Commons template over it, if there is consensus. This conversation was not the best thing to wake up to <headlights>Deer</headlights>Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • For a quick fix on the main page, the hook about the shells in Liverpool had a nice image. You could move that hook to the top and put its image in there; move the Sukarno hook lower on the list. Nominations page with hook picture for shells The trumpet worm seen inside or outside of its tube

'*hook... that in Liverpool Bay, the white furrow shell, the transparent razor shell and the trumpet worm (pictured) live side by side beneath the sand? Sharktopus talk 23:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I thought everyone was in agreement that the image is PD, but the current {{PD-IDGov}} on Wikipedia is misleading. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Uggg

Is there any reason that block of unreadable gobbledygook as to be at the *top* of the new nom pages? I didn't think it would be possible to make these things harder to edit, but youch! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It makes the links (e.g., "review or comment", "back to T:TDYK", etc.). The former link is necessary for technical reasons to make it possible to reach the nom page from T:TDYK, and the latter link was requested above. I'm still working on trying to get it into a template that is more concise, but I think it will still be more than one line long. The "gobbledygook" shouldn't affect your editing the page because it's automatically generated and you never need to touch it, and I even put in a line saying "don't edit above here". rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I just edited the template to reduce concerns about "gobbledygook". Here is an example of the new format. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Kudos Rjanag, that is much improved! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unable to edit the new template from the article's talk page; links to T:TDYK instead. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I think I probably know why that is. Can you give me an example of one that's having this problem so I can fiddle with it? rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

New nomination template

I see this template under preparation. Can someone explain why it contains no checklist for reviewing? Tony (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not new and it's not "under preparation"; it's the same template that's been in use since early 2009. Naturally there have been some recent changes to it as a result of implementing the new subpage system. The changes I just made tonight are described in more detail at #Are daily archives needed? above.
As for why it includes no review checklist, this issue has been discussed ad nauseum already. See in particular my explanation at #Moving toward consensus on improvements to WP:DYK, where I declined another user's request to add my checklist to the template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
A review checklist is needed in the nomination template. Otherwise, another RfC is required to reverse the recent decision by the community. Can we have a timeline for action, please? Tony (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
A review checklist will be added when there is one that has consensus. I have been working pretty darn hard trying to make a checklist that works for everyone. This all in an atmosphere where most of the editors are so busy tearing out one another's throats that few people will take any time to give me feedback when I repeatedly ask for feedback about how we should be designing these features that the DYK community supposedly wants. I will continue trying to make some sort of workable checklist or reviewing guide, but I cannot make any promises about any timeline. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a timeline for action would be a good idea at this point. I'm afraid I've got a bit lost as to where things stand with a review checklist. Rjanag, can you give a quick update on where things stand at the moment? What is the current proposal? Prioryman (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's the current state of play. First of all, we need to get the mess at T:TDYK cleaned up. As I understand it, the date archiving method that was being implemented has been dropped. I'm just waiting for Rjanag's go ahead before I delete all the unwanted links and instructions.

Next, I will want to see what T:TDYK looks like at that point so I can get an idea of what the next step is.

In regards to the checklist template, a poll was started to try and determine which of Rjanag's two templates had more support, but it attracted few respondents and unfortunately most of them !voted for an option which didn't exist so no clear preference was demonstrated. At that point, Rjanag suggested to me that we make the two templates optional, as in the GAN system, which seemed like a good idea to me. Making them optional will give us a chance to test both before concluding how they might be likely to effect the current running of the process, particularly at T:TDYK. To put it another way, I'm suggesting a trial period where the checklists are used on some noms but not all of them.

Once we have determined that the checklists are not unduly burdening the system, we will have to make a decision about how to implement them (and possibly, which of the two to implement if we aren't going to present them as a choice). We could leave them as an option, or we could make them compulsory for QPQ reviewers only, or we could make them compulsory for everyone except the highly experienced regulars, or we could make them compulsory for everyone. So there's a range of options. Personally, I think I would like to see them run purely as an option for a while; it might be that they are adopted naturally, which would be much more preferable because it would confirm that they are functional and popular.

Oh, somewhere in there, we will have to determine exactly what fields the checklists will contain, because that hasn't been finalized yet either. So you can see there is still a lot to do, and unfortunately it's taking a long time to do it because much of it has been left to Rjanag and myself, and we often seem to be online at different times. In particular it's been difficult to determine levels of support for the various options when there are so few participants in the discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I confess that I've been as guilty of neglecting the discussion as everyone else. To be honest I've been put off by the vituperative nature of the discussion. Might I suggest that the options discussion be moved to a subpage with any offtopic material archived, so that regular DYK stuff and all the bickering can be kept at arm's length? Prioryman (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Put off? That makes two of us. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Matsu in Prep 2

"...was the first Asian American student at The College of William & Mary, the first Asian American quarterback in the NFL and the first Japanese coach in American football?" He can't be both Asian American and Japanese. He could be Japanese if he wasn't naturalised but that would mean he wasn't an Asian American. The article doesn't say he was naturalised, but it does say he was born in Glasgow to Scottish and Japanese parents, so he was only half Japanese at most. Perhaps he was the first half Scottish, half Japanese student at W&M. Yomanganitalk 02:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at one of the article sources from 1926 whose headline is "College picks Jap to captain football team." The text states, "He is the first Oriental to be honored with the captaincy of an American football team." Quite a few of the contemporaneous references call him a "Jap." I did not see a statement about his nationality changing from Scottish and/or Canadian to US, but he died in Arizona at the age of 83. He certainly seems like a remarkable person, is there some way you would suggest changing the terminology to make it acceptable? Sharktopus talk 02:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at this again, what about some other possible hooks that don't use the problematic descriptor "Asian-American"? It is in Queue now so I can't touch it. ALT ... that Arthur Matsu, whose mother was Scottish and whose father was Japanese, was described in 1926 as "the first Oriental to be honored with the captaincy of an American college football team"? Sharktopus talk 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
A person doesn't have to be a naturalized U.S. citizen to be an Asian American. Matsu is of Japanese descent (a Japanese father), moved to Cleveland as a young child, and lived in the US for his entire life. It is entirely accurate to refer to him as an Asian American when he attended Wm & Mary and when he played in the NFL. So the first two elements of the hook are clearly supported. As to the third element, you have a point. The source does describe him as "Japanese" but probably should have said "Japanese-American." Also, Sharkto's alt hook uses a term "Oriental" that many today might consider offensive. If the hook needs to be modified, I suggest simply dropping the third element so that it reads "...was the first Asian American student at The College of William & Mary and the first Asian American quarterback in the NFL" Cbl62 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree "Oriental" is now considered offensive. Perhaps even in quotation marks and localized to a 1926 usage, it would be offensive, in which case I apologize for suggesting it. Sharktopus talk 15:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
See this excerpt from the article on Asian Americans: "For example, restricting American to include only U.S. citizens conflicts with discussions of Asian American businesses, which generally refer both to citizen and non-citizen owners." Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Cbl62's solution is better than mine; would some admin kindly "make it so"? Sharktopus talk 15:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem with template novelties

I just created a prep (prep 2) but the articles I promoted from T:TDYK seem to have responded in novel ways to their promotion. In the past, a promoted article's title remained on the page with a notation that it had been promoted. This time instead ...

  • Twittering Machine, Thlaspi californicum, Robin Dunne, Arthur Matsu, and Ratón have disappeared.
  • Jeanne L. Noble: still on page but with a spare close-curly-bracket afterward

I am assuming this is a new feature not a new bug, but I also can't figure out what I did wrong with Jeanne Noble. Sharktopus talk 02:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The first thing is indeed intentional; I got comments from several users saying that the leftover links were undesirable (I don't think there was a single discussion of this in one place, it's just been here and there) so I got rid of that; now, articles should disappear when promoted/rejected, so I don't think you did anything wrong there.
As for Jeanne L. Noble, I imagine someone screwed something up on the nom page somewhere along the line which then caused it not to get archived properly when you promoted it; I'll take a look. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem was simpler than I thought; here's where that parenthesis was coming from.
There have been a lot of changes to the template during the past few days, and articles were still being nominated while those changes were happening. so as a result you are going to be seeing several different nomination formats on the page until the older ones are gone. There are a few noms like Jeanne Noble that, after promoted, will leave a header but no "promoted by ~~~", but newer noms will leave nothing at all when promoted. Likewise, the list of links at the top of new noms (article history, edit nom, review or comment, etc.) has gone through some changes so you'll see various ones. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for all the work you are doing on this. Might I suggest that you create a page (that I would be willing to watch) for soliciting feedback (when you want it) on template changes? I do have this page on my watchlist, but it covers so much different material of so many different kinds, it is hard to keep track of the bits I could usefully follow. My time for Wikipedia is limited these days, and I am trying to be a good citizen here making preps, but I would also be willing to spend time looking at what you have asked for feedback on. Although really my belief is that you should just start use-testing whatever you have and get feedback from a larger and more informed group who have failure-tested stuff. Sharktopus talk 03:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess Template talk:NewDYKnomination could be used for this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding an image to an active nomination

Is it possible to add an image to a nomination that has been started already? I'd like to add this image to this nomination, but don't know how to do that without breaking things. bamse (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I added it, although you will still need to add a caption, and this image doesn't show up well at DYK size (you'd be better of cropping out a square part of it). Maybe someday I'll write up instructions for adding images, authors, etc. later on. In the meantime, it's fine to just add the image lower down in the nomination; the people who put together updates to the main page will know how to format the image. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I cropped it a bit and added an image caption. bamse (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Inochentism (queue 3)

There is no suggestion that this sect worships angels, and more than other Christians do. Conflation of Michael the Archangel and Michael of Russia does not, therefore, equate to worship. Equally, the only example claimed of homage paid to the Romanovs, or someone disguised as such, is hedged with "allegedly", indicating doubt. Honour paid to people, even if expressed in extreme ways, is not the same as worship in the context of Christianity. Kevin McE (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I read "worship" as one of its many general uses for exaggerated idealization and deference, but I agree that it could be misread. What about instead "... that, even though it mainly included Romanian peasants, the breakaway Inochentist church believed that Russia's Romanov dynasty was descended from the Archangel Michael?" or "... that, even though it mainly included Romanian peasants, the breakaway Inochentist church made a cult of Russia's Romanov dynasty, believing it descended from the Archangel Michael?" Sharktopus talk 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
That is a synthesis of a belief (Michael of Russia is identified with Archangel Michael) with a historical fact (Michael of Russia was progenitor of the Romanovs) that is not supported: I see no claim that the Romanovs were claimed as "sons of an angel". Suggest "... that, even though it mainly included Romanian peasants, the breakaway Inochentist Church (note: name of denomination, capital C) believed that Russia's Tsar Michael was really the Archangel Michael?" Kevin McE (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

William Caldwell (queue 4)

I would be fairly confident in asserting that this man actually wrote one "editorial column, exactly 85 lines long, six days a week for 41 years": 72,000 columns a week would be an unreasonable expectation. Kevin McE (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who approved this hook. I saw the grammatical ambiguity but thought people would understand he wasn't writing 72,000 columns a week. That said, I've now tweaked the wording in queue to make it clearer. Cbl62 (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Raton

The "terrible Mouse" hook in queue 5 might be ok for April Fool's Day, but not for every-day usage. I suggest using the alt 1 hook that had been approved as more straightforward. Cbl62 (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The initial capital on "Mouse" and adding the weight makes it clear enough that the referent is something named "Mouse." The hook is not deceptive. IMO this is a judgment call not a policy problem. Sharktopus talk 14:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I stalled over this one on first reading as well: while the nickname is acceptable, it is a nickname and should be presented as such. It is not one of a number of terrible mice, so the indefinite article is inappropriate: the rather than a is needed. If we are selecting a translation of one of several Spanish names, then we must translate it as a name, and therefore a capitalised proper noun: The Terrible Mouse, not a terrible Mouse Kevin McE (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The initial capital on "Mouse" does help, but the use of the indefinite article "a" (rather than "the") injects a deceptive element. The animal's nicknames is "the terrible Mouse," not "a terrible Mouse." I'll go ahead and insert the more accurate definite article "the" into the hook. Cbl62 (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree this is a good improvement; thanks! Sharktopus talk 14:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Verifiability issue: the link to this particular nickname returns "página no encontrada" (page not found). Kevin McE (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "Ratón is the title of the article and the nickname of the bull, it means "mouse." Page found [9] refers to bull as "El toro Ratón". There is no need to use the different nickname "The Terrible Mouse" if bull's nickname is in fact "Mouse." Sharktopus talk 15:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • As for the article not-found, its title at least can be found here; the title of the article is "El terrible 'Ratón' se cobra una nueva víctima." Note position of single quotes in the title. The bull's nickname is "Ratón". "El terrible" is a descriptor being applied to it, not part of the nickname itself. Sharktopus talk 15:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I can see the rationale behind quote marks, so I've included them, but only bolded the word "Mouse" since as Sharktopus noted above, the "terrible" isn't exactly part of the bull's name. Gatoclass (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, just to correct one point, "Ratón" is the bull's actual name, not its nickname. There's a tradition of giving fighting bulls whimsical names. But the change to the hook is fair enough. Prioryman (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed hook I approved/reviewed in Q1

For transparency sake, I wanted to state that I had changed the hook in Q1 that will appear on the main page in less than two hours from the original nomination hook to the approved and vetted ALT1 hook [10] that I had reviewed (see Template talk:Did you know/3rd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment (United States)). If I over-reached and should have waited till after I posted, please feel free to trout. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a problem to me. (Sorry for making a mistake, here's something for both of us) Rainbow trout.pngWhack! Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Calmer Waters 05:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I have pulled the article from the queue. Apart from the fact that the references are unformatted, the article names two medals referred to in the hook that were apparently won in the Vietnam War, but the article states that the unit was formed in 1986, 20 years later. The anomaly has to be addressed before the article can be promoted. I did try to return the article to T:TDYK, but I can't figure out how to do so under the new system. Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I remember wondering if the credits were units awards automatically claimed because of their attachment to the regiment or brigade (another battalion also has the same award streamers). Good catch on the date of formation. I am troubled that I had missed that correlation. Calmer Waters 06:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I have notified the creator of this discussion. The article has also now been restored to T:TDYK. Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead image in prep2

seems risky to me because there is no clear evidence the image was published in 1938. Bluntly put, an AGF-lacking admin might simply pull it off. Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, as the link does not or no longer confirms it. What if I upload another and crop it, such as from here http://www.vivabrazil.com/vivabrazil/dorival_caymmi.htm. Kindly Calmer Waters 05:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Updated/changed image. Calmer Waters 05:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, not bulletproof, but seems Ok to me. I actually recovered that link [11] about the time I posted this. Materialscientist (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Grapevine DYKs

See my comment at Talk:Temasek Review Emeritus#Huh?. Speculation about future events should generally not be considered DYK-worhty, even if sourced, even more so for politically-related events. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not speculation if the person who runs a website says the website is going to shut down and reports that in a reliable source. Maybe the situation changed unexpectedly, but that's not DYK's fault. Anyway, this DYK was from May, so I don't see what you hope to accomplish by complaining about it here (other than more trolling). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Not impeccable, but Yahoo! News is certainly a reliable source. cmadler (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Created by" and "Nominated by" in the template

Resolved: rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I keep seeing nominations like this, where the same person is listed under "Created by" and "Nominated by", and DYKmake and DYKnom templates are both created. This isn't supposed to happen, as there are instructions all over the place saying not to list oneself as the "nominator" unless one isn't also the primary author of the article. Plus, as far as I know it shouldn't be possible, because I put stuff in the {{NewDYKnom}} template to turn "Nominated by ..." into "Self nom" when |nominator= (or {{REVISIONUSER}}, the name of the editor posting the article) is the same as the |author=.

So in short, I have no idea what people are putting into the template to make this appear; every time I try to recreate it I can't. I used to think it was happening because people were pasting other noms' code directly rather than using the template, but I'm not so sure anymore.

If anyone here has noticed this happen in your own noms and remembers just how you filled out the template when it happened, could you please let me know? Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Try for instance Example 1 from the current template documentation, and see what happens:
{{subst:NewDYKnom | article=Test | hook=... that '''[[Test]]'''? | status=new }} Oceanh (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that must be it! Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Now it will default to "Self nom" in that situation (when |author= isn't supplied). I had totally forgotten that the template did stuff when |author= wasn't supplied. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)