Misplaced Pages

talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:46, 30 November 2011 editTCO (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,977 edits →C. A. Patrides (currently in prep area 3): get over it and run it.← Previous edit Revision as of 04:19, 30 November 2011 edit undoArt LaPella (talk | contribs)Administrators62,774 edits →C. A. Patrides (currently in prep area 3): personal attack removedNext edit →
Line 420: Line 420:
::<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 02:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC) ::<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 02:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


the article is fine. I looked it over as described. Don't feel any need to add some special disclaimer to my comments. You all can take that or leave it. Oh...and go read the talk page if you don't think I read the sources and the article. motherfuckers, doubting me. Sheesh. this place is so gotcha lame. Just get over it and run the thing. I knew there would be some little attempt at me...and just left the window open anyway, cause I really don't care if someone on this site calls me a liar. I know very, very few of you would do it to my face.] (]) 03:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) the article is fine. I looked it over as described. Don't feel any need to add some special disclaimer to my comments. You all can take that or leave it. Oh...and go read the talk page if you don't think I read the sources and the article. {{Nono}}, doubting me. Sheesh. this place is so gotcha lame. Just get over it and run the thing. I knew there would be some little attempt at me...and just left the window open anyway, cause I really don't care if someone on this site calls me a liar. I know very, very few of you would do it to my face.] (]) 03:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


== Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien Hannover == == Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien Hannover ==

Revision as of 04:19, 30 November 2011

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main PageT:DYK
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut
Archiving icon
Archives

Index no archives yet (create)


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


DYK queue status

There are currently 6 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Current time: 13:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 12 hours

Last updated: 76 minutes ago( )


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

2011 DYK reform proposals

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

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

Old nominations awaiting review - 19 Nov

The following articles have been waiting for over two weeks for a review:

I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Samoilă Mârza which I found - to my surprise - under Special occasions. To my understanding only reviewed articles should be there, I would never have looked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

violet/riga  11:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough with 2-sports-hooks in each set

It's time to suspend the current practice of inserting two sports hooks into each set of six. The noms page is becoming depleted of sports hooks! --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hülfensberg credit?

As stated above (hook older than 2 weeks 19 November), Stuffo and Hülfensberg were a double nom. Somewhere between Template:Did you know nominations/Hülfensberg and the appearance on the Main page (now) the bolding and credit for the mountain got lost, can that be changed please. It can't be changed that the mountain never received a review. I would have approved it if I had noticed that it was missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The hook is no longer on the Main page, and while it was there the Hülfensberg link was never made bold. The appearance of a non-bold link on the Main page does not disqualify an article from DYK, and Hülfensberg should be renominated with a new hook (and an explanation of the apparent lateness – perhaps a link to this discussion). Note that the original nomination was submitted properly, with both articles in bold, and no hook without Hülfensberg in bold was ever suggested. The article was not rejected; it was simply never reviewed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds eminently fair. I'm afraid I am a slow reviewer with limited time; I made time to review Stuffo when I saw its content but had to leave Hülfensberg for someone else. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
New nomination page created: Template:Did you know nominations/Hülfensberg 2. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Review started, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

<--You all are too nice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Japanese climbing fern (Q6)

The fern is not sentient, and lacks self-awareness. Anything it does, it does inadvertently. I assume the author's intention was to say that it may become an unintended fuel ladder. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

K-143 (Kansas highway) (Q6)

I'm afraid we can't use this hook:

... that despite being a four-lane divided highway, K-143 (sign pictured) is not part of the U.S. National Highway System?

This is hardly unique ... many four-lane divided highways all over the United States are not part of the U.S. Highway System, by which I would imagine we also include the interstates (Taconic State Parkway, Ohio State Route 11, Pennsylvania Route 33, New York State Route 17, most of California State Route 99, among others).

As Bencherlite admitted when okaying this hook, he did not have the full expertise to judge whether this was unusual enough to be hook-worthy. Anyone at WP:USRD, if consulted, would have quickly explained this. This isn't DYK, this is DUH.

We will need another hook, if one can be found. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's often a challenge to find a reasonable hook for road articles. I guess we could go with something like " ... that the 4.6-mile (7.6 km) long Kansas highway K-143 is composed of three different pavement types?" But I'm not sure that's any better. Gatoclass (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I know what you mean (of all the road articles I've worked on, I could only find a DYK-worthy hook for Interstate 84 in New York (... that a helicopter once crashed on Interstate 84 in New York, stopping traffic and causing a power outage?)). The roadgeeks try very hard, though, and I think this one might be interesting if rephrased thus:

... that state highway K-143 (shield, pictured) near Salina, Kansas, uses three different types of pavement on its 4.6 miles (7.4 km)? Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your alt reads nicely, I'd go with that one. Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done . Thanks for your help. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Point of information: the hook was approved by The Bushranger, not by me: as is clear from my comment (diff above), I could not say whether the hook was DYK-worthy and left it to those with knowledge of the US highway system to decide. Bencherlite 09:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Harris Switch Tower (Q5)

For this hook I (ahem) switched in the proposed ALT1 from the nomination, which should have been used as the hook as the original hook ("... that the interlocking at Harris Switch Tower still controls trains in the 1940s?") was so poorly worded as to make no sense. The ALT1 made sense. Did the admin who moved that hook into the queue actually look at it? It would have been horrible if that had made the front page.

Also, a hook that short, about a subject with a specific geographic location, should have that location in it. So I put Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in the hook. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Stray text on noms page

The October 27 section of the noms page is now blank, except for a stray comment that was formerly associated with Template:Did you know nominations/Sha'ab, Israel. I can't find the comment to edit it -- it must be hiding somewhere in Template Limbo! --Orlady (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It was actually in Template:Did you know nominations/Rube DeGroff (a new reviewer wrote below the "Please do not write below this line" line). I moved the comment to its proper place and removed the completed October 27 section. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
But then I wondered, "why did Orlady think it was from the Sha'ab, Israel nomination?" I happened to have a window open which displayed the nominations page prior to the time that hook was moved to Prep, and sure enough, the comment with a user verifying the Rube DeGroff hook was shown at the end of the Sha'ab, Israel hook, making it erroneously appear that the user was verifying the Sha'ab, Israel hook instead. So that hook never did receive final approval. I've undone my removal of the section, and I'll go remove the hook from Prep and restore it as an active nomination. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The plot thickens. I assumed that the review was for this hook, but figured it needed to be verified, so I reviewed the nom myself, decided it was acceptable, and moved it to the queue -- based on my approval. Since someone else was already identified as having approved it, I didn't go in and add a second indication of approval, thinking it would be redundant to do so. Now I guess I need to document my approval... --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Point Blank (Q6)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I do believe "is one of several songs that deals" is not proper English. I think it should be "that deal". Dahn (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

George Kelly (Q6)

As I understand the article, he never did play basketball with O'Connell. "However, Kelly had not played in any games at that point. He was removed from the roster and thus avoided suspension by MLB." Nothing therefore happened to him "after playing basketball with" O'Connell. Kevin McE (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the hook is OK. The hook says he was nearly suspended "for playing basketball", not "after playing basketball". Since he ultimately didn't play basketball with O'Connell (at least not on the team), he didn't get suspended for playing basketball with him, but it came close to happening... --Orlady (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
My mistake above. Nevertheless, I think that the hook would very easily give the impression that he did, and so is misleading. He was threatened with suspension had he played with O'Connell. Kevin McE (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I still don't find it misleading, particularly considering that it would appear (from my reading of George Kelly (baseball) and cited sources) that merely associating with Jimmy O'Connell was potential grounds for suspension. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Old nominations awaiting review - 26 Nov

The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks. I thought we might have a smaller list this week but it's quite a long one...

Reviewing DYK

I was going to ask "What happens to older nominations that nobody reviews?", but I see from the previous post that they do not get forgotten and abandoned. It seems to me that since the introduction of the rule requiring self-nominators to review other articles, other Wikipedians have largely stopped reviewing. This is a pity.

You might like to consider requiring self-nominators to review 2 articles for a time until the backlog is largely cleared. This would help, but you really need to get more people reviewing, though how this is to be done I am not sure. I have done a few today, anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

John Thornton Augustine Washington in prep 1 (now Q5)

The hook here is not something that can be supported. Yes, the citations indicate that someone in 1905 decided that this would have been the case were certain assumptions applied to the question, and this thinking was copied by someone in 1951. It is not the consensus of historians, but rather is just something that appeared in a couple of popular magazine articles over a century after the fact based on the whims of the authors. At a minimum it needs qualifiers, but it would be better not to use this at all. Since the US was never a monarchy, it never had rules of inheritance for the title, and this is all alternative history crystal ballism that is of dubious value in the article itself and no value as a DYK hook. Agricolae (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is now in Q5. Someone please replace it so an alternative hook can be developed. (Let em express my concern by analogy. This would be like someone saying, had Al Gore been ruled winner of the 2000 Presidential election, Obama wouldn't now be president. I am sure if you look hard enough you can find a magazine article that makes that argument, but we wouldn't want an entry 'DYK . . . that Barack Obama wouldn't be President had Al Gore won the 2000 election." It would be taking one person's hypothetical counter-factual speculation about alternative historical outcomes and giving it the appearance of undisputed fact. That is basically what this hook is doing.) Agricolae (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I edited the hook to say: ...that it has been suggested that John Thornton Augustine Washington would have succeeded his great uncle George Washington as "king" if the United States had been a monarchy? --Orlady (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Reflections of a returning reviewer

Hello all. I recently started reviewing DYK's again, not having done so since last spring. A couple of impressions:

The new Nom sub-pages:

Excellent work on getting these going. They make watchlisting a review feasible, and provide a good record. A definite improvement.

The focus on close paraphrase:

Now, I realize that this is a contentious issue, and I don't bring this up just to instigate another heated debate here. I'm looking for a way to improve the current situation. So, first, I agree that copy/paste articles have no place here. They need to be weeded out, and their authors admonished. Close paraphrase is a bit more complicated. Many of our writers do not come from academic backgrounds. Their understanding of what constitutes a "good" paraphrase, and what is close and "bad", isn't always strong. But I am seeing an insistence in the reviews of a complete absence of any closeness at all. This would be appropriate for GA/FA review, where most contributors do have academic experience and understand the vagaries of C.P.

So what to do? I have no wish for us to just let the egregious close paraphrasing slide. If an author has copy/pasted and pulled out the thesaurus in a attempt to hide it, this is not original work and should not be rewarded. These cases should be sent to the copyright team. But most of the cases I've run across are more nuanced than this. We need to discuss what to do with these cases.

The "DYK Removed" page

I recently became aware of this page, then noticed with no small amount of embarrassment that three of my recent reviews are listed here. One of these, Károly Ferenczy was an egregious case, and I'm glad it was caught. But the other two fall into the nuanced category, imo. Anyways, I bring this up to determine the point of the page (is it a "Wall of Shame", intended to guilt people into reviewing better? or does it have another purpose I've not yet divined?) and note that, for this reviewer anyway, it is negative reinforcement. And lacking any positive reinforcement for reviewing DYK's (aside from the odd thank you from a polite nom), I can't see how in practice this is going to improve the quality of reviews. It will simply dis-incentivize what is already a thankless job.

This is probably tl:dr already, so I'll cut it short. Just looking for some feedback on these issues. The Interior (Talk) 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of notes.
  • Close paraphrasing - I actually think we've gotten a lot better with this one. NikkiMaria especially is very good at picking these up and actually working with editors (rather than shaming them about it) to fix the issues. I think they're being dealt with in good faith, though perhaps we should make it clearer when posting what our standards for close paraphrasing are and perhaps link to the duplicator detector for extra support?
  • DYK Removed page - I agree not only with your above statements but also with the idea that we're close to fostering a culture of blame here. Of course there should be accountability when someone has screwed up, but we still need to AGF and try to not highlight editors names in a 'wall of shame'-esque way. There are hundreds of articles to review and if you're prolific you're bound to miss something, that's just a natural error rate, not deliberate negligence. However, I would say that the current system allows us to evaluate the contributions of individual editors, which in turn allows us to teach people when they are consistently erring. This can only be a good thing. We just have to be nice about it. Panyd 18:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

See my general response below on the alleged "shaming", but on copyvio, not practical to just leave it to the copyvio folks. First, there aren't enough of them, they simply can't deal with it all and those resources should be reserved for the worst cases; and second, why open a CCI (investigation) on someone who has only offended once-- that is really overkill, and would be damaging, and generally education is all that is needed. See MRG's piece at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-09-05/Opinion essay. There is nothing about detecting close paraphrasing and copyvio that can't be handled by most reviewers with less than 10 minutes, and educating offenders is best done on the first occurrence, without opening a big embarrassing investigation after they've gone on to create hundreds of copyvios, which is the history of several of the hall of fame DYKers. If DYK reviewers really got serious about detecting copyvio et al (rather than leaving all of the work to Nikkimaria), I suspect it could turn its reputation around in under a month, and really be a great first stop for educating new editors in how to become better editors all round. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Sandy and I think NikkiMaria's model of doing things is one that we should all be emulating. However, how do we make that happen? Lots of us aren't as good at ferreting out close paraphrasing, and some people (though not I) disagree with Nikki's stringent standards. So a good way to go forward would be to set out clear standards as to what qualifies as close paraphrasing and why. You or Nikki would be best qualified to do that as it stands.
On another point, I don't think it's fair to insinuate DYKers aren't serious about detecting copyvio. I think many DYKers are either new editors with no idea how to look for them or old-hands with different standards to yourself or Nikki. Let's assume good faith please? Panyd 19:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not the best person to help lay out rough guidelines-- probably Moonriddengirl would be willing to work on that, you might ping her. The reason I probably can't help is that it's hard for me to understand what stops others from seeing it-- I read the article, read the source, see the problems, and I think that's the same approach Nikkimaria takes, so since others don't seem to understand that method, I'm not sure I can provide any helpful guidance. I do suggest pinging in Moonriddengirl if folks are serious enough now to put some guidelines in place here-- but I also see the problem of instruction creep if you do that, since that is already becoming a complaint here-- so maybe MRG could be enticed to put a general guideline somewhere else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy I feel the exact same way about blatant advertising, but you can't win over hearts and minds with abrasiveness and not all of us are as talented in that area as either of you. Thank you for the suggestion, I've mentioned it down the bottom for consensus gathering. Panyd 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't speak to the actual intentions of Tony1, SandyGeorgia, and Nikkimaria, but I can speak to their effect on me. I feel that the the personal integrity, intelligence, competence, and other personal qualities of DYK contributors and reviewers have been under persistent attack. The page Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Removed appears to me to be intended as a Hall of Shame for DYK reviewers (disclosure: after I discovered that page I did list a few items there in a good-faith effort to document quality control, but it does not appear to me to be serving any useful purpose) and the drama over items like Template:Did you know nominations/Dominica tea culture appears to be aimed at convincing people like me to either or both (1) crawl away in shame or (2) devote our time to activities that will be more satisfying than this has become. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Orlady, you've brought up some excellent issues and I do think there are wounds that need to be healed but on the other hand I think Sandy just made an excellent case for why she gets frustrated. That seems to me to be a very different thing from deliberately shaming people. If we can all agree that neither Sandy, Tony1 and Nikki nor the DYK community are acting in bad faith then we can move on to actually improve things here. Panyd 19:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Wiki, just like everyone and everyone else, reaps what it sows. You treat people like crap, you get crap back. PumpkinSky talk 19:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Or! And this might be a crazy idea, you can be the better person and extend an olive branch and move on. That requires cooperation on both sides but it's always worth a shot. Panyd 19:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Even better the other side does so, but I have already learned wiki is hopelessly broken and steadily goes more downhill. DYK issues are a mere reflection of larger symptoms. Just take a look thisaway>WT:RFA. PumpkinSky talk 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't make anyone do anything, so that's up to Sandy et. all if they feel others have been needlessly hurt. However, one problem at a time please! Panyd 20:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, doorbell rang, unexpected guests. @Orlady, I just can't think in terms of keeping a record of removals or archivals as being a cause for shame, since the culture of FAC is so different from that. Misplaced Pages is supposed to work on openness (although I've noticed increasingly more and more lately that WMF folks and others gravitate towards IRC, off-Wiki maillists, meetups-- other places where those views aren't clearly debated in the public eye, which is the only way I operate), and FAC has always had an archive of nominations that don't succeed, which lends to accountability and openness. If the "Removed" page is viewed as a cause for shame, then so is apparently Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations and everything done at WP:FAR. If folks are shamed or embarrassed at having their work reviewed, Misplaced Pages would be a very hard place for them to be and probably not a good fit, because that is exactly what Misplaced Pages is-- or is supposed to be-- about. We improve by having our work reviewed by others, and DYK is-- or can be-- a first port of call on educating new editors on Misplaced Pages policies. I sincerely hope no one has felt unnecessarily hurt by debating these issues, which should not be personalized (in particular I've noted your good work, so no offense was intended), but I'd also say that when you have multiple cases of repeat offenders that aren't dealt with, so that the cleanup chore can never happen and places a burden on the few copyvio people, then maybe those people (hundreds of DYKs later) do warrant whatever shame they may feel if they decide not to clean up after themselves. Personally, I think the highest level of respect goes to someone who recognizes they may need to learn more about close paraphrasing so they can write better articles, and just sets about doing that-- I don't see the discovery of close paraphrasing or copyvio issues as a cause for shame. To me, the cause for shame is that it was allowed to go on for so long here, and a very small handful of folks here resisted all efforts to improve the situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Removed, considering the large volume of DYKs and the short duration of their appearance on the main page, I can't see the purpose of maintaining a record for posterity of (for example), the fact that Template:Did you know nominations/Mexican tea culture was removed from the prep area on November 10 (and approved by Casliber a few days later, after repairs were made to the article) or that Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Harvester (H19) was pulled from the prep area due to contention about how much an article creator should be penalized for not successfully navigating the confusing process of transcluding a nomination. IMO, the effort that goes into creating the record exceeds the value of the record that is created. --Orlady (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
If you are opposed to recordkeeping, and there is no "buck stops here" directorate at DYK, then what is your proposal for avoiding another Billy Hathorn and others like him? DYK let that go on for years, until hundreds of copyvios were created (surely over several thousand in the top five DYKers); it's not fair that others have to clean up those copyvios, and there's no reason that he and others should have been able to be such long-time serial offenders except that there were no records and there was no one willing or able to say "enough". What's your alternate proposal? The participants change here so often, how is anyone to know if there's another repeat offender carving out a slot at the top of DYK's hall of fame? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't opening a CCI on the serial offender be the best path? Our mandate here isn't to root out serial problems, but vet articles for a main page appearance. Dealing with a unrepentant copyviolator is something best suited to a CCI/Topic ban. As you say, there's a revolving door here (as with the rest of WP).The Interior (Talk) 03:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The Interior, I'm not sure if you've been following lately (by that I mean, the last year and a half). DYK wasn't (apparently) even aware of the number of serial offenders it continued to put on the mainpage until others came over and told them. Hence, the need for records. You can't open a CCI when you don't even know of or acknowledge a problem, and since there is no "directorate" here-- in fact, since the participants change so often but the serial offenders continue-- how do you know when you have one if you have no records, no accountability, and no one in charge? The history has been, someone shows up at RFA mentioning their number of DYKs, outsiders (to DYK) look at their DYKs, see a problem, look at the history, see it's long-standing; or, someone new to DYK reviews a DYK, sees a problem, (that's how Hathorn was detected), others looks at the history, realizes it's been going on for years and no one here did a thing about it (because there was denial or lack of knowledge of copyvio). And we don't open a CCI for one or two offenses-- that's a waste of time. We open a CCI when there's a history-- for that, records help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I've (sort-of) been following the discussions here, with difficulty. There's been a lot of text! I'm afraid I still disagree with the position that DYK/Removed is the best way to solve the problem of serial violators. BTW, was there a discussion on DYK/Removed specifically that you recall? I can't seem to find it. As to other solutions - thinkin' on it. The Interior (Talk) 04:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The comparison of DYK/Removed to a the general archive system used by the other peer review processes is something we should look at. The "archived nominations" page for FA is neutrally worded, to start. It's not an attempt to root out endemic problems, but simply an archive. I've had a GA declined, and found the report a great resource for when I had time to get it up to a pass. However, DYK/Removed is not a general archive of failed nominations. It's a bit different. I'll be the first to admit I fall on the oversensitive side, so maybe I should just ignore it, and try to improve my close-paraphrase-spotting abilities. But I thought we should discuss it. These are the feelings of someone whose reviews are on the list, perhaps we could move toward a more neutral archiving system.

As to turning things around, I think we are making progress. But we have to work together to achieve something. I'm a bit worried that Nikkimaria's efforts are unsustainable, she's putting a lot of work in. When she returns something to the noms page, it often happens that the review is left up to her, so that she has six or seven rewrites to look at on a given day. She's sort of alone on a lot of reviews.

So maybe two things to look at would be: Resources for Writers: A collection of links to a) give them a reasonably-worded definition of what constitutes a close paraphrase, and b) a re-writing guide to let them know a straightforward way of improving their article. Resources for Reviewers: I know Nikkimaria has a good page of advice, and there are several tools. These could be transcluded on the nom sub-page to help out reviewers. It would be great if people like Nm could be a resource for reviewers to got to, rather than a "last line of defence" type role, which seems to be the case now.

So, sorry for bringing "shame" into the conversation, we should quickly move beyond it. The Interior (Talk) 02:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"DYK Removed" is not similar to the archiving of failed GAs and FAs. Firstly, every DYK nom now has its own template that survives forever, similar to an AfD, so a permanent record of the nomination would exist without this page. Secondly, as it is currently constituted, the "DYK Removed" page lists only those DYK noms that were reviewed, approved, moved into a prep area or queue, then pulled out and returned to the noms page. It does not include the many other noms that are reviewed and rejected for various reasons. Thus, the page does not document all failed noms; it documents only those cases where someone has second-guessed the reviewers. Thirdly, while a failed GA or FA is likely to be renominated someday, at which time the earlier record has value, it is exceedingly rare for a failed DYK to be eligible at some time in the distant future -- and anyway, most noms that get pulled from the queues end up being re-approved. Accordingly, it looks to me like the "DYK Removed" page exists mainly as a hall of shame for reviewers. As someone who has reviewed far more DYKs than I ever submitted myself, and who often wades in to try to resolve issues with noms that have been problematic, I consider the shaming of reviewers to be a significant disincentive to my continuing to contribute.
As for resources for writers and reviewers, it seems to me that this exists already in the form of pages like Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing and related pages. It's not obvious that there's a need for additional DYK-specific resources for this purpose. --Orlady (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about those situations where an author/nominator says, "okay, you've found some close paraphrasing. What do I do know?". I think a lot of us just don't have the time to give a detailed explanation of what needs to be done. The links would help there. My experience with linking WP:Close paraphrasing to people is the digital equivalent of blank stares. Re: DYK/Removed - agree. The Interior (Talk) 04:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that DYK/Removed is at all a "Hall of Shame" - I mean, if it was like "OMG user X missed the hugely obvious cut-and-paste section in this article, they're a terrible reviewer" I would understand, but the page is fairly neutral, and doesn't even name the reviewers involved, it's just a link to the nom page. I would compare it not to the FAC archive, but rather to the FAR archive: some noms are fixed and readded to queues (as was pointed out above), while others aren't. The reason I created the page was to address the concern about accountability raised by some commenters, not to shame reviewers. I'm sure we all understand that everyone makes mistakes, the point is that we should learn from our mistakes and move towards fixing the problems. If there's a consensus that something beyond WP:Close paraphrasing or similar is needed to explain the problem, I'd be happy to contribute to writing such a page. I already have a guide to reviewing for close paraphrasing and plagiarism. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your guide is a good resource and I benefited from reading it. We should link to it more prominently. I think the reason some reviewers (or at least Orlady and I) are reacting negatively towards this particular archive is because it emphasizes that these articles were approved, then found wanting by another editor. If we wanted a special archive to serve the purpose mentioned by Sandy above, it would have to include all the articles caught at the reviewing stage - those failed, withdrawn or rewritten.
We have to make sure that DYK is attractive place for editors with reviewing skills. I'm worried about the scenario where we don't have enough quality reviewers, more problematic stuff hits the main page, complaints rise, more people leave, general badness. Maybe I'm making too much of this, but I thought I'd put it out there. The Interior (Talk) 03:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Reflections of a long-time user

Hi all. You know me - I'm a current arbitrator and have been hanging around Misplaced Pages since about 2005. I work for one of the local Wikimedia chapters. I only ever write DYKs - the subjects I write about do not have the sources available to turn them into a GA, let alone a FA. A perfect example of this is HMS Glitter or HMS Richard Bacon - the closest I have ever got to GA is Fishery Protection Squadron, which was the result of a week, full time, spent at the British Library, researching everything they had on the subject.

My latest article is HMS Porcupine (G93). I was pleasantly surprised to see that it's eligible for DYK, which is unusual for articles I write. This is what happened after I decided to nominate it for DYK:

  1. I went to WP:DYK to nominate it.
  2. I spent about 20 minutes looking for a way to nominate it.
  3. I gave up and went to sleep.
  4. After sleeping, waking up, chilling out, then settling back down to editing, I tried to renominate it.
  5. I spent another 15 minutes looking for a way to nominate it.
  6. I called Panyd (talk · contribs) over (she lives with me) to help.
  7. I filled in the template as requested, posted it somewhere in the depths of a project somewhere, and now I sit back and wait, I guess?

Is there any chance we could just have a big button that says "Nominate this article for DYK"? At present, it's needlessly complex: there are complex rules, complex templates, and complex requirements that seem to be filtering over from the FA process. My suggestion, I suppose, is quite simple: let's make DYK less like FA, and more like the Upload Wizard. Or at least make it less like FA - if I was a new user, or even if I didn't have Panyd around to help, I would have given up on nominating it at all. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that things have gotten overly complicated for DYK recently. It's also harder to get DYK's than it used to be a few months ago. If it's become more complicated and harder for seasoned editors, imagine what it's like for newer editors? SarahStierch (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
And on a related note - it's gotten to be such a pain (so to say), that I basically don't nominate my new or expanded articles anymore (and I am proud of my contributions!). SarahStierch (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about a big button, but we have a large step-by-step guide which is conveniently highlighted in yellow: Template talk:Did you know#Instructions for nominators. The difficult part for me, in the very beginning, was remembering what talk page it's on, of the several dealing with DYK (and once I did, I just typed T:TDYK). Dahn (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You can thank the FA crowd for that. They had a push going here to "raise the standards" this summer and early fall because they felt DYKs weren't up to par, in their eyes. They almost got DYK kicked off the main page. Perhaps DYK was not up to par, perhaps it was. But the end result was that DYKs are far harder to get now.PumpkinSky talk 18:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I see. I think that was one thing that was special about DYKs. While I only have a few good articles under my belt, I liked DYK because it allowed contributors of all experience levels and skill levels to share their work - and frankly, DYK's are more interesting usually than the article of the day material. It's also a nice way to reward users who contribute, but perhaps aren't able to spend the time and dedication to writing FA's. It's disappointing that things have become so strict (and a bit degrading for those of us who don't write FA's!). SarahStierch (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
What happened to the gender gap, where we ditzy women supposedly are chased off because we can't figure out the markup because we're so stupid and helpless, yet Panyd can and Cavalry can't? Just kidding, but not really-- that gross generalization and the whole "gender gap" nonsense isn't funny.

Um, no, Pumpkin, the "FA crowd" didn't push to "raise the standards"; many editors simply wanted core policies, and particularly copyright issues on the mainpage, respected. Many editors over the years objected to the extensive cut-and-paste copyvio plagiarism et al that DYK fed along with the problems of non-reliable sources, Moonridden girl long ago pointed out that DYK would be the best place for early education of editors who go on to become serial offenders, and whomever came up with the complicated templates and all that mess, that can't be blamed on any imaginary "FA crowd". All that was expected was that DYK would stop enabling plagiarism, cut-and-paste editing, copyvio (which predominates in the list of those with the most DYKs, because it was easy to cut-and-paste and get a DYK-- fortunately, that is no longer the case). There is no "shaming" in educating-- that's in the eyes of the beholder. Anyone who can't see their errors and improve upon their reviews perhaps shouldn't be reviewing anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Sandy, that is exactly what the FA crowd did. I recall threads where Tony et al were viewed as turning DYK into mini FAs, but that's old water. I find it very hard to learn all of wiki's rules. They are strewn all over and as soon as you make an edit people act like you're a buffoon if you don't know all the rules. It seems especially hard for people to learn about where the line is with copying, paraphrasing, plaigiarism, vs original researche, etc. I've also seen threads where old time users say we treat newbies like crap and the wiki culture is not as much fun as it used to be because of all the powerful cliques. The first post to my talk page was a slam, not a welcome. No wonder it's so hard to recruit and keep people. PumpkinSky talk 18:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Do re-read those threads and see just how often I disagreed with Tony1, before you roll that bunk on to the imaginary "FA crowd". Yes, it is hard to learn everything on Misplaced Pages, but the need to learn about copyvio has reached crisis proportions, and I don't share Tony1's emphasis on other matters, which are less important. On the other hand, in the past we saw so many DYKs with basic spelling and grammar errors, that one had to wonder if the reviewer even read the article or made sure that it was reliably sourced-- that was the level of my concern. I do think that having a subpage for each nomination has helped, but the complexity of the way the DYK pages are set up has long been a nightmare, so I don't think any of the recent changes can be blamed for how difficult this process is (even if I didn't agree with those big checklisted templates, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
My last comment (I hope) on this...Tony1 and his supporters, and he had them, did as much if not more harm than good to DYK. I'm not at all convinced it was a net benefit. PumpkinSky talk 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I gotta disagree-- increasing respect for what DYK puts on the mainpage can only help it become better and attract more worthy articles and editors, even if that turnaround may take time; it has been weeks since I've seen a DYK problem on the mainpage, when historically every single queue had multiple egregious issues. Patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
"attract more worthy articles and editors" - I wasn't aware we measured the worth of individual editors by how good their DYKs are... The Cavalry (Message me) 19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Would you prefer that its Hall of Fame continued to be lined with editors who are serial cut-and-paste offenders? Or the mainpage be graced with non-reliably sourced expansions and non-notable topics? Or would you prefer that the mainpage be graced with articles that represent core policies (aka worthy). Being smartaleck isn't the way to advance mutual goals-- that being, a better DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I was not being a smart alec - I was being sincere. I would much prefer that DYK be something that anyone can do, after just 15 or 20 mainspace edits. I don't want cut-and-paste offenders, no: I think it is quite obvious that I do not want that. I am quite willing, however, to let non-notable topics, and articles with only a few sources (obviously not BLPs) appear on the mainpage, as long as it encourages new contributors to edit and fix those articles. We're a work in progress, and quality is not the only thing that matters - especially when it comes to new articles. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
It isn't at all obvious that you want anything other than to make it easier for you to nominate your latest opus at DYK by being offered a big yellow button. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
That is indeed a large part of what I want: to be able to nominate something for DYK by pressing a big yellow button, yes. DYK should be easier; not harder. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, with all due respect and as someone who is working closely on gender gap issues, no one honestly thinks women specifically are being driven off by the markup (though many think the public as a whole are). There is however a gross difference in educating whilst assuming good faith of those who are attempting to write well and being wholly abrasive towards them. Also, just because Sarah is here doesn't mean that snide comments about the gender gap have any relevance whatsoever. Similarly, changes were made by consensus, not simply by one 'crowd'. If there are problems with the outcome of these changes, why don't we change some more? Panyd 19:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for making a joke in the face of the obvious irony of you having to help Cavalry, but we're not here to discuss the alleged "gender gap". Anyway, long before the changes were instituted here, I could never decipher this page-- the subpages have helped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a little off[REDACTED] but maybe we can make it a little like Wookieepedia's Comprehensive Articles? DYK's would pretty much fit in that area, with a few modifications. --Kangaroopowah 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving onward

So, concensus from this five minute chat seems to be that DYK needs standards relaxing, and needs to be a bit more new-user friendly. What can we do to make it friendlier to new users that's relatively simple to do? The Cavalry (Message me) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Which consensus would that be? Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, that response ranks right up there among the most irresponsible I've seen recently. Surely a former arb and WMF employee has a better grasp on how consensus works on Misplaced Pages than a 5-minute flyover? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, everyone but SandyGeorgia above seems to think that we need to open things up a bit, and make the place friendlier to newbies. That's not a binding concensus, but it's enough of one to start brainstorming how we can open things up. Also: I'm not a WMF employee, and I'm still an arb. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You presume too much grashopper. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Malleus: I did not mean to say that there was a binding concensus to shoot the FA writers. I meant to say that everyone in the above section, except, it seemed, SandyGeorgia, thinks we should be discussing how to open up DYK to new users by relaxing things and being a bit nicer. I know that 4-1 or 5-1 is not really a proper concensus, but I thought it was enough to start brainstorming. Please report me to the relevant noticeboard for a good hiding if you think I'm being a bit presumptuous! (NB: Not sarcasm - I am just trying to lighten the situation) :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 20:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching the conversation without participating, and must place myself on SandyGeorgia 's side here. Yes, things are now a bit difficult, and I think some users have been put off nominating and reviewing because of complexity and the risk of being accused of copyright violations, or of missing copyright violations. But, that is something we definitely need to cut out across Misplaced Pages: not just on FA/GA articles, but right across the board, including stubs and new articles. Anything that is accessed from the main page is of particular focus, and is effectively a "showpiece" for Misplaced Pages, so extra care clearly needs to be taken for these articles. So yes, it might be a drag, and it ruffles a few feathers, but I think it is part of the process needed to ensure that Misplaced Pages gets taken seriously. Harrias 19:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I think i've been influenced by Sue's talk at the WMUK board meeting: it's being discussed on WR, and you can see it yourselves at http://bambuser.com/channel/pigsonthewing/broadcast/2140682. She makes an awful lot of good points. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
@Harrias after ec: The benefits of cleaning up the cut-and-paste issues at DYK extend beyond increased respect for the mainpage and better education of editors. The problems at DYK first came to my attention via RFA, and if DYK continues on the recent trend of becoming a better "quality" place (and I'm sorry that WMF and Sue Gardner don't seem to endorse the need to better address the problems at DYK), then DYKs at RFA can mean something, and the upward ripple effect can also extend to RFA. Win-win-win: less copyvio on the mainpage, less editors being trained at DYK to cut-and-paste, more editors being able to take their DYK successes to RFA. And in the long run, better editors more likely to move beyond DYK to GA, maybe even FA, rather than churning out hundreds of copyvios for DYK that will never get corrected because we don't have enough resources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
She makes some good points, but mostly ill-considered empty rhetoric. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I can be pretty assured when I say 'no one is on the side of having copyright violations in DYK'. Sandy just made the excellent suggestion above that we consult MoonRiddenGirl on some helpful guidelines that we could then form consensus around, as 'what is close paraphrasing?' seems to be an issue that is coming up a lot. What do we all think? Panyd 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I would personally very much welcome that, I have no problems with my own writing (until someone tells me otherwise of course), but it's knowing where to draw the line with fairly close paraphrasing when reviewing that I find difficult, also how we cope with use of PD material and things like that. Mikenorton (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
She probably already has something written somewhere-- I haven't perused the various pages recently. Just ask her :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
3 edit conflicts later ;) Well Harrias, that's why I suggested a modification of wookieepedia's comprehensive articles. They still have to be good but they're no harder to write than a paper for school or a report for work. That in itself cuts out most of the bad articles there are. This would ensure good work but it can be done by anyone. Secondly, if you have only FAs on the main page that might scare new users because they'll think that they have to be able to writ articles like that on their first effort and in the process losing potential contributors. Misplaced Pages, like life, isn't about the best, it's (in this case) about having a balance between really well written and not very well written articles. Ideally all the articles would be FA class but the simple fact is that they aren't. And since they aren't why don't we showcase articles that are good a.k.a DYKs or "Comprehensive Articles" to show that Misplaced Pages isn't all about FAs. You've got to remember, in movie credits the producer, not the actors are first. That's not the best metaphor ;) but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make. --Kangaroopowah 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Your argument would carry a lot more weight with me if GAs weren't excluded from the main page. And the truth is that very many DYKs are nowhere near what any rational person could plausibly describe as "good". Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Kangaroopower; I was by no means saying that DYK pages should be FAs. A short article, such as most DYKs are can avoid copyright violations, and meet standards of good writing while still being well short of FA standard. I think defining "Comprehensive Articles" on Misplaced Pages would be much more difficult than on a Star Wars wiki: there you can know with reasonable certainty that a short article is comprehensive: here that is far from the case: another source might exist that you don't have, or something may change. Also, there are a fair number of very short Good articles already, so I don't think that there is much stopping short article gaining GA status. Harrias 21:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(Reset Indent) Here's the thing, many good articles that are short were by no means created and approved for being GA status in one day which stops them from being put into consideration for DYKs. Secondly as for the copyright thing well many new users just cut and paste content from other sources. The main point I'm trying to get to is that we obviously, after being an encyclopedia, want to draw new editors. To do so we also ned to show that while we have quality standards, we don't expect every single article to fall through them. No to the comprehensive article part. Here's what I think is good about it. If you have an editor who's trying to provide as many encycylopedic articles as possible while not spending too much time on them then seeing an articlle being pput up to Comprehensive status would make them happy. A quick look at WP:GA shows that the criteria in itself would be mostly fine for COmprehensive articles but with some improvements. Here's what I'm thinking.

  • Well-written:
    • it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections and layout
  • Factually accurate and verifiable:
    • it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics,or counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged,
    • it contains little to no original research.
  • Contains little to no bias in writing
  • Contains at least one infobox with at least one image
  • Is 500 words to 1500 words long

Having these would, I feel, bring more interest to DYKs because along with having them on the main page they would have a comprehensive topicon which would stay. This is by no means a complete list but rather a basis for a change to the DYK system. --Kangaroopowah 22:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What are the issues?

So first things to discuss, what are the issues? So far, we can all agree that close paraphrasing is a big issue. But what other issues do people think should be addressed? Panyd 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been a real crack down on close paraphrasing. In my opinion, people are much more likely at the moment to incorrectly imply this out of fear that failure to point out any questionable thing will be worse than letting it pass. There are a limited ways to word some things, and you'll get a string of inappropriate paraphrasing accusations because five words matching. There isn't enough training for reviewers as to what this is, how to deal with it, and when you can have words matching. I earned a Masters of Science in Education in Instructional Technology from Northern Illinois University in May 2005. Try to reword that basic biographical information in a sentence with out having http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ suggest it might be paraphrasing. When doing that rewording, be sure to be accurate in the degree I earned, where I earned it and when I earned it. I've seen a few of these types of accusations on DYK since a few people decamped on DYK. Speaking as a contributor who wants to be as factually accurate as possible while avoiding committing inappropriate paraphrasing, understanding how incredibly damaging an accusation can be on multiple levels even if proven false, this is probably the scariest part of the DYK process if you understand what is going on. If you want higher quality contributors, the paraphrasing witch hunt will scare off the more expert knowledge contributors (writing higher quality content) who become susceptible to accusations because of information like "Masters of Science in Education in Instructional Technology from Northern Illinois University in May 2005" having limited ways to reword. --LauraHale (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I think great strides have been made on dealing with close paraphrasing, plagiarism, etc, to the point that I'm no longer as concerned about what DYK is putting on the mainpage (as I have been for over a year), but my concern is that Nikkimaria is too often the one holding the ball and checking what's in queue-- what happens if she moves on? I have long made the argument that for sustainable improvements to happen at DYK, the person passing the queue to the mainpage has to be somehow responsible for at least having a look at the queue they're putting on the mainpage. Via what mechanism that might happen is not for me to say (directorate, panel of admins, whatever), but there is no "the buck stops here" here, and I fear that without it, as soon as those regularly watching for copyvio turn their backs for a moment, it will again come back (that has been the historical trend). DYK will always get an influx of new editors, so how can you make the improvements sustainable if the current crop of folks working here move along? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Clear guidelines. I would actually advocate having an automated system much like the WP:Article wizard that gives people a succint summary of what is expected of them when they post something, I just don't have the technical skill to implement it and we don't have the policies to put in it yet. Panyd 22:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
For a long time, I believe there was agreement among project participants regarding the "DYK rules," although the rules aren't exactly streamlined or easy to see in one place, and the collection of "rules" has grown recently, so that the rules now occupy three separate pages...
A few months back some templates were introduced to guide DYK review, in what is best described as one of numerous failed experiments intended to address real or perceived problems in DYK). The templates did not work out well (unless the goal was to discourage participation in DYK). They were replaced with a streamlined list of DYK rules that appears above the edit window when one is reviewing a DYK nom: Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations. For a while it also displayed when a new nomination was created, but that didn't work out because it prevented nominators from finding the instructions for transcluding nominations (not that it's easy now, to judge from Cavalry's experience).
That "review criteria" list in the edit notice would be a good place to document the rules. The edit notice didn't get much discussion before it was created. I am not a fan of it; I think it occupies too much vertical real estate on the page (on most of the computers I use, it fills the vertical display, so I can't see it when I'm reviewing a nom) and I don't think it communicates the rules as effectively or completely as it could. I've created an alternate version of the edit notice at User:Orlady/DYK review criteria. At the time I created it, DYK participants were too "talked out" to discuss yet another proposal for changes, but maybe we could discuss it now. --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
So Moonriddengirl is too busy to help, but perhaps we can cannabilise Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing into a shorter versino with specific DYK examples; perhaps then linking to the full page for reference? Just an idea... Panyd 00:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that if somebody's able to work with me, I'd be happy to help, but I am pretty swamped at the moment. :) Please ping me at my talk page if you want to collaborate on this. --Moonriddengirl 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How do we fix the issues?

I've just pinged Moonriddengirl to ask for her input on making guidelines for what qualifies as close paraphrasing. Panyd 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite serious about this suggestion - what do you think? Panyd 01:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! Can it have a big yellow button? The Cavalry (Message me) 01:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
No big yellow buttons! I am serious! Also, as a lady of little technical knowledge I have asked here if anyone could help me with a few tweaks I think would raise our quality. Panyd 16:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
This is pretty awesome, I'm impressed. It's also aesthetically pleasant, which is powerful when attracting new contributors. Perhaps a proposal can be developed on meta for technical folks to lend a hand. I do think there is a larger community that enjoys DYK but isn't familiar with the process that should be informed about this. Since it's not just the experienced users we're trying to help out here. Great start! SarahStierch (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You said it all, great user-friendly start! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Visibility

I would like to interject with another issue related to ease of use: the visibility of DYK's. Maybe my experience is unusual, but I was not aware of DYK's until I had created almost twenty articles and greatly expanded several others. A mechanism allowing editors to create a DYK nomination using a "big yellow button" would also inform them that DYK's exist. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Volume

OK. Timeout, here. I'm not entirely happy with the "new culture" at DYK, of which more later, maybe, but has anyone actually sat down and thought about what it would mean to have a big button to send new articles to DYK? To have people with 15 to 20 mainspace edits nominating their articles? That means that DYK would be absorbing some significant proportion of the total volume of NPP. Let that sink in.

That kind of volume would smash the current setup like an egg on granite, close scrutiny or no close scrutiny. IMO, if you're going to have some kind of "send to DYK" button, integrate it somehow into NPP. (Of course, that's also experience a conflict between what the WMF wants and what the people actually doing the work want.) If the patrollers use it judiciously when they see an article that's not just decently sourced, but actually strikes them as interesting and worth a little attention, that's more likely to give a workable volume and high quality of nominations than if we just go around encouraging everyone to self-nominate. Besides, I think it would be very encouraging to new editors to become aware of DYK with a message that says, in essence, "I find your article interesting; maybe it should enjoy a little time of the front page." Choess (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd also hate to see a button that encouraged new contributors to submit every brand-new article to DYK. Even for an excellent article, a DYK nomination requires some thought and creativity, and a lot of new articles don't come close to qualifying. However, the current procedures would benefit from some major simplification, as indicated by the number of experienced contributors who have been unable to successfully complete the process over the last 3 months. Let's think of the "big button" as a metaphor for the kind of simpler process we need to devise... --Orlady (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed to both of the above. Panyd 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree. Scroll down to "Recently declined" in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions to see what would be coming through if big "submit now" buttons were available for brand new editors. Click on a few at random and see what you get. Having "15 to 20 mainspace edits" does not move them on much further. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really advocating a big yellow button, but something should be done to increase the visibility of DYK's. The main reason that I didn't know about DYK's is that I hardly ever visit the main WP page. It would be nice if editors invited contributors to self-nominate, but is that really going to happen? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, at WP:AfC it is often suggested to new editors that they should nominate their articles - although more normally that means helping them to get the article ready and nominate it, rather than expecting them to do everything themselves.
If you think it's a good idea, why not help out? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I got "recruited" to DYK after another user (I think it was Alansohn) nominated a couple of my articles for DYK, and I got that little notice that encourages submissions. I imagine that many other contributors were initiated in much the same fashion. Candidly, I expect that very few articles that start at WP:AfC are good candidates, as most AfC contributors are still pretty low on the Misplaced Pages learning curve. However, some gems do emerge from AfC, and reviewers of AfCs should be encouraged to nominate at DYK if they encounter a contribution that meets the criteria (or can be made to meet the criteria with assistance). --Orlady (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Some writers might want to look at examples of DYK articles in addition to studying abstract rules. I recently enjoyed collaborations on DYK articles (all not "mine") and find their results examplary:

Radziwiłł in prep 4

Resolved – Thank you to whoever fixed this (preferred hook was swapped in and is now on the main page). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think this hook needs context. That some seemingly random guy called his cousin, some other seemingly random guy, a psychopath just leaves me saying, 'Huh? so what?' I think it would be better to at least give some idea where, when or in what circumstances it happened, such that someone being called a psychopath by his cousin isn't just one of the typical thing that happens every year around the Thanksgiving table. Agricolae (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It would help, for a start, if the text "and Radziwiłł's family black sheep" were replaced with the more meaningful "and the Radziwiłł family's black sheep". I've also noted that the discussion about this nomination, preferred an alternative hook to this one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
FTR: I replaced it in the queue with the other hook that was preferred during the nom discussion. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

C. A. Patrides (currently in prep area 3)

Unresolved – now in queue 2, added with this edit --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This nomination had multiple issues of close paraphrasing raised on November 24th, following which the nominator said that he had re-written the sections concerned (and the entire article) to remove any possible further close paraphrasing. The nominator then went away and canvassed another editor to approve the nomination, specifically asking them to say (their quotes) "It's been rewritten, and I'm AGFing the off-line stuff, per WP:AGF".

The canvassed editor duly approved the nomination, although using an account "RetiredUser12459780" instead of the account at which they had been canvassed. They did not mention the fact that they had been approached, in their review.

Nikkimaria, who discovered the bulk of the copyright issues originally, confirmed that the sources she re-checked "appear to be fixed".

Given the previous copyright concerns, and then the extreme lengths taken by the nominator (quote above) to get the status of the off-line sources accepted as "good faith", I suggest that this should not go on the main page until the off-line sources have been independently checked. I requested copies of the relevant Milton Quarterly articles from my library yesterday, and hope they will arrive this week. It's possible that others can get access to the relevant material even faster, or already have - if the offline sources have already been independently checked, that's fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This was pretty funny. :D
Let's see here.
  • On the left hand, Demiurge1000 has worried about the C. A. Patrides article, and provided a very selective quotation---a bad habit of his---and not only of his.
  • On the right hand, I, TCO, Nikkimaria, and SandyGeorgia have had a thorough discussion, which clarified that it would have been better for TCO to state, "reviewed at the request of KW". It seems that TCO, Nikkimaria, Sasha, and my writing-partner all read the Milton Quarterly
  • So DYK balanced the "looks good for a DYK" judgment of TCO, Nikkimaria, etc., against Demiurge1000's latest prattle about my editing. Of course, Demiurge1000's request for delaying C.A. Patrides failed!
A pity that nobody suggested that Demiurge go easier on a first-time DYK editor.
As I wrote, Demiurge's quotation is selective and again a misrepresentation. What did he leave out? After a long discussion, TCO's direct question was whether he should treat this like a Good Article review or was DYK-status lower than GA review. Essentially, I said he could either AGF the off-line references (AGF being a policy ...) and approve the article, or I could mail him the .pdf files and do a more thorough review. TCO is not the only writer to suggest that the article is near GA status.
This was hardly " gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses, evil minds that plot destruction, of Patrides who never wasted his time on deconstruction"---one of the best songs on Paranoid.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

the article is fine. I looked it over as described. Don't feel any need to add some special disclaimer to my comments. You all can take that or leave it. Oh...and go read the talk page if you don't think I read the sources and the article. Template:Nono, doubting me. Sheesh. this place is so gotcha lame. Just get over it and run the thing. I knew there would be some little attempt at me...and just left the window open anyway, cause I really don't care if someone on this site calls me a liar. I know very, very few of you would do it to my face.TCO (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien Hannover

I should be happy, that finally this went to prep (2) "... that piano students of Karl-Heinz Kämmerling at the Mozarteum and the Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien Hannover won more than 100 prizes at piano competitions?" - But I would prefer to have it pictured, it's a university, not a small church for a change, and the photographer went out of his way to take a better picture, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please consider the lead picture: on the Main page just a highway, in the article a terrible accident. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Many more image hooks are nominated than can be used in the image slot, so we need to choose, and I think we need to aim for visual impact and topical variety. Also, sometimes an image is particularly relevant for illustrating the hook. Someone else (I haven't looked to see who) picked the highway for the image slot. It's not a beautiful image, but it provides variety, and it is visually interesting at 100px. Honestly, the Hochschule images lacked visual impact, and they aren't particularly helpful in illustrating the hook. Therefore, I decided to push the hook to the prep area without an image. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It's now in Q1. I think I would prefer the Hochschule hook (even without a pic) in a different slot. The highway pic is not illustrating the topic - the accident - at all, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Last question: do we need a crash as a lead on the 1st Sunday in Advent? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Tamar-Tavy estuary (Q6)

The avocet is not particularly uncommon (whatever that undefinable term means): it is listed by the IUCN as "of least concern". I'm not sure how wp:commonname and wp:engvar apply to bird species, but in the UK, this species is virtually never called the Pied Avocet, but merely the Avocet. Kevin McE (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that it should just be 'Avocet' in the UK. As to 'uncommon', it is amber listed in the UK, so uncommon there I think, I've seen it referred to as 'scarce' and 'rare' as well. I've just noticed that 'uncommon' is the word used in source #7 (referring to the area's SSSI status) in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Its on the main page now, but I will note that the Pied Avocet is named in compliance with the WP:Birds naming guidelines which is to use the formal common name designated by the International Ornithological Congress.--Kevmin § 11:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough about the naming of the article, I just think that it would have been better as 'Avocet' in this UK-based hook, I thought that it was some really unusual bird species when I first saw it. Mikenorton (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Waiting queue is too long

I don't mind anything up to two weeks, but I've found the waiting queue to now be ridiculous long. Michał Radziwiłł Rudy took nearly 4 weeks to appear on the main page during which time I have practically forgotten I had created. Sorry but I think 4 weeks is silly, I think a two week period would be much more appropriate. Is there anything we can do about this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it takes too long for all submissions, that would mean too many nominations are being submitted for the rate they're going onto the main page - which rather contradicts the suggestions above that it needs to be easier to nominate an article.
The other possibility is that reviewers are tending to pick nominations they find appealing to them personally, leaving some nominations ignored for weeks. I think this is being addressed further up this page by a number of people trying to deal with older nominations rather than leaving them to languish. I imagine they would appreciate any help! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Since the number of updates per day changed from 2 to 3, because of the increase in nominations, the number of reviews has not really kept up and the aren't enough reviewed and passed hooks available to fill the full set of empty prep and queue slots right now. This is in part a reaction to increased rigour in the review process, which makes them take longer, and partly because some reviewers are put off by the risk of being 'named and shamed'. I'm not against taking responsibility for my own reviews but there must be ways of doing things that don't include a DYK/removed list. Mikenorton (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that articles should be checked for plagiarism but 4 weeks is way too long. The whole point of DYK was to showcase wikipedias most recent articles..We've since had almost 30,000 new articles in that time... I don't see why it should take 4 weeks. 2 weeks is surely long enough.. Honestly I had virtually forgotten about the nomination and it hitting the front page so late takes away the point in it in nominating from my perspective.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Erm, and when was the last time that you contributed to the review of a DYK nom? It is generally inadvisable for people who don't bother to help with the review process to criticize the volunteers for not working hard enough. Are you aware that the QPQ rule is still in effect? --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not criticising the volunteers for not working hard enough. Rather i'm saying there is a way in which plagiarism and any serious issues can be checked without demanding a lot of time from reviewers using a script and scan so all nominated articles would automatically undergo a scan for copyvios. Articles then would only need to be briefly checked before hitting the main page as the tools in place should pick up on anything really problematic. 4 weeks is bleedin ridiculous it really is. The process should be made more efficient so no extra time than present is needed to review articles but they go through more more quickly and effectively. As for searching for my last review, really, have you nothing else better to do? What I would suggest actually is a waiting queue of something like 3 days and if the article still has problems after review then they are excluded and only those articles with no issues go through. You could restart the DYK setup to work with only 3 days of most recent articles and then post them on the main page. Say I nominated an article tonight. Then a reviewer tomorrow or the day after would review and after checking with the initial scan for plagiarism then permit it for posting on the main page. It would just make far more sense to shorten the queue and focus on the recent nominations. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw Poll on potential technical developments

Hey there! Although I know there is by no means a general consensus on this, I want to get this DYK wizard idea working at least in my userspace so we can all test it. Here are my two primary goals in creating this:

  1. To increase the ease of submitting a nomination to DYK and reviewing DYKs
    This is something that lots of people have brought up as an issue. I hope that this wizard will allow people ease-of-use when submitting a nomination but also when reviewing one. I want it to lay out all guidelines and policies clearly and allow all editors ease of access to tools which can help them along the way. This includes the tools I will mention below.
  2. To create additional but sensible barriers to submitting/reviewing a DYK hook
    This seems contradictory but think about it. If we have all of our criteria set out plainly and easily at the point of submission/review, then it will be harder for people to make mistakes (or so the thinking goes). The more barriers and checkpoints between creating an article and submitting it there are, the less likely people are to overlook something as simple as Is my article long enough?. The path an editor takes through the wizard should also helpfully point them in the direction of how to fix their mistakes, which should reduce the "culture of shame" some people feel is hanging around here.

Proposition and Poll

  1. To add the DYK checker tool to the global monobook or by another means make it so that users can run it in a fashion which doesn't require monobook manipulation. This will allow new editors and those less technically inclined to make very basic checks of their articles before submitting them, which should drastically reduce the number of articles submitted which do not even meet our basic criteria.
  2. To add a functionality on wiki which would allow users to input data into the duplication detector on-wiki, then take them to the site to run the script, thus reducing the number of clicks required to run a duplication check which a wealth of experience has shown would increase user interaction with the tool. This again should reduce the number of close paraphrasing incidences (though not totally eliminate them) and thus reduce the number of articles submitted. This will by no means fix any systemic copyvio or close paraphrasing issues on-wiki but it will help ensure that articles with these issues are not prominently featured on the front page. Panyd 22:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment on this - Duplication Detector is designed to compare an article against a single given document that one suspects it was copied from. It does not locate such documents - this is done either by people or by scripts like Earwig's tool, which is currently down for the same reason as CorenBot, due to changes in Google's automated request policies. However, if you do manually identify a source document, it is easy to create a suitable link to Duplication Detector using {{dupdet}}. Dcoetzee 01:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    Right, shall include that. Thank you. Panyd 02:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Vote and commentary

  1. Support as proposer Panyd 22:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support: Certainly! The DYK process is currently a lot more cumbersome than it should be. Especially for newer users but also for more experienced ones. --KFP (contact - edits) 23:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support - It has to be worth a try, the upload wizard at commons has made uploading images there very straightforward. Mikenorton (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support: A thrust in the right direction, certainly. Would make things easier for reviewers and proposers alike. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  5. Support #2. I'm not sure what #1 is about, I clicked on DYKchecker and saw a pile of code. But I'm not sure what it does, how it's intended to be used, etc. I like the general idea of improving the usability of DYK process, but would need to understand this specific proposal a bit better before I could support. -Pete (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    It's a javascript function that automatically checks whether an article is new or long enough to qualify for DYK. Very basic stuff but unfortunately you have to add it to your monobook. Panyd 23:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    Okay, thanks. I think I understand now: the DYKchecker is a useful tool, and uncontroversially so, but without a bit of a technical change, it's difficult for users to install and/or use. So you want to have that technical change made. Have I got it right? -Pete (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    Exacto-mundo! Panyd 23:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    OK, changing !vote to full support. Thanks for explaining, it sounds good! -Pete (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support - My only concern is who will be doing the testing, where and who will be developing the tool (beyond your raw start). SarahStierch (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Also thinking about metrics and how they will be measured about this project. SarahStierch (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Sarah, if I understand this right, there is almost no developer time required, it's a pretty simple copy-paste type thing; and it creates a checkbox in user preferences that allows a user to enable the tool. But it would definitely be nice to have this spelled out more clearly in the proposal; I only have this general understanding from having seen similar proposals in the past on Wikisource and other projects. -Pete (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks Pete. I'm generally rather "tech-n00b" when it comes to Wiki things (I had to ask someone what a "monobook" was regarding this). SarahStierch (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  7. Conditional Support - the current way should be kept as well as it requires less Javascript; I generally try and minimize the amount of Javascript I'm running due to poor internet performance here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  8. Support- I like the idea but I have one question. Can we include some of the criteria I had above. I'm fine if it doesn't go through though. --Kangaroopowah 01:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Hey, I think this is going to be a rather long process so I was hoping to break it down into "bite-sized chunks". Would it be ok if your proposals were included at a later date? Probably when we were discussing ground rules for inclusion in DYK? I will get to that once the basics of these mechanisms are compelte. Panyd 02:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  9. Conditional Support. It seems like the most logical implementation would be as a Gadget rather than added to the global JS. You'll need to make a separate proposal at Misplaced Pages:Gadget/proposals in that case, but it shouldn't be too hard to sell if you already have consensus here. Kaldari (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Just to check, Kaldari: presumably people would need to go into their preferences and opt-in before this would work? The Cavalry (Message me) 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    What is the practical difference between being implemented as a Gadget vs. in global javascript? -Pete (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Gadgets have to be manually activated in "My preferences" -> "Gadgets". Most people don't even know they exist. --KFP (contact - edits) 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    Apparently it's perfectly feasible for the DYKChecker tool to be made into a button rather than either of these options. I am hopeful. Panyd 18:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    So there are 3 options? What are they? (1) javascript something-or-other, (2) gadget (which I think could be either on or off by default, but off probably makes most sense), or (3) a button (where? working how? with what need for technical infrastructure?) I still think a clearer explanation of what is desired would be really helpful. It seems lots of people are supporting -- I'm not sure if they have a lot more technical understanding than I do, or are making assumptions about things that are not spelled out, or what. I think a straightforward description of what is desired would be helpful -- both to developing consensus here, and to informing developers of what they need to do down the road. -Pete (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  10. Support Good idea to try. I currently have the Shuninatot DYKcheck tool as a button and find it very useful. It makes it easy to check for 1500 chars. If we can make checking for plagiarism that simple then it might not only make checking articles but it might even get our lost DYK contributors back if we can check this more easaily. Got to be worth a bit of pain Victuallers (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  11. Support This could be a great thing to have. People like wizard-type interfaces. If people are throwing up their hands when trying to nominate, we should have something like this alongside the "old school" way. I think it's important that any new interface emphasize the expectations on the article, especially regarding copyvio/cp. It's a bit of work putting it together though, and probably beyond my abilities. The Interior (Talk) 01:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  12. Comment - I'm confused about this. Are we !voting on the DYK Wizard idea, or the notion of making tools like DYKCheck and DuplicationDetector more accessible? In principle, I'm in favour of both, but I'm just not clear on exactly what I'm being asked to !vote on here. Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    On the idea making tools like DYKCheck and DuplicationDetector more accessible. I'm finding it a nightmare trying to do it myself and developers like to see some consensus before they do things. Panyd 15:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  13. Support. Looks like a good idea that will make it easy for newer editors to contribute. It is consistent with the spirit of WP:BOLD.VR talk 06:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  14. Support and drastically reduce the weighting queue time from 4 weeks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  15. Neutral I don't see what this does that the existing system doesn't. The instructions at T:TDYK#How to post a new nomination are already a bit like a wizard, just without nice curvy buttons (you enter your title in a box, click a button, and it creates a page with most of the nomination already filled in, and instructions for what to do next), and there is an even more dumbed-down version at User:Rjanag/Quick DYK 2. (Although even that might not be dumbed-down enough, given the number of times I saw nominators and reviewers failing to follow simple instructions recently.) That set of dumbed-down instructions is prominently linked from T:TDYK#How to post a new nomination, so no one can even get to the nomination stage without seeing it.

    On the other hand, as far as I can tell this proposal doesn't actually change any of the existing procedure; it's essentially just another set of instructions for the existing procedure. Thus, I don't see why it would hurt anything; at the worst, it's redundant. I have no experience making wizards like this so I would take no responsibility in maintaining it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    Oppose Sorry, I thought this was about the nomination wizard. As for the proposals about the javascript tools and stuff, I don't think this is necessary. Both DYKcheck and the duplication detector have clear instructions for use, and this proposal seems like a lot of technical work to solve a problem that could just be solved by people reading instructions (as always, I highly recommend reading instructions when you start something new). If the instructions are hard to find, the solution is to link them more prominently. Plus, DYKcheck and the duplication detector are just aids anyway, they're not mandatory parts of the review process; I know I, for one, use neither (I get page sizes with User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js, and copyvio checks by hand). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting an article and then recreating it

Suppose there is an article on a subject (say, Shoe). And say the article is mostly unsourced and very poorly written. So I develop a well-written and sourced article in my userpsace and then replace it one day. But the length of prose in both the previously poorly written article and the newly well written article is roughly the same. Does this qualify for DYK?

  • If no: then an editor may try to get around that by deleting large-chunks of the poorly sourced article (which is legitimate under WP:V) until it is very small. Then (after at least 5 days) the editor would "expand" the existing small article (by 5-fold or more) by copying and pasting it from his user space to the mainspace. While satisfying the DYK criteria for "newness", this would be contrary to the spirit of WP:Preserve and deprives readers of information (however poor) during the 5-day+ period.
  • If yes: then there arises the problem of determining how much of the content is new. That is not easily determined even if you are author, let alone if you are trying to evaluate a DYK entry for "newness".

VR talk 06:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

First let me understand the question. You don't mean "deleting" but shrinking and expanding, right? I don't understand the "5-days"-part. A situation as described needs an exception anyway, and if that is agreed on before the replacement, I don't see a need to wait 5 days. But the way to reach such an agreement needs to be discussed. - It might be easier to write a new article on a related topic, say Boot, and mention Shoe in a hook on Boot. Shoe will be noticed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes I mean shrinking and expanding. Please note that I mean this very specifically in the context of DYK. Consider the following: say Shoe was an unsourced article 2,000 words long. On Oct 1, the unsourced material was removed, and it was shrunk to 300 words. It remained in this state until Oct 20 when it was expanded to a well-sourced article comprising of 2,500 words. Thus on Oct 21, one can claim that Shoe underwent a 5-fold expansion in the last 5 days. (Hence the need to wait 5 days or longer). Does that make the scenario clearer?VR talk 06:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently the only justification for deleting part of an article before expanding it is a clear copyright violation. As to whether this should also include clear original research or synthesis is another question. What it doesn't include is poorly written stuff, even if it's unsourced. If you replace that it's a (welcome) improvement, but not an expansion. That's my understanding. Mikenorton (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, you're right: it doesn't include poorly written, but sourced, material. But I do think it is legitimate under WP:V and WP:NOR to delete unsourced material or original research if it has been tagged long enough. So what happens when an article is shrunk and then expanded 5-fold (with respect to the shrunken state, not the pre-shrunken state)? Does that count as sufficient an expansion to merit a DYK entry?VR talk 06:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominations for 1 December

Wonderful progress was made concerning older nominations (see above). Several articles were nominated for 1 December, Romanian National Holiday. Some are already in the Special occasions section, but not yet reviewed:

They need attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering how do we reconcile having Romanian related DYKs with the following: "Try to avoid country- and topic-centrism. Misplaced Pages is a general-interest encyclopedia with a global audience. No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue, and no more than one is even better."
Is it that each batch of DYKs on Dec 1 will contain no more than 2 DYKs related to the Romanian National Holiday?VR talk 06:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to each and all! Three a day is fine by me, and I'm sure the same goes for the other editor who contributed, but who is inactive at the moment. Dahn (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody kick the update bot, or do we need to do it manually?

DYK didn't update several hours ago, when it was supposed to. This was because the image hadn't been protected yet. This is ultimately my fault -- I've started to believe the people at Commons who have gently suggested that we didn't need to protect images because cascading protection of images at Commons has been working efficiently. (The image is cascade-protected now, but it apparently took more than 8 hours for the cascade-protection to kick in.)

Do we need to update manually, or can somebody kick the bot? --Orlady (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to manually kick the update bot. I'm too scared to try but I have protected the image. Panyd 15:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Winter, five windows(Q5)

No disrespect intended to our Canadian brethren, but I don't think that CBC has sufficient worldwide recognition to bear placing as an unexplained abbreviation. Kevin McE (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. Non-abbreviated version would come out as 165 chars., so should be doable. The Interior (Talk) 01:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Formakin House (Q6)

Miller's Tower, not Millers Tower, per source. Kevin McE (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Source" probably means this newspaper article. Is that preferable to the article which says "Millers Tower", and sources saying "Millers House" here and here? Normal grammar says use the apostrophe, place names like Pikes Peak often lose the apostrophe, but this isn't really a place name ... Oh, I give up. Art LaPella (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Well the Millers House ((sic) is a different building, and the article cannot be taken as a contradiction of the source that it claims to draw upon. Where there is inconsistency in the sources (although I don't think there is in this case), I would strongly suggest that the benefit of the doubt go with the more grammatical version. Kevin McE (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Kevin. The newspaper article is a source supporting the hook fact. An apostrophe should be added to both the hook and the article, unless reliable sources emerge which specify the tower's name without an apostrophe.
  • In any case, this is a quirky hook which should be moved into the final position of the set. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

LSU vs Alabama (Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3)

No evidence offered in the article as to why, or by whom, this game of considered the "Game of the Century" (ridiculous hyperbole that should have no place in an encyclopaedia, and surely cannot be determined for another 89 years). Vast majority of readers will have little idea what version of football this refers to, and even less idea of what LSU is meant to refer to? Kevin McE (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: missed that sentence in the article: adds to the spuriousness of the title that it was being given even before the game was played. Added "so-called" to the article, to try to clarify that it is no more than journalistic excess. Kevin McE (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • One familiar with American sports would probably need to weigh in as to how proper "game of the century" may be. I'm Canadian, but I despise sports of all sorts; as such, I have no clue how often the hyperbole is used. According to our article, the 20th century had 8 or 9 "Games of the Century" so... Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Old nominations awaiting review - 29 Nov

And these are the nominations that have been listed for two weeks and haven't received a review yet. Note also that it's worth trawling through the old nominations to check those that have been reviewed, but may be stagnating for one reason or another.

The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks.

November 12
November 13
November 14
November 15

It would be nice to get this down to no more than a week, but let's not get ahead of ourselves! Harrias 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to close this nomination?

Is it safe to close this November 15 nomination as failed- Template:Did you know nominations/Dynamic quartz recrystallization? SL93 (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks failed to me, but in situations like this it's fine to just wait for someone else to come along and close it. It protects you from being accused of being unfair, and leaving the nomination on T:TDYK for another day or two doesn't hurt anything. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions Add topic