![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
The next update is 40+ minutes late. I emailed Nixeagle. I have an article in the next queue (#3), and I was expecting credit. Royal broil 16:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
A4 of Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules states that fivefold expansion is calculated from the previous version of the article, no matter how bad it is. But what about copyvios? I recently found Joan Snyder tagged as a coypvio. The article was created on December 5, 2008, and was a copyvio until {{ db-copyvio}} was recently added to it on January 25, 2009. On the same day, I rewrote the article, using only two sentences from the previous version. I nominated the article for DYK, but it was rejected because "there is no consensus, and no time, for analyzing and debating the quality of each previous article version before determining how many of its bytes to count. Nor has there been a consensus for making an exception to A4 for copyvios." I believe that it should qualify for DYK because it would have been deleted as G12 if I didn't save and rewrite it. I could have allowed it to be deleted and then recreated it, but I didn't do so. I haven't found any previous discussions about A4 and copyright violations, so I would like to propose that copyright violations are an exception to A4. Cunard ( talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the copyvio revisions should be discounted in determining the criteria. The author could just wait for it to be deleted and start again to get a DYK, which would just be finding away around it but I have let copyvio replacements on the main page. Fine with me. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Cunard, I think it should be ok to make exceptions in situations like this (if the entire content of the article was copy-pasted from somewhere else—as opposed to bits and pieces of the article being stolen from somewhere else—there's a clear case that the article should not have existed, at least in that form, and so if you rewrite it from scratch it is basically a new article, even if the subject itself is not new to Wikipedia), but is not necessary to write those exceptions into the rules. These kinds of things would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis; in addition to the issue of how much of the article was copyvio (in this case, it looks like the whole thing was) another issue is how much of the "rewriting" was new—ie did the writer blank the whole page and then start from scratch, or did the writer use the copyvio version as a scaffolding for what to write, and clean up things to make the writing "different" from the original? For reasons such as this (not to mention instruction creep), I don't think it would be wise to add an all-encompassing rule exempting all copyvio cleanup from normal expansion rules. Sometimes this sort of work might consitute a "new" enough article for DYK to recognize, and sometimes it might just be an unrewarded good deed.
The reason there is that part of A4 stating that expansion is counted from the previously existing article no matter what shape it is, is so that people don't bog down DYK by saying "ok I only expanded it 3x, but the text that was there was so terrible that my expansion has really improved it more than fivefold, so please go assess it" or "well it only looks like a 3x expansion, but actually I deleted all the old content and rewrote everything, so I've written way more than what the expansion looks like, please go count it for yourself"...that kind of assessment is just something we simply don't have time for, and character count is a convenient and impartial way to assess article expansion. Anyway, that's why I'm saying it is probably ok to IAR on copyvio rescues when the original copyvio was especially blatant (as in the case above), but in other cases it might be difficult to ascertain the extent of the copyvio and the extent of the improvement...cases like that need to be handled differently, so there's not much point making a sweeping change to A4 that would exempt both of them from the rules. Politizer talk/ contribs 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyvios are not counted for the purpose of determining length of the x5 expansion. There are also precedents for not counting text that is clearly irrelevant to the topic of the article, but again, if someone wants to propose an expansion on such grounds, they should ask for an opinion here first in order to avoid disappointment. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing major, but check out the DYK template on Talk:K_pattern_flamethrower. Is that right (the %28)? — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Though i have received a DYK nom credit for the article, a DYK tag is missing on article talk. DYK entry (... that the Imperial_Japanese_Navy destroyer Kamikaze was one of the few larger Japanese warships to survive the Pacific War without significant damage?) is present in Archive at 15:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC). -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with how the DYKbot works. Could someone take a look at this, please? Updating DYK with hooks from Queue 2 merely 8 minutes after updating with hooks from Queue 1 doesn't seem right to me. Did Charles B. Moores, Japanese destroyer Kamikaze (1922), An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963, India-Mongolia relations, JUPITER trial, Steven Joyce, Tropical Depression Ten (2005) & Fred Shaw Mayer get their rightful 6 hours of exposure on MainPage? Or am I missing something? -- PFHLai ( talk) 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Since 13 days ago, the "(pictured)" text at Wikipedia:Recent additions is broken in the most recent additions. Gary King ( talk) 04:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
To avoid bolding the apostrophe in a situation like Joseph Sadler's, we have been using <nowiki>'</nowiki>s, and lately we have been using {{'s}}. But they aren't quite the same. The template adds a thin space before the apostrophe; compare Joseph Sadler's to Joseph Sadler's. I'm not sure if it matters, but for now I'm going back to <nowiki>'</nowiki>s. You may want to comment at Template talk:'#Extra space before the apostrophe. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to take a shot at organizing all the stuff in Category:Wikipedia Did you know templates by making some subcategories (ie, templates used for preparing the next update, templates for user talk, etc.). Most importantly, you might want to take a look at the subcategory Category:Deprecated DYK templates, where I put the templates that (as far as I know) no one is really using, and thus might be worth deleting if we ever decide to get organized. I don't really know everything about all of these, so I might have put some templates in that category erroneously. Also, there were a few templates that I wasn't able to move into the proper subcategory because they're protected (the queues, etc.). Politizer talk/ contribs 07:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed a tendency for some DYK hooks not to provide context for the reader lately. Just now we have these cryptic hooks that could be improved by adding a few words (in square brackets):
Recently I also noticed the DYK
did not identify the conflict as the Spanish Civil War. Perhaps this would have been clearer as DYK
If the idea is to be cryptic so as to attract more eyes to article ("I don't know what this is, so I'll follow the link"), so be it, but I think more context helps. This is a suggestion - I know how hard the DYK folks work and am not trying to be critical, just asking this be something taken into consideration in the future. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It has been suggested that a potential 16 article hook related to the American Civil War introduced on January 21 be saved for April 9, the anniversary of the ending of the Civil War. It has also been suggested for 2 queues for that day since there are 16 related articles involved to the ending of the American Civil War. There is a suggested Alt 3 hook that several have liked that seems to work well, with the related picture. The articles then would receive much airtime for this important event in American history - especially if a DYK for that particular date. -- Doug Coldwell talk 16:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Therefore, the purpose of Appomattox Court House National Historical Park is to commemorate the effective termination of the Civil War brought about by the surrender of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, under General Robert E. Lee to the Union Army under Lt. General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia on April 9, 1865 and for the further purpose of honoring those who engaged in this tremendous conflict.
- The primary significance of Appomattox Court House National Historical Park can be summarized as:
- -the site of the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia under General Robert E. Lee to Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, commander of the Union forces, April 9-12, 1865, effectively marking the end of the Civil War.
- -the site of the Battle of Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, which led directly to the surrender.
The National Park Service has a separate number for each of these structures under their List of Classified Structures for Virginia and Appomattox Court House National Historical Park and list these as individual specific notable structures of significance. It has further individual information on each of these structures as being significant in their own right with many having separate pages for description and historical significance, each a Wikipedia article of pretty good size now.
Each of the cemeteries and ruins are listed also in the List of Classified Structures with their own specific number and information.
It appears the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, controlled by the National Park Service, has listed each of the structures and buildings (i.e. Appomattox Court House, McLean House, Clover Hill Tavern, etc) within the Park. It shows for each structure and building under Historical Significance that the National Register Status has been entered and Documented. The National Register Date: 06/26/1989.
According to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 all historic areas, including National Historical Parks controlled by the National Park System, are automatically listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This includes the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park and all of its structures and buildings in its 77 List of Classified Structures, including but not limited to Clover Hill Tavern and Woodson Law Office and Bocock-Isbell House and Sweeney Prizery and the Park's cemeteries and ruins (each one listed individually in the NRHP under the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park) - all of which are in the 16 article hook DYK.
I believe that ALT 3 is a reasonable 16 article hook DYK that would get a lot of airtime on April 9, especially with its associated picture.
-- Doug Coldwell talk 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Instead of waiting until April, February 12 would make more sense. It is the tyrant's 200th Birthday. I'm already going to have four DYK hooks just for the occasion.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I performed a closer look at the National Register. We have a few options so I will lay out the information then say how I see it: "Appomattox Court House" is listed as not being a historical landmark (per this). There is a well house that is part of the same listing under the whole park (per this). There is also fencing listed under the same entry ( per this).
Then we have buildings like the McLean House which have the same sort of entry ( per this). It is also designated as not being a landmark. Grant surrendered there, so it is a moment of significance. Its wellhouse is listed with it, but lacks significance ( per this). There are other buildings, including a slave house, privy, fence and kitchen that are listed separatly (example per this).
The Clover Hill Tavern had parole listings about the Confederates, but this is only a semi-notable feature, and the part that had it decayed long ago ( per this). A guest house is listed with it, along with a slave house, fence and privy ( per this). Patteson Hix Cemetaries is listed as existing at the time, and having bodies of county founders, but no real notability ( [ per this). The county jail has nothing significant to connect it to the event except for proximitely ( per this).
I can go through the rest, but you can see that the level of notability (its part of the site) would list bathrooms, fences, slave quarters, and 77 individual articles if that is used as notability. Since the National Register does not designate it as a historical landmark and only as a park (thus, needing to fall under National Register like all governmental properties), the buildings cannot be deemed to be individually notable or there will be pages on clearly non-notable things (bathrooms, fences, etc). These should be deemed notable based on references only. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've yet to make my mind up on this particular submission, but I do think that with the increasing popularity of multis, we need to add a clause to the rules which stresses that users who want to submit long multis should consider canvassing opinion regarding their eligibility on this page before going ahead with creating the articles, in order to avoid possible disappointment. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have left a note at the NRHP wikiproject asking for further opinions on this submission. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Why must all 15 (or 16 or however many there) new articles appear in the hook? Does anybody seriously think that a casual reader will religiously click on each of the links just because they are bolded? If anybody is interested they will undoubtedly read all the articles by reaching them from the links in the main Appomattox Park article. Anybody who isn't interested in the main article isn't going to feel cheated because the Jones house wasn't mentioned in the hook. Unless DYK is only about records and counting nowadays I can't see the point. Highlight a couple of the new articles if it makes an interesting hook by all means, but don't insist on a tedious list just because it bumps somebody up a chart somewhere. DYK shouldn't be a competition, and if it is...just count them anyway (add 15 on to your total on whichever unregulated chart and you are done). Yomangani talk 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If I may be so bold, I believe Yomangani's point is that this is not a "hook" in any meaningful sense. This laundry list of bold blue links will not "hook" the attention of readers. "Did you know that there are lots of very exciting historic buildings and ruins in some park?" --- One pound ( talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It is great that Doug Coldwell has taken the time and trouble to create all of these article, but I think most of them should be merged together somewhere. I can't see the notability - each is a rather derivative example of its type, of which there must be hundreds or thousands of examples, and their only claim to fame is that they are near Appomattox Court House.
The people at AfD will have a better idea of how notable they are individually. I'll start with Woodson Law Office and Jones Law Office. -- One pound ( talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodson Law Office and Jones Law Office. -- One pound ( talk) 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads-up... myself and some others are planning to create a number of thematic articles for Darwin Day, February 12 (the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth). See Wikipedia:Did you know/Darwin Day 2009. More contributions are welcome. That day will feature history of evolutionary thought and hopefully a Darwin-related featured picture as well, and I hope DYK will try to accommodate the new articles to schedule them for February 12; most of them will be ready to be deployed well ahead of time, so we'll move them to mainspace and list the hooks on February 6 or 7.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
We had several objections to the running of Doug Coldwell's recent 16-part multi on the basis that not all the entries merited their own article. In my own opinion the hook should not have been run as it was, but I was reluctant to oppose given the obvious work Doug had put into it.
In order to prevent similar dilemmas arising in future however, I'm proposing that future multis based upon NHRP must get prior approval at this page first. I'm also toying with the idea of having a requirement for prior approval of any multi with more than say, four articles. Comments please. Gatoclass ( talk) 04:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
On second thoughts, perhaps making it compulsory is going a little too far at this stage. I think what I'll do instead is just add a recommendation to the rules that users consult here first to avoid possible disappointment. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) re Art and Nrswanson: it's always good to make sure hooks we pass are interesting, but I don't see there ever being a rule saying "hooks must be interesting"; as has been reiterated numerous times above, it would be an impossible standard to maintain and it would just lead to drama. In my [admittedly brief] time working at T:TDYK, I never had problems by just sometimes saying stuff like "length checks out, but the hook is pretty bland; can you find any more interesting facts in the article?", and I never needed to cite a rule to get people to listen to me. Like Nrswanson said, it's about using common sense. And, even more so, it's about working with the nominators to find an acceptable hook, rather than just citing a rule and saying "doesn't meet the criteria, toss it." Half of the hooks that come through here are in unacceptable shape when they first show up, and get dragged up to main-page standard through collaboration among DYK people and between them and the nominators. (I'm all about collaborating with the nominators; I mean, the first thing I ever did for DYK was making the {{ DYKproblem}} template for it.) Politizer talk/ contribs 01:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
To prevent future problems, I am planning a 5-6 article hook concerning the Kentucky Railway Museum. The museum itself will get a 5x, and then four separate articles on train cars that are each separately on the Register, and then another property next door to the museum which would have been used as a hotel during its train days. All are in New Haven, Kentucky. See National Register of Historic Places listings in Nelson County, Kentucky for the related articles.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 04:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Bedford, do the trains have their own separate articles in the register or is it all covered by the one article? If the latter, I would be inclined to say no. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You haven't said anything about the building next door. Is that listed on the register? If not, how is it notable? Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I've placed the hook on February 2's section; it should be fairly interesting.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 02:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but something is wrong with the picture in Template:Did you know/Queue/2. I'm not an admininistrator so I can't fix it myself. Cheers. Broadweighbabe ( talk) 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't get credits for Øystein Sørensen (1 Feb) or Ndiss Kaba Badji (3 Feb). Both are listed at Recent Additions, though. What's the cause of this problem? Punkmorten ( talk) 10:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
sorry, I'm sure it's a FAQ, but how can I get the John Maynard (cricketer) nomination verified?
As an outsider, can I not that the DYK process comes across to those unfamiliar with it as very bureaucratic, which is offputting. I'd be happy to have a peruse through it and make some streamlining suggestions for you to consider... I'm happy for every comment to be rejected (this isn't for my ego).
Finally, it seems the pages are quite backlogged. Are you short on volunteers? Perhaps some advertising coverage at the Signpost could help? --
Dweller (
talk)
12:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all. -- Dweller ( talk) 20:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Seeing how themed DYKs are all the rage, did anyone notice that Friday 13 and Valentine's Day are neck and neck this year? "Bad luck" and "love"; it should be easy to come up with topics. Lampman ( talk) 02:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Water puppetry, which is the lead hook on T:DYK right now...it's a nice article and I was about to go thank Gryffindor for bringing it to DYK, but in the process I noticed that it does not seem to be a new expansion. Current version is 3875 characters; version before expansion was 3669 (please correct me if I'm wrong and I'm missing some move or something like that), which is not really any expansion at all. Looking at the diff of when the hook was promoted, it looks like no one checked the article history. Let's all please be careful to check article history and length in the future. I'm not trying to point fingers or anything (it's not any one person's fault; three different people reviewed it and missed this, and I know I've made the same mistake before as well), but just trying to give a friendly reminder. Thanks, Politizer talk/ contribs 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
On 1 February 2009, a DYK reads: "that landscape architecture firm West 8 designed the so-called "Reptile Bridge" between Leidsche Rijn and Utrecht in the Netherlands?". Rather than "Reptile Bridge" wikilinking to an article about the bridge (which would be interesting), it individually links to articles about the two words "reptile" and "bridge" (which is not very informative). Incidentally, there is no such linking in the "West 8" article itself. Perhaps we can be a bit more careful with wikilinks? Cheers. Truthanado ( talk) 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Should my old stone jail hook, currently ont he front page, say "was the last stone jail" instead of "is the last stone jail", as it is no longer a jail, but instead a b'n'b?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Other than an Alt hook suggested by Alansohn, there's been no action on my Jan. 28 DYK nom of Tony Jannus Award. Why? JGHowes talk 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) (later): As someone with 15 DYK's to my credit, I think an explanation is in order as to why this one was simply ignored without comment—I've never had this happen before. The nom met all criteria, is well sourced and, I thought, interesting. At least an explanation would be nice. JGHowes talk 13:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Now the Bot is updating after 5 hours and 52 minutes. This is worse than the the old frequency of 6 hours and 5 minutes and both are worse than setting the damn thing to perform every 6 hours. Can we make it 6 hours and 00 minutes?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there's been a glitch ... the Queue 1 hooks (starting with the Flora of Saskatchewan hook) did not make it on to the main page. The stage in the process where the bot copies them to the main page and leaves the edit summary "Adminbot automatically updating DYK template with hooks copied from queue 1" seems to have been missed. All the credits and everything else were done. I'm copying this to Nixeagle's talk page as well (bot owner), but must dash - my lunch break is over! Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 13:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been almost 81/2 hours since the last update...(look at the history of T:DYK...) — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I also noticed that someone got double credits. First [1] + [2] and later [3] + [4]. Punkmorten ( talk) 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Same as what Hassocks reported. The bot thought it had updated from queue 4, and did everything except update the DYK template. It gave out credits, reset the clock, and cleaned out queue 4. I've emailed Nixeagle. Shubinator ( talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I know it doesn't strictly meet the 5 times guideline, but I've made a lot of effort on completely re-writing this page into something I think is much better. It went from 8k to 27. I'd like to put it up for DYK, and if the answer is "no" due to the rule then perhaps I can be given a couple of days to expand so it does hit it? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 01:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Up until now the description of the {{The DYK Medal}} award has been simply "Award for significant contributions to DYK." Unfortunately it appears that some users are interpreting this as an award for less than 25 article contributions, which is not AFAIK how we've generally used it. So I've been WP:BOLD and altered the description as follows: Award for significant contributions to the operation of DYK, excluding article contributions.
If someone objects to this I'm open to discussion, but I do think that there should be a separate award for contributors to the day-to-day running of DYK, so if we're not going to use this existing award we should create a new one specifically for this kind of contributor. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This is something that has been bugging me for a long time. We get a great many articles that contain no formatting at all except maybe a few paragraphs. There is no introduction and often no sections except for the refs/footnotes. Basically, these articles are just slabs of text and they look very drab and unininteresting. For the shorter ones, they also tend to look like just a handful of paragraphs strung together - which is what many of them are, but without headers the impression is even worse.
I don't think we can justifiably mandate the addition of headers throughout an article, but I don't see why we could not make it a requirement that all DYK submissions include a discrete lead section, which means a section separated from the rest of the text by a header. Every article really should have a lead section giving a brief summary of the contents in any case, so I don't think anyone could argue that this is an unreasonable requirement. I had to add section headers to at least six submissions this evening, and quite frankly I'm getting a little tired of tryng to make other people's articles meet minimal standards of presentation. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Section headers aren't needed for 1.5k articles, which are basically just a stub. Otherwise, people will write a 1,k articles, put headers in and then put in an unecessary header and lead to puff up a stub. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, the Bot failed to clear the queue page after doing the credits again. I note that the update included a hook containing a nomination with parenthesis again (). Could this be a common factor in the Bot's occasional failure to clear queue pages? Gatoclass ( talk) 06:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
4 minutes only? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And were did this lot go after it finished its turn on the Main Page? It's not listed at Recent additions. Manxruler ( talk) 19:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Made it to 8 minutes this time [6] Is one of those hooks jinxed? -- maclean 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And what really happened to the group of hooks that included one I collaborated on, Fredrik Kayser? They should be listed at Recent additions, and they still aren't. Manxruler ( talk) 01:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
There are roughly 244 hooks on the suggestions page but only 10-12 of them have been verified—and several of those are being held provisionally for February 12th. I struggled to put together the set of hooks in queue 4 and there are now no longer enough verified hooks to assemble queue. If people could devote some attention and energy to this urgent matter, it would be greatly appreciated. - Dravecky ( talk) 21:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed Abraham Lincoln Statue and am concerned about the name of the image file used File:Hodgenville tyrant statue.jpg as it seems very POV to me (just to be clear it is a photo of a statue of Abraham Lincoln, whom User:Bedford has called a tyrant). Since the image is on Wikipedia (not Commons), I can copy it to a new file name and delete the old file, but wanted to get consensus on that first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the right place to note this, but I just wanted to point out that the Ray LaMontagne hook currently sitting in Queue 5 does not have a question mark at the end. - Whataworld06 ( talk) 21:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
When I click the edit buttons for a select section, I keep getting the wrong section. Is there a bug somewhere?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is DYK much more backed up than normal? Grsz 11 03:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm preparing an article in userspace ... well, a list with a large prose section. Anyway, in the list section, the text content is very nearly complete, but in the "Image" column—where a thumbnail pic is provided—I have only managed to provide 14 images out of about 40 so far. The intention is obviously to get a picture of every item in the list, but this may take a while (I have to travel to get them). If I moved it to mainspace now and submitted a hook, would it be ineligible per Additional rule D6 (There is a reasonable expectation that an article which is to appear on the front page, even a short one, should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress...)? If so, I could probably get another 10-12 images on Saturday... or should I hold back in userspace until all 40-ish images are in place? Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Queue four appeared to have been deleted without actually being on main page. DYKbot skipped 4 by going from 3 to 5. What's wrong?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
How can I get involved with non-admin duties here? I'd like to check articles and help clear out the backlog, but have little experience here. Any ideas would be appreciated, as I'm not sure how one becomes involved in DYK. Thanks! Law shoot! 09:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank's e-one! Law shoot! 02:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
[7]: Is the bot ever going to be fixed? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 21:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, DYKadminbot just re-posted the exact same hooks as were on the previous six hours, and recredited everyone.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article appearing in the DYK when it was created in 2003? AP1787 ( talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
In the summer of 1920, Connecticut sailed to the Caribbean and the west coast on a midshipman-Naval Reserve training cruise. The next summer found her in European ports on similar duty, and upon her return to Philadelphia 21 August 1921, was as signed as flagship Train, Pacific Fleet. She arrived at San Pedro, Calif., 28 October, and during the following year cruised along the west coast, taking part in exercises and commemorations. Entering Puget Sound Navy Yard 16 December 1922, Conne cticut was decommissioned there 1 March 1923, and sold for scrapping 1 November 1923, in accordance with the Washington Treaty for the limitation of naval armaments.
In the summer of 1920, Connecticut sailed to the Caribbean and the west coast on a midshipman-Naval Reserve training cruise. The next summer found her in European ports on similar duty, and upon her return to Philadelphia 21 August 1921, was as signed as flagship Train, Pacific Fleet. She arrived at San Pedro, Calif., 28 October, and during the following year cruised along the west coast, taking part in exercises and commemorations. Entering Puget Sound Navy Yard 16 December 1922, Conne cticut was decommissioned there 1 March 1923, and sold for scrapping 1 November 1923, in accordance with the Washington Treaty for the limitation of naval armaments.
Even the typographic error with "Conne cticut" was copied over.
This version cannot be used to justify a 5x expansion. We need to go through and see what else was still a copyright violation before this page was accepted. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
(Out) DANFS text is used at least in part in over 8,000 articles. This has been discussed several times before (one such discussion here). As long as {{ DANFS}} was present at the time the text was in the article, it's perfectly fine, copyright-wise. Parsecboy ( talk) 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
But DYK requires originals right? so the copied part doesn't count. Otherwise there will be a flood of people cutting and pasting Us govt country profiles from the CIA and hundreds of copied Education/Transport/Tourism in XXX will pop up. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This book is not in the public domain. This diff, which is the first to be over 5x expansion, contains information worded in a far too similar manner:
I could go on, but as you can see, there is wording that is far too similar to fall under adequate citation guidelines. Thus, more text is in violation and should be dismissed towards the expansion even at a later date. A more thorough check would be necessary. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
PD text does not have to be blockquoted or put in quotemarks. It can be reused in any way an editor sees fit. However, in an article that includes both DANFS PD text and considerable amounts of text from other sources, it would obviously be helpful if the DANFS text was cited to source where appropriate. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here. The DANFS is certainly in the public domain, and a can be copied by anyone without any copyright risks. So copyright is not a concern here. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on using the DANFS template versus inline citations. Raul654 ( talk) 19:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I agree with Art. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel here; go talk it over with the copyright mavens over at the appropriate page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
More random checking, you be the one to judge which one is from Wikipedia and which one is from a copyrighted text (p. 37):
The similarities are far too close. I can continue, but I am finding that just about every use of this source contains passages in violation and this should never have been approved. Only an immediate prohibition on these members is an appropriate response to this. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the current focus of discussion on this matter. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
The next update is 40+ minutes late. I emailed Nixeagle. I have an article in the next queue (#3), and I was expecting credit. Royal broil 16:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
A4 of Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules states that fivefold expansion is calculated from the previous version of the article, no matter how bad it is. But what about copyvios? I recently found Joan Snyder tagged as a coypvio. The article was created on December 5, 2008, and was a copyvio until {{ db-copyvio}} was recently added to it on January 25, 2009. On the same day, I rewrote the article, using only two sentences from the previous version. I nominated the article for DYK, but it was rejected because "there is no consensus, and no time, for analyzing and debating the quality of each previous article version before determining how many of its bytes to count. Nor has there been a consensus for making an exception to A4 for copyvios." I believe that it should qualify for DYK because it would have been deleted as G12 if I didn't save and rewrite it. I could have allowed it to be deleted and then recreated it, but I didn't do so. I haven't found any previous discussions about A4 and copyright violations, so I would like to propose that copyright violations are an exception to A4. Cunard ( talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the copyvio revisions should be discounted in determining the criteria. The author could just wait for it to be deleted and start again to get a DYK, which would just be finding away around it but I have let copyvio replacements on the main page. Fine with me. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Cunard, I think it should be ok to make exceptions in situations like this (if the entire content of the article was copy-pasted from somewhere else—as opposed to bits and pieces of the article being stolen from somewhere else—there's a clear case that the article should not have existed, at least in that form, and so if you rewrite it from scratch it is basically a new article, even if the subject itself is not new to Wikipedia), but is not necessary to write those exceptions into the rules. These kinds of things would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis; in addition to the issue of how much of the article was copyvio (in this case, it looks like the whole thing was) another issue is how much of the "rewriting" was new—ie did the writer blank the whole page and then start from scratch, or did the writer use the copyvio version as a scaffolding for what to write, and clean up things to make the writing "different" from the original? For reasons such as this (not to mention instruction creep), I don't think it would be wise to add an all-encompassing rule exempting all copyvio cleanup from normal expansion rules. Sometimes this sort of work might consitute a "new" enough article for DYK to recognize, and sometimes it might just be an unrewarded good deed.
The reason there is that part of A4 stating that expansion is counted from the previously existing article no matter what shape it is, is so that people don't bog down DYK by saying "ok I only expanded it 3x, but the text that was there was so terrible that my expansion has really improved it more than fivefold, so please go assess it" or "well it only looks like a 3x expansion, but actually I deleted all the old content and rewrote everything, so I've written way more than what the expansion looks like, please go count it for yourself"...that kind of assessment is just something we simply don't have time for, and character count is a convenient and impartial way to assess article expansion. Anyway, that's why I'm saying it is probably ok to IAR on copyvio rescues when the original copyvio was especially blatant (as in the case above), but in other cases it might be difficult to ascertain the extent of the copyvio and the extent of the improvement...cases like that need to be handled differently, so there's not much point making a sweeping change to A4 that would exempt both of them from the rules. Politizer talk/ contribs 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyvios are not counted for the purpose of determining length of the x5 expansion. There are also precedents for not counting text that is clearly irrelevant to the topic of the article, but again, if someone wants to propose an expansion on such grounds, they should ask for an opinion here first in order to avoid disappointment. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing major, but check out the DYK template on Talk:K_pattern_flamethrower. Is that right (the %28)? — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Though i have received a DYK nom credit for the article, a DYK tag is missing on article talk. DYK entry (... that the Imperial_Japanese_Navy destroyer Kamikaze was one of the few larger Japanese warships to survive the Pacific War without significant damage?) is present in Archive at 15:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC). -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with how the DYKbot works. Could someone take a look at this, please? Updating DYK with hooks from Queue 2 merely 8 minutes after updating with hooks from Queue 1 doesn't seem right to me. Did Charles B. Moores, Japanese destroyer Kamikaze (1922), An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963, India-Mongolia relations, JUPITER trial, Steven Joyce, Tropical Depression Ten (2005) & Fred Shaw Mayer get their rightful 6 hours of exposure on MainPage? Or am I missing something? -- PFHLai ( talk) 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Since 13 days ago, the "(pictured)" text at Wikipedia:Recent additions is broken in the most recent additions. Gary King ( talk) 04:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
To avoid bolding the apostrophe in a situation like Joseph Sadler's, we have been using <nowiki>'</nowiki>s, and lately we have been using {{'s}}. But they aren't quite the same. The template adds a thin space before the apostrophe; compare Joseph Sadler's to Joseph Sadler's. I'm not sure if it matters, but for now I'm going back to <nowiki>'</nowiki>s. You may want to comment at Template talk:'#Extra space before the apostrophe. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I tried to take a shot at organizing all the stuff in Category:Wikipedia Did you know templates by making some subcategories (ie, templates used for preparing the next update, templates for user talk, etc.). Most importantly, you might want to take a look at the subcategory Category:Deprecated DYK templates, where I put the templates that (as far as I know) no one is really using, and thus might be worth deleting if we ever decide to get organized. I don't really know everything about all of these, so I might have put some templates in that category erroneously. Also, there were a few templates that I wasn't able to move into the proper subcategory because they're protected (the queues, etc.). Politizer talk/ contribs 07:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed a tendency for some DYK hooks not to provide context for the reader lately. Just now we have these cryptic hooks that could be improved by adding a few words (in square brackets):
Recently I also noticed the DYK
did not identify the conflict as the Spanish Civil War. Perhaps this would have been clearer as DYK
If the idea is to be cryptic so as to attract more eyes to article ("I don't know what this is, so I'll follow the link"), so be it, but I think more context helps. This is a suggestion - I know how hard the DYK folks work and am not trying to be critical, just asking this be something taken into consideration in the future. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It has been suggested that a potential 16 article hook related to the American Civil War introduced on January 21 be saved for April 9, the anniversary of the ending of the Civil War. It has also been suggested for 2 queues for that day since there are 16 related articles involved to the ending of the American Civil War. There is a suggested Alt 3 hook that several have liked that seems to work well, with the related picture. The articles then would receive much airtime for this important event in American history - especially if a DYK for that particular date. -- Doug Coldwell talk 16:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Therefore, the purpose of Appomattox Court House National Historical Park is to commemorate the effective termination of the Civil War brought about by the surrender of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, under General Robert E. Lee to the Union Army under Lt. General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia on April 9, 1865 and for the further purpose of honoring those who engaged in this tremendous conflict.
- The primary significance of Appomattox Court House National Historical Park can be summarized as:
- -the site of the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia under General Robert E. Lee to Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, commander of the Union forces, April 9-12, 1865, effectively marking the end of the Civil War.
- -the site of the Battle of Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, which led directly to the surrender.
The National Park Service has a separate number for each of these structures under their List of Classified Structures for Virginia and Appomattox Court House National Historical Park and list these as individual specific notable structures of significance. It has further individual information on each of these structures as being significant in their own right with many having separate pages for description and historical significance, each a Wikipedia article of pretty good size now.
Each of the cemeteries and ruins are listed also in the List of Classified Structures with their own specific number and information.
It appears the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, controlled by the National Park Service, has listed each of the structures and buildings (i.e. Appomattox Court House, McLean House, Clover Hill Tavern, etc) within the Park. It shows for each structure and building under Historical Significance that the National Register Status has been entered and Documented. The National Register Date: 06/26/1989.
According to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 all historic areas, including National Historical Parks controlled by the National Park System, are automatically listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This includes the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park and all of its structures and buildings in its 77 List of Classified Structures, including but not limited to Clover Hill Tavern and Woodson Law Office and Bocock-Isbell House and Sweeney Prizery and the Park's cemeteries and ruins (each one listed individually in the NRHP under the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park) - all of which are in the 16 article hook DYK.
I believe that ALT 3 is a reasonable 16 article hook DYK that would get a lot of airtime on April 9, especially with its associated picture.
-- Doug Coldwell talk 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Instead of waiting until April, February 12 would make more sense. It is the tyrant's 200th Birthday. I'm already going to have four DYK hooks just for the occasion.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I performed a closer look at the National Register. We have a few options so I will lay out the information then say how I see it: "Appomattox Court House" is listed as not being a historical landmark (per this). There is a well house that is part of the same listing under the whole park (per this). There is also fencing listed under the same entry ( per this).
Then we have buildings like the McLean House which have the same sort of entry ( per this). It is also designated as not being a landmark. Grant surrendered there, so it is a moment of significance. Its wellhouse is listed with it, but lacks significance ( per this). There are other buildings, including a slave house, privy, fence and kitchen that are listed separatly (example per this).
The Clover Hill Tavern had parole listings about the Confederates, but this is only a semi-notable feature, and the part that had it decayed long ago ( per this). A guest house is listed with it, along with a slave house, fence and privy ( per this). Patteson Hix Cemetaries is listed as existing at the time, and having bodies of county founders, but no real notability ( [ per this). The county jail has nothing significant to connect it to the event except for proximitely ( per this).
I can go through the rest, but you can see that the level of notability (its part of the site) would list bathrooms, fences, slave quarters, and 77 individual articles if that is used as notability. Since the National Register does not designate it as a historical landmark and only as a park (thus, needing to fall under National Register like all governmental properties), the buildings cannot be deemed to be individually notable or there will be pages on clearly non-notable things (bathrooms, fences, etc). These should be deemed notable based on references only. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've yet to make my mind up on this particular submission, but I do think that with the increasing popularity of multis, we need to add a clause to the rules which stresses that users who want to submit long multis should consider canvassing opinion regarding their eligibility on this page before going ahead with creating the articles, in order to avoid possible disappointment. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have left a note at the NRHP wikiproject asking for further opinions on this submission. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Why must all 15 (or 16 or however many there) new articles appear in the hook? Does anybody seriously think that a casual reader will religiously click on each of the links just because they are bolded? If anybody is interested they will undoubtedly read all the articles by reaching them from the links in the main Appomattox Park article. Anybody who isn't interested in the main article isn't going to feel cheated because the Jones house wasn't mentioned in the hook. Unless DYK is only about records and counting nowadays I can't see the point. Highlight a couple of the new articles if it makes an interesting hook by all means, but don't insist on a tedious list just because it bumps somebody up a chart somewhere. DYK shouldn't be a competition, and if it is...just count them anyway (add 15 on to your total on whichever unregulated chart and you are done). Yomangani talk 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If I may be so bold, I believe Yomangani's point is that this is not a "hook" in any meaningful sense. This laundry list of bold blue links will not "hook" the attention of readers. "Did you know that there are lots of very exciting historic buildings and ruins in some park?" --- One pound ( talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It is great that Doug Coldwell has taken the time and trouble to create all of these article, but I think most of them should be merged together somewhere. I can't see the notability - each is a rather derivative example of its type, of which there must be hundreds or thousands of examples, and their only claim to fame is that they are near Appomattox Court House.
The people at AfD will have a better idea of how notable they are individually. I'll start with Woodson Law Office and Jones Law Office. -- One pound ( talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodson Law Office and Jones Law Office. -- One pound ( talk) 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads-up... myself and some others are planning to create a number of thematic articles for Darwin Day, February 12 (the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth). See Wikipedia:Did you know/Darwin Day 2009. More contributions are welcome. That day will feature history of evolutionary thought and hopefully a Darwin-related featured picture as well, and I hope DYK will try to accommodate the new articles to schedule them for February 12; most of them will be ready to be deployed well ahead of time, so we'll move them to mainspace and list the hooks on February 6 or 7.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
We had several objections to the running of Doug Coldwell's recent 16-part multi on the basis that not all the entries merited their own article. In my own opinion the hook should not have been run as it was, but I was reluctant to oppose given the obvious work Doug had put into it.
In order to prevent similar dilemmas arising in future however, I'm proposing that future multis based upon NHRP must get prior approval at this page first. I'm also toying with the idea of having a requirement for prior approval of any multi with more than say, four articles. Comments please. Gatoclass ( talk) 04:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
On second thoughts, perhaps making it compulsory is going a little too far at this stage. I think what I'll do instead is just add a recommendation to the rules that users consult here first to avoid possible disappointment. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) re Art and Nrswanson: it's always good to make sure hooks we pass are interesting, but I don't see there ever being a rule saying "hooks must be interesting"; as has been reiterated numerous times above, it would be an impossible standard to maintain and it would just lead to drama. In my [admittedly brief] time working at T:TDYK, I never had problems by just sometimes saying stuff like "length checks out, but the hook is pretty bland; can you find any more interesting facts in the article?", and I never needed to cite a rule to get people to listen to me. Like Nrswanson said, it's about using common sense. And, even more so, it's about working with the nominators to find an acceptable hook, rather than just citing a rule and saying "doesn't meet the criteria, toss it." Half of the hooks that come through here are in unacceptable shape when they first show up, and get dragged up to main-page standard through collaboration among DYK people and between them and the nominators. (I'm all about collaborating with the nominators; I mean, the first thing I ever did for DYK was making the {{ DYKproblem}} template for it.) Politizer talk/ contribs 01:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
To prevent future problems, I am planning a 5-6 article hook concerning the Kentucky Railway Museum. The museum itself will get a 5x, and then four separate articles on train cars that are each separately on the Register, and then another property next door to the museum which would have been used as a hotel during its train days. All are in New Haven, Kentucky. See National Register of Historic Places listings in Nelson County, Kentucky for the related articles.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 04:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Bedford, do the trains have their own separate articles in the register or is it all covered by the one article? If the latter, I would be inclined to say no. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You haven't said anything about the building next door. Is that listed on the register? If not, how is it notable? Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I've placed the hook on February 2's section; it should be fairly interesting.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 02:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but something is wrong with the picture in Template:Did you know/Queue/2. I'm not an admininistrator so I can't fix it myself. Cheers. Broadweighbabe ( talk) 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't get credits for Øystein Sørensen (1 Feb) or Ndiss Kaba Badji (3 Feb). Both are listed at Recent Additions, though. What's the cause of this problem? Punkmorten ( talk) 10:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
sorry, I'm sure it's a FAQ, but how can I get the John Maynard (cricketer) nomination verified?
As an outsider, can I not that the DYK process comes across to those unfamiliar with it as very bureaucratic, which is offputting. I'd be happy to have a peruse through it and make some streamlining suggestions for you to consider... I'm happy for every comment to be rejected (this isn't for my ego).
Finally, it seems the pages are quite backlogged. Are you short on volunteers? Perhaps some advertising coverage at the Signpost could help? --
Dweller (
talk)
12:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all. -- Dweller ( talk) 20:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Seeing how themed DYKs are all the rage, did anyone notice that Friday 13 and Valentine's Day are neck and neck this year? "Bad luck" and "love"; it should be easy to come up with topics. Lampman ( talk) 02:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Water puppetry, which is the lead hook on T:DYK right now...it's a nice article and I was about to go thank Gryffindor for bringing it to DYK, but in the process I noticed that it does not seem to be a new expansion. Current version is 3875 characters; version before expansion was 3669 (please correct me if I'm wrong and I'm missing some move or something like that), which is not really any expansion at all. Looking at the diff of when the hook was promoted, it looks like no one checked the article history. Let's all please be careful to check article history and length in the future. I'm not trying to point fingers or anything (it's not any one person's fault; three different people reviewed it and missed this, and I know I've made the same mistake before as well), but just trying to give a friendly reminder. Thanks, Politizer talk/ contribs 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
On 1 February 2009, a DYK reads: "that landscape architecture firm West 8 designed the so-called "Reptile Bridge" between Leidsche Rijn and Utrecht in the Netherlands?". Rather than "Reptile Bridge" wikilinking to an article about the bridge (which would be interesting), it individually links to articles about the two words "reptile" and "bridge" (which is not very informative). Incidentally, there is no such linking in the "West 8" article itself. Perhaps we can be a bit more careful with wikilinks? Cheers. Truthanado ( talk) 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Should my old stone jail hook, currently ont he front page, say "was the last stone jail" instead of "is the last stone jail", as it is no longer a jail, but instead a b'n'b?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Other than an Alt hook suggested by Alansohn, there's been no action on my Jan. 28 DYK nom of Tony Jannus Award. Why? JGHowes talk 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) (later): As someone with 15 DYK's to my credit, I think an explanation is in order as to why this one was simply ignored without comment—I've never had this happen before. The nom met all criteria, is well sourced and, I thought, interesting. At least an explanation would be nice. JGHowes talk 13:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Now the Bot is updating after 5 hours and 52 minutes. This is worse than the the old frequency of 6 hours and 5 minutes and both are worse than setting the damn thing to perform every 6 hours. Can we make it 6 hours and 00 minutes?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there's been a glitch ... the Queue 1 hooks (starting with the Flora of Saskatchewan hook) did not make it on to the main page. The stage in the process where the bot copies them to the main page and leaves the edit summary "Adminbot automatically updating DYK template with hooks copied from queue 1" seems to have been missed. All the credits and everything else were done. I'm copying this to Nixeagle's talk page as well (bot owner), but must dash - my lunch break is over! Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 13:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been almost 81/2 hours since the last update...(look at the history of T:DYK...) — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I also noticed that someone got double credits. First [1] + [2] and later [3] + [4]. Punkmorten ( talk) 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Same as what Hassocks reported. The bot thought it had updated from queue 4, and did everything except update the DYK template. It gave out credits, reset the clock, and cleaned out queue 4. I've emailed Nixeagle. Shubinator ( talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I know it doesn't strictly meet the 5 times guideline, but I've made a lot of effort on completely re-writing this page into something I think is much better. It went from 8k to 27. I'd like to put it up for DYK, and if the answer is "no" due to the rule then perhaps I can be given a couple of days to expand so it does hit it? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 01:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Up until now the description of the {{The DYK Medal}} award has been simply "Award for significant contributions to DYK." Unfortunately it appears that some users are interpreting this as an award for less than 25 article contributions, which is not AFAIK how we've generally used it. So I've been WP:BOLD and altered the description as follows: Award for significant contributions to the operation of DYK, excluding article contributions.
If someone objects to this I'm open to discussion, but I do think that there should be a separate award for contributors to the day-to-day running of DYK, so if we're not going to use this existing award we should create a new one specifically for this kind of contributor. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This is something that has been bugging me for a long time. We get a great many articles that contain no formatting at all except maybe a few paragraphs. There is no introduction and often no sections except for the refs/footnotes. Basically, these articles are just slabs of text and they look very drab and unininteresting. For the shorter ones, they also tend to look like just a handful of paragraphs strung together - which is what many of them are, but without headers the impression is even worse.
I don't think we can justifiably mandate the addition of headers throughout an article, but I don't see why we could not make it a requirement that all DYK submissions include a discrete lead section, which means a section separated from the rest of the text by a header. Every article really should have a lead section giving a brief summary of the contents in any case, so I don't think anyone could argue that this is an unreasonable requirement. I had to add section headers to at least six submissions this evening, and quite frankly I'm getting a little tired of tryng to make other people's articles meet minimal standards of presentation. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Section headers aren't needed for 1.5k articles, which are basically just a stub. Otherwise, people will write a 1,k articles, put headers in and then put in an unecessary header and lead to puff up a stub. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, the Bot failed to clear the queue page after doing the credits again. I note that the update included a hook containing a nomination with parenthesis again (). Could this be a common factor in the Bot's occasional failure to clear queue pages? Gatoclass ( talk) 06:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
4 minutes only? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And were did this lot go after it finished its turn on the Main Page? It's not listed at Recent additions. Manxruler ( talk) 19:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Made it to 8 minutes this time [6] Is one of those hooks jinxed? -- maclean 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And what really happened to the group of hooks that included one I collaborated on, Fredrik Kayser? They should be listed at Recent additions, and they still aren't. Manxruler ( talk) 01:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
There are roughly 244 hooks on the suggestions page but only 10-12 of them have been verified—and several of those are being held provisionally for February 12th. I struggled to put together the set of hooks in queue 4 and there are now no longer enough verified hooks to assemble queue. If people could devote some attention and energy to this urgent matter, it would be greatly appreciated. - Dravecky ( talk) 21:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed Abraham Lincoln Statue and am concerned about the name of the image file used File:Hodgenville tyrant statue.jpg as it seems very POV to me (just to be clear it is a photo of a statue of Abraham Lincoln, whom User:Bedford has called a tyrant). Since the image is on Wikipedia (not Commons), I can copy it to a new file name and delete the old file, but wanted to get consensus on that first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the right place to note this, but I just wanted to point out that the Ray LaMontagne hook currently sitting in Queue 5 does not have a question mark at the end. - Whataworld06 ( talk) 21:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
When I click the edit buttons for a select section, I keep getting the wrong section. Is there a bug somewhere?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is DYK much more backed up than normal? Grsz 11 03:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm preparing an article in userspace ... well, a list with a large prose section. Anyway, in the list section, the text content is very nearly complete, but in the "Image" column—where a thumbnail pic is provided—I have only managed to provide 14 images out of about 40 so far. The intention is obviously to get a picture of every item in the list, but this may take a while (I have to travel to get them). If I moved it to mainspace now and submitted a hook, would it be ineligible per Additional rule D6 (There is a reasonable expectation that an article which is to appear on the front page, even a short one, should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress...)? If so, I could probably get another 10-12 images on Saturday... or should I hold back in userspace until all 40-ish images are in place? Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Queue four appeared to have been deleted without actually being on main page. DYKbot skipped 4 by going from 3 to 5. What's wrong?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
How can I get involved with non-admin duties here? I'd like to check articles and help clear out the backlog, but have little experience here. Any ideas would be appreciated, as I'm not sure how one becomes involved in DYK. Thanks! Law shoot! 09:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank's e-one! Law shoot! 02:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
[7]: Is the bot ever going to be fixed? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 21:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, DYKadminbot just re-posted the exact same hooks as were on the previous six hours, and recredited everyone.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article appearing in the DYK when it was created in 2003? AP1787 ( talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
In the summer of 1920, Connecticut sailed to the Caribbean and the west coast on a midshipman-Naval Reserve training cruise. The next summer found her in European ports on similar duty, and upon her return to Philadelphia 21 August 1921, was as signed as flagship Train, Pacific Fleet. She arrived at San Pedro, Calif., 28 October, and during the following year cruised along the west coast, taking part in exercises and commemorations. Entering Puget Sound Navy Yard 16 December 1922, Conne cticut was decommissioned there 1 March 1923, and sold for scrapping 1 November 1923, in accordance with the Washington Treaty for the limitation of naval armaments.
In the summer of 1920, Connecticut sailed to the Caribbean and the west coast on a midshipman-Naval Reserve training cruise. The next summer found her in European ports on similar duty, and upon her return to Philadelphia 21 August 1921, was as signed as flagship Train, Pacific Fleet. She arrived at San Pedro, Calif., 28 October, and during the following year cruised along the west coast, taking part in exercises and commemorations. Entering Puget Sound Navy Yard 16 December 1922, Conne cticut was decommissioned there 1 March 1923, and sold for scrapping 1 November 1923, in accordance with the Washington Treaty for the limitation of naval armaments.
Even the typographic error with "Conne cticut" was copied over.
This version cannot be used to justify a 5x expansion. We need to go through and see what else was still a copyright violation before this page was accepted. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
(Out) DANFS text is used at least in part in over 8,000 articles. This has been discussed several times before (one such discussion here). As long as {{ DANFS}} was present at the time the text was in the article, it's perfectly fine, copyright-wise. Parsecboy ( talk) 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
But DYK requires originals right? so the copied part doesn't count. Otherwise there will be a flood of people cutting and pasting Us govt country profiles from the CIA and hundreds of copied Education/Transport/Tourism in XXX will pop up. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This book is not in the public domain. This diff, which is the first to be over 5x expansion, contains information worded in a far too similar manner:
I could go on, but as you can see, there is wording that is far too similar to fall under adequate citation guidelines. Thus, more text is in violation and should be dismissed towards the expansion even at a later date. A more thorough check would be necessary. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
PD text does not have to be blockquoted or put in quotemarks. It can be reused in any way an editor sees fit. However, in an article that includes both DANFS PD text and considerable amounts of text from other sources, it would obviously be helpful if the DANFS text was cited to source where appropriate. Gatoclass ( talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here. The DANFS is certainly in the public domain, and a can be copied by anyone without any copyright risks. So copyright is not a concern here. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on using the DANFS template versus inline citations. Raul654 ( talk) 19:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I agree with Art. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel here; go talk it over with the copyright mavens over at the appropriate page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
More random checking, you be the one to judge which one is from Wikipedia and which one is from a copyrighted text (p. 37):
The similarities are far too close. I can continue, but I am finding that just about every use of this source contains passages in violation and this should never have been approved. Only an immediate prohibition on these members is an appropriate response to this. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the current focus of discussion on this matter. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)