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 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
A perhaps inconsequential question before I head to bed . . . At the top of each prep page is a note saying: "Since on average about 50% of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have roughly half the hooks in any given update on U.S. topics. Thanks." Does anyone know whether this is still so? My impression is that the relative number of U.S. hooks has declined, for whatever reason(s). Of course, the prep I clicked on to get the wording currently has 4½ U.S.-focused hooks, so I could be wrong . . . Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the DYK team are doing a fine job. I find that I continually return here to find the same people up to their OLD TRICKS of looking after the Wikipedia project. Why is it that I have to be only person who turns up here and notices that despite doing a tricky job to the best of your ability you are getting little respect or admiration. At Wikimania Jimmy was talking about retaining editors. DYK is still retaining editors - just. Well done. Some of us count your successes. I do admire your ability to perservere and I hope one day you will return to your previous productivity of encouraging new editors and articles. Victuallers ( talk) 10:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Chiming in to say thank you to all the people who keep this process moving. Writers, such as myself, do appreciate this a lot, even if we don't say it every time :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
A reputation is normally associated with a qualitative or quantitative perception, not a medical concept. What does it mean to say that a settlement has a reputation for fevers? Did it have a reputation for healers who could cure fevers? Did it have a high incidence of fevers? Did it have specific, unique fevers? Was this reputation well founded? Has it been rebutted? The hook is uninformative, and the reader will remain uninformed by the article. Kevin McE ( talk) 09:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The hook is referenced to an 1878 book, which estimates the population at 2,000. The reviewer suggested an alternate hook on grounds of interest: "... that the Pangani River (pictured) was probably Ptolemy's Rhaptus?" I see the interest as only marginally greater, but the alt emphasizes the target article and avoids the problem that the info is out of date and negative. I'm going to boldly make the change and change the mentions in the article to clarify it's now a town. Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
There are several nominations on the noms page that currently seem to be in suspense, apparently waiting for me to continue my review (or, rather, follow up on earlier reviews). I'm very preoccupied with real life right now, so please don't wait for me. Someone else should pick up the review. (And regardless of my current status, I contend that no one WP:OWNs a DYK review.) -- Orlady ( talk) 11:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
... that boiling oil is one of the usable weapons in the upcoming video game Chivalry: Medieval Warfare? All phrases like "in the upcoming video game" imply an advert. I think we should avoid this on the main page. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone, TonyTheTiger has requested that the hook for his nomination The Litigators at Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators be shown on the mainpage on 25 October. Could somebody give some feedback and if possible promote the hook? Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
One item asks: “Did you know that microalgae is used widely in aquaculture and is now cultured itself in hatcheries?” The word “
algae” is the plural form of the word “
alga”, so the question should be “Did you know that micro algae are used widely in aquaculture and are now cultured themselves in hatcheries?”
—
Wavelength (
talk)
00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The claim here is rather self-congratulatory, and is entirely based on the subject's own witness. No independent observers means only first-hand sources: not appropriate for a claim that promotes his professional cause. Kevin McE ( talk) 15:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey! Sorry if I'm being a little dense here, but are we using 2 Queues for Halloween or 3? I notice that it's Halloween in 3 queues in different countries but I don't know if we are. I'm sure there are some other articles we could add to a third queue (I've got a few up my sleeve and I'm sure others do too). Panyd The muffin is not subtle 18:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that all corrections were made on grounds for divorce (united states law)page. The citation box was removed.-- Nas132 ( talk) 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Kudos to Found5dollar for recognizing and attempting to fix the main page error in DYK (it looks like a good faith mistake that we shouldn't expect to be picked up by DYK review [3]), but in looking further into this:
Are we already moving backwards on the accountability improvements that were instituted recently? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
|nompage=
parameter is only needed when the title of the nomination page is different from the title of the article itself (usually because someone misspelled the article name during nomination or moved the article after it was nominated—the former is what happened here). I don't know enough about bot coding to make sure the DYK bot carries over the |nompage=
from the nomination page itself to {{
DYK talk}}
, and Shubinator has been very busy lately so I guess he hasn't gotten a chance to make it work yet.Could someone possibly review Jeruk Purut Cemetery in time for Halloween? Sorry for the rush; I just finished touching up the article yesterday. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Morphsuits
Can anyone review the Morphsuits article? It's been unreviewed since I nominated it on October 21. They're oddball lycra costumes, one of the biggest selling costumes this Halloween season, apparently, having been popular for some time now, but now peaking into the mainstream in North America. -- Zanimum ( talk) 13:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Valentina Babor as a homage to Liszt to appear close to his birthday, that is past. It occured to me that the hook might pay homage to the other composer mentioned, whose birthday is 2 November, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
"... that the music a person hears in childhood may affect that person's musical cognition as an adult?" Almost all is bold in that hook, I think it's misleading and doesn't give me as a reader a clue what the article is about, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
One does not "lead in losses". He may have had more losses than any other pitcher: that is not holding a lead. Kevin McE ( talk) 18:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with the page view numbers for DYK? I had a DYK on 25 October ( Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.4), and when I checked it, it had eight views that day. The lead hook Patriot's Park had 11 views. It's a similar story on 24 October. Is there a technical glitch somewhere? Manxruler ( talk) 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it allowed to have more than two DYKs nominated at a time? HurricaneFan 25 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I was poking about on the list looking for articles to review when I noticed that several that I had added to the queue were missing. This was for the same reason as the thread above. I'm not sure, but I believe this might have happened with Course Setting Bomb Sight, which would be sad given both the work that I put into it, and that it was "the most important bombsight of the war".
Having gone through the process now, I have to say that I find it to be onerous. You have to flip through several pages and make your edits in the right order or it just fails, falling into a blackhole. Is there any reason this could not be further automated. When you use the nominations box, it appears everything is being automated, which is why I failed to follow through.
It's not automated, but why not? Would it not be possible to add all new noms automatically to a holding list at the bottom of the page? This would at least ensure they wouldn't simply disappear.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I just tried it several times, and I do not see the message you link to. That's because, as is often the case these days, there's so much verbiage between the top of the page and the editor box that when the cursor appears in the editor the top of the screen is scrolled right off the screen. That's doubly surprising considering I'm on a very very large monitor. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 01:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
We had some evidence after the new process was instituted that some people, especially newbies, were having difficulty remembering to transclude their nominations. Rjanag, I saw you leaving such people notes that they hadn't completed the process, so you were evidently patrolling to check. That was very nice of you; maybe some of us should start adding that to our patrolling activities. I will if I can figure out how :-) Also remembering to transclude has clearly been tripping up some experienced people; and despite a warning box there, it trips people up at AfD, too. My only suggestion would be to add to the pink box, "You might want to copy this string now ready to paste it in in the last step." Because that's what the rest of us are usually doing. Unless anyone thinks that would be considered condescending. It's true that it's not very much more complicated than the old process, but it's also true that people are forgetting to transclude - and that DYK needs submissions, of all kinds. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The hook for DYK for an article has to be cited in the article, not only on the page, I think? I had a DYK using a hook that was not mentioned/explained in the article, but later removed it. I'm wondering if it would be allowable to submit an article for DYK with a hook that is cited on the DYK nom page but not in the article? Thanks. (BTW, the hook has been changed at Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Cindy (1959) to be supported by a ref in an article.) Thanks! HurricaneFan25 | talk 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I've submitted 7 DYKs, each with a matching review, since mid-September and can't find any of them in the archives or any queue, even the ones from only a week ago. What's going on here? I can provide the names of the nominations if necessary.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll note that I created the nom pages themselves within the specified time limits, but failed to transclude them in a timely manner. So, in at least one sense, I did indeed meet the time limits. Y'all will have to decide which is more important, the date of transclusion or of creation.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead hook in DYK sounds a bit strange. Shouldn't there be a "which"?
In addition, I didn't understand the picture's relevance immediately; that might have to be elaborated a bit.
HurricaneFan 25 14:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone should cover the Halloween event in the Signpost, I wasn't actively involved and see no staging area, so I think it would be easier for someone who know's what going on to write a short blurb =). Cheers, Res Mar 02:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a public domain source, and it's not a matter of "personal ethical norms"-- it's an example of yet another leading DYKer cutting-and-pasting to create hundreds of DYKs, which then receive scanty review because the editor is known at DYK (and that's how DYK let other editors slip through the cracks until it was discovered they had created hundreds). Reviewers should locate these here, because for me to retype the text from Google books is tedious, and they're right there. I indicated when I made the post that I had looked at articles other than PD. I've typed a couple samples-- there are others. It should also be noted that a violation of copyright is not "just plagiarism" or "just a matter of ethics"-- it's both plagiarism and copyright violation.
Structure copied, a few words varied here and there:
On the reliable sources issue, DYK required a minimum number of characters or expansion-- expanding articles from non-reliable sources shouldn't count, and questions of dubious reliability should be brought to WP:RSN (this one hasn't, and hobby or fansites are rarely reliable).
That one of these articles is over-quoted and has noticeable prose and grammar issues, and the other uses non-reliable sources and has text that fails verification, indicates that even in spite of lower volume here, reviews are still not being conducted and scantily reviewed text is being featured on the main page.
Who plans to remove these from the mainpage?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
14:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a relief to me that many of you find the wording taken from out-of-copyright sources to be acceptable. That was what I had found.
Yngvadottir (
talk)
15:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The frequency of this problem at DYK seems to come from several factors: 1) once an editor is established at DYK, their work receives scanty reviews; 2) some regulars at DYK support cut-and-paste from PD or don't understand copyvio; 3) too much volume goes through here; 4) once some editors get the endorphin high of getting quick cut-and-paste work featured on the mainpage, they seem to become addicted and their norms may slip, etc.
If folks can't rephrase from sources, and if DYK doesn't have enough resources to correctly review, they should at least not be having the content featured on the mainpage. History has shown that when the light stops shining on the problems, they resurface quickly. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The penultimate DYK from the same editor above:
See the text around the bolded text-- a few words changed, structure copied. Same sentence structure-- same to similar wording. If I only have to go back one DYK to find similar, are reviews here slacking off again? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
There shall be no violation of copyright for the
c. repetition, either in whole or in part, of news from a news agency, broadcasting organization, and newspaper or any other resources, provided that the source thereof shall be fully cited.
Going to the next prior DYK from the same nominator, we see an example of the difficulty of rephrasing facts (the words are juggled and changed only ever-so-slightly, and the meaning may have been changed-- it is assumed that "in the area" means all of Washington DC when in fact, the area refers to 18th St and New York Avenue according to the source)
This is another problem independent of but related to the ever so slight juggling of words, indicating why DYKs should be correctly reviewed for accurate rephrasing in our own words. Perhaps there are other sources that clarify if "Washington DC area" is used correctly here, as we understand that term today? I've found concerns in three out of the last three DYKs by this author: the point is, what kind of review goes into DYKs, which are featured on our mainpage? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Another in the queue, which considering the above, should be reviewed:
I'm unable to read the source because the type is too small, but suggest someone check the queue about to go up, since it's apparent that reviews are again lacking at DYK, and admins should not be putting unreviewed content on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a mistake here? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Come on, folks, we need to get back to real reviews here:
This one is waaay too obvious, and not hard to rephrase, so what is our excuse? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
In light of these events, I have requested a contributor copyright investigation here. HurricaneFan 25 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've read the above and the (other sections below), and what is missing here is examples and discussion of actual rewriting, which IMO are crucial to getting people on the same page here (agreeing on how to handle and review matters like this). I'm not going to post the entire text here, but I posted to Sandy's talk page here. I think that in future when such examples are raised, at least one example should include a rewrite to show people how to move away from source text to something that is acceptable to most people. There are several ways this can be done, but the only way to really get experience with that is to actually attempt it yourself and discuss with others. So hopefully that can be done more here when this comes up again. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
That is fine, but I stand by what I've said previously, that this is only part of the solution. Unless someone (or a group of people) take it on themselves to actually discuss examples, you will end up with: (a) people continuing to disagree (in some cases legitimately) over where the line is drawn, and thus learning precisely nothing from the arguments (thus in effect wasting the time you are spending doing this); and (b) some (conservative or inexperienced) reviewers will err too far in the direction of caution, with legitimate text being criticized and unnecessarily rewritten, with the consequent harm that can do (in reality it is a balancing act). The only way to avoid this (IMO) is discussion. As an example, see what Johnbod said here (at your talk page). That is a very useful point he made there, and that would have been lost with your more brusque approach. What it essentially comes down to is knowing your sources well and treating them sympathetically (in the sense of knowing when to summarise and when to use detail). This is not an easy skill to acquire, but is something that you have to explain to people. Reviewing without including that element of (brief) education is, IMO, next to useless. You don't have to spend ages on it, but there is a world of difference between a quick, spot-check review and a slightly longer, more thoughtful discussion. If the number of DYKs needs to be reduced to allow more thoughtful reviews, then that should happen. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)"If you have time to teach people to rewrite, by all means do so ... such examples at DYK might be helpful. I'm concerned with teaching people to review nominations, and avoiding repeat offenses at the cut-and-paste playground that is DYK." SandyGeorgia 13:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
First, copyvio from Spanish to English is still copyvio, failed verification, but never mind all of that, since not everyone can read the Spanish sources-- did the people approving this DYK even read it? It has basic ce needs throughout (a couple obvious already done by me). I'm curious to know how reviewers here watch for copyvio if they don't read the articles? One of the ways to detect plagiarism and copyvio is by ... ummmm ... reading the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Just came across this unreviewed nom from August:
Unlike the recent complainants, the nominator of this actually did nominate properly, but it seems like it got lost without being reviewed when we transferred from daily subpages to having everything on T:TDYK. So it's our own fault that this was never run. Can it still be reviewed and featured? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 01:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Needs an comma after the word England, which, like Northumberland, is a parenthetical commentary on the location of Elsdon.
There are few, if any, new areas in India, and the musicians do not record in their own genre wherever they are (or if they do, it defeats the stated aim of reflecting the culture of each area. Suggest ... that in each episode of the musical documentary series The Dewarists, musicians visit a different part of India, and record a song in a genre which reflects the local culture? Kevin McE ( talk) 18:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that a number of nominations have been found as not having had their transclusions, well, transcluded to T:TDYK recently, perhaps there should be a bot script written that will check new "Template:Did you know nominations/*" pages to see if they are transluded on Template talk:Did you know every X hours and post a message on the nom creator's talk page if not? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any chance of an expedited review/queuing for Hilya? It would make a good DYK for Eid, which starts on November 6 (see User_talk:Johnbod#Thanks_2). Thanks, -- J N 466 06:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Is there something wrong with the DYK update, it appears that the main page update scheduled for 12:00 UTC today did not go through?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
On 6 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gombloh, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gombloh.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
{{
DYKmake}}
and launch some preset window. There is no entry for DYK hook in this window, and thus I can't easily add it even if I want to. However, I do add hooks to the article talks (this is easier). The bot issues credits differently.
Materialscientist (
talk)
12:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)A couple grammar and other issues I've spotted.
...on Template:Did you know nominations/Not Afraid. I don't much like it (article and hook), but I think having someone else look at it would be fair. Thanks in advance. Drmies ( talk) 20:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of nominations from 2+ weeks ago that have not received any attention whatsoever. This is no doubt down to many reviewers' tendencies to review the more recent noms rather than searching through to find the oldest unreviewed one. Is there anything that can be done to resolve this?
A bot would be the most obvious solution, but perhaps we could write a template that highlights a nomination that is 7+ days old and does not yet have a review. Not easy though. violet/riga [talk] 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The following nominations are two weeks old and have not yet been reviewed:
violet/riga [talk] 21:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed a hook from Q6 for close paraphrasing concerns. As there are currently no hooks in prep to replace it with, I am posting here that another may be added. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi
How was the “Did you know” claim made for this verified? In five minutes the reviewer made a couple of edits and verified the claim. After an inquiry as to what was verified, the reviewer affirmed that “all aspects check out”. But at the time (and since the article was expanded), the link to the source that supports the claim was broken. Here is the version approved: [10] and here was the link given to the source: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Amagi.htm
Yesterday I saw some citation needed tags added during the main page appearance, looked at the article and concluded that the source cited at the end of the paragraph likely supported the entire section, clicked on the source http://www.combinedfleet.com/Amagi.htm and got a 404 message. With a little investigation I found that the failed link was due to a capitalization error in the url. I fixed the url, compared the source to the claims, and removed the citation needed requests. [11] But as the link to the source did not work beforehand, how could the DYK claim have been verified? And why was the claim made that all aspects were checked?
To be clear, the claim appearing on DYK is a fair summary of the source. But at the time the claim was approved the link to that source was broken. 24.177.99.126 ( talk) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
So you verified facts in a paragraph, not by use of the cited (broken) link, but a cite for the next paragraph? Did you notice the broken link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.99.126 ( talk) 10:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The top of this talk page says that reform discussions are at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals, but that discussion appears to have died (and all of the reform proposals aren't there).
Somewhere in the last couple of months, another editor (Tony1 IIRC) suggested that there should be a time limit on nominations-- something to the effect that if a nomination hadn't passed by a certain number of days, it should be archived as unsuccessful. I'm unaware how that discussion concluded, but this nomination presents an example for further discussion of that proposal:
It's been up for a month, some issues found, partially corrected, hook conditionally approved, then still more issues found. I hope that instead of shooting the messenger, a discussion will be had about the old time limit proposal. I'm indifferent on whether nominations should be archived after a set number of days, but reviewer time is valuable and DYK is supposed to feature new content: one approach is that it should be archived to respect that reviewers have limited time and the article is no longer new content, while another approach is that by continuing the nomination until the issues are uncovered and corrected, a nominator with many DYKs will be educated and hopefully bring better nominations in the future. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The average age of the members of the group is sourced in the article as 13.8 years, but the method of calculation is so mathematically incompetent (can't be bothered typing it all again here, see the article's talk page) that it does not merit main page attention. Do we have an ALT? Frankly, I'm not very happy about giving main page attention to something so promotional of sexualised presentation of pre-teens and early teens at all, but if we must, let's retain at least mathematical dignity. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewording and for responding here, but the concern here is that reviewers aren't reviewing. We can see from the section just above this one that some reviewers are just moving too fast and not really checking nominations at all. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Silly Art, it's apparent several "regulars" posting to this page aren't concerned that DYK is a training ground for cut-and-paste editing and that the review process here is deficient. It's the strangest mentality here, where folks want to "punish" editors, or deny copyvio, or come up with an endless stream of excuses to avoid discussing the fact that problems with copyvio at DYK predominated in the archives here long before I became aware of how bad the problem was. The "plan" is to encourage people here to review articles correctly so that DYK can be the teaching place it should be, where new editors can learn correct editing before they go on to create hundreds of copyvios. @Victuallers, of course no one is perfect and no article is perfect, but that's not an excuse to continue failing to review at one page on Wikipedia where we have a chance of educating new editors early on so they can avoid becoming serial cut-and-pasters like those that predominate the DYK Hall of Fame. Now, y'all can focus on the nominators, who really aren't at fault, if you'd like, but I say the problem is with Koolaid-drinking reviewers. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Resistance is futile-- DYK will continue to be a training ground for quick cut-and-paste editing because reviewers don't want to slow down the volume to a point where nominations can be properly reviewed before running on the mainpage. Why is it that the mentality here is that any new article is entitled to mainpage space, no matter the quality, no matter the sourcing, no matter the prose, no matter the lack of paraphrasing, no matter the lack of review? What exactly is the resistance to reviewing articles for compliance with core policies and for elementary grammar? They aren't typically long articles, DYK is a place where we frequently encounter new editors, it has often been pointed out that it's the best place to detect problem editing early on and guide editors towards our policies, yet just a small handful of editors continue to support the status quo. Theoretically, that would be because they value any content-- no matter the quality-- over teaching editors Wikipedia policy early on, so that we don't end up detecting another Billy Hathorn after so many copyvios have been created that we'll never be able to clean them all up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
So, the discussion here is always diverted away from improving the process (shoot the messenger, deny the documented issues, claim no one ever called for DYK to help educate on plagiarism), and it never seems to relate to what is clearly documented in archives on all of these discussions, nor do the defenders of rewarding cut-and-paste speedy editing with mainpage time ever acknowledge it no matter how well documented. It would be jolly to review DYK next month and find one queue without the recurring issues (non-reliable sources, uncited hooks, hooks unsupported by the citation, copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and nothing done about it-- just a new cast of characters to defend it), or find the Removed hooks declining, or find at least less issues. We are at least seeing less now, since Nikkimaria is catching lots of them, and at least we now have some means of documenting and checking to see if the trend is subsiding, so that is some progress. And we can put to rest that claim from last year that if I would review prep or queue before they went up, that would be appreciated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If you did what you said you would do, you would be putting a hook on the mainpage that doesn't comply with DYK's most basic rule (and why on earth would you notice a hook wasn't verified in the article, go elsewhere to verify it, and then still approve the hook without citing the hook?). There is no moot point: do you have a diff showing that the hook met DYK rules at the time it was reviewed? If not, why is this dead horse still being beaten? I just want reviewers to review. Mistakes happen, acknowledge them, move on unless you have a repeat offender ( like this sample). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it ...
It seems inappropriate to give a Christian bibliocentric clichéd name too a proposed Chinese law. The proposal is not, as I read the article, for a China-wide law: it would more accurately be described as a proposal for a bystanders' intervention law in Guangdong, China. Kevin McE ( talk) 23:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
When I click the "Create nomination" button, I get a preloaded {{ NewDYKnomination}} with many missing parameters, including the necessary |status= parameter. How can the preloaded list of parameters be modified to include this parameter? Nyttend ( talk) 03:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is currently listed at Preparation area 4. I have corrected several typing/spelling errors but I have marked the article as a candidate for copyedit as some of the tone is not IMHO appropriate; e.g. what does the sentence "From the start, the new match ups Bundesliga versus amateurs, most usually third division clubs, became a source of surprises" in para. 3 actually mean? Phrases such as "Hertha BSC suffered the ultimate humiliation when it lost at home to amateurs . . ." and "Bayern Munich became a reliable source of cup surprises . . . " need re-wording to become more neutral. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 05:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
DYK can get better and accountability here can improve via recordkeeping like at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed, but it could be better if there were a standard template for notifying nominators and reviewers when problems are detected. As far as I can tell, when a reviewer has passed a faulty hook, we don't have any standard, well written, polite way of guiding them towards better reviewing and knowledge of the DYK rules. I'm not the person to write such a thing-- it would be grand if someone could. I'm thinking of something along the lines of {{ FAC withdrawn}}. ( This was not optimal, and methinks someone here can come up with something that will help improve reviews without offending. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Mikenorton-- I figured out how to do it by copying from {{ FACClosed}} (the FAC withdrawn template was complicated when other processes adopted it, so it has more variables).
Template:DYKReviewNote has one variable for the nom page, which from this:
would produce this:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
User:TonyTheTiger ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) complaints in relation to my DYK Nom Florya Atatürk Marine Mansion. Can someone help and advise what to do since I am not aware of what is messed up. CeeGee ( talk) 09:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Very interesting DYK, but full of spelling and format errors. PumpkinSky talk 12:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to get this on the Main Page for Remembrance Sunday. Does it qualify? What would I need to do? --
Ferma (
talk)
17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think I worked the templates out. Anything else to do? Remembrance Sunday is 13 November this year - this coming weekend. -- Ferma ( talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Zangar has helped out substantially here, adding some additional information and footnotes.
What can we do to push this through the process for Sunday? -- Ferma ( talk) 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed and passed the nomination for Poppy Factory. I've suggested an alternate hook but leave the choice between that and the original up to the promoting admin. The creator nominated the article in the hope of its appearing this Sunday, 13 November, as that is when Remembrance Day is observed in the UK. But I haven't moved it to the special occasions area because many Commonwealth countries still observe the original date, 11 November. Is there any way this could be fast-tracked and go up tomorrow? Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks and have yet to receive a comment:
violet/riga [talk] 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a query. How did the template nominations grow so big? Simply south.... .. "time, department skies" for 5 years 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Use of the indefinite article renders this as a common name, not a proper name, so it shouldn't be capitalised. It might be plausible to have The Poppy Factory, if there is evidence that that abbreviated name is in use (although I don't see such evidence): a Poppy Factory however cannot be correct. Kevin McE ( talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There are two factories that produce remembrance poppies, one in England and one in Scotland. Each is commonly called the Poppy Factory (with capitals). -- Ferma ( talk) 08:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be an extraordinarily ill-defined term. There is no attempt to define it in the linked article, nor is it explicit in the article on Fraissinet. The article Aerial victory standards of World War I starts with the words During World War I, the national air services involved developed their own methods of assessing and assigning credit for aerial victories. Thus our hook is unclear. Suggest ... that Jean Alfred Fraissinet, who had a part in the destruction of eight German planes during the First World War, was elected to the National Assembly of France in 1958? Kevin McE ( talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Surely this man's misfortune was that the piglet was thought to look like him. Even if he had fathered the animal, it is not normal to say that a father looks like his young child, but the reverse would be a common observation. Kevin McE ( talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a hook that was nominated on the 10th and is already in a prep area! Meanwhile, there are some two weeks old that have not been touched! I think if people would review from the back, the oldest nomination would be from October 30th or so. That's my two cents. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 03:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings all, I was wondering if we could clarify current rule 1e, which states "Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience." At Template:Did you know nominations/African Wildlife Foundation, an issue has been raised that this rule does not permit inclusion of any free data, including (in this case) data which consists of less than 25% of the article, whereas the article itself is well over the DYK minimum. From my understanding of the current debate, there are two main positions:
As such, in the interest of avoiding further disagreements I humbly request that the community give feedback regarding the spirit of the rule, which currently appears rather ambiguous. Although these are not formal suggestions, if the community decides that position one is the spirit of the rule, then it should be reworded to something similar to "Nominations should be original work (not include any information from free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience." If position two is decided to be closer to the spirit of the rule, then a wording like "Nominations should be original work (not include an abundance of information from free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience", with a supplementary guideline decided by the community as to how much free information is allowed.
Thank you for reading, and I hope we can come to a consensus. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
So by allowing even some portion of PD text, how will we know if the expansion criterion is met when reviewers won't typically do a thorough enough review to check the prose size of PD vs non-PD text? The expansion criterion ia already too easily gamed with non-reliable sources and copyvio/plagiarism/cut-and-paste/close paraphrasing, and reviewers don't always check for these, so how will we also assure they are checking for PD vs non-PD?
To Rjanag, to avoid responding off-topic on the African Wildlife Foundation subpage, cut-and-paste editing of PD text in ship articles (DANFS) is an old problem, well discussed at FAC after the Halloween 2010 FA debacle that followed on the DYK-inspired copyvio concerns. If that has occurred since November 2010, please let me know on my talk which ship FAR you are referring to. FAC can't prevent ship article authors from defending the practice, but without knowing which article you're referring to, it seems that was resolved at FAR from what you say. I don't think that discussion belongs on the African Wildlife Foundation DYK subpage, but the issue at the FAC level is that cut-and-paste content can't be "Wikipedia's best work" and shouldn't be featured on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Selection criterion 1e) in the guideline for this template says "Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience". The first clause can be interpreted as "original, not simply inclusions" or as "no inclusions allowed". The second clause implies that DYK is for readers, not just for editors. If DYK were only for readers, when we found an source of excellent and encyclopedic public domain material we might simply publish their articles with thanks and acknowledgement. But "excellent" is hard to define and allowing articles that simply reproduce public domain material is risky. At the other extreme, prohibiting any verbatim use of material from other sources, even when that is what best serves our readers, may also be unreasonable. Crisco's suggestion attempts to strike a balance. Let's do a straw poll. Aymatth2 ( talk) 01:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I may be the only one who didn't know what a female impersonator is (now last hook prep3). If not I recommend a link. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've asked this before, but basically these days, I nominate an article once in awhile so I'm not keeping up with the latest developments - are we still doing Q4Q or did it get scrapped? If it's still in effect, can we please put a notice somewhere in the nomination process which alerts the nominator to that effect (if there is one and I missed it, can we make it more prominent)? Otherwise I'm going to follow the assumption that unless it tells me explicitly and obviously somewhere that Q4Q is still a requirement, it isn't. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
|reviewed=
parameter, good luck getting anyone to actually look at the instructions and fill them out properly.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
14:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)We have 282 noms (104 approved) at the moment, which means we have to reduce the time between updates, perhaps first to 8 hours. I'm going off-line now, and thus don't want to make a rushed change, but I believe it has to be done very soon. Materialscientist ( talk) 13:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
... that the upcoming commercial video game Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is based on a free game modification? - I'm going with community consensus here. I even had someone move it out of the prep areas yesterday at my behest for being too advertisy/spammy. But are you really sure? Cause if so I will leave it in there. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 15:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, can we move the hook for Help Me Anthea, I'm Infested in Q1 to the last position, as it better fulfils the "funny or quirky hook" suggestion in J3 of the Supplementary guidelines. Also we might want to think about rearranging the other Q hooks, as I don't feel it's that great to end on a hook about concentration camps (even if it is the survival of), as in Q3. Thanks Zangar ( talk) 15:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
When listing them as rivals, it needs to be Princeton and Penn (not or); suggest ...that one or other of men's basketball rivals Princeton and Penn won the Ivy League regular season all but two years between 1963 and 2007? Kevin McE ( talk) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
While I would not be surprised to hear that many Dutch singers perform in other languages, is there really any merit in clarifying that a group with an obviously Dutch name who have a Dutch lead singer sing in the national language: Dutch. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've put this in prep and attempted to mark as promoted but something's not happening...? Template:Did you know nominations/Mexican tea culture. Any ideas? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Back in 2009, Mindmatrix posted a list of potential DYK's for Christmas. I found it extremely helpful, and I'm sure others did, so I've gone back to that list to see which articles could still be a good case for expansion for DYK and also to add a few I've found myself. Anyone is free to grab any articles off this list to work on, all I ask is that if you do, please strikethrough the article so that we don't get a couple of separate editors working on them in userspace etc. And of course, feel free to add other suitable articles.
Food related:
Sugar plum,
Rosette (pastry),
Bûche de Noël,
Peppermint bark,
Szaloncukor,
Awwamaat,
Banket (food),
Bethmännchen,
Boiled custard,
Bolo Rei,
Bread sauce,
Bredela,
Christmas ham,
Rumtopf,
Magenbrot - those are just for starters, there are loads in
Category:Christmas food
Non food:
Père Noël,
Old Man Winter,
Krampus,
Tree topper,
Suzy Snowflake,
Santa Claus rally,
Santa Claws,
North Pole depot,
North Pole Stream,
Reindeer Island,
Santa Claus (horse),
Schwibbogen,
Räuchermann,
Pasterka,
Operation Christmas Drop,
Orphan's Christmas,
Mettenschicht,
Misa de Gallo,
Cavalcade of Magi (actually better for Jan 5),
Carol service,
Ashen faggot,
Jingle bell - those are just a highlight, there are plenty more in
Category:Christmas traditions and it's subcategories.
Have fun! Miyagawa (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Aussenkehr already appeared on the main page on 15 November 2011. -- Pgallert ( talk) 06:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
... that Nag Hammadi Codex XIII is the only surviving copy of the Trimorphic Protennoia, and early Christian Gnostic text?
Is the and grammatical? And if yes, what does that last phrase mean? -- Pgallert ( talk) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Neither of the sources cited in the article specify that the translation was from the King James Bible. I suspect that this would have been what an English Methodist missionary of that era would have used, but it is not for us to surmise. Suggest delete words King James. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
These piranhas were pets in his home: it was a domestic accident, not a school one. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Is the credit bot malfunctioning? The current set has one hook I worked on and another I nominated, but I only got tagged for the first. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was hoping to get Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Cottle on to DYK in the next 48 hours. The reviewer expressed 1 concern last week, which I believe I addressed. Could someone take over the review? OCNative ( talk) 03:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Question for the technical gurus of DYK: Would it be possible to include the special occasions holding area in the list at Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count and teach the bot to update it so that it would appear on the DYK queue page? This would be helpful for tracking the true number of hooks on the noms page, as well as reminding us to move special occasion hooks to the prep areas. -- Orlady ( talk) 04:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Clover Food Lab in Queue 1 has been nominated for deletion. — Bruce1ee talk 05:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at this again? I'm happy to fudge the queues around but I just want to be doubly, triply, not-just-going-by-my-own-judgement sure. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 14:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I might be wrong here, but it was always my understanding that one of the more developed articles gets picked for the lead position. That wouldn't be true to the Hyde Park-Kenwood Historic District article, which feels quite stubby (in fact, it even displays a stub tag). Schwede 66 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Can we have a few queues where we have two sports hooks? It's just that at the moment there is a giant backlog mostly consisting of sports hooks and I've been loathe to put more than one of them in every prep area (unless anyone else says it's ok!). Panyd The muffin is not subtle 23:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Review of this nomination is done. According to hook ...that the three day Wiki Conference India is running from 18th to 20th of November at the University of Mumbai? , it should be on main page either 19th or 20th. So please try to make it ASAP. Thanks in advance. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 19:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Cottle has now been passed and was requested for Nov 18 or the morning of Nov 19, California time (see section a little above). That leaves Queue 6 or Queue 1 and requires an admin to switch it in in place of a hook currently queued up. I've moved it to a special occasions holding area and request the switch be made. Yngvadottir ( talk) 05:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Deliberately ambiguous, to the point of being misleading, in use of phrase "lost power". The article speaks of millions of people having their electricity supply compromised: no encyclopaedic is served by picking out Christie uniquely. We're not a cheap tabloid that relies on puns to form our headlines: let's not do it here. Kevin McE ( talk) 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"weather can change to snow at any time of year ": not if it is already snowing it can't make such a change. A very odd phraseology that is not in the source. Suggest ... that snowfall is possible at any time of year on Froze-to-Death Mountain? Kevin McE ( talk) 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
As we speak, I am working hard (and have persuaded others to work hard) on getting some articles on Romania's WWI era ready for DYK, in the hope that they would form a special queue, or even two queues, on December 1. That being Romania's national holiday. I am not saying that we ought to be doing this this way, but it would be nice if I would at least get some comment on that before the articles I create for that purpose are moved to random queues. At this point, Romanian Volunteer Corps in Russia was moved, just like that, to Prep 2: I specified on the nomination page that I would have appreciated it if this went front page on December 1, and the reviewer ( User:Piotrus) endorsed that project. But there was no comment, the hook was simply promoted and picked up, to the bottom of a random queue...
Is there any resistance to the concept, or was my request simply not noticed? I would appreciate some feedback, even if you don't move the article back to T:TDYK, so as to know if I and anyone else should bother with the other articles. The T:TDYK line has Gherman Pântea, Samoilă Mârza, Nicolae Fleva, Rodion Markovits, Democratic Union Party (Bukovina), Cathedral of the Unity of the People, Alba Iulia, Nichita Smochină and Ion Theodorescu-Sion. That's in addition to the Volunteer Corps. I have two more articles sandboxed, and will have more ready by December 1 - which should give us two potential all-Romanian queues.
Even if that doesn't happen, to at least have those articles on front page around December 1 would be nice, but in any case I would appreciate some sort of discussion. In fact I would expect it. Dahn ( talk) 07:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Also: could you please consider moving more, if not all, of the aforementioned articles to the December 1 holding area? Regardless of what we do with them, I think having them all in one place will give one the overall perspective on what's already there for the mix. Dahn ( talk) 14:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a hook scheduled for this date that should probably be moved to the queues? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Putting the age in backets is quite unnecessary. that 17 year old prodigy Conrad Tao... Kevin McE ( talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
No reason to capitalise college Kevin McE ( talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Does the average reader have any idea what UTEP is meant to mean? I very much doubt it. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Although the use of exotic in this context is technically correct, it is not the most common meaning of the word, and outside a specialist context, is misleading to the reader. Replace exotic with non-native. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that, five days ago, someone removed from the queue the hook for Lake of the Woods (Oregon) & Lake of the Woods Ranger Station (because of concerns with the article, after the nom was initially passed) but neglected to restore the entry to the nominations page, where it had been listed under October 30. As a result, for five days, the nom has been invisible to anyone who didn't already know about it. I'm not sure how to get the nomination back onto the nominations page, to enable discussion of it to resume, so I'm requesting that someone with more experience please take care of this. Thanks. SJ Morg ( talk) 15:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
A photo of a person should, as a basic minimum, show their face. The proposed picture of Brendan Burkett fails that most minimal of standards, is not identifiable of him, and features the disability over the person. Disrespectful in the extreme. Kevin McE ( talk) 13:36, 20 November 2011 (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 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
A perhaps inconsequential question before I head to bed . . . At the top of each prep page is a note saying: "Since on average about 50% of hooks on the suggestions page are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have roughly half the hooks in any given update on U.S. topics. Thanks." Does anyone know whether this is still so? My impression is that the relative number of U.S. hooks has declined, for whatever reason(s). Of course, the prep I clicked on to get the wording currently has 4½ U.S.-focused hooks, so I could be wrong . . . Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the DYK team are doing a fine job. I find that I continually return here to find the same people up to their OLD TRICKS of looking after the Wikipedia project. Why is it that I have to be only person who turns up here and notices that despite doing a tricky job to the best of your ability you are getting little respect or admiration. At Wikimania Jimmy was talking about retaining editors. DYK is still retaining editors - just. Well done. Some of us count your successes. I do admire your ability to perservere and I hope one day you will return to your previous productivity of encouraging new editors and articles. Victuallers ( talk) 10:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Chiming in to say thank you to all the people who keep this process moving. Writers, such as myself, do appreciate this a lot, even if we don't say it every time :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
A reputation is normally associated with a qualitative or quantitative perception, not a medical concept. What does it mean to say that a settlement has a reputation for fevers? Did it have a reputation for healers who could cure fevers? Did it have a high incidence of fevers? Did it have specific, unique fevers? Was this reputation well founded? Has it been rebutted? The hook is uninformative, and the reader will remain uninformed by the article. Kevin McE ( talk) 09:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The hook is referenced to an 1878 book, which estimates the population at 2,000. The reviewer suggested an alternate hook on grounds of interest: "... that the Pangani River (pictured) was probably Ptolemy's Rhaptus?" I see the interest as only marginally greater, but the alt emphasizes the target article and avoids the problem that the info is out of date and negative. I'm going to boldly make the change and change the mentions in the article to clarify it's now a town. Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
There are several nominations on the noms page that currently seem to be in suspense, apparently waiting for me to continue my review (or, rather, follow up on earlier reviews). I'm very preoccupied with real life right now, so please don't wait for me. Someone else should pick up the review. (And regardless of my current status, I contend that no one WP:OWNs a DYK review.) -- Orlady ( talk) 11:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
... that boiling oil is one of the usable weapons in the upcoming video game Chivalry: Medieval Warfare? All phrases like "in the upcoming video game" imply an advert. I think we should avoid this on the main page. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone, TonyTheTiger has requested that the hook for his nomination The Litigators at Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators be shown on the mainpage on 25 October. Could somebody give some feedback and if possible promote the hook? Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
One item asks: “Did you know that microalgae is used widely in aquaculture and is now cultured itself in hatcheries?” The word “
algae” is the plural form of the word “
alga”, so the question should be “Did you know that micro algae are used widely in aquaculture and are now cultured themselves in hatcheries?”
—
Wavelength (
talk)
00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The claim here is rather self-congratulatory, and is entirely based on the subject's own witness. No independent observers means only first-hand sources: not appropriate for a claim that promotes his professional cause. Kevin McE ( talk) 15:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey! Sorry if I'm being a little dense here, but are we using 2 Queues for Halloween or 3? I notice that it's Halloween in 3 queues in different countries but I don't know if we are. I'm sure there are some other articles we could add to a third queue (I've got a few up my sleeve and I'm sure others do too). Panyd The muffin is not subtle 18:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that all corrections were made on grounds for divorce (united states law)page. The citation box was removed.-- Nas132 ( talk) 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Kudos to Found5dollar for recognizing and attempting to fix the main page error in DYK (it looks like a good faith mistake that we shouldn't expect to be picked up by DYK review [3]), but in looking further into this:
Are we already moving backwards on the accountability improvements that were instituted recently? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
|nompage=
parameter is only needed when the title of the nomination page is different from the title of the article itself (usually because someone misspelled the article name during nomination or moved the article after it was nominated—the former is what happened here). I don't know enough about bot coding to make sure the DYK bot carries over the |nompage=
from the nomination page itself to {{
DYK talk}}
, and Shubinator has been very busy lately so I guess he hasn't gotten a chance to make it work yet.Could someone possibly review Jeruk Purut Cemetery in time for Halloween? Sorry for the rush; I just finished touching up the article yesterday. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Morphsuits
Can anyone review the Morphsuits article? It's been unreviewed since I nominated it on October 21. They're oddball lycra costumes, one of the biggest selling costumes this Halloween season, apparently, having been popular for some time now, but now peaking into the mainstream in North America. -- Zanimum ( talk) 13:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Valentina Babor as a homage to Liszt to appear close to his birthday, that is past. It occured to me that the hook might pay homage to the other composer mentioned, whose birthday is 2 November, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
"... that the music a person hears in childhood may affect that person's musical cognition as an adult?" Almost all is bold in that hook, I think it's misleading and doesn't give me as a reader a clue what the article is about, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
One does not "lead in losses". He may have had more losses than any other pitcher: that is not holding a lead. Kevin McE ( talk) 18:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with the page view numbers for DYK? I had a DYK on 25 October ( Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.4), and when I checked it, it had eight views that day. The lead hook Patriot's Park had 11 views. It's a similar story on 24 October. Is there a technical glitch somewhere? Manxruler ( talk) 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it allowed to have more than two DYKs nominated at a time? HurricaneFan 25 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I was poking about on the list looking for articles to review when I noticed that several that I had added to the queue were missing. This was for the same reason as the thread above. I'm not sure, but I believe this might have happened with Course Setting Bomb Sight, which would be sad given both the work that I put into it, and that it was "the most important bombsight of the war".
Having gone through the process now, I have to say that I find it to be onerous. You have to flip through several pages and make your edits in the right order or it just fails, falling into a blackhole. Is there any reason this could not be further automated. When you use the nominations box, it appears everything is being automated, which is why I failed to follow through.
It's not automated, but why not? Would it not be possible to add all new noms automatically to a holding list at the bottom of the page? This would at least ensure they wouldn't simply disappear.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I just tried it several times, and I do not see the message you link to. That's because, as is often the case these days, there's so much verbiage between the top of the page and the editor box that when the cursor appears in the editor the top of the screen is scrolled right off the screen. That's doubly surprising considering I'm on a very very large monitor. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 01:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
We had some evidence after the new process was instituted that some people, especially newbies, were having difficulty remembering to transclude their nominations. Rjanag, I saw you leaving such people notes that they hadn't completed the process, so you were evidently patrolling to check. That was very nice of you; maybe some of us should start adding that to our patrolling activities. I will if I can figure out how :-) Also remembering to transclude has clearly been tripping up some experienced people; and despite a warning box there, it trips people up at AfD, too. My only suggestion would be to add to the pink box, "You might want to copy this string now ready to paste it in in the last step." Because that's what the rest of us are usually doing. Unless anyone thinks that would be considered condescending. It's true that it's not very much more complicated than the old process, but it's also true that people are forgetting to transclude - and that DYK needs submissions, of all kinds. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The hook for DYK for an article has to be cited in the article, not only on the page, I think? I had a DYK using a hook that was not mentioned/explained in the article, but later removed it. I'm wondering if it would be allowable to submit an article for DYK with a hook that is cited on the DYK nom page but not in the article? Thanks. (BTW, the hook has been changed at Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Cindy (1959) to be supported by a ref in an article.) Thanks! HurricaneFan25 | talk 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I've submitted 7 DYKs, each with a matching review, since mid-September and can't find any of them in the archives or any queue, even the ones from only a week ago. What's going on here? I can provide the names of the nominations if necessary.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll note that I created the nom pages themselves within the specified time limits, but failed to transclude them in a timely manner. So, in at least one sense, I did indeed meet the time limits. Y'all will have to decide which is more important, the date of transclusion or of creation.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead hook in DYK sounds a bit strange. Shouldn't there be a "which"?
In addition, I didn't understand the picture's relevance immediately; that might have to be elaborated a bit.
HurricaneFan 25 14:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone should cover the Halloween event in the Signpost, I wasn't actively involved and see no staging area, so I think it would be easier for someone who know's what going on to write a short blurb =). Cheers, Res Mar 02:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a public domain source, and it's not a matter of "personal ethical norms"-- it's an example of yet another leading DYKer cutting-and-pasting to create hundreds of DYKs, which then receive scanty review because the editor is known at DYK (and that's how DYK let other editors slip through the cracks until it was discovered they had created hundreds). Reviewers should locate these here, because for me to retype the text from Google books is tedious, and they're right there. I indicated when I made the post that I had looked at articles other than PD. I've typed a couple samples-- there are others. It should also be noted that a violation of copyright is not "just plagiarism" or "just a matter of ethics"-- it's both plagiarism and copyright violation.
Structure copied, a few words varied here and there:
On the reliable sources issue, DYK required a minimum number of characters or expansion-- expanding articles from non-reliable sources shouldn't count, and questions of dubious reliability should be brought to WP:RSN (this one hasn't, and hobby or fansites are rarely reliable).
That one of these articles is over-quoted and has noticeable prose and grammar issues, and the other uses non-reliable sources and has text that fails verification, indicates that even in spite of lower volume here, reviews are still not being conducted and scantily reviewed text is being featured on the main page.
Who plans to remove these from the mainpage?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
14:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a relief to me that many of you find the wording taken from out-of-copyright sources to be acceptable. That was what I had found.
Yngvadottir (
talk)
15:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The frequency of this problem at DYK seems to come from several factors: 1) once an editor is established at DYK, their work receives scanty reviews; 2) some regulars at DYK support cut-and-paste from PD or don't understand copyvio; 3) too much volume goes through here; 4) once some editors get the endorphin high of getting quick cut-and-paste work featured on the mainpage, they seem to become addicted and their norms may slip, etc.
If folks can't rephrase from sources, and if DYK doesn't have enough resources to correctly review, they should at least not be having the content featured on the mainpage. History has shown that when the light stops shining on the problems, they resurface quickly. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The penultimate DYK from the same editor above:
See the text around the bolded text-- a few words changed, structure copied. Same sentence structure-- same to similar wording. If I only have to go back one DYK to find similar, are reviews here slacking off again? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
There shall be no violation of copyright for the
c. repetition, either in whole or in part, of news from a news agency, broadcasting organization, and newspaper or any other resources, provided that the source thereof shall be fully cited.
Going to the next prior DYK from the same nominator, we see an example of the difficulty of rephrasing facts (the words are juggled and changed only ever-so-slightly, and the meaning may have been changed-- it is assumed that "in the area" means all of Washington DC when in fact, the area refers to 18th St and New York Avenue according to the source)
This is another problem independent of but related to the ever so slight juggling of words, indicating why DYKs should be correctly reviewed for accurate rephrasing in our own words. Perhaps there are other sources that clarify if "Washington DC area" is used correctly here, as we understand that term today? I've found concerns in three out of the last three DYKs by this author: the point is, what kind of review goes into DYKs, which are featured on our mainpage? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Another in the queue, which considering the above, should be reviewed:
I'm unable to read the source because the type is too small, but suggest someone check the queue about to go up, since it's apparent that reviews are again lacking at DYK, and admins should not be putting unreviewed content on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a mistake here? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Come on, folks, we need to get back to real reviews here:
This one is waaay too obvious, and not hard to rephrase, so what is our excuse? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
In light of these events, I have requested a contributor copyright investigation here. HurricaneFan 25 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've read the above and the (other sections below), and what is missing here is examples and discussion of actual rewriting, which IMO are crucial to getting people on the same page here (agreeing on how to handle and review matters like this). I'm not going to post the entire text here, but I posted to Sandy's talk page here. I think that in future when such examples are raised, at least one example should include a rewrite to show people how to move away from source text to something that is acceptable to most people. There are several ways this can be done, but the only way to really get experience with that is to actually attempt it yourself and discuss with others. So hopefully that can be done more here when this comes up again. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
That is fine, but I stand by what I've said previously, that this is only part of the solution. Unless someone (or a group of people) take it on themselves to actually discuss examples, you will end up with: (a) people continuing to disagree (in some cases legitimately) over where the line is drawn, and thus learning precisely nothing from the arguments (thus in effect wasting the time you are spending doing this); and (b) some (conservative or inexperienced) reviewers will err too far in the direction of caution, with legitimate text being criticized and unnecessarily rewritten, with the consequent harm that can do (in reality it is a balancing act). The only way to avoid this (IMO) is discussion. As an example, see what Johnbod said here (at your talk page). That is a very useful point he made there, and that would have been lost with your more brusque approach. What it essentially comes down to is knowing your sources well and treating them sympathetically (in the sense of knowing when to summarise and when to use detail). This is not an easy skill to acquire, but is something that you have to explain to people. Reviewing without including that element of (brief) education is, IMO, next to useless. You don't have to spend ages on it, but there is a world of difference between a quick, spot-check review and a slightly longer, more thoughtful discussion. If the number of DYKs needs to be reduced to allow more thoughtful reviews, then that should happen. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)"If you have time to teach people to rewrite, by all means do so ... such examples at DYK might be helpful. I'm concerned with teaching people to review nominations, and avoiding repeat offenses at the cut-and-paste playground that is DYK." SandyGeorgia 13:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
First, copyvio from Spanish to English is still copyvio, failed verification, but never mind all of that, since not everyone can read the Spanish sources-- did the people approving this DYK even read it? It has basic ce needs throughout (a couple obvious already done by me). I'm curious to know how reviewers here watch for copyvio if they don't read the articles? One of the ways to detect plagiarism and copyvio is by ... ummmm ... reading the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Just came across this unreviewed nom from August:
Unlike the recent complainants, the nominator of this actually did nominate properly, but it seems like it got lost without being reviewed when we transferred from daily subpages to having everything on T:TDYK. So it's our own fault that this was never run. Can it still be reviewed and featured? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 01:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Needs an comma after the word England, which, like Northumberland, is a parenthetical commentary on the location of Elsdon.
There are few, if any, new areas in India, and the musicians do not record in their own genre wherever they are (or if they do, it defeats the stated aim of reflecting the culture of each area. Suggest ... that in each episode of the musical documentary series The Dewarists, musicians visit a different part of India, and record a song in a genre which reflects the local culture? Kevin McE ( talk) 18:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that a number of nominations have been found as not having had their transclusions, well, transcluded to T:TDYK recently, perhaps there should be a bot script written that will check new "Template:Did you know nominations/*" pages to see if they are transluded on Template talk:Did you know every X hours and post a message on the nom creator's talk page if not? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any chance of an expedited review/queuing for Hilya? It would make a good DYK for Eid, which starts on November 6 (see User_talk:Johnbod#Thanks_2). Thanks, -- J N 466 06:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Is there something wrong with the DYK update, it appears that the main page update scheduled for 12:00 UTC today did not go through?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
On 6 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gombloh, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gombloh.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
{{
DYKmake}}
and launch some preset window. There is no entry for DYK hook in this window, and thus I can't easily add it even if I want to. However, I do add hooks to the article talks (this is easier). The bot issues credits differently.
Materialscientist (
talk)
12:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)A couple grammar and other issues I've spotted.
...on Template:Did you know nominations/Not Afraid. I don't much like it (article and hook), but I think having someone else look at it would be fair. Thanks in advance. Drmies ( talk) 20:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of nominations from 2+ weeks ago that have not received any attention whatsoever. This is no doubt down to many reviewers' tendencies to review the more recent noms rather than searching through to find the oldest unreviewed one. Is there anything that can be done to resolve this?
A bot would be the most obvious solution, but perhaps we could write a template that highlights a nomination that is 7+ days old and does not yet have a review. Not easy though. violet/riga [talk] 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The following nominations are two weeks old and have not yet been reviewed:
violet/riga [talk] 21:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed a hook from Q6 for close paraphrasing concerns. As there are currently no hooks in prep to replace it with, I am posting here that another may be added. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi
How was the “Did you know” claim made for this verified? In five minutes the reviewer made a couple of edits and verified the claim. After an inquiry as to what was verified, the reviewer affirmed that “all aspects check out”. But at the time (and since the article was expanded), the link to the source that supports the claim was broken. Here is the version approved: [10] and here was the link given to the source: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Amagi.htm
Yesterday I saw some citation needed tags added during the main page appearance, looked at the article and concluded that the source cited at the end of the paragraph likely supported the entire section, clicked on the source http://www.combinedfleet.com/Amagi.htm and got a 404 message. With a little investigation I found that the failed link was due to a capitalization error in the url. I fixed the url, compared the source to the claims, and removed the citation needed requests. [11] But as the link to the source did not work beforehand, how could the DYK claim have been verified? And why was the claim made that all aspects were checked?
To be clear, the claim appearing on DYK is a fair summary of the source. But at the time the claim was approved the link to that source was broken. 24.177.99.126 ( talk) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
So you verified facts in a paragraph, not by use of the cited (broken) link, but a cite for the next paragraph? Did you notice the broken link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.99.126 ( talk) 10:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The top of this talk page says that reform discussions are at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals, but that discussion appears to have died (and all of the reform proposals aren't there).
Somewhere in the last couple of months, another editor (Tony1 IIRC) suggested that there should be a time limit on nominations-- something to the effect that if a nomination hadn't passed by a certain number of days, it should be archived as unsuccessful. I'm unaware how that discussion concluded, but this nomination presents an example for further discussion of that proposal:
It's been up for a month, some issues found, partially corrected, hook conditionally approved, then still more issues found. I hope that instead of shooting the messenger, a discussion will be had about the old time limit proposal. I'm indifferent on whether nominations should be archived after a set number of days, but reviewer time is valuable and DYK is supposed to feature new content: one approach is that it should be archived to respect that reviewers have limited time and the article is no longer new content, while another approach is that by continuing the nomination until the issues are uncovered and corrected, a nominator with many DYKs will be educated and hopefully bring better nominations in the future. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The average age of the members of the group is sourced in the article as 13.8 years, but the method of calculation is so mathematically incompetent (can't be bothered typing it all again here, see the article's talk page) that it does not merit main page attention. Do we have an ALT? Frankly, I'm not very happy about giving main page attention to something so promotional of sexualised presentation of pre-teens and early teens at all, but if we must, let's retain at least mathematical dignity. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewording and for responding here, but the concern here is that reviewers aren't reviewing. We can see from the section just above this one that some reviewers are just moving too fast and not really checking nominations at all. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Silly Art, it's apparent several "regulars" posting to this page aren't concerned that DYK is a training ground for cut-and-paste editing and that the review process here is deficient. It's the strangest mentality here, where folks want to "punish" editors, or deny copyvio, or come up with an endless stream of excuses to avoid discussing the fact that problems with copyvio at DYK predominated in the archives here long before I became aware of how bad the problem was. The "plan" is to encourage people here to review articles correctly so that DYK can be the teaching place it should be, where new editors can learn correct editing before they go on to create hundreds of copyvios. @Victuallers, of course no one is perfect and no article is perfect, but that's not an excuse to continue failing to review at one page on Wikipedia where we have a chance of educating new editors early on so they can avoid becoming serial cut-and-pasters like those that predominate the DYK Hall of Fame. Now, y'all can focus on the nominators, who really aren't at fault, if you'd like, but I say the problem is with Koolaid-drinking reviewers. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Resistance is futile-- DYK will continue to be a training ground for quick cut-and-paste editing because reviewers don't want to slow down the volume to a point where nominations can be properly reviewed before running on the mainpage. Why is it that the mentality here is that any new article is entitled to mainpage space, no matter the quality, no matter the sourcing, no matter the prose, no matter the lack of paraphrasing, no matter the lack of review? What exactly is the resistance to reviewing articles for compliance with core policies and for elementary grammar? They aren't typically long articles, DYK is a place where we frequently encounter new editors, it has often been pointed out that it's the best place to detect problem editing early on and guide editors towards our policies, yet just a small handful of editors continue to support the status quo. Theoretically, that would be because they value any content-- no matter the quality-- over teaching editors Wikipedia policy early on, so that we don't end up detecting another Billy Hathorn after so many copyvios have been created that we'll never be able to clean them all up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
So, the discussion here is always diverted away from improving the process (shoot the messenger, deny the documented issues, claim no one ever called for DYK to help educate on plagiarism), and it never seems to relate to what is clearly documented in archives on all of these discussions, nor do the defenders of rewarding cut-and-paste speedy editing with mainpage time ever acknowledge it no matter how well documented. It would be jolly to review DYK next month and find one queue without the recurring issues (non-reliable sources, uncited hooks, hooks unsupported by the citation, copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and nothing done about it-- just a new cast of characters to defend it), or find the Removed hooks declining, or find at least less issues. We are at least seeing less now, since Nikkimaria is catching lots of them, and at least we now have some means of documenting and checking to see if the trend is subsiding, so that is some progress. And we can put to rest that claim from last year that if I would review prep or queue before they went up, that would be appreciated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If you did what you said you would do, you would be putting a hook on the mainpage that doesn't comply with DYK's most basic rule (and why on earth would you notice a hook wasn't verified in the article, go elsewhere to verify it, and then still approve the hook without citing the hook?). There is no moot point: do you have a diff showing that the hook met DYK rules at the time it was reviewed? If not, why is this dead horse still being beaten? I just want reviewers to review. Mistakes happen, acknowledge them, move on unless you have a repeat offender ( like this sample). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it ...
It seems inappropriate to give a Christian bibliocentric clichéd name too a proposed Chinese law. The proposal is not, as I read the article, for a China-wide law: it would more accurately be described as a proposal for a bystanders' intervention law in Guangdong, China. Kevin McE ( talk) 23:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
When I click the "Create nomination" button, I get a preloaded {{ NewDYKnomination}} with many missing parameters, including the necessary |status= parameter. How can the preloaded list of parameters be modified to include this parameter? Nyttend ( talk) 03:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is currently listed at Preparation area 4. I have corrected several typing/spelling errors but I have marked the article as a candidate for copyedit as some of the tone is not IMHO appropriate; e.g. what does the sentence "From the start, the new match ups Bundesliga versus amateurs, most usually third division clubs, became a source of surprises" in para. 3 actually mean? Phrases such as "Hertha BSC suffered the ultimate humiliation when it lost at home to amateurs . . ." and "Bayern Munich became a reliable source of cup surprises . . . " need re-wording to become more neutral. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 05:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
DYK can get better and accountability here can improve via recordkeeping like at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed, but it could be better if there were a standard template for notifying nominators and reviewers when problems are detected. As far as I can tell, when a reviewer has passed a faulty hook, we don't have any standard, well written, polite way of guiding them towards better reviewing and knowledge of the DYK rules. I'm not the person to write such a thing-- it would be grand if someone could. I'm thinking of something along the lines of {{ FAC withdrawn}}. ( This was not optimal, and methinks someone here can come up with something that will help improve reviews without offending. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Mikenorton-- I figured out how to do it by copying from {{ FACClosed}} (the FAC withdrawn template was complicated when other processes adopted it, so it has more variables).
Template:DYKReviewNote has one variable for the nom page, which from this:
would produce this:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
User:TonyTheTiger ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) complaints in relation to my DYK Nom Florya Atatürk Marine Mansion. Can someone help and advise what to do since I am not aware of what is messed up. CeeGee ( talk) 09:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Very interesting DYK, but full of spelling and format errors. PumpkinSky talk 12:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to get this on the Main Page for Remembrance Sunday. Does it qualify? What would I need to do? --
Ferma (
talk)
17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think I worked the templates out. Anything else to do? Remembrance Sunday is 13 November this year - this coming weekend. -- Ferma ( talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Zangar has helped out substantially here, adding some additional information and footnotes.
What can we do to push this through the process for Sunday? -- Ferma ( talk) 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed and passed the nomination for Poppy Factory. I've suggested an alternate hook but leave the choice between that and the original up to the promoting admin. The creator nominated the article in the hope of its appearing this Sunday, 13 November, as that is when Remembrance Day is observed in the UK. But I haven't moved it to the special occasions area because many Commonwealth countries still observe the original date, 11 November. Is there any way this could be fast-tracked and go up tomorrow? Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The following nominations have been waiting for over two weeks and have yet to receive a comment:
violet/riga [talk] 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a query. How did the template nominations grow so big? Simply south.... .. "time, department skies" for 5 years 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Use of the indefinite article renders this as a common name, not a proper name, so it shouldn't be capitalised. It might be plausible to have The Poppy Factory, if there is evidence that that abbreviated name is in use (although I don't see such evidence): a Poppy Factory however cannot be correct. Kevin McE ( talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There are two factories that produce remembrance poppies, one in England and one in Scotland. Each is commonly called the Poppy Factory (with capitals). -- Ferma ( talk) 08:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be an extraordinarily ill-defined term. There is no attempt to define it in the linked article, nor is it explicit in the article on Fraissinet. The article Aerial victory standards of World War I starts with the words During World War I, the national air services involved developed their own methods of assessing and assigning credit for aerial victories. Thus our hook is unclear. Suggest ... that Jean Alfred Fraissinet, who had a part in the destruction of eight German planes during the First World War, was elected to the National Assembly of France in 1958? Kevin McE ( talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Surely this man's misfortune was that the piglet was thought to look like him. Even if he had fathered the animal, it is not normal to say that a father looks like his young child, but the reverse would be a common observation. Kevin McE ( talk) 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a hook that was nominated on the 10th and is already in a prep area! Meanwhile, there are some two weeks old that have not been touched! I think if people would review from the back, the oldest nomination would be from October 30th or so. That's my two cents. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 03:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings all, I was wondering if we could clarify current rule 1e, which states "Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience." At Template:Did you know nominations/African Wildlife Foundation, an issue has been raised that this rule does not permit inclusion of any free data, including (in this case) data which consists of less than 25% of the article, whereas the article itself is well over the DYK minimum. From my understanding of the current debate, there are two main positions:
As such, in the interest of avoiding further disagreements I humbly request that the community give feedback regarding the spirit of the rule, which currently appears rather ambiguous. Although these are not formal suggestions, if the community decides that position one is the spirit of the rule, then it should be reworded to something similar to "Nominations should be original work (not include any information from free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience." If position two is decided to be closer to the spirit of the rule, then a wording like "Nominations should be original work (not include an abundance of information from free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience", with a supplementary guideline decided by the community as to how much free information is allowed.
Thank you for reading, and I hope we can come to a consensus. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
So by allowing even some portion of PD text, how will we know if the expansion criterion is met when reviewers won't typically do a thorough enough review to check the prose size of PD vs non-PD text? The expansion criterion ia already too easily gamed with non-reliable sources and copyvio/plagiarism/cut-and-paste/close paraphrasing, and reviewers don't always check for these, so how will we also assure they are checking for PD vs non-PD?
To Rjanag, to avoid responding off-topic on the African Wildlife Foundation subpage, cut-and-paste editing of PD text in ship articles (DANFS) is an old problem, well discussed at FAC after the Halloween 2010 FA debacle that followed on the DYK-inspired copyvio concerns. If that has occurred since November 2010, please let me know on my talk which ship FAR you are referring to. FAC can't prevent ship article authors from defending the practice, but without knowing which article you're referring to, it seems that was resolved at FAR from what you say. I don't think that discussion belongs on the African Wildlife Foundation DYK subpage, but the issue at the FAC level is that cut-and-paste content can't be "Wikipedia's best work" and shouldn't be featured on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Selection criterion 1e) in the guideline for this template says "Nominations should be original work (not inclusions of free data sources) and should be interesting to a wide audience". The first clause can be interpreted as "original, not simply inclusions" or as "no inclusions allowed". The second clause implies that DYK is for readers, not just for editors. If DYK were only for readers, when we found an source of excellent and encyclopedic public domain material we might simply publish their articles with thanks and acknowledgement. But "excellent" is hard to define and allowing articles that simply reproduce public domain material is risky. At the other extreme, prohibiting any verbatim use of material from other sources, even when that is what best serves our readers, may also be unreasonable. Crisco's suggestion attempts to strike a balance. Let's do a straw poll. Aymatth2 ( talk) 01:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I may be the only one who didn't know what a female impersonator is (now last hook prep3). If not I recommend a link. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've asked this before, but basically these days, I nominate an article once in awhile so I'm not keeping up with the latest developments - are we still doing Q4Q or did it get scrapped? If it's still in effect, can we please put a notice somewhere in the nomination process which alerts the nominator to that effect (if there is one and I missed it, can we make it more prominent)? Otherwise I'm going to follow the assumption that unless it tells me explicitly and obviously somewhere that Q4Q is still a requirement, it isn't. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
|reviewed=
parameter, good luck getting anyone to actually look at the instructions and fill them out properly.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
14:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)We have 282 noms (104 approved) at the moment, which means we have to reduce the time between updates, perhaps first to 8 hours. I'm going off-line now, and thus don't want to make a rushed change, but I believe it has to be done very soon. Materialscientist ( talk) 13:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
... that the upcoming commercial video game Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is based on a free game modification? - I'm going with community consensus here. I even had someone move it out of the prep areas yesterday at my behest for being too advertisy/spammy. But are you really sure? Cause if so I will leave it in there. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 15:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, can we move the hook for Help Me Anthea, I'm Infested in Q1 to the last position, as it better fulfils the "funny or quirky hook" suggestion in J3 of the Supplementary guidelines. Also we might want to think about rearranging the other Q hooks, as I don't feel it's that great to end on a hook about concentration camps (even if it is the survival of), as in Q3. Thanks Zangar ( talk) 15:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
When listing them as rivals, it needs to be Princeton and Penn (not or); suggest ...that one or other of men's basketball rivals Princeton and Penn won the Ivy League regular season all but two years between 1963 and 2007? Kevin McE ( talk) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
While I would not be surprised to hear that many Dutch singers perform in other languages, is there really any merit in clarifying that a group with an obviously Dutch name who have a Dutch lead singer sing in the national language: Dutch. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've put this in prep and attempted to mark as promoted but something's not happening...? Template:Did you know nominations/Mexican tea culture. Any ideas? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Back in 2009, Mindmatrix posted a list of potential DYK's for Christmas. I found it extremely helpful, and I'm sure others did, so I've gone back to that list to see which articles could still be a good case for expansion for DYK and also to add a few I've found myself. Anyone is free to grab any articles off this list to work on, all I ask is that if you do, please strikethrough the article so that we don't get a couple of separate editors working on them in userspace etc. And of course, feel free to add other suitable articles.
Food related:
Sugar plum,
Rosette (pastry),
Bûche de Noël,
Peppermint bark,
Szaloncukor,
Awwamaat,
Banket (food),
Bethmännchen,
Boiled custard,
Bolo Rei,
Bread sauce,
Bredela,
Christmas ham,
Rumtopf,
Magenbrot - those are just for starters, there are loads in
Category:Christmas food
Non food:
Père Noël,
Old Man Winter,
Krampus,
Tree topper,
Suzy Snowflake,
Santa Claus rally,
Santa Claws,
North Pole depot,
North Pole Stream,
Reindeer Island,
Santa Claus (horse),
Schwibbogen,
Räuchermann,
Pasterka,
Operation Christmas Drop,
Orphan's Christmas,
Mettenschicht,
Misa de Gallo,
Cavalcade of Magi (actually better for Jan 5),
Carol service,
Ashen faggot,
Jingle bell - those are just a highlight, there are plenty more in
Category:Christmas traditions and it's subcategories.
Have fun! Miyagawa (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Aussenkehr already appeared on the main page on 15 November 2011. -- Pgallert ( talk) 06:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
... that Nag Hammadi Codex XIII is the only surviving copy of the Trimorphic Protennoia, and early Christian Gnostic text?
Is the and grammatical? And if yes, what does that last phrase mean? -- Pgallert ( talk) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Neither of the sources cited in the article specify that the translation was from the King James Bible. I suspect that this would have been what an English Methodist missionary of that era would have used, but it is not for us to surmise. Suggest delete words King James. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
These piranhas were pets in his home: it was a domestic accident, not a school one. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Is the credit bot malfunctioning? The current set has one hook I worked on and another I nominated, but I only got tagged for the first. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was hoping to get Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Cottle on to DYK in the next 48 hours. The reviewer expressed 1 concern last week, which I believe I addressed. Could someone take over the review? OCNative ( talk) 03:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Question for the technical gurus of DYK: Would it be possible to include the special occasions holding area in the list at Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count and teach the bot to update it so that it would appear on the DYK queue page? This would be helpful for tracking the true number of hooks on the noms page, as well as reminding us to move special occasion hooks to the prep areas. -- Orlady ( talk) 04:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Clover Food Lab in Queue 1 has been nominated for deletion. — Bruce1ee talk 05:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at this again? I'm happy to fudge the queues around but I just want to be doubly, triply, not-just-going-by-my-own-judgement sure. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 14:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I might be wrong here, but it was always my understanding that one of the more developed articles gets picked for the lead position. That wouldn't be true to the Hyde Park-Kenwood Historic District article, which feels quite stubby (in fact, it even displays a stub tag). Schwede 66 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Can we have a few queues where we have two sports hooks? It's just that at the moment there is a giant backlog mostly consisting of sports hooks and I've been loathe to put more than one of them in every prep area (unless anyone else says it's ok!). Panyd The muffin is not subtle 23:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Review of this nomination is done. According to hook ...that the three day Wiki Conference India is running from 18th to 20th of November at the University of Mumbai? , it should be on main page either 19th or 20th. So please try to make it ASAP. Thanks in advance. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 19:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Cottle has now been passed and was requested for Nov 18 or the morning of Nov 19, California time (see section a little above). That leaves Queue 6 or Queue 1 and requires an admin to switch it in in place of a hook currently queued up. I've moved it to a special occasions holding area and request the switch be made. Yngvadottir ( talk) 05:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Deliberately ambiguous, to the point of being misleading, in use of phrase "lost power". The article speaks of millions of people having their electricity supply compromised: no encyclopaedic is served by picking out Christie uniquely. We're not a cheap tabloid that relies on puns to form our headlines: let's not do it here. Kevin McE ( talk) 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"weather can change to snow at any time of year ": not if it is already snowing it can't make such a change. A very odd phraseology that is not in the source. Suggest ... that snowfall is possible at any time of year on Froze-to-Death Mountain? Kevin McE ( talk) 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
As we speak, I am working hard (and have persuaded others to work hard) on getting some articles on Romania's WWI era ready for DYK, in the hope that they would form a special queue, or even two queues, on December 1. That being Romania's national holiday. I am not saying that we ought to be doing this this way, but it would be nice if I would at least get some comment on that before the articles I create for that purpose are moved to random queues. At this point, Romanian Volunteer Corps in Russia was moved, just like that, to Prep 2: I specified on the nomination page that I would have appreciated it if this went front page on December 1, and the reviewer ( User:Piotrus) endorsed that project. But there was no comment, the hook was simply promoted and picked up, to the bottom of a random queue...
Is there any resistance to the concept, or was my request simply not noticed? I would appreciate some feedback, even if you don't move the article back to T:TDYK, so as to know if I and anyone else should bother with the other articles. The T:TDYK line has Gherman Pântea, Samoilă Mârza, Nicolae Fleva, Rodion Markovits, Democratic Union Party (Bukovina), Cathedral of the Unity of the People, Alba Iulia, Nichita Smochină and Ion Theodorescu-Sion. That's in addition to the Volunteer Corps. I have two more articles sandboxed, and will have more ready by December 1 - which should give us two potential all-Romanian queues.
Even if that doesn't happen, to at least have those articles on front page around December 1 would be nice, but in any case I would appreciate some sort of discussion. In fact I would expect it. Dahn ( talk) 07:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Also: could you please consider moving more, if not all, of the aforementioned articles to the December 1 holding area? Regardless of what we do with them, I think having them all in one place will give one the overall perspective on what's already there for the mix. Dahn ( talk) 14:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a hook scheduled for this date that should probably be moved to the queues? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Putting the age in backets is quite unnecessary. that 17 year old prodigy Conrad Tao... Kevin McE ( talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
No reason to capitalise college Kevin McE ( talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Does the average reader have any idea what UTEP is meant to mean? I very much doubt it. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Although the use of exotic in this context is technically correct, it is not the most common meaning of the word, and outside a specialist context, is misleading to the reader. Replace exotic with non-native. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that, five days ago, someone removed from the queue the hook for Lake of the Woods (Oregon) & Lake of the Woods Ranger Station (because of concerns with the article, after the nom was initially passed) but neglected to restore the entry to the nominations page, where it had been listed under October 30. As a result, for five days, the nom has been invisible to anyone who didn't already know about it. I'm not sure how to get the nomination back onto the nominations page, to enable discussion of it to resume, so I'm requesting that someone with more experience please take care of this. Thanks. SJ Morg ( talk) 15:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
A photo of a person should, as a basic minimum, show their face. The proposed picture of Brendan Burkett fails that most minimal of standards, is not identifiable of him, and features the disability over the person. Disrespectful in the extreme. Kevin McE ( talk) 13:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)