Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

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

DYK queue status There is currently 1 filled queue. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested. v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Current time: 06:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 6 hours ago( verify reset purge )

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

I think we should not license one Gibraltar hook per 24 hour period. This micronation is tiny and deserves only so much attention on the main page, otherwise Wikipedia looks weirdly beholden to special interests. The fact that there's been a campaign to promote Gibraltar through Wikipedia has consequences; one of them is that we are a lot more skeptical about these DYKs. That said, I like the current construction "not excessively frequent", rather than "one per 24 hours". If we go six months with no Gibraltar hooks, and then get two in one day, that would be fine. If we go day after day with one per day, that would be way too many. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how articles like Neanderthals of Gibraltar are promotional. And Gibraltar isn't any different than the tons of other specific subjects that get a bunch of DYK nominations all the time. Way, way more nominations than Gibraltar has been getting. Silverseren^C 22:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir, are apparently not a marketing professional. Simply having the world "Gibraltar" appear on the home page of Wikipedia is valuable because it creates an impression (online media) that makes the reader think about Gibraltar. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true for any other topic appearing on DYK. But since nobody is incentivising anyone to write anything about any topic for DYK, what difference does it make? Prioryman (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely feature hooks (and TFA/TFP/TFL entries) for actual purchasable products, yet a small country is somehow considered to be the problem when it comes to advertising? There is absolutely no way that this complaint falls under anything other than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rant. GRAPPLE X 22:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely zero reason to further restrict these articles. Gibraltar as a subject (even the overly-loose definition of the subject seen by opponents of the project) has consistently been running at a much lower level in DYK than pretty much any of the subject areas with dedicated editors. The time has long since passed for this to be considered a controversial subject, and it's already bad enough that we still have any restriction at all on a subject which continues to do no harm. Further restriction is as medieval an idea as possible right now. GRAPPLE X 22:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wretch every time I see another Gibraltar article on the home page. We've had way, way, way, way, way too many. For the record, what was your personal involvement, if any, if the Gibraltar paid editing affair? Your highly agressive defense of the status quo (e.g. Gibraltar using Wikipedia's home page for daily advertising) is unnatural. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely zero. I don't believe I've even edited a single article in the topic's scope. I just find it abhorrent that we still seek to unduly punish volunteers for providing us with free labour, just because they once had the sheer gall to enter a contest, especially when "way way too many" is still far far less than any one of a dozen or more subjects, a point you've conveniently ignored every time it's been mentioned. GRAPPLE X 22:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, we have had two articles about Gibraltar this month, three in April and one DYK which mentioned Gibraltar (but wasn't about it) in March, out of more than 1,500 DYKs that have run in that time. If you consider that is "too many" then you're off your meds, frankly. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole Gibraltargate thing is intriguing. Please could either of you provide figures to back your assertions? Jehochman, how many Gibraltar-related articles have featured in the last week, month, year? Grapple X, which subjects are getting too much coverage in your opinion? Appreciate any information anyone has on this topic, as it relates to DYK. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Prioryman Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't feel anything is getting "too much" coverage—I just find it risible that a topic which features much less prominently than many others is considered to be appearing too much. For example, just keying off Prioryman's figures above, I have written as many hooks about one four-person musical group this year as the entire wikipedia community has about Gibraltar; and those hooks directly advertise albums which may or may not have received additional sales due to appearing on the page. Is this a problem for the complaining editor her? Apparently not, yet when the g-word appears, suddenly it's an issue of advertising. GRAPPLE X 22:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To go into a bit more detail about the figures, since the start of this year the number of DYKs about Gibraltar have been as follows:

• Jan 2013 - 10
• Feb 2013 - 5
• Mar 2013 - 0
• Apr 2013 - 3
• May 2013 - 2

The figures for Jan/Feb are unusually high because the nominations were held up for a long time (up to three months) due to a flawed review process which, fortunately, has now been improved - this resulted in articles piling up in a holding area. There was a concerted effort to clear the backlog which resulted in a relatively large number of articles running in January. Since the backlog was finally cleared in February we've been running at an average of approximately one Gibraltar-related article every two weeks. For comparison's sake, we are running nearly 150 DYKs on other topics every week. Prioryman (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What appears in DYK depends on what new articles the editors are working on at a given time. It is quite normal for there to be a sudden spate of articles about one-legged ball players, Polish mushrooms, or main roads in Idaho. There are also some editors who are so prolific on their subject area that I sort of expect to set aside a slot in each prep area for them. So I see no reason for there to be an exception in this regard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was an increase in Gibraltar-related articles appearing on DYK because of an article-writing content that was run during the last half of 2012. It ended around Christmas 2012. There's no ongoing contest and nobody coordinating article-writing in this topic area. There are just different random individuals filling in red links and suchlike. Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. The problem doesn't seem as bad as stated. But Grapple, your claim of direct advertising? Really? I don't like the sound of that at all. I saw one hook for a new J-Lo single not released yet, apparently deemed this summer's next big smash or some such bollox. That one was a wrong'un and no mistake. If any kind of commercial interest starts to influence this beautiful venture, it will cause WP's eventual death in my opinion. A million times no. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I think it's fine to write articles on commercial products – for example, earlier today we ran List of songs recorded by Dido, which might well have inspired some people to go out and buy some of her songs on iTunes. Anything we write about pop culture or business may have some commercial impact, but that's inevitable. I think the real issue is whether the article has actually been written with the intention of having a commercial impact. Absent very clear evidence of commercially-minded editing, such as an editor being paid by a company to edit Wikipedia, I think it's a bad idea and counter-productive to try to second-guess why someone has written an article on a particular topic. They may be a fan, or they may have written it out of personal interest, or as part of a project, or just to fill in a red link. The motive actually doesn't really matter as long as the resulting article is decently written, neutral and well-sourced. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine, naturally. I was concerned with the "direct advertising" quote. No doubt it wasn't meant in that way. I don't doubt anyones intentions here. The J-Lo thing really bugged me though. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I meant by it is that we often feature hooks on subjects with a physically purchasable product associated with them (for example, I've done quite a few film, television and music articles), and the added interest in an item created by a DYK hook is much more akin to an actual advert (not that it is an actual advert) than the more indirect approach implied by hooks about geographical regions. If reading a hook, and then an article, about Sette note in nero or Laborintus II inspires you to go out and pick them up in shops, that's a directly related effect, but it's not the original intention of the author (that author being me so I'm not just playing devil's advocate); it's much less direct to see a hook about a lighthouse or a castle and think "that looks interesting. I'll spend money to visit it and indirectly benefit the government there through the slow upward trickle of my money into their tax system"—you can see how it seems odd to be okay with hooks about popular media which are more likely to inspire a transaction while being opposed to hooks about places which are much less likely to directly translate into money spent. I wasn't saying we advertise products so much as demonstrating that the original complaint applies more strongly to hooks which aren't actually being complained about. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gibraltar started a wiki marketing campaign and is still reaping the benefits. We should take stronger measures to counter this unnatural influence. Such a minor topics should not be appearing on the home page so often. I have no issue with editors writing about commercial topics on their own initiative. I do have a problem when they act a dupes or shills for clever PR operators. Jehochman ^Talk 10:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does that work exactly? Are they "dupes or shills" just from the mere fact that some corporate or governmental entity wants articles on itself and then someone feels like making an article on the topic? Does corporate interest in any topic mean that any article made from that point on in that topic then means that person is working as a shill for the company, even if they have nothing to do with them? Silverseren^C 18:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Jehochman, you just completely ignored everything that everyone has posted above. We should take a screenshot of your post and add it to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as a textbook example. Seriously, when people have taken the trouble to reply at length to your comments it's both rude and obnoxious to simply ignore them – it shows no respect for others and it wastes everyone's time. If you're going to behave like that, please do it somewhere else. Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did we ever get to the bottom of your connection to the Gibraltar PR exercise? You care deeply about this rather disreputable marketing project. Every time it is mentioned you are there, defending it! Secretlondon (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So am I and I have nothing to do with Gibraltar. Silverseren^C 21:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman's connection? He founded WikiProject Gibraltar, six years ago, which has had its reputation ruined by this competition. He's not defending the competition, he's defending his right to write articles for a WikiProject he founded without harassment.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it exactly. Silverseren^C 21:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. I didn't even find out about Gibraltarpedia's existence until just before I actually visited the place last year. What I find particularly infuriating is the way that Secretlondon, Jehochman and others are so completely oblivious to basic facts and show so little regard for their fellow editors. The competition ended five months ago. This has been pointed out above and ignored. Nobody is writing articles in this topic area for PR purposes or to help anyone's PR efforts. Jehochman's claims that article writers are "dupes" and "shills" is deeply offensive. That's not even bothering to assume good faith - it's starting with shockingly bad faith and with no evidence for the claim whatsoever. The kindest thing I'd say about it is that it shows wilful ignorance. Personally, I'm fed up with the continued harassment of contributors to this topic area. Some day the people responsible will look back on their part in this episode and be ashamed of themselves. I certainly hope so, anyway. Prioryman (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have your chums at WMUK to blame for that. The wikipedia community made it perfectly clear. Repeatedly. In multiple venues. That it considers the behaviour that resulted in the special restrictions for Gib-based DYK's not in the interest of the encyclopedia. That the Gib-Project predates this and is caught in the firing line is no fault of anyone but those involved with Gibraltarpedia. Your quoting of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT above is amazing given that its mainly you who is keeping the issue alive. Had you just left it alone for a few months no one would have batted an eyelid at putting it behind them. Its your refusal to drop the stick that best illustrates that policy. Want to get angry and blame someone? Blame Gibraltarpedia and its supporters. They caused the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no problem with Gibraltar articles. I find it far more annoying that two reviews are demanded for each article, thus wasting reviewer time, than some alleged promotion that arose from a competition that is rapidly fading into the past. There was even a third review demanded for the perfectly harmless Neanderthals of Gibraltar which two reviewers had already indicated to be promotion free. Please stop this nonsense now, reviewers time could be far better spent on other articles. SpinningSpark 21:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your commonsense comments. I will just add a couple more observations of my own. None of these articles is causing any controversy and some are attracting considerable interest – Neanderthals of Gibraltar had over 24,000 page views and was only a few hundred off getting into the WP:DYKSTATS list of all-time most-read DYKs. The community has repeatedly rejected any suggestion that Gibraltar-related articles should be banned from the Main Page - the last time such a ban was proposed, it was rejected by 28 votes to 2. The only reason why this issue keeps coming up is because a handful of individuals won't let go of it. The community doesn't support their position; they need to recognise this and move on. Prioryman (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. To be honest, if you see "Gibraltar" articles as promotional, especially about various things that happened hundreds of years ago, you should probably be more concerned about the hooks that read " ... that X, by some well-known singer, was described as "wonderful"?" or "... that some book was recommended on the Oprah Winfrey show?" - these are far more commercial and there may actually be soe legitimate concerns about promotional editing.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CC of my note to PumpkinSky, who doesn't seem to be active.

Hey PumpkinSky, hope you're doing well. I see you've promoted the Birmingham crisis DYK into prep 2. That's cool, and I don't mean to be too nitpicky, but I am kind of into this rolling 50 year anniversary thing... and we missed the opportunity to run the original hook on 11 May.

If you look at the template, you'll see that I wrote an Alt1 to run on 18 May, relating to a different part of the "Birmingham crisis". I think this is the hook that reviewer Simon Burchell meant to approve, since they modified the text of it slightly to improve the link to Birmingham.

So, if you would be so kind as to demote the current hook... and place Alt1 into holding for 18 May (2013)... I would really appreciate it! Happy (rolling) 50th anniversary of (this particular part of the) US Civil Rights Movement!

<3 groupuscule (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkinsky has removed it.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 !! Cool. Stay tuned for the next big 50 year marker :-) groupuscule (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've now missed both days for "Birmingham crisis" -- oh well. Next up: Template:Did you know nominations/Baldwin–Kennedy meeting. Anyone want to review it for a possible run on May 24? groupuscule (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following my post above, I got curious as to the actual quality of DYKs on the main page and made interesting discoveries. I chose two articles and looked for phrases that looked out of place or out of the style. On Ipigott's Corinne Mentzelopoulos, I found this in about thirty seconds:

• Article: "Under his leadership, a new cellar was added, drainage was improved and a second underground cellar was created to accommodate second-year barrels."
• Source: "Under her late father's leadership, a new cellar was built, drainage added and a long-term investment strategy made to secure the property's future. Ms. Mentzelopoulos and Mr. Pontallier added a second underground cellar for second-year barrels."
• Article: "The British architect Norman Foster has been commissioned to redesign the cellars as well as to build a winemaking hall and a library of vintages, to be completed by 2015."
• Source: "British architect Norman Foster has been commissioned to redesign its cellars, create a new winemaking hall, as well as a subterranean bottle library of previous vintages to be completed by 2015."

Note that the original version of the article is even worse, and while it has been made better, it's far from perfect.

Rock Drill (Jacob Epstein) was even stranger, as the close paraphrasing isn't from a cited source in the article. Still, it's clearly derivative. This was not the creator's fault: the problematic text was added later by an experienced user.

This source has been around since 2007, so it can't be copying from our article, which was created this month. Note that this is replied to in the collapsed section below.

From a cursory check of the other articles, there's also a simple quality issue. Why is MasterOfHisOwnDomain's "The Paddock and the Mouse" being shown on the main page despite consisting of only a plot summary? (cf. the relevant policy: WP:NOTPLOT; note that this article does not have any problems with close paraphrasing) Note: this is replied to in the collapsed section below.

Last, while I mean no malice to any of the users involved here, I do think they should look into WP:Close paraphrasing and this Signpost dispatch to avoid such issues in the future.

My main point is that this is a systemic failure on the part of the DYK process and an urgent problem. This isn't confined to just close paraphrasing concerns; the number of sections above pointing out serious problems (in hooks that were approved by both a reviewer and an administrator) attest to that.

We have to be extra vigilant with articles that are being placed on our most visible page, and DYK is not providing that vigilance, despite the many plagiarism-related discussions in 2011. DYK needs to tighten its overall standards—and certainly in the area of plagiarism, where training people in reviewing articles through on-wiki tutorials, or requiring copyright spotchecks on articles from newer users, could go a long way. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Taking what you're saying in Good Faith, without blame towards any individual editor past or present, do you have a suggestion how needed and workable improvements might be put in place? Others have been genuinely concerned about content on the main page. Talk page archives attest to how dialogue quickly segues into a donnybrook fueled by troublemakers who have no goal but wanting to destroy DYK, with one or more claiming a variation of, "Jimbo Wales is on board with this..." Usually somewhere in the mix are special interest individuals insisting the only solution is to replace DYK (or combine it) with their pet project that doesn't have main page space. Add to that, the pettiness of anyone trying to get editors topic banned because their efforts weren't perfect enough. Nobody is on a payroll here. We can't fire anybody. The entire world is invited to participate in DYK . Editors who enjoy DYK are either forced to defend the process on this talk page, or back away because the blood-letting dialogue is too intense. And in the end, nothing happens but squabbling.

Checking for copyvio is already a requirement, and we have Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector and Duplication detector . But how can it be enforced without both the promoter and approving Admin also running those tools? And how do you enforce that the approving Admin did their job? From my point of view DYK is a good thing, but can use some structural overhaul to improve what you and others see as legitimate issues. ed17, you have a good eye and legitimate issues. Could you also provide some kind of bullet-point structural suggestions on how to make this better? — Maile (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided two suggestions above. On-wiki tutorials on what to look for could go a long way. Changing the culture to make sure every article is at least spotchecked would be a bit harder. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why have these hooks not been removed from main-page exposure? They violate fundamental policies. Tony (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them, and invite onlookers to take any further steps (tagging, notifying, etc) they feel are warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66, I would suggest thats probably a waste of time, at this location anyway. Its unlikely that with the Main-page RFC going on that DYK will survive in the same format as is now. I would suggest that as part of the main-page overhaul, there are some hefty changes due to the governance and oversight of what appears on the main page. DYK included. So it may be best to instigate some tightening up regarding quality as well as the content itself as part of the RFC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to 2013 main page redesign proposal/RFC. Yes? And, BTW, what I'm reading over there, is a milder version of things that have been suggested here last year. All of it. Except everyone is more civilized there. But I agree with what you say about the hefty changes due. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clarify why my name is mentioned regarding the Corinne Mentzelopoulos article when the its history clearly shows the problematic sentences were added by other contributors before I began editing the article? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I mixed the two names when looking at the history. I've changed the name above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The people complaining about paraphrasing, with due respect, do you put in anywhere near the effort across a broad range of articles that I and others I work with here put in to this project? When you produce as much material as we do together, occasionally you'll get some sentences which are too close for comfort and occasionally errors might creep in which go unspotted but do you think we do this intentionally? We do our best to try to produce decent articles which are free of issues which "violate fundamental policies". And where does one draw the line with paraphrasing? If one is writing an article based on sources which document certain events, especially if only one source mentions a certain event or fact, in order to provide that information as fact, isn't it inevitable that some sentences will resemble the source more than others? Our encyclopedia is based upon fact and other sources, to expect every sentence to be radically different is a tall order, you'll always get some sentences which read more similar to the original sources than others, that's a natural thing in writing an encyclopedia. What I hate above all is the way such posts are brought up moaning about the issue here that we are grossly negligent contributors, treating the editors who bother to write articles here with contempt almost as if they are offensive vandals. Given how much material goes through DYK, it is impossible to identify every sentence which might be a little too closely paraphrased. I don't see people suing wikipedia over it do you? If you want to reduce the problem and improve the overall quality of DYKs then a limit would need to be imposed on daily showcasing and a vigorous check system which checks every sentence and every source officially before articles go through DYK. Given the size of wikipedia and lack of dedicated contributors it isn't practical. Is that good enough? Probably not, but then again name me a part of wikipedia which is truly as good as we'd like. Paraphrasing happens in encyclopedias which draw upon other sources to write the text, and certain solid facts it is often very difficult to make sentences read radically different from the source just for the sake of it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some objections based on "close paraphrasing" are groundless. As described in WP:Close paraphrasing, similarity between an article and a source is not necessarily a copyright issue (and lack of similarity does not necessarily mean there is no problem). A good rule of thumb I saw somewhere, the "Golden Rule", is something like: "Look at it from the point of view of the author of the source. If they may think their creative work is being used unfairly, there probably is a problem." The converse obviously applies ... What concerns me is lack of follow-up. If there really is a copyright violation, it is incumbent on us to remove it from WP, not just to reject it from DYK. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that we need to scrutinize every sentence; I'm saying that spotchecks need to be done. It took me a grand total of maybe five minutes to find the two problematic articles above. While one actually copied from another Wikipedia article—something I tried to check by looking through the history to find where the text was added, but [[WP:COPYWITHIN] was not followed—this could have been brought up long before in the nomination. Moving on, Blofeld, did I try to demonize the users involved here? No. I realize that we've all made plagiarism-related mistakes before; I certainly have. No one is suing Wikipedia or the Foundation over it, but we have these policies for a reason. Limiting the amount of articles isn't the worst idea—it would allow you all to show only the best hooks (no more exceedingly boring "did you know ... that article did this at this time?") and ensure that each article has been spotchecked (not thoroughly scrutinized, spotchecked). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not daemonizing no, but I don't like seeing editors like Rosiestep and Ipigott who I have the greatest of respect for (and who wikipedia is incredibly lucky to have editing on here) complained about in this manner. If you browse through the sum of their work you'll see what I mean. They generally represent the very best in article writing here and the amount of work they've done without problems towards systematic bias is exemplary. I'd clone them if I could a-la Dr. Evil, several thousand times over, as wikipedia would be infinitely better off as a resource. So painting them with the same brush as those more shoddy generic DYK entries full of multiple errors and seriously paraphrasing I think is a bit off. Yes, DYK has issues, and I've long called for reform, but I always found I never got anywhere, but believe you me, we want wikipedia to be as good as you do, we're on the same boat.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced above, the text in Rock Drill was not a copyvio. The source got it from us. Please ensure that it is re-run as soon as possible. Also, as my edits are questioned here, why wasn't I notified? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A simple mistake; I added the names last, and therefore messed one up and missed yours entirely. My apologies. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean that for me? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. After drafting the post, I decided to add names, and if you noticed, I messed one up and missed yours. Again, you have my apologies for that.Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageously, my earlier comment has been hidden in a collapsed section, while the false accusation it refutes is still prominently displayed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because interrupting my comments with yours is considered good practice? I've struck the comments and added a note that they are replied to beneath. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; unlike hiding others comments in a collapsed section; it very much is. Please restore them - and move your hidden apology - to visibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases. As soon as that became a conversation, that became way too confusing to read the initial post. It's not hidden, it's clearly delineated. Move on. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a practical suggestion. FA and GA review pages have a toolbox that contains useful tools for checking the article. If such a toolbox with copyvio tools was automatically placed on DYK review pages when they were created there would be a far greater chance that they would get used. It would at least serve as a reminder that we are supposed to be doing that check. Other useful tools could also be included, such as a page size tool. SpinningSpark 22:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea, Spinning Spark. I lack the coding skills to make it happen (or even to know how difficult it would be to code into the template), but I agree that having links to duplication tools, and a reminder to use them, would be very beneficial. The Interior (Talk) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an excellent idea. Do we know who the current maintainer of the DYK templates is? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Rjanag set it up initially.[1] The Interior (Talk) 23:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Page size tool", I assume is the DYK Check, which is maintained by Shubinator, And you would have to bring Shubinator into this, if for no other reason, the DYK Check is a user toolbox feature that would have to be adapted to be on the DYK template. The copyvio tools are: Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector and Duplication detector . Another DYK tool is Snottywong's check for the nominator's prior number of DYKs (for QPQ). Putting all of these on the DYK template is good. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could always copy the base aspects of Template:Featured article tools and add them automatically to the nomination pages. Also, for prose size don't forget that we have User:Dr pda/prosesize.js as well. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be very nice. The Interior (Talk) 02:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have created this toolbox. Comments, additions, subtractions please. It is currently pointing at Frog battery, but will automatically pick up the right article if inserted in a DYK subpage. Once everone is happy with it, it can be added to the DYK template and transcluded into all reviews. The page size tool will need to be put on the toolserver before it can be put in the toolbox. I will talk to Dr PDA about that. By the way, does anyone know what {{DYK tools}} does? That would be the ideal name for this box but there is something there already and I can't work out what its function is. SpinningSpark 08:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dr pda isn't active much any more. It's a script that can be added to a user's .js page though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that, I run it myself, but it can't be put in the toolbox 'as is' because javascript is not allowed to be run directly from Wikipedia pages, except, as you say, from <user>.js. SpinningSpark 09:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great, SpinningSpark. I would like to see the Duplication Detector in there, mostly beacuse it allows PDF uploads - more and more references are in that form, and many are long documents not easy to scan by eye. I don't think the earwig tool lets you check anything but URLs. The Interior (Talk) 15:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done. But I can't get the tool to preload the target page. It will take both urls as parameters, but is not happy with just one and, of course, there is no way to tell in advance what page it is desired to compare to. SpinningSpark 16:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, if an editor can't copypaste a URL, they're a lost cause anyways ;) The Interior (Talk) 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr pda hasn't been active on WP in a pretty long time. If you guys get a working toolbox together and need help adding it to the DYK header, feel free to shoot me a message. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed him rather than rely on him looking at his talk page. I am waiting to see if other volunteers think this is a good idea before transcluding it. It is going to affect a lot of pages. SpinningSpark 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, is it possible for you to also communicate with Shubinator and see if he can code DYK Check to also be put on the template? Other than that, I think the additions are good for the process.— Maile (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look on Shubinator's talkpage, I have already left a message there. Basically, we need them to put the tool on the toolserver (or someone else with a toolserver account to do it). Shubinator does no seem to have been active on Wikipedia for a few days so still waiting for a reply. SpinningSpark 16:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see you were ahead of me there in asking Shubinator. Even better if it could work on Labs, since Toolserver is going away. — Maile (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shubinator has now replied. This is not going to happen in the short term, but we may get it eventually. SpinningSpark 07:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to wait for that, then. There's this tool (Cut & Paste Character count) which could work for now. We haven't heard any contrary opinions on adding the toolbox so far, probably the best way to get more feedback is to boldly implement it. The Interior (Talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with implementing it now. This doesn't seem like it would be one of those things that could stir a lot of debate, so let's go with it. Adjust it later if need be. — Maile (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the proposal is to add this to each nomination subpage. This would result in a very undesirable situation of having a very large number of copies of it appear on the main nomination page, unless code is added to suppress it there. In any case, a much better and more logical place for it would be Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations, which is displayed whenever a subpage is edited. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of what's being proposed, the toolbox would be similar to the FAC toolbox, which doesn't show up on WP:FAC. And not to be the contrarian, but I would assume the best and most logical place is also the most visible, which in this case is surely not an edit notice. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarax, I like your suggestion. That's where I'd look for these tools if I was editing a nomination template. Right there in front of my nose when I'm editing. If I wanted to flip back and forth to somewhere else, I'd do what I do now, which is click DYK Check on my personal toolbox, and the other tools on a user sub page I have. But either way, there probably should be some prominent permanent mention of this on the DYK page(s). — Maile (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to me it does seem the most logical and visible place for the toolbox: right at the top next to the list of criteria which reviewers are consulting. But it doesn't matter too much to me, as long as it's <noinclude>d so we don't clutter up T:TDYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the FAC template is just <noinclude></noinclude>ed. So if you want, you could have it both ways: both have a template in the editnotice, and have a template in the subpage itself that shows up when you're on the subpage but does not get transcluded to T:TDYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for making these tools as visible as possible, and like your suggestion. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template is now live in the editnotice. The subpage transclusion is currently being tested in sandbox (with the help of My76Strat). Hopefully, it will be available in new nominations soon. SpinningSpark 21:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some tests of this template and from what I see it can go live whenever you are ready. I'd be happy to plug it in for you. My76Strat (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead. I think everyone is agreed that it is wanted. SpinningSpark 21:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It is present in all existing nominations now. My76Strat (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been making use of these tools in the template, and I find them very helpful there. Thanks for making it happen. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed has now apologised (albeit in a hidden section) for his false accusation of plagiarism with regard to Rock Drill, which was summarily removed from the main page part way through its run yesterday. When will it be re-run? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, I'm happy that you didn't try to stir up any extra drama with this post by pointedly pointing out my apology or my mistake (or your mistake in not correctly attributing your addition). Anyway, it was on the main page for five hours; I don't think it needs to be re-run for another six. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c.) Well I was just about to say, where's the apology for not attributing your direct copying of CC-by-SA material, as required by WP:COPYWITHIN? If you don't properly attribute, please don't complain when someone checking makes that kind of error. We need to be making it more straightforward to check for plagiarism and poor paste-in practices, not more difficult. Tony (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In those five hours, over 3,600 people saw it; by removing it inappropriately and prematurely, it's likely, we can extrapolate, that around 720 interested people per hour were denied the opportunity to learn of its existence. That's not fair to them, and not fair to the creator of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was there for five hours? Fine. That's an hour more than DYKs were getting only months ago. People "denied the opportunity" will simply go somewhere else on the main page, which is all too crowded for its own good. Tony (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I can't recall DYK running a 4-hour cycle. Last time we had 6-hour cycle was ca. 2 years ago; it was 8-12 h since then. Materialscientist (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony, you have obviously not checked your facts before posting. As shown by the edit history for User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates, the last change in the time between updates occurred on January 5 when the time between updates was shortened from 12 hours to 8 (the two updates in February 2013 are discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 90#DYKbot off by twelve minutes and did not affect the actual timing of any updates). As the revision history shows, there have been periods when DYKUpdateBot has performed updates once every 6 hours, but never at a more frequent rate. DYKadminBot, the current bot's predecessor was hard coded for 6 hour updates. Before DYKadminBot, updates were performed manually and there was no hope of finding available and willing admins capable of performing more than 4 updates per day. --Allen3 ^talk 13:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Rock Drill—though I'm hardly going to make a new section for it—but I believe my DYK (The Paddock and the Mouse) was unfairly removed from being displayed on the Main Page, for really not a serious violation of policy at all (WP:NOTPLOT, but... not really because it's a part of a collection, which serves as its own "context"). I appreciate Ed's concerns for DYK, and I'm not after drama, but I just want to see the artice have a proper run. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea whether this is a problem for DYK, but collection or no collection, the article should follow the basic rules including WP:NOTPLOT on its own account. The Paddock and the Mouse is certainly an interesting read so far, but also it is by no means a complete article. The body contains no information outside of the plot summary, for example history of composition, critical reception, or even a more distant "out of universe" third party analysis of the meaning behind the poem.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept all of that, and appreciate the comments; in fact, another article for the same collection that I submitted for DYK has all of those sections you mention. However, it doesn't contravene DYK rules, which says an article should follow "core policies": Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright. WP:NOTPOT is most certainly not a core policy, so to have the article removed from the Main Page because of it just isn't right. Sorry, if this seems a storm in a teacup, but it's just a matter of principle. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I understand the frustration. It's quite nice to get that slot on the main page and annoying to have it cut short!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting - gotta run or I'd load some myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4 done--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Empty again, and the one filled queue will be promoted in a few minutes. The cupboard is completely bare! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think having some GA nominations would help give us a few more? ;-) I loaded prep set one, can an administrator check and approve it? There are still no queues with hooks.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the problem is that the nominations that we have aren't being reviewed quickly enough, not that we need more unreviewed nominations. If people aren't reviewing, though, it might make sense to temporarily reduce to six slots per set until reviews pick up. I've been away quite a bit (and will be mostly away for at least another week and a half), so I don't have an up-to-date read of the situation, and I haven't been able to build sets myself. Having the DYKHousekeepingBot out of commission—the one that shows on the queue and nomination pages how many are reviewed and which dates they're listed under—isn't helping, because the lack of available hooks isn't as apparent as it might be. But another problem is also that people aren't building that many sets either. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Have just passed a few to help things along. I got a nom that just needs another quick look at. Hint hint.. ;) Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, I have created 5 sets, that should keep us going for a bit. If anyone else fancies creating one feel free as I have a COI in all the remaining approved hooks :/ --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching Pentecost, I nominated BWV 68 composed for Monday. As Martin Krumbiegel was reviewed but the hook questioned, I suggested two others, suitable for Sunday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerda, the nomination template says it's for 20 June; I'm guessing you mean 20 May? Special occasions are supposed to have a minimum of five days for review and scheduling, and better longer; this is a hair under four if you're going for 20 May, and since Pentecost is this Sunday, 19 May, I imagine you are. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about May, sorry about that. I know BWV 68 was nominated to late for 20 May (it was written for Pentecost Monday!), I was on vacation, lost the sense for time ;) Ignore a rule perhaps? - Krumbiegel was nominated long ago, the hook was questioned, I came up with with two hooks for Pentecost instead, 19 May, because now is not the time for the Passions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 68 found a reviewer, thank you, Smerus! - Please move it to prep for tomorrow if there's room, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of shuffling so it is now in prep 1, which should run tomorrow evening (Europe)/afternoon (North America). Hope this is alright, if not I'll move it somewhere else.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the extra effort! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now to Krumbiegel. He is in prep with the hook that I said has to wait at least until tomorrow. I will take the liberty to replace it by the Pentecost one for now. If you don't like that please move it to later. Germany and other countries still celebrates Pentecost today, not the time for the Passions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have only 8 approved nominations that aren't being held out of over 150 waiting. Please could you review the following articles, all of which have not yet received a review and have been created at least two weeks ago. Reviews would be most useful of the older articles, and can you strike through articles which have been done. Many thanks.

• April 26 - Template:Did you know nominations/James Chadwick - Passed by two reviewers already, but held up because someone needs to pass a new hook.
• April 29 - Template:Did you know nominations/Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Cocking Lime Works (double nomination)
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Mass in B minor
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Pinguk River
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Vance Peterson
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Murray Hill, Christmas Island
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Authoring Instructional Materials
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Brazilian Dreams
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Wibault 9
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties (4-article hook)
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Moore (American football)
• May 2 - Template:Did you know nominations/Duchess Marie of Württemberg (translated article, needs determination re citations) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• May 2 - Template:Did you know nominations/Montgomery Knight
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/Siri Engberg
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Perez (double nomination)
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/Preston Claiborne
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/Imoro Yakubu Kakpagu
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/Tony's Cronies
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/San Marco (Jacksonville)
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/Protected areas of Namibia
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/Mondeuse noire
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/Diamond Trust of London
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/Noemi Marone Cinzano
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/What Remains
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/Asa Lansford Foster (now only needs independent hook approval).
• May 5 - Template:Did you know nominations/Rōdō Sanka
• May 5 - Template:Did you know nominations/Vaillancourt Fountain