This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. 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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Prep-set builders should be aware that the Paralympic Games start on August 29 and run for 11 days. Currently I count 63 approved Paralympics hooks on the nominations page. To use all of these during the Paralympics, we will need to run 6 hooks per day, meaning two Paralympic hooks per hook set if we run three hook sets per day. This is less than the 9 Olympics hooks per day (3 hooks per set) that we ran during the Olympics, but it will require continuing attention from all of the prep-set builders. Running some of the Paralympic hooks before the Games is somewhat reducing the impact they will have on DYK during the 11 days of the Games, and presumably is helping build interest in the upcoming events. --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Some of the sports don't start right away, and others have round-robin groups to start with before teams are eliminated. Competitions for most sports that we have hooks for begin on August 30 (opening ceremonies are it for August 29), but some don't begin until later:
August 31: Athletics and Rowing
September 1: Sailing and Wheelchair tennis
September 5: Wheelchair rugby
I'd imagine that some of the team sports, like Goalball and Volleyball and Wheelchair basketball, also start with round-robins, which would make them less critical to front load. There's a useful overall calendar table on the 2012 Summer Paralympics page, though a number of the sports pages do not have competition dates on them like Volleyball does; its initial round goes through September 3 or 4. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Criteria met, page not ready
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I've been expanding HMS Pandora (N42) and I've already met the 5 times expansion requirement; however, I wouldn't be comfortable putting it on the main page in it's current state. I don't know if I can get it prepared for the main page within the next two days. If I cannot, am I still able to nominate it for DYK since it was expanded 5x in less than 5 days? RyanVesey05:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You can nominate it now since it's 5x expanded and add to it before a review (usually takes a few days to weeks to be reviewed). It would definitely take longer than two days to make it to the main page. Froggerlauraribbit05:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Same: nominate now, just wait and improve, perhaps nobody will look. IF you get a review before it's ready you can ask for more time to improve, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The Great Stagnation
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
You can just add it as a comment, but if you want it that way, you can look at any other nomination, click edit and see how it is fit there. About your review, I though I would remind you that you can't approve hooks that you yourself suggest and would also advice you to use the DYK check tool in future (saves time). Mohamed CJ(talk)07:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Not approve a hook that you yourself suggest: as long as it's only a rewording/expansion of a hook proposed before, you can, if the author likes it, - only if it's a new fact, someone else needs to approve, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm worried this nomination is about to fall victim to an unfortunate feature of this page: placing a long-winded and negative comment on an old nomination has become the de facto equivalent of a veto. Older nominations get so few eyes, and those that do look at them are understandably loathe to spend more than a few seconds reading the whole thing. In this case, the result is even more annoying because: (1) the article was approved in the first few days while it was in the part of the page that many read and then dinged while additional reviewers were less likely; (2) the comments pertain only to one of first proposed hook (The reviewer has refused to evaluate the alternate at all. While I don't blame the reviewer for preferring to seek a third opinion, in practice this may not be forthcoming.); (3) some of the comments are misleadingly placed below the alternate hook (which was created in response to them). Unfortunately, this appears to be a not entirely uncommon event at this page. Savidan17:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
NML Cygni is listed under both August 23 and August 24. I reviewed it on the August 23 template, and the result showed up under both dates. August 23 is when the article was created. I didn't want to remove one and take a chance on messing up something over at the nominations page. Maile66 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Older hooks needing reviews
Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
Because people have reviewed most of the ones on the previous list, here's a new version with the few holdouts, plus a few more days of the older unreviewed nominations. I'm sure many are as easy to review as the 14 of 25 from the 23rd that have already been reviewed.
I just had a good look at the article. No problem with copyvio or the hook. The article needs a lot of C.E. to make it presentable in the English language. I've left a message over there. This is an editor who needs help with English language prose. Maile66 (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I just wanted to thank you for listing old hooks like this. I hope everyone else appreciates it as well, because it certainly helps reviewers zero in on the older ones. Maile66 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The IBM Mira hook in Prep 4 needs the statement "is listed by TOP500 as" before "the third-fastest supercomputer" as per Redtigerxyz's comments here.--SGCM(talk)05:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
Two of my hooks are currently in the prep area, and both have a 'problem' of kinds:
Selwyn, New Zealand is lead hook in prep 1. The hook got signed off earlier today and before I could move it to the special holding area for September, somebody else promoted it to the prep area, overlooking that the anniversary refers to next month. It can run anytime in September. In its current slot, it will run in August (making the hook incorrect).
Before I saw your comment here, I noticed the problem with the date in the hook, and did a quick-fix edit to say "next month". Would you still prefer that it run in September? --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Implosion of Radio Network House is in prep 3. I quote from the reviewer's final tick: "I strongly recommend using this as a lead hook w/ the video, because of the relative rarity of videos at DYK and the significance of this event" I would have to agree with the reviewer on that front. And it's probably one of the best articles that I have written yet, so taking into account the recommendation, the availability of a rare video, and the article's quality, it came as a bit of a surprise that it's not used as a lead hook. Can I suggest that this be reconsidered?
I don't mind if the first one doesn't end up as lead hook when it gets nominated again (it's not such a great article). So maybe when the Selwyn article gets moved out of prep 1, the implosion article could take its slot? Schwede6605:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a thought: when I promoted the implosion article I considered the video to be rather small and unimpressive as a thumbnail, so I did not include the video. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Did you see my suggestions that I posted as part of the nomination? Whilst the thumbnail perhaps isn't impressive (prior to implementing my suggestion), the video certainly is. Schwede6606:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Crisco 1492 that the video link doesn't look very interesting at 100px. However, I think the image of the intact building (uncropped version at right; would be even better with a bit of cropping) would work very nicely to illustrate the hook by showing what people wanted to implode. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I fully understand when Crisco replies: "I don't doubt it, but at 100px?" When the hooks are on the homepage and I click on the photo of the lead hook, it opens the page that holds the file, doesn't it? And I assume that the functionality for videos is the same; when somebody clicks on the video, it opens the file page that holds the video. Is Crisco assuming that clicking on the video will start playing it at thumbnail size? On another front, can I point out that the other hook still needs dealing with? It's currently on its way to be displayed on the homepage in the wrong month. Schwede6619:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
When I click the video thumbnail on the nomination page it does play it at thumbnail size. (It also takes quite a while to think about it, and I daresay a lot of readers have worse internet connections than me.) The video is now in a queue. Would the implosion thumbnail above be acceptable instead? If so I can un-promote Selwyn, put the implosion hook as the picture hook in that prep, and bump something else from a prep up into the vacated space in the queue. (Or another admin can. It's Queue 5, which doesn't go up till 17:00 UTC on the 29th.) I'm assuming that thumbnail counts as present in the article? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC) .... On the other hand maybe I am just being a technical idiot. When I click on the current lead DYK hook pic on the Main Page it does take me to the fullsize pic. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I have a faint recollection that some 18 to 24 months ago, we had a discussion whether clicking on the thumbnail pic should load the article or the picture, and following the discussion, the functionality was changed. I would be happy for the thumbnail to go up instead of the video clip if that makes things simpler. With regards to the time that it takes the video to load, I suspect that it's a bandwidth issue at the server end, so the speed of your connection will have little to do with it. Schwede6621:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I have switched Implosion of Radio Network House into the lead position in Prep 1, with the video; and then made an additional edit switching the thumbnail for the video, with the italics in the hook appropriately changed. So people can now compare the two versions and anyone can change it back to the video until that hook set gets moved into a queue. I reverted the promotion of Selwyn, New Zealand to wait 2-3 more days for the anniversary month. I replaced Implosion of Radio Network House with Heslington Brain from Prep 2. If that was not a good choice of hook to kipe to fill the space in Queue 5, we have a day and a half to find a better one; I have to go offline for several hours now but will happily clean up my mess when I return, if necessary. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles needing review (including two Paralympics hooks)
Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
As always, there are a number of older nominations that have never been reviewed, or which need a new reviewer. All the ones here have not previously been included in earlier lists. (See above for others that might still need attention.)
First, here are two Paralympic nominations that needed to have new ALT hooks created, and thus need a new reviewer to approve them, as the old reviewer is barred from doing so, having constructed the ALTs:
Caveat. BlueMoonset's Maile66 (13:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)) review of Mayer Zald approved a hook that was not supported in the article, until 5 minutes after his review. I had also stated that I should review the article to ensure that the hook was duly supported a half hour earlier. Kiefer.Wolfowitz12:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's not BlueMoonset being questioned, but my review. When I did that review, I opened Reference 7, and it supported what was in Alt 1. Did I misunderstand what Wolfowitz thinks he was saying in Alt 1? Maybe. But I certainly did NOT falsely claim to have reviewed the hook. I don't claim to have reviewed something unless I actually reviewed it. Perhaps someone else would like to have a look at it. Maile66 (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Please choose your words more carefully next time around. "Actually, you did not check the alt1 hook..." (what you wrote on the template) is an accusation of misleading on a review, that I did based on what I saw there. What you added in the article, by the history of the article, was 6 minutes after I completed my review (and 7 days after the article's previous edit). So let's have fresh eyes do that review all over.Maile66 (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Queue 5
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The hook for List of United States Presidents by net worth currently in 5 does not have an inline citation and the cites listed at the end of the paragraph don't have anything to do with Truman. The hook states poorest since 1929 and it's 1933 in the article text. Entire list is also based on one Time article graphic. Could someone take a look before it goes out? Froggerlauraribbit04:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I edited the article to refer to 1929 in the text, indicate in the text that Herbert Hoover took office in 1929 (so that date can be associated with the table), and state in the text that the information described is in the table. The source of the table is clearly identified. No cited source says Truman was least wealthy since 1929, but this can be discerned from the table without difficulty. I think that the current arrangements should be sufficient (although the article could use some additional improvements). --Orlady (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I might be overly cautious on this, but I don't see the purpose in linking to an article called "Democrats say Ryan is an enemy of the middle class" in the article to support the claim that Democrats support the common man but Democratic presidents are often rich. Froggerlauraribbit04:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Possibly in an excess of caution, I resolved this by deleting the entire statement that contrasted the wealth of Democratic presidents with the party's representing itself as the party of ordinary people. Without a cited source calling this an inconsistency, this was original research. --Orlady (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Queue 6
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Yesterday, I placed the actual template for Sara Plummer Lemmon on the article's talk page, and on the author's talk page. It was visible yesterday, and not today. It was promoted since yesterday. Does that change the visuals?Maile66 (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, when it gets promoted, the template no longer shows. It is this functionality that makes the nomination templates disappear from the nomination page. What I do on article talk pages is to change the curly brackets to square brackets, so that the nomination appears as a link. Schwede6621:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Nope, reviews that are just a stamp are insufficient. I don't recognize this editor but I'm not really active here anymore; if anyone notices a particular editor doing a lot of reviews like this, they should explain to that editor that such reviews aren't complete. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm the editor :). Another editor left a message about this, so I'll keep in mind to provide a rationale in the future. Yes, I am new to DYK. ElectricCatfish19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You missed that the hook wasn't referenced which is one of the key things you look for. The rationale shows that you've checked things. Secretlondon (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Request for delay of a hook
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have expanded an article about Sten Grytebust and the hook is in Queue 5, which will hit the main page in 13 hours. However, I realized that I could make that hook into a dual hook if I simply expand Peter Orry Larsen and add his name to the same hook. As I'm off to work now, I wont be able to finish that until after the hook has hit the main-page. So I'm wondering if any admin could replace the Sten Grytebust hook in the Queue 5, and place it as far back in the queue as possibly, so I have more time to make it a dual-hook? Mentoz86 (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not convinced that this proposal is a good idea. The current hook is an excellent one; it probably would be far less interesting if a second person were added to it. Importantly, the second article would require an entire new review before it could be added to the hook. Why not expand Peter Orry Larsen and propose a new hook for that article? --Orlady (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's not always easy to find interresting hooks when expanding those Norwegian footballers, and I thought that this was a hook that would be good for two article, but I agree with your reasoning. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Inscrutably clever fact in prep 2
Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
I reviewed Prep 2 in hopes of moving it to the queue, but I got stuck on the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Smooth 70s. After a quick read of the two articles, it is not clear to me that that "Smooth 70s is the UK's only national 1970s radio station", as Absolute Radio 70s (which claims to be the UK's only station dedicated to the 1970s) also appears to qualify as a national station, using the definition that makes Smooth 70s a national station. If the hook is so inscrutably clever that I can't explain it after reading the articles. we can't use it. I'd substitute another hook for this pair of articles, but the only validated substituted is uninteresting. Can somebody who understands this hook please make it more clearly true? --Orlady (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Yup, edit conflict .... Having just moved this prep set to a queue, I'd better answer :-) (I was hung up on another article that needed extensive editing before going up and I didn't have time before leaving for work.) As I understand it, Absolute is only available online outside London, whereas Smooth 70s broadcasts nationwide. Alternatively, simplify:
I've studied this further, so now I can clarify the problem. My concern is that (1) the Smooth 70s article does not indicate that this is the "only" national 70s station and (2) it's not entirely clear from the Smooth 70s article whether Smooth 70s is a national broadcast station (as Yngvadottir infers it to be). The article lead states that it "broadcasts through DAB on the Digital One multiplex and is also available online" and that "it is the first to be heard nationally". The prominent mention of "online" and the use of the word "heard" (rather than "broadcast" or "heard over the air") both lead me to think that the claim of national availability is based partly on online availability in areas that do not have access over the air. Finally, while the article says it is the "first 1970s-themed radio station to air nationally", that does not make it the only such station ("first" is not the same thing as "only") and I can't interpret the verb "to air" to refer to broadcast transmission because I have learned that this form is now used to describe various forms of cable and online transmission. (Following various links, I now have the understanding that Digital One broadcasts -- and thus Smooth 70s broadcasts -- are accessible in the residential locations of 90% of the UK population outside Northern Ireland, albeit only for whatever fraction of the population has digital radio receivers. In contrast, Absolute 70s digital broadcasts are only available in greater London.) --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
That is correct, Orlady. I was thinking of DAB availability when I wrote the hook. Absolute 70s currently airs only in London on the platform, whereas Smooth 70s airs nationally on DAB. Of course, if you listen online then you can do that anywhere in the country (and outside, I believe, as one who listens to RTE, Live365 and a few others online). I'll look at them both again and tweak the lead of both if necessary, but let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Made a couple of adjustments to the lead, and hopefully it should be fine now. Give me a shout if there are any more problems with it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Time for a bit of background. Absolute 70s launched on DAB in London on 29 November 2011, branding itself as the UK's only 70s radio station (which at that time was correct). Smooth 70s came along a month after that, but was launched nationally on DAB. However, despite its competitor, Absolute 70s continues to brand itself as the UK's only 1970s station. They probably haven't got around to updating their website yet, but the fact was actually pointed out in this article last week. As I was asked to look for an alternative hook, I thought it would be interesting, but obviously didn't want to copy it word for word. Hope this all helps to clear up the confusion, anyway. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Just one remaining concern. Smooth 70s identified the station as the "first" national broadcast station, but did not clearly indicate that it is currently the "only" such station. I edited the article to add that detail; please check my work (I hope I didn't mess anything up). --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, so I understood it about right except I keep forgetting about digital broadcasting? Are we agreed that the hook can stay as it is? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Lists of reviews on nomination forms: Vibhijain actually in arrears
Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Something about the list of QPQ reviews finally struck a bell after I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Sanjay Hazare today, and I took a closer look, which resulted in my revoking the promotion. By my count, after the initial five free nominations, Vibhijain had used the same list of nine reviews (which eventually grew to eleven, with those nine plus the same extra two) for 31 nominations starting December 9, 2011. Sanjay Hazare was the 26th.
The six currently being nominated (26 through 31) have each been marked that they require a new, unique QPQ review; I've also left a note on Vibhijain's talk page about this, and pointed out that individual QPQs should be used in his nominations henceforth. I think we can, in general, request (require?) that any nominator specify which QPQ review they're using each time.
The question we may or may not want to visit is whether Vibhijain should be asked to make up any of the QPQs for articles that have already hit the main page. I count 25 completed nominations (a couple of these were rejected), and 12 reviews (the twelfth was listed once only in June). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
For future reference (now that we are alerted to this issue), the way to check whether a QPQ review has been claimed more than once is to check "What links here" for the nomination template that is claimed as a QPQ review. Most DYK nomination templates have very few backlinks, so when the "what links here" looks like this, it's probably an indication that it's been claimed as a QPQ for several noms. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
In answer to "the question we may or may not want to visit is whether Vibhijain should be asked to make up any of the QPQs for articles that have already hit the main page", I would say yes. The editor has been caught out, the excuse of finding it hard to keep track of QPQs is lame at best, and now is the time to start making up for the shortfall. Schwede6620:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just approving one of Vibhijain's submissions (QPQ had been redone), and see that he made the following claim to Mehrajmir13, a newish reviewer, who was questioning his QPQ list: "I have 11 reviews, so I don't need to do another till I have 99 DYK credits." Yet there was no attempt made to make this claim with Secretlondon above. Under the circumstances, I would be in favor of a makeup requirement. Perhaps an additional QPQ per nomination for the next 13 articles to be submitted? It should also be made clear that these must be complete reviews, not quick fails or single-issue comments; he has done one of each in addition to proper complete reviews in making up his QPQs on his current nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I hate to be a hard-ass, and I particularly don't want to discourage any editor from submitting articles to Did You Know, but (in addition to my personal much repeated distaste for the QPQ requirement) we've been having trouble getting things reviewed in a timely fashion, and we've been holding people's feet to the fire to not only check all the criteria but summarize what they checked. Also, we need good reviewers, and it's in large part a learned skill. So for what it's worth, I also think Vibhijain should make up the arrears. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC),
So Vibhjain had the notion that he was entitled to 9 self-nominations for each review that he did?!? That's absurd! Not only is QPQ supposed to be a one-for-one requirement, but the initial understanding was that the reviews were supposed to be very recent -- because the main purpose of QPQ is to help ensure that the review process keeps pace with hook production, QPQ reviewers need to be helping out at roughly the same time they are adding new nominations; they should not expect to be able to stockpile credits for long periods. However, I object strenuously to the idea that a quick-reject or a thoughtful partial review should not qualify. The perception that a QPQ review must continue to final hook approval causes reviewers to look for the easy-to-approve hooks and skip over the nominations that have problems or that require more extensive review effort. This only contributes to the situations where a hook sits on the noms page for weeks before a reviewer discovers a serious issue and encounters an article creator whose annoyance with the review delay makes them unreceptive to constructive criticism. When a QPQ reviewer finds and flags a major issue with a nomination, they are helping the review process at least as much as when they approve a nomination that clearly met all the criteria when it was submitted. --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
If a quick-reject was based on intractable problems, such as a month-old expansion or major copyvio, then I wouldn't have any objection, since it was started in good faith. A missing QPQ, though: that takes two seconds to find, and I don't see why it should count. When you're doing a full review, though, you should do the basics—size, newness, sourcing, hook facts, image—not stop when you find a possible NPOV issue. (An example: Template:Did you know nominations/Madhu Trehan, which I do not believe should be counted as a QPQ for Vibhijain. If you disagree, let me know; I feel very strongly about this one because I had to do a subsequent full review before it could be approved.) I made the proposal for Vibhijain based on experience with the reviews he chose: one like this, and another that was an already disapproved hook that was being given a "hook still not changed" review with an "X" icon: a quick-fail.
On a separate note, while it may be desirable that QPQs were done recently, there's nothing in the rules that say they must have been. People are doing their reviews in good faith, booking credit for when they need it, and whenever they did do their QPQ they were contributing to making sure the review process kept pace with hook production at that time. It seems to even out in the long run. I have a bunch of reviews that have been accumulating since May that I'm just starting to use, and I'd be very annoyed if they were suddenly disqualified. I imagine I'll be running a permanent surplus, and I'm only claiming the major reviews as it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I have a permanent surplus too, and likewise I only claim major reviews. My articles take far too much time and research - I don't want to review one article a week to equal them out. Secretlondon (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Wading in here with some trepidation ... QPQs are the best solution we've found, but I don't think we can legislate when people do them! Many people like to salt them away in advance - I'm usually scrambling to do one within 3 days after I nominate the article. Occasionally after it passes, heh :-) Let it be. I believe the issue of what constitutes an adequate review is far more important, but not perfectly soluble. Please let us not encourage single-issue reviews of, for example, whether the hook is interesting. That kind of drive-by just makes the nomination look "taken", and really isn't fair to the nominator anyway. However, I agree, it's unreasonable to require a reviewer to nursemaid an article through to acceptance - especially since we seem to have made it a rule of late that you can't check off on your own suggested alternate hook, which is in many cases the most useful piece of advice a reviewer can offer. I try to make it clear when I am walking away because I don't feel I have the necessary expertise, or whatever; but sometimes the reviewer has off-wiki things happening and just isn't around after a certain time has elapsed, or on the exact day the article gets its major problem solved. What we do have is a stated and justifiable expectation that a reviewer cover the things listed in the checklist, and say what they checked. I've been the beneficiary of simple checkmarks, but we should keep asking reviewers who do that to say what they checked. After all, sometimes the reviewer is wrong about the standards, or sometimes it falls in some grey area. (Like when the reviewer doesn't notice the article started off in a sandbox; or when the article includes Public Domain text; or when the reviwer doesn't realize a translated article is acceptable.) We can and should judge on a case by case basis whether someone's reviewing adequately - and Vibhijain's drawn quite a lot of attention to his/her reviews now. But we can't legislate everything and shouldn't seek to. What matters most is that people do their QPQs, and that they do a reasonably good job of it. Hence my saying I believe V. should make up the arrears. And hence my going along with all the discussions here about how reviews need to say more than just "Good to go." But it's a matter of practicality as well as difference between people. It's the objective that matters. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles needing review as of August 31
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
There are plenty of older nominations that have never been reviewed, or which need a new reviewer. This includes articles from previous lists that still need attention.
In addition, we need an experienced DYK reviewer to take a look at the issues on two August 13 nominations, "Omnishambles" and "Chris Cheng", and also on August 15's "Dishonorable Disclosures". Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Brevipalpus phoenicis (again)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Forgive my ignorance on procedure for DYK submissions but why does there seem to be an Australian bias through the Olympics for DYK? It seems theres at least 1 article per day (usually 2) about an Australian athlete... I noticed this during the Olympics, now it seems to be the theme for the Paralympics as well. 202.56.55.201 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it was a deliberate bias. That's what was submitted, so that's what was reviewed and made its way to the DYK spot. The key element would have been that editors needed to create or expand articles, and submit them to DYK for consideration within 5 days. DYK is not a process of creating articles, but rather one of reviewing new content submitted. DYK is open to everyone who wants to submit new articles for consideration. Had more new articles on athletes from other countries been submitted, they, too, would have been on DYK. If one eager editor in Samoa wanted to submit 10 articles on Samoan athletes, you would have most likely seen those 10 articles on DYK.Maile66 (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
This happens from time to time when various prolific editors go on a major run of article creation or expansions. In this case, there is an editor who has endeavoured to expand coverage of Australia's Olympic athletes. But, as Maile66 notes, DYK typically processes what is submitted without regard for the frequency of similar articles appearing. Personally, I prefer it that way, as I'd hate to get into the POV arguments of "how much is too much?" Resolute00:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Does there seem to be an American bias generally in regards to DYK? Every time I see the front page 3 or 4 articles about something American. I noticed this since... Well since the beginning of DYK. I think this dwarfs the apparent Australian bias, right?
As everyone else has said, these are the articles that are getting written. If it's disproportionate in any way it's just because that's what's being written. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]10:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a solution to any perceived bias at DYK.
(1) Create or 5X expand an article for your particular interest or global area, and make sure it meets DYK criteria
(2) Nominate it within 5 days of start of article, or start of 5X expansion
(3) Repeat steps 1 and 2 as often as one likes
The end result is more global content on DYK. More global content, more balanced, win-win for all concerned
One more solution, for those who can't write (e.g.PFHLai (talk·contribs)): Skim through T:TDYK to see what we have alot, then go hunt for new articles about other things, then nominate them for DYK. You get a medal after doing this 25 times. Hope this helps. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
And here's where you find the new articles to nominate:Special:NewPages. Personally, I would look at the ones not highlighted in yellow. The yellow highlighted means someone still has to eyeball them, and they stand a greater chance of being nominated for deletion, or one thing or another. Maile66 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Are we having 7 or 8 hook per set there days? Looking at T:DYK/Q, I am a bit confused.... We should be consistent, at least within each day (UTC). --PFHLai (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
So far as I know, still 8. The next 2 preps due to move into the queue - 4 and 1 - only have 7; presumably the admin who last moved them to the queue saved a too-old version of the blank template. Unless we decide to step down to 7, they will need one hook each adding. As PumpkinSky says, we don't seem to be running short of hooks, so I'd say wheoever feels like it should just go ahead and add those 2 hooks. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
That bothered me, too, when I first saw it. After seeing your comment, I edited it on the main page. See if the change addresses your concerns. BTW, when there's a problem with a hook on the main page, for fast attention you should report it at WP:ERRORS. --Orlady (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Something strange
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
On three occasions recently when I have nominated an article for DYK, the nomination procedure appears to go smoothly but when I come to add the article to the DYK calendar, the template produces a faulty red link. This is currently the position for the article Danube bleak which I have just nominated for September 1st. On the previous 2 occasions I rectified the position by completing a second nomination for the same article whereupon the red link on the calender went away and my nomination information appeared in the normal way. I have not done that on this occasion so that others can investigate the problem.
I managed to fix it. In the title of the template, there is a space after the slash and before the name of the article. At whatever step generates the template name, you put in a space. (Says the non-techy, incoherently). --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this particular case enough to be able to tell if anything is broken now. To be honest I can't understand what the problem you needed to fix is, because I don't know what you mean by "the DYK calendar". rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
By "the DYK calendar" I meant the main nomination page (T:TDYK) which is divided into sections by date. I can see how I may have copied and pasted article names preceded by a space when nominating them and intend not to do so again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That still shouldn't have caused a redlink. If you created {{Did you know nominations/ Danube bleak}} and pasted exactly that into T:TDYK, then the link should still work. The only reason it wouldn't work is if you put in something different than the name of the page you created (i.e., if you created {{Did you know nominations/ Danube bleak}} but when nominating the page you pasted in {{Template:Did you know nominations/Danube bleak}}, without the space.
When you are creating the DYK nomination page, the big pink message above the edit box gives you what you need to paste into T:TDYK, so you can just copy and paste that and avoid this problem. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Double Checking Close Paraphrasing
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can someone please double-check if this article -- (Template:Did you know nominations/Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement) -- has any close paraphrasing and if not, count this article please get a DYK? nomination now? I think I fixed all of the things that I thought were too closely paraphrased, but I need someone to make sure and the previous editor who worked with me (Nikkimaria) hasn't responded to my messages for a week or more by now. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On the same subject, the article Lecythis ampla which I nominated here for September 1st has been rejected by David Eppstein for close paraphrasing. Personally I think it is paraphrased but not close paraphrased and I would be glad to know if others agree with his assessment. I would just add that when describing a plant, there is an accepted order in which one deals with its different parts and in this instance, I could find only one source that gave a good description. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Watermarked Photo
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, this is a policy inquiry/notice. I reviewed this article (Vätsäri Wilderness Area) for DYK and it passed on all criteria (It's now a lead hook in Prep1), but I did leave a note about the image: it's a beautiful shot and has the proper license, but it has a very prominent watermark with the Author's name and a copyright protection sign. Is that suitable for the main page? Yazan (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Ha. I didn't see that before, apologies. Then, from what I understand from that is that we can't use that image until the watermark is cropped. Problem is, the image's license on flickr doesn't allow for "derivatives". Which means that image can't be used. Can someone pull out the hook. Yazan (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it's not valid for wiki on both reasons. I will pull it as a lead and delete on commmons, as I'm an admin there. Shame as it's a lovely photo.PumpkinSkytalk18:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Turns out the article has another nice pic with a valid license this time, so I did not need to move the hook and put in this other photo.PumpkinSkytalk18:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Deja vu all over again: Darkness Shines again concocting DYKs on Pakistan
Latest comment: 12 years ago47 comments10 people in discussion
Darkness Shines almost had a DYK claiming that 70-90% of Pakistani women had been raped (was it by a member of their families?). He's at it again with Domestic violence in Pakistan, in prep 4, I think.
Again, the study seems to have been done by a human rights organization, and the sponsorship is again hidden by a vague reference to a tertiary source. Let me just repeat that a confidence interval of 70-90% suggests a shitty study, which is not worth discussing.
I templated the article for multiple issues. As usual, Darkness Shines's articles need copy editing to reach standard written English. The first source cited was misrepresented as a survey, when in fact it was a convenience sample that was labeled as lacking a statistical warrant for generalization to any population.
Going to Rsn is a waste of my time. Anybody with a brain can see Darkness Shines history of tendentious editing and severe violations of WP policy.
Actually it suits me just fine, that is my mobile account. If you do not take your problem to the correct notice board then do not waste my time. The source meets WP:RS. it meets WP:V and is fully compliant with all wiki policy. I do not give a flying fuck what YOU think of the study, what YOU think does not matter a wit here. Cease with your personal attacks. Facts, not fiction (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You wrote the same thing last time you tried to put the statistic that 70-90% of Pakistani women had been raped by a member of their family on WP's main page. Have you forgotten the outcome of your blustering then, so soon? Kiefer.Wolfowitz12:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well you may as well remove it from the queue, Wolfowitz has slaped tags all over the article and refuses point blank to discuss any of them, just continues with his personal attacks. Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
An academic source citing HRW is good sourcing. The source meets WP:RS ans there is nothing wrong with it. If HRW is good enough for unicef to cite it is good enough for wiki. Facts, not fiction (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Your source attributes this proposition to another source: "In Pakistan, violence against women is endemic in all social spheres.[109]" Secondary referencing and failing to credit the source is a problem. Why is the California academic cited for this, and her credential put in the main text, when it is another study? Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
And source 109 is this source, "HRCP, State of Human Rights in 1997 (Lahore: HRCP, 1998), p. 130." So we have another example of manipulation, in this case disguising an advocacy study as an academic's work, and putting that academic's credentials in the main text as advertising. This guy needs to find another hobby. This kind of dishonesty and POV pushing takes too much time to stop and correct, and he hasn't stopped despite being told firmly to stop. Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no source 109 what the hell are you on about? 15:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't know when to quit, do you? Footnote 109: "HRCP, State of Human Rights in 1997 (Lahore: HRCP, 1998), p. 130." (Notice that how the academic describes the study: "Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) as well as an informal study conducted by the Women�s Ministry concluded that at least 80 percent of all women in Pakistan are subjected to domestic violence.� HRCP, State of Human Rights in 1996 (Lahore: HRCP, 1997), p. 130; Women�s Ministry [Pakistan], Battered Housewives in Pakistan (Islamabad: Women�s Ministry, 1985).") Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
No, you don't. I cited a book, who the author cites is not my problem. Or point me to the policy which says I have to root around for a sources sources. The sourcing is fine and meets all policy's, your continuing personal attacks are getting on my tits and I reccomend you stop. Facts, not fiction (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The proposition was attributed to another source, with a clear endnote. The extraordinary claim "all social spheres" needs extraordinary evidence. Yet you put the California Professor's name and her university's name in the main text, when she attributes that sentence to another. Kiefer.Wolfowitz16:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Which is what the author wrote[2], I have not misrepresented any sources at all. As I said, point out the policy where I need to fig out the sources used by another source, until then you are just blowing hot air. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Arbitration Committee allowed administrators to issue Discretionary Sanction in India and Pakistan related topic areas - this was to remedy the difficulty in finding reliable information on India and Pakistan. It wasn't meant to replace better sources when they're found, and does not support citations from sources advocating a position so they are POV. They are discretionary sanctions and shouldn't be a justification for avoiding scholarly articles. How does Facts, not fiction know the "informal study" is using the available scholarly source correctly if he hasn't read it and uses it to disguise an advocacy study as an academic's work? Advocacy studies are not reliable sources. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Is this a joke? The academic book edited by Lynn Welchman cited by Darkness Shines/Facts, not fiction does NOT quote the study by the HRCP neither does it paraphrase it. In fact, the author of the chapter, Lisa Hajjar, states the sentence, "In Pakistan, violence against women is endemic in all social spheres", as a matter of fact, thereby making this her own academic position. Had she written, 'the HRCP claims ...' or 'according to a study by the HRCP ...', then and only then Kiefer Wolfowitz would be correct. But Welchman made this her own position, thereby rendering irrelevant for this discussion why and how she acquired this academic position. In this case it is also irrelevant that she provides the reader with a reference to her own sources. Besides that, I fail to see what is Wolfowitz's case against Pakistan's own human rights commission as a source on domestic violence in Pakistan. JCAla (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
And do you know I was talking to JCAla? And if you want to reply for him, kindly read his comment first, you will get your answer. --SMSTalk21:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I was not aware that Welchman was not the author of the specific chapter as I only read the page in question (and some other pages), didn't check for the whole chapter. I now changed the author's name in my above statement. Having said that, your rather rhetoric question has no relevance with regards to the point I made which still stands. The academic author of the chapter, no matter if their name is Welchman or Hajjar, made the statement cited by DS/F,nF her own academic position, therefore DS/F,nF was completely right in citing it and attributing to her. JCAla (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Read the the relevant page in the book again and you will see that author has mentioned "HRCP, 1998" as a reference for that statement. --SMSTalk07:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I already read the page and some other pages. The author made this her own academic position by stating it as matter of fact without quoting or paraphrasing. Read relevant academic books and you will see that it is common procedure for authors to provide further references for their statements and positions. JCAla (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Read the source the author is citing (or as you say further reference) and you will get to know whether its author's own position (as you say) or not. --SMSTalk12:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
[EC] I don't intend to guess at the motives of the participants in this dispute. However, I reviewed the article and I find that it accurately reflects the contents of credible reliable sources. Some of the suggested hooks for this article were very inappropriate, but that was resolved in the nomination discussion. The political finger-pointing here is unjustified. Some of the templates recently on the article -- such as the tag suggesting that an assertion by the author of a chapter in a book can't be quoted because the book's publisher is a "Trotskyite" -- were ridiculous. Most of the article could be sourced to Hansar, Robert D. (2007). Nicky Ali Jackson (ed.). Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence (1st ed.). Routledge. pp. 210–212. ISBN978-0415969680. -- an apparently solid and comprehensive source that is (inexplicably) cited only once in the article. The only problem I see in the article is the presence of several citations to "Ajmar tbd" -- the specific source needs to be filled in. -Orlady (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Orlady, I continue to trust your judgment on WP:RS. I put a tag requesting a review of sourcing and citations. I already stated that ZED publishes some interesting books, but it ain't Transactions or Cambridge UP. (You are too kind with "very inappropriate" imho.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz17:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
May I ask why PumpkinSky just rejected this? The rejection message given reads, "With content and ref gone, no reason to keep this at DYK." However, the context of DS/FnF's comment, "I have removed the content and the ref", was to a single source that had been marked "tbd" and just filled in, and of a single sentence (on bride burning) that is irrelevant to the approved hooks or the overall content of the article. It was in no sense a removal of content or refs that would affect the article's appropriateness for DYK, and I believe the nomination should be restored and allowed to pursue its course, whatever that turns out to be. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I reapproved the nom, for ALT3. The issue with referencing that I raised on the nom page has been addressed by the article creator, and anyway it did not relate to the hook fact. The article has been subjected to far more thorough scrutiny than the typical DYK gets, but that scrutiny has been necessitated by the criticism that some Wikipedians have focused on it. --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess people here didn't read the Darkness Shines's comment that he has started a discussion related to one of the source in the article at RSN. --SMSTalk20:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hooks are supposed to be understandable. What does "social sphere" mean. Also, if it is not vacuous, the claim is extraordinary and so requires extraordinary evidence. What kind of study supported the claim that all social spheres (whatever they are) have endemic violence? (Reading Fouccault and Rabinow at Starbucks...?) Kiefer.Wolfowitz21:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
You are sidestepping the question. The hook says "all social-spheres". Please gloss or paraphrase "social sphere" and tell us how the universal quantifier "all" was justified, per the intelligibility requirement of DYK and the "extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence" norm.
Kiefer, I fail to see what your purpose here might be, other than disruption. "Social sphere" is a widely used locution. See http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/sphere for an explanation of it. Not everything that a sociologist says has to be a Sociologist Technical Term. As for your complaint that the things the article says about Pakistan are also true about other countries, I'd be very surprised if bride burnings are common in Sweden, and anyway the article is about Pakistan, not a comparison of Pakistan with other countries. If your disruption continues, I'll be seeing you soon at WP:ANI. --Orlady (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
First, let us focus on the hook. DYK hooks are required to be intelligible to the average reader, and most readers will not understand "social sphere". (I noted it may be a reference to Walzer's Spheres of Justice on the talk page.)
What does "all social spheres" mean. The word "all" requires extraordinary evidence, per guidelines.
Darkness Shines provided citations that there was domestic abuse in Pakistan. I acknowledged his good-faith attempt, while clarifying that his citations did not address the two issues I flagged: "All" and "social spheres".
There's no requirement that the article have multiple sources. In fact, the only strict requirement is that the hook has to have a source. Many editors also believe the article shouldn't be mostly unsourced (there's not a strict rule for that, but there is an unwritten rule that an article can be held for having lots of cleanup tags, such as {{refimprove}}) but even that just means there shouldn't be lots of unsourced content; it doesn't mean all the sources have to be different.
Of course, an article with only one source is not a great article. But being great is not one of the DYK requirements. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll let that one go. However I think this could be better if a minimum of two sources were enforced. What do others think? Simply south......eating shoes for just 6 years17:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I was coming here to say I agree with you; I think our standards are a little higher now. Moreover, because of the nature of the list, they are all primary sources. You've passed it now, but I was going to advise the editor to at least add something to support the importance of the source. Oh well :-) Unless others were having similar thoughts, it's accepted now. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry nothing will happen to your nomination. Someone will eventually pass by and promote it to the prep area. The time it takes depends on the kind of hooks needed in the coming updates and the personal preferences of the editor who happens to be filling the preps. Either way, it'll be promoted eventually (barring any unforeseen issues in the article itself) and unless there's something that is time-sensitive about the article (anniversary, or such) or you requesting it to run on a special occasion; then you should just sit back and relax, or work on your next DYK! Cheers, and happy editing. Yazan (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The article relies on a single source, albeit a reliable one: Gallup. Is this sufficient for DYK? Further, I would have thought "historical polling" would involve more than a single pollster; this seems to be a "Gallup historical polling" article, rather than that of a set of reputable polling organizations including Gallup. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
The hook at Sooty Oystercatcher now at Template:Did you know/QueuePrep area 1 makes no sense, and it is not supported by the source. The hook says: " ... that the Sooty Oystercatcher (pictured) forages for two hours on either side of low tide?" What is the either side of low tide, I ask? Low tide left... and low tide right? The source article (from the one inline citation linked) says: "the degree of diet divergence varied between tide conditions and females had a consistently more efficient dietary intake on neap tides than males." That's all. Nothing about the "either side of low tide"... and neap tide definition doesn't help either I'm afraid. Thanks. Poeticbenttalk04:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
When I read it, I mentally translated "two hours either side of low tide" to "from two hours before low tide to two hours after low tide". Made sense to me. As for the source, I can't see it myself: all that the Wiley online library is willing to show me (since I'm not a subscriber) is the abstract, which you're quoting from. I'm AGFing that the material on the foraging time vis a vis low tide is somewhere in the ten page full article. Is there a reason you think it might not be? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonset, the way you put it the hook makes a lot more sense and I think it should be renamed accordingly, i.e. "from two hours before, to two hours after low tide". The low tide is a noun as well as a verb, and that's the source of my confussion. I mentally translated low tide as the receded shoreline rather than a point in time. Poeticbenttalk14:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I still don't see the lack of clarity; low tide is a state or the time at which it is reached and "two hours on either side of it" is quite clear to me. Are you perhaps thinking of "low-tide mark"? I've now promoted the prep set containing this hook into a queue, so it will need an admin to change the wording if others agree that it needs to be spelled out, but I'll check by here a few times in case people agree that I need to make that change. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I live in a port city where "low tide" and "low tide mark" are synonymous in the way local people describe it. The "either side of low tide" is either the south side or the north side of it, along our popular beaches. That's all. Poeticbenttalk18:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The fact that this hook describes "either side of low tide" in terms of a time unit (hours) should make it clear that the reference is to the time of low tide and not to the low-tide mark or any other location. --Orlady (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Final Paralympics hooks: need a little assistance in promotion and review
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
It would be nice if someone could promote Template:Did you know nominations/Jake Lappin. I had to approve the ALT hook there, which means I can't also promote it to a prep area. There's room for two hooks in Prep 4; I'm not going to promote any Paralympic hooks there in the hopes that this one finally gets taken up. It will run at 5pm London time on September 9, the day of the final events and the closing ceremonies.
Also, if someone could please make the necessary adjustments as noted in Template:Did you know nominations/Cody Meakin, it would be greatly appreciated. It has one of the better Paralympic hook texts, but there's a problem: the fact that his classmates walked to their prom is not in the article, and if it isn't in the article, it can't be in the hook even if it is in the cited sources. We'll need someone to adjust the article, someone to approve the resulting hook (if it could be made shorter, that would be even better), and then someone to promote it. I can only take on one of those functions, meaning we need another two people.
I have adjusted Cody Meakin's article to say they elected to walk to the prom, and it's in the cited source at the end of the sentence.Maile66 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I reintroduced the wheelchair, because there are lots of non-wheelchair paralympic events, and did significant revisions to the hook, as long as I was making any changes at all. That bars me from the review or promotion phases... BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
After that, there's one more set of hooks that runs on September 9, albeit only in the evening in the U.S., which could perhaps have two Paralympic hooks. After that, I think it would be appropriate for us to back down to one Paralympic hook maximum per set: there will be one left in the holding area, and there are a burgeoning number in amongst the regular hooks, mostly about medal winners. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: Paralympics section has been closed out. Thanks to everyone involved. The only hook left was the still-unapproved Cody Meakin, which has been moved to July 31, the day it was "created" (moved to mainspace, actually). With any luck it will be approved soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Naughty Israelis/Palestinians
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Just to alert more experienced eyes: there's a run of new article creations by I/P editors, the only purpose of which seems to be to highlight the bad behaviour of one side in decontextualized incidents; at least one has been tested at AfD, but their minimal notability seems to suffice, contrary to WP:Crime/NOT Memorial etc; some are now spilling over to DyK (eg here and here); while there are basic issues with language and referencing, more generally is this the kind of stuff that's wanted? Is there an issue if two POV-pushers from one side team up to write and approve an article? The occupied West Bank presented anodyne-ly as "Israel" by editors with local knowledge, that sort of thing, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. DYK is even more attractive than Wikipedia itself for polite POV-pushers, because it gives an opportunity for front page coverage in return for relatively little effort. The sometimes-cited approach of "if it can pass an AfD then it's OK for DYK" is not the best way forward. Some of the previous accounts involved in pushing this sort of thing eventually turned out to be sockpuppets of banned editors; others were arranging by email to have their friends approve their POV-pushing DYK nominations. Keeping DYK standards high requires a zero tolerance approach to this sort of thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
I am very concerned that the above DYK nomination passed. I made it very clear in my review of the article Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections that I formatted the one and only source for the author, and inserted it in each section as just the first reference. The prose in that article, including the lead, is basically completely unsourced. I kept waiting for the author to add references, but it never happened. I inserted the one and only reference at the end of each paragraph of prose only out of convenience. I would have put them next to the tables if I hadn't thought they would look awkward. Perhaps that's what I should do to make my point. Anne (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this needs to be revisited. I didn't read BlueMoonset's earlier discussion. I just took my first look at the article. Exactly one source for the entire article, which seems to be nothing more but a set of tables (lists). With the exception of a modest lead paragraph, the only other text in there seems to be the author's informal footnote explainers below the tables. Technically, the DYK Check counted those explainers as readable prose, but this really needs a revisit.
I might add that the singular source is used in such a way as to make the reader believe it is the basis for the prose of every one of those below-the-table explainers. In fact, if you open that source, it's nothing more than a bunch of graphs. There's no prose in the source to back up ANY of the prose in the article., Maile66 (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I've added some itemized comments on the template. The lack of sourcing means the prose cannot be checked for copyvio, or accuracy. Campaigns are complicated, and blurbs are not much insight. Also, POV might be an issue with the wording on how individual elections were won or lost. Maile66 (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I would like some assistance on properly formatting the sources and for finding good websites that accurately summarize the 2004 and 2008 U.S. presidential elections. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Anne: If you knew the article was basically unsourced, then why would you put a bunch of footnotes in it to make it look sourced? Certainly a better solution would be to a) leave it unsourced and tagged, so editors know there is a problem to be solved and readers know to take the information with a grain of salt; or b) remove unsourced information. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought I had made it quite clear to the contributor that I was helping by formatting what should have been just the first of the references. The other reviewer had suggested that each table get its own citation. I put the citation at the bottom of each section, next to the prose, just out of convenience. The contributor knew that he/she had not offered any sources for the prose, other than the tables, despite the assertion to the contrary on September 1st. I actually gave the contributor instructions for using the citation template for what should have been the rest of the references in the article. My instructions were completely ignored. I never signed off on this nomination, and I never reviewed the prose for accuracy or copyvios because there was only that one source. The nom wasn't even close to being ready and I don't understand why it was rushed through, other than perhaps for the pretty charts. It doesn't appear than anyone ever examined the prose. Anne (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Well...lots of editors try to help out a nomination by adding a reference, or a clean up in the article, or any number of things. IMO, Anne was not giving the green light to the nomination. I was somewhat confused when I tried to follow what the secondary reviewer was saying. But, if one follows that nomination and the ones below, giving the original author's own words on the templates and here, it could be interpreted as an author trying to get a lot of other people to do the hard work for them. This author told me they already had the Edit toolbar enabled, intended to reformat "in a few minutes", but never did. The article's 19 references were reformatted the next day by someone else. Read down at the other section below. People at DYK like to be helpful, and people at DYK can be wonderful. But they shouldn't have their good intentions taken advantage of. All the signs are there that the author has the tools to correctly format references. And yet...it seems others are left to pick up the slack... Maile66 (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
And by the way...what is this stuff about writing an article and afterwards asking someone to help them find sources for what they had written? Where did they get the text from to begin with? Did they just write it out of whole cloth and then decide later to find sources to substantiate their POV? Maile66 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
DYK? articles for review
Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Could someone please take a look at these DYK? nominations? Also, I have a question about the Ray Long one--technically speaking, it has been expanded over 5 times, but I'm not sure if these is enough new info in here (though I did put a lot of new info into this article). Also, I planned to initially submit this article for a DYK? nomination when I first created it, but it slipped out of my mind. If an exception is necessary, could an exception please be made for the Ray Long article? To be honest, I think that I pretty much added all of the stuff that I could find online about him. Futurist110 (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Ray Long is still shy of being expanded five times (before you began it was 1112B; it would need to become 5560 to qualify and is currently 4525). A quick way to help boost that by a bit (though doubtfully by the necessary amount, it would still help some) would be to focus on the lead; at present it's only a quick sentence when really it should summarise the article fully. Turning it into a solid paragraph summing up everything in the article's body would definitely lift the current size without the need to track down new sources. Hopefully that'll help a little. I'm also noticing that you're using a lot of bare URLs—if you're new to citing things like this, just grab a hold of a template like {{cite web}}. The fields act as a handy checklist for helping you remember what you should include in a citation. At the bare minimum you'll want to fill in the following:
{{cite web
|url= (this is the web address)
|title= (this can usually be the title in your browser or the title of the article, whatever is clean and easy)
|publisher= (where did it come from? The Irish News, BBC, etc?)
|accessdate= (the date you read the web page you're linking to)
You can also just enable the edit toolbar by clicking on My preferences > editing > check enable edit toolbar and check enable advanced tool bar settings at the bottom section. The toolbar will show up on top of the edit screen and there will be a cite function with all the relevant entries needed for a complete cite. Froggerlauraribbit04:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The unverified tag refers to the unformated/bare urls in the reference section. The refs will have to be formatted (at a bare minimum of author, website, title and date accessed) to pass DYK. You can do this ideally using the options discussed above or less ideally by just putting <ref> Smith, John. "[www.linkyoursitehere.com The wonderful world of formatting]." Didyouknow.com, Accessed on September 8, 2012.</ref> for each cite in the text. Froggerlauraribbit03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll properly fix the sources when I'll have a moment, probably either tomorrow or the next day. Can someone please take a look at the DYK? nomination for Carl Berner (supercentenarian), though? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to be patient. Carl was nominated on September 5. As you can see from lists elsewhere on this page, there are nominations that have been sitting for two weeks longer than the Carl article without yet attracting a reviewer. Carl's a supercentenarian; at that age, I'm sure he's gotten used to waiting for things. The review will happen in due time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Quick question: I received a speedy deletion notice right after nominating my article Jews' Gate Cemetery for DYK. I've never received such a notice before. There was the implication that it was a duplicate, but I have no knowledge of that. Is this just an error? Thank you. Anne (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed the notice. Obviously, it was wrong to put it there, and you might want to tell the editor in question. I believe the tag was placed because the template was orphaned, but since you created the template 1 minute earlier it's kinda wasted to place such a tag. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The editor is clearly inexperienced, and had no business placing such a template. Since it's been removed, there should be no reason to worry further. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles needing reviewing
Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
Note: list has been superseded; see latest list below. We never seem to run out... Here are a couple of dozen of our older nominees—some untouched, some needing a new set of eyes—that need to be reviewed. Plenty to choose from:
I reviewed three of these, left a comment on a user's talk page notifying them that their hook was editted. Also, I think we may have to implement a "one article, one review" rule per hook, otherwise people will continue dumping huge hooks here. I know I am guilty of this, and was frankly surprised when I only had to review one article with my massive hook above. I didn't challenge it then as I was busy, but I think it would be a great idea to implement. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Late Request for DYK special event
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Sorry - missed opportunity to request a DYK for Gibraltar Day on September 10th. If anyone feels so moved then there is a very nice hook already approved in a special holding area for Sept 10th. It would mean some juggling of the prep areas so I'll understand if no one has the time. Victuallers (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC) (Note there is already a gibraltar non picture hook in q4 already)
Moved into lead slot of Q4. (Q3 is the middle of the night in Gibraltar and the lead in Q5 is a special date request that was submitted on time.) --Allen3talk22:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It looks like the unapproved ALT3 was used, which surprises me because by my reading, it's inaccurate. ALT2 gives the correct London number of evacuees (10,000), while ALT3, if the other areas are included, would have to be a higher number, because it involves two distinct evacuations, almost certainly involving many of the same people. The June 1940 evacuation was 13,500 to Morocco. They all came back that summer. Then there was another evacuation starting in September or October 1940, "approximately 2,000 evacuees were in Jamaica and a lesser number in Madeira, with the bulk of around 10,000 housed in the London area." Based on this, we have an inaccurate lead hook in Queue 4. If you're going to use a number, ALT2 looks accurate; if you're going to use the list of four places, which confusingly encompasses two different evacuations, then please go with the approved ALT1. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is a verbatim copy (misspellings and all) of another Wikipedia article, as shown in its short history. It was copied into userspace in 2010. Just because it was moved to mainspace three years later does not make it new content, it originated as a copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B025:773C:0:0:0:103 (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would someone uninvolved please look over the two articles nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Jumbo Jet (Six Flags Great Adventure) and Jumbo Jet (Morey's Piers)? There's a pretty vicious back-and-forth going on between myself and User:BrownHairedGirl, and it's causing me an incredible level of wiki-stress. The hostility level has gotten way out of hand and the discussion has ceased being about anything remotely related to the article. I certainly admit my word choices at times were injudicious, but I tried to ask for an uninvolved review and the hostility has not ceased. I've given up trying to defend myself (it's just too stressful to interact with her right now), but I would like someone else to review the articles on their merits alone. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Stats.Grok.se: Vanity, vanity, all is vanity saith the prophet
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
It does sometimes unaccountably miss days. However, queries are starting to appear on Henrik's talkpage and I notice he hasn't edited in a couple of months. Hopefully he'll give his bot some TLC soon. Or it will wake up all by itself. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Henrik's gonna fix it himself. On his user page, he has his email enabled. He may not be actively editing, but he's actively overseeing the stats. Sometimes he needs an email. I did that, and got an email back that he's taking care of it.Maile66 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion
This issue has come up more than once only in this past week. Nominations are being rejected because they are referenced by only one or two sources (see here and here -the second being my own nomination-). This was discussed here just last week and the rejections seem to be arbitrary and based completely on the reviewer's preference. So can we please discuss the relevant guidelines, and/or whether we need to change them and make them clearer for reviewers and editors alike? Yazan (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
(Copied from the nomination page, with relation to this discussion).
Hi Zozo2k, the nominations rules at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Reviewing_guide#Review_the_article.28s.29 are quite clear that "To qualify for DYK, an article needs to meet several special criteria, in addition to being checked for normal encylopedic issues" (emphasis added by me).
DYK gives huge exposure to material which has not been around for long, and which is therefore less likely to have been widely scrutinised. It has been criticised a lot as providing a point of vulnerability, which is why the criteria were significantly tightened wrt BLPs.
It seems quite perverse to suggest that the general standards should be relaxed for DYK. If anything, they should be tighter than apply elsewhere.
The second article which you list is one which I challenged. It relates to the relatively-recent military history of a country in which there is currently a civil war/uprising/revolution/foreign invasion (or whatever you want to call the armed conflict in Syria) ... so I hope that all editors would want to be partricularly vigilant to ensure that material to be displayed prominently is supported by the use of multiple sources. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
BHG. The article does not state any controversial or extraordinary claims, so that it would need extraordinary sourcing. Furthermore, the current conflict has absolutely no bearing on this article, because the eras are completely different. A well-respected academic source, like Moubayed (and from two different books), should suffice for this purpose and for a start-class article, especially when there is a lack of academic sources in the English literature. Yazan (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Zozo, with scant coverage in a single source the article would fail GNG. I'm surprised that anyone would want to out a topic on the front page without even ensuring that it meets the notability requirements.
The subject matter's notability is inherent in the fact that he is a chief of staff, per WP:POLITICIAN, and is verified by the significant coverage of him in an RS. At any rate, DYK isn't the place to determine notability, the place to do that is AFD. And many article's with suspect notability are moved there. Yazan (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Zozo, in most countries the chief of staff is an army officer rather than a politician.
And no, AFD is not the only place to assess notability. AFD is the place to consider deletion, and that often involves notability, but notability is also an issue in merger discussions.
So far as I am concerned it is an important issue for DYK. If we don't require notability, then we create a perverse incentive for anyone expanding a sub-topic to do so as a separate article in order to have a chance of getting it onto the front page; we might as well allow any recentky-added snippet from any article to be sent to DYK, rather requiring article creation or major expansion. DYK is vulnerable enough to breaching exercises without creating further opportunities for mischief. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is closer to BrownHairedGirl's. I don't think we should pass single-sourced articles, because I agree with her that they don't meet the normal standard for adequate demonstration of notability. However, I don't think that bar should be set very high, and Anwar Bannud seems to me to meet the standard with two books by the same respected scholar. (Plus I see it now has additional refs.) Also, Zozo2kx, is there any reason you are restricting yourself to English-language sources? There is no reason whatsoever not to have foreign-language refs, and they certainly count both for establishing notability and for verification. The only thing that might happen is the reviewer might ask you to translate a key passage. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Specifically for the Anwar Bannud article: Yazan has added additional reputable sources, so the nomination can proceed despite being based largely on two sources by the same author. The subject is notable as he was the chief of staff of the Syrian Army. I tend to side with Yazan that it is difficult to find English language sources for foreign subjects, but inclusion of reputable non-English sources is not prohibited and can definitely be used to widen the scope.
For sources in general: A single source should not be relied on for BLPs. I tend to side with three or more, fair, NPOV sources for BLPs. Niche subjects that are not BLPs are more difficult in that information may be lacking, but at least two high-quality sources by different authors (only one author can inflect bias, intentional or not) should be sufficient for a start article. Froggerlauraribbit15:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't use other sources because I didn't think that notability is an issue here to begin with (he is after all, a chief of staff of an a major regional army), so I used the sources that discuss the subject matter in detail, which unfortunately happens to be only Moubayed in the English language. As for using Arabic language sources, I have a logistical problem (I don't reside in an Arab country).
I understand that multiple sources are needed to establish notability (which is actually spelled out in D12 in DYK guidelines), I'm questioning whether they are necessary beyond that. Nevertheless, If that is the case and the consensus is behind it, then why can't we make it clear in the DYK guidelines? Yazan (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It's already set out at the top of the reviewing guide that DYK criteria apply "in addition to being checked for normal encylopedic issues". It would be a really bad idea to attempt to restate the whole of core policy and the associated policies and guidelines, and restating part of them looks selective. That's the worst sort of instruction creep. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, obviously BHG, not everyone shares the same interpretation of these rules, especially on DYK. Just looking at my own submissions, this, this, this, this and this (to mention but a few) were passed and promoted (by experienced DYK reviewers) without a hitch, and they have the exact same set of citations. I understand that several wrongs don't make a right, but it just goes to show that there is no such consensus on the role of multiple sources, especially when notability is self-evident (like in these articles). Which is why it's important to spell it out. Yazan (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
That's one of the things this page is good for :-) But seriously, yes, I've been meaning to rewrite those rules for several weeks now - since the issue of how many different pages of scattered rules there are came up here - but one of the things that's made me hesitate is that there are clearly divergent interpretations and I don't want to appear to be imposing my view. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The relevant DYK rule for this issue is Wikipedia:DYK#gen4: DYK articles must be "within policy". Clearly editors have different opinions what this means (I know some editors believe this means if an article has cleanup tags it can't pass DYK). What is important to note here, and which I don't believe anyone has mentioned above, is that Wikipedia has no policy requiring multiple sources per article. Thus, articles with only one source are not out-of-policy for just that reason (although they may be for other reasons). Here are some relevant pages:
WP:RS: This is now a guideline, not a policy, and really this page is just tips about what makes a source reliable. Crucially, nowhere on this page does it say that articles must have different sources.
{{one source}}: Note that this cleanup tag does not link to any policy. It links to the WP:RS guideline (which does not actually say anything about 'single source' articles, as far as I can tell).
WP:V: This is the closest thing we have to a policy about sources. It doesn't say that a given article needs multiple sources, though.
WP:GNG: Someone pointed out above that multiple sources are necessary to establish notability (and, by extension, DYK submissions without multiple sources might not be notable and thus might not be within policy). This is not entirely accurate. First of all, WP:GNG does not say outright that the presence of multiple sources is either necessary or sufficient for establishing notability; the number of sources is just one thing to take into account. Secondly and more importantly, Notability is a policy regarding whether an article should exist, not how it should be written; the GNG is a rule for determining whether or not articles can be deleted. It's entirely possible that an article meets the notability requirements but isn't written well enough to assert it (in other words, we know there are multiple sources out there about this article, but the author only included one so far). It's possible for an article topic to be notable, in that more than one source exists out there, but to only cite one of those sources. This does not make the article fail "within policy", as the article topic is still unquestionably notable.
In sum, there is no policy basis for requiring multiple sources for its' own sake. Multiple sources may be needed to demonstrate notability, but otherwise the use of a single source is not in of itself a policy violation. (If the notability of an article is questionable, then it should be failed or challenged on the basis of notability, not on the basis of number of sources; if there is only one source but notability is unquestionable, then the source issue alone is not a reason to challenge the nomination.) Of course, an article with only one source is not a great article, but DYK does not require articles to be great articles, only for articles to meet a few criteria. Currently, the criteria are written such that articles with a single source can still meet the criteria. If you guys think that should be changed, then you must revise the criteria to specify that DYK articles must have multiple sources. Of course, you will need to show consensus for such a change first. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Rjang, it's a pity that you pitch this against "requiring multiple sources for its' own sake". That's a straw man, because nobody here is arguing that such a requirement exist "for its own sake". (I assume it's an unintended straw man)
Secondly, GNG is not actually about whether an article should be deleted. It is about whether the subject should be covered as a standalone topic. If not, then it may be deleted, or alternatively merged to one or more other topics.
It seems to me that you are arguing against notability being a requirement for DYK. (Have I understood you correctly?) I had always assumed that it was, and as noted above, I would be astonished if it wasn't. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, the issue presents itself specifically when notability is not an issue, as in the set of examples I provided above or the examples given by Kevmin below. These article subjects are inherently notable, and no one in their right mind would argue with that (they are PMs, and Army chiefs of staff). So your request and assertion that they need more than one different RS for them to pass DYK, has nothing to do with notability; but rather, exactly what you stated above, that is: "requiring multiple sources for its' own sake". Yazan (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Yazan/Zozo2k, the example you presented above was of Anwar Bannud. As I pointed out to you above, he was not a politician, so is not covered by WP:POLITICIAN. In any case, the notability guidelines do not use the concept of "inherent notability"; they talk instead of presumed notability.
Requiring that the topic be tested against the low general threshold of WP:GNG, where merely reflects Wikipedia's purpose as a tertiary publication, by testing whether the topic is encyclopedic: is it already a topic of research, or is this something to which Wikipedia would be giving undue prominence?
BrownHairedGirl, this is not a straw man; as you can see, in the above conversation some editors (such as Yngvadottir) have said they believe articles with a single source should not be passed. If you re-read my comment you will see that what I am saying is there is no justification for such a stance in the current rules (although if there is consensus that such a rule should be added, then it could be added).
I did not anywhere in my comment say that notability should not be a requirement for DYK. Please re-read. In fact I didn't say anything about what should or should not be requirements. I merely pointed out that having multiple sources is not a requirement, at least not the way the rules are currently written. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Rjang, thanks for clarifying. So it's not that you disagree with the requirement that notability be demonstrated, just that you don't like multiples sources being used as a test thereof?
Multiple sources are routinely sought at AFD, so I don't see why it is any way exceptional to require them here. It's not a high threshold, and GNG's repeated use of the plural "sources" strongly implies that multiple sources are required. It's also unnecessarily antagonistic of you to assume bad faith by suggesting that other editors are seeking multiple sources "for its' own sake". Per the notability guidelines, there are good reasons for doing so. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Just as a note related to this issue, many (most?) articles on newly described/rare/obscure/extinct/fossil taxa articles often use only one source. This is due to there generally being only one article/peer reviewed paper that discusses them. As taxa are considered inherently notable the one source has never been considered a problem. --Kevmin§20:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
"that the Pyrenean desman(pictured) is believed to be extinct in the southern area of its range ..." I don't think that's what "extinct" means. I thought "extinct" was everywhere and forever, not a problem that can be fixed by repopulating from somewhere else. The article says that but its source doesn't. Art LaPella (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The source has the following quote: "One area is in the southern part of its distribution - there for sure, it is endangered or almost extinct. Our data also indicates that there are some other places where it may be slowly disappearing as well." Would a change to "believed to be almost extinct in" (adding the word "almost") be sufficient, or is more needed? Perhaps "has almost entirely disappeared from" to replace that phrase in the hook? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, extinction does work with qualifiers; the most commonly used probably being "extinct in the wild" though I've seen phrases conveying extinction in certain countries or continents only as well. GRAPPLEX21:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As Grapple X says, "extinct" can be used in contexts like "extinct in the southern part of its range." If a person is uncomfortable with that, the phrase "extirpated from the southern part of its range" is synonymous, but the word "extinct" attracts more attention. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Can an admin add "almost", as discussed (and agreed to) above? We shouldn't leave it completely untouched, because neither the source nor the article supports complete extinction in the south: "almost extinct" is as far as we can go. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion
Note: list has been superseded; see latest list below. Most of the previous list has been tackled over the past three days, so here are the remainder plus a dozen and a half more of our older nominees—most untouched, with some needing a new set of eyes—that need to be reviewed. Plenty to choose from:
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Now that Paralympics are over, can we reduce limit to seven (or six) hooks and then push other hooks further into other queues? --George Ho (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
In a word, no. So far in September, we're averaging 24 new hooks a day, so we need eight per set just to stay even. As it is, we have an extremely large number of nominated hooks, 232 at last count, and we should be reducing that number. What's complicating matters is that we don't have enough reviewers, so we're running out of approved hooks. That's something that needs attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Some, but not all. There are also some that are nominated by someone other than the creator/expander, and thus get an automatic free ride. Some by people who have recently crossed the five-submission threshold, but didn't submit a QPQ (about half the time the reviewer doesn't catch it). And most are by people who have a QPQ listed, though whether they have a surplus like you or just reviewed one varies. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: I reviewed the 26 nominations submitted for articles created/expanded on September 7. Of these, 10 have been promoted: all 10 had QPQs, though a single QPQ was submitted for the one double hook (which is allowed by the rules). Of the 16 that have not been promoted, 8 required QPQs and had them (including two double hooks where double QPQs were submitted), 2 were nominated by someone other than the creator/expander but nevertheless included QPQs even though they weren't required, 4 were nominated by someone other than the creator/expander and did not have QPQs, and 2 were self-nominations by different authors that should have had QPQs but did not, and were notified by me last night that QPQs were required. Note that there were no self-nominations by still-new editors who were not yet required to do QPQs, but as noted this is just a single day. Other days may be different. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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:
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.
Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Should't the best DYK entries of the batch be the lead one at the top?
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This isn't to belittle the editor/edits of Jumbo Jet (Six Flags Great Adventure) and Jumbo Jet (Morey's Piers), or whoever decides the order of DYKs, they're very much appreciated, but I must say I'm baffled as to why those articles were selected to be the leading ones and Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary and Alcatraz Citadel stuck in the middle. Aren't two very comprehensive articles which had a great deal of work and research put into them on such topics considered more suitable than shortish articles on rollercoasters as the top DYK? I've seen this sort of thing happen a lot, I've seen articles passed as GA stuck nearer the bottom and short, lesser notable, dubiously sourced articles at the top. Don't get me wrong, the rollercoaster articles are fine, and the editors of them such as Iron Gargoyle good editors with sound anti Twitter abilities LOL! and I'm not overly concerned what the order is, I miss most of my front page DYKS anyway, but I think the decision should be made to put the most researched entries in a batch nearer the top as our readers are more likely to visit the higher DYKs. Maybe its because the hook itself is far more interesting than mine and I'd have been better off mentioning the throwing of faeces at guards and such of Alcatraz in the hook! ♦ Dr. Blofeld09:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
No belittlement taken. I just wanted to expand and improve some articles so that a new contributor could be recognized. Roller coasters simply don't have as many quality sources available as a topic like Alcatraz. The simplest answer to your question, I'm guessing, is that your nomination page didn't include any images. That makes it ineligible for the lead spot to begin with. The interesting hook and the front-page friendly image probably didn't hurt the two articles I contributed to either. As far as I know, most of the ordering has to do with hook and article topic. I don't see a problem with this, as it encourages interesting hooks and images (just no images of the faeces please). IronGargoyle (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes that could be the reason, but surprised nobody proposed adding photos! I must admit I don't usually add photos to noms..21:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Sept 1, Square Roots
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Something is wrong with the template on the nomination. If you click on it to Review, it takes you to a page to create a new template for it. Maile66 (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The article was moved after the nomination was created and when the nomination was modified to show the move it was also modified to indicate the nomination had moved (which it had not). The link to edit the nomination should be working now. --Allen3talk14:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Somehow I managed to make the correction and then revert the edit. Fix has been put bavk in place and needed update to {{DYKmake}} has been performed. --Allen3talk15:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This is another translation from German WP. The source for that is a book, offline, written on the occasion of his 70th birthday. I made one of the externals links (in English) a (supporting) ref now, to please formality, and there's bach-cantatas also in English, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Template move
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Don't move it. There are ways to make sure everything points to the renamed article. As it says in the instructions, templates should not be moved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
We're in desperate need of reviewers right now: while there are 228 nominations submitted, only 18 of them have been approved, and we have 16 empty slots between the prep areas and the one empty queue.
There are so many hooks unreviewed that they should be easy to find on the nominations page. Here are links to some of the older ones, which are all a click away. This supersedes my previous lists. Thanks for your help! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
What do editors consider while promoting pictured hooks to preparation area? I've submitted pictured hooks (latest), and sadly for me, they've been promoted as regular hooks. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this process even after writing 50+ hooks. Can someone explain this to me? Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It depends on multiple considerations, and each promoter has their own subjective criteria. In general we look for attractive images that look good at a small resolution, sometimes show a preference for colour (instead of black-and-white) and like to vary things, so we don't have all dead white men all the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I wonder what the considerations were to have Kappa V Archaeological Site pictured (now in Prep 3) if there is nothing to show (as I said in the review and thought everybody would see without a repeat in the approval). Having said that, I still remember my disappointment when my first picture ever suggested was not taken and left a boring hook relying on it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the OP, the Buddha statue is too far away for the picture to be eye catching. Resolution permitting, if the photo was cropped or you had a closer view, the photo would be more likely to be picked as the lead because the subject can be clearly identified. Froggerlauraribbit13:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The Commons category Buddha Statue (Hussain Sagar) has several photos of the Buddha statue that look better in a small size, and thus probably would work better at DYK, than the one image in the article. Some of those images would need to be realigned or cropped for use in the article. It is OK for an article to have more than one image. --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add that it's preferred to have articles that are more developed and content-rich to get featured at the top. For a short stubby article (maybe ~2000 characters or less?), the pic had better be outstanding, or it may not get picked. --PFHLai (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Up above, the person who signed off on the review questions the wisdom of using Kappa V Archaeological Site as the picture hook in what is now Queue 3, and now the article creator has raised the same question on my talk page. I just moved the set from prep to queue, but it looks as though it should be switched. This queue is due to go up at 1:00 UTC on the 16th; we have time to make something else the picture hook there. So what hook do you collectively think should become the picture hook instead? (Please double-check that the image has the correct licence.) --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm the Kappa creator, nominator, and photographer. As I said on Yngvadottir's talk, I proposed using its image expecting only that it would be used if none of the other articles in the queue had images that we'd even consider for inclusion. I heartily support things being switched around. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It's going to require swapping hooks between queues, because none of the other seven hooks in Queue 3 have images. In fact, there's a bit of a dearth of usable images in the non-lead hooks of nearby queues: there's only one in Queue 2, which hits the main page in under an hour (Ian McEwan's picture from Sweet Tooth, which is okay), and the confusing (to me) Stokes waves image in Queue 4.
After that you get into the prep areas. Prep 4, which will soon be Queue 5, has three images in its seven non-leads, but they all have tiny figures in them and don't work very well (Girl on Fire, Square Roots festival, and the Buddha status discussed above). In Prep 1 (to queue 6), Ebru Umar is a possibility; I wasn't as taken by the split-nose crab image (looks small), and while I was quite taken with the Allie Clark image, I was worried about it not being public domain in some countries such as Canada (despite being created in the U.S.), which is why I didn't save it to be a lead later on. If I'm wrong to be worried, I'd take Allie over Ebru. (There are also the mushrooms, but we've had plenty of those lately, and salted mushrooms make a great quirky hook.) We are overdue for a human face; if neither of those excite, there are always Prep 2's Sandu Tudor and Lanre Oyebanjo, though neither particularly appealed to me. (They're destined for queue 1.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
(Now home from work with a faster connection). Nyttend suggested the pic of Jordan Winston Early, but I'm not sure about its license (says applicable in the US but maybe not elsewhere?), plus in black and white with so much frame space, it doesn't show up well. What about this closeup of the Buddha Statue of Hyderabad? Looks nice, is copyright-free, and could easily be inserted into the article as an additional image (as mentioned in the above section). The swap between the queue and Prep 4 wouldn't be that complicated. (Or someone who, unlike me, knows how could crop the pic of the Buddha that is currently the only pic in the article; or crop Mr Early's portrait.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I rather like the flooding image in Queue 3 (it adds variety, and it illustrates the hook nicely), but I also think that the Buddha statue would make an excellent lead hook -- for some later prep area. --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I would like to register a protest that a sysop removed the term "Tar Heel" from the hook, because they don't understand what it is. That term is an affectionate term for people from North Carolina, enough so that the university calls its athletes Tar Heels. Maile66 (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
A wikilink to the Wikipedia article might help/have helped in this case. If it's not too late, perhaps it could be added. For those who don't understand it, it could either be hooky or offputting, and apparently you ran into a sysop who was the latter, though I'm surprised the term wasn't typed into the search box before summary deletion was undertaken. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It occurs to me right now, knowing nothing about that sysop, that if someone had never seen that term before, they might have been thinking of something like Tar baby. Maile66 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Objections to the phrasing at WT:Main Page and WP:Errors: it should not have been summarily re-introduced. It broke the DYK rule that the hook must be in the article, and it broke the encyclopaedic principle that the reader should be informed. Affectionate nicknames are not consistent with formal encyclopaedic tone, and page views driven by annoyance and frustration are not an asset to the article or the encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I missed the hook but from what I read the complaints are somewhat ridiculous. When we have an article on Tar Heel and the state's major university's teams are named such then a reader's lack of being informed is simply a case of readers being under informed. If we had to explain everything for everyone then we'd never have a hook - Basement12(T.C)01:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
We might have an article, but it wasn't linked. Even the justification for returning it acknowledged that the phrase would be unfamiliar to a large number of readers, and complaints at WP:ERRORS and WT:MP proved that to be the case. Do you really believe a nickname of some college sports team to have made a major impact on the worldwide anglophone awareness? That we ought to share an ephemeral interest within a particular culture, and that we are under-informed if we do not, is arrogant in the extreme. It broke DYK's rules about the hook being present in the article. In what way are the complaints ridiculous? The accusation is not appreciated. Kevin McE (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
QUEUES ARE EMPTY
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Just checking on two technicalitities
On multiple hook nominations, how many QPQs are required? The ones I've seen only have one QPQ per nomination, not per hook.
Never mind the above question, since I saw this:Supplementary guidelines: "H4: Where hooks have more than one new or expanded article, there is no consensus whether an article-for-article or hook-for-hook QPQ is required. An article-for-article review is encouraged, but a hook-for-hook review is acceptable."Maile66 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
On This nomination, author gave This nom as the QPQ. I've questioned this, both here and on the nom template, because what the author is listing as a QPQ was just to tell that editor that a double hook nomination required double QPQs - and it was incorrect. They didn't review anything.
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Today is suffrage day in New Zealand. I only realised that when I put a topic-related nomination template together yesterday, which has already been approved. If an admin is keen and willing, Queue 6 would be the right spot (which goes live at noon in NZ) for a hook substitution. I appreciate that this is rather short notice, so if it doesn't happen, I wouldn't grumble :) Schwede6618:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It's too late for Queue 6, but Queue 1 would at least catch the evening. There is an empty spot in Queue 2 (seven hooks now that one has been removed for close paraphrasing issues), and one hook could be moved from 1 to 2 to make room for this hook. (If an admin doesn't want to promote this hook, then a prep area could be raided for the vacancy.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
This list supersedes the last one, not that there's much left to review there anyway. I'm listing what remains of August, plus a few from the beginning of September: please review what you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There are recurring questions that get discussed on this page, with Pictured hooks above an example of this. As one would expect with recurring things, the answers are pretty standard. I wonder whether it would make sense to compile a few of these regular issues on an FAQ page, as it then potentially becomes much easier to respond to those queries by simply linking to the item on the FAQ page. Schwede6608:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago87 comments35 people in discussion
I am throwing this out there for opinions, rather than laying down a gauntlet. In the not so distant past we had a slew of articles written about Australian athletes by an editor with a severe conflict of interest. This not only extended our backlog (as it is only really appropriate to have 2 sports hooks in a prep and having both about Australian athletes was not a particularly pleasant option), but also meant that the project, which in this case hung around a single topic, was constantly on the front page. This left little room for new contributors or indeed for variety in our presentation of new and expanded articles.
Now we have a slew of articles regarding the project GibralterPedia. Whilst the articles are interesting, they are also numerous, and given the number of entries, it seems pertinent to ask whether it is appropriate to let the front page once again be a showcase for many new articles which support a single project. The front page is not for advertisement and I fear it is being used as such.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree that the Australian athlete articles represent a conflict of interest, and they seem to have stimulated creation of other articles, particularly for the Paralympics, in a spirit of friendly rivalry. Also, the Gibraltarpedia project follows Monmouthpedia a while back, and while that did lead to some articles' being challenged on notability or referencing, the editor involved was new and DYK was therefore performing its function of helping them learn to write a better article; I believe every article did finally get approved, and the only objections I saw to the project were along the lines of "Too much Monmouth!" and therefore open to the usual DYK rejoinder: Pick your own topic and offset the focus you find excessive! In short, while I think we've contributed to the hype over both the Olympics and the Paralympics, and while the number of articles about Australian athletes, Gibraltar, and previously Monmouth, look odd, I don't believe they're any more detrimental than the groups of articles we've had at various times about English churches, Bach cantatas, fungi, or race horses, and I think all fall into categories that have drawn in new editors. But maybe I'm unaware of a discussion elsewhere that's presented this in a darker light? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh! No! Not for the Olympics, or rather, not during the Olympic period. This was quite a while before the event and not exclusively covering Olympians. It was complete oversaturation though. I know the same thing was used with MonmouthPedia and had I been around for that I would've raised the same objection. Similarly, every GibralterPedia DYK seems to be coming from the same person. I applaud enthusiasm but not every article you write, especially when it's in support of one particular project, needs to be on the front page. TO my mind, that's advertising the project that is..."sponsoring" your editing for lack of a better word. PanydThe muffin is not subtle21:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The objection above is rather commonly raised, and I agree with the standards response: work on articles with a different theme. There is no COI for members of a WikiProject to promote their area of interest through DYK. Often times these projects are dead in the water and there is no actual support. At WP:INDONESIA, for example, there has not been much collaborative editing in the past two years, so all the new GAs and FAs are the work of one or two authors.
Who's going to draw the line in the sand, and decide which topic is OK to have a lot of articles and which one is not? This particular editor, that no one is naming here, is very thorough as a reviewer. I would think DYK would want this reviewer around, even if they wanted to write 25 articles about the different flavors of jellybeans. Also, this is a good writer who is meticulous in sourcing their articles. This is one editor that I know for sure is not going to make me as a reviewer gnash my teeth. What is that British axiom about not making stormy weather? Maile66 (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It takes ridiculously tortured logic to declare such an editor as having a "conflict of interest". I've got about 50 hockey related DYKs over time. Does that mean that I have a COI on any future ones? The concern about a flood of similar topics is valid, and has been expressed before. The remainder of the rant is invalid, IMNSHO. Resolute00:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Point of information: if we're talking about who I think we're talking about, I believe the reference is to their doctoral dissertation. I'm still having difficulty seeing that as a COI though, because it would be pretty rad if a dissertation committee (or a hiring committee) gave points for DYK or any other Wikipedia exposure. But as I say, maybe I'm just missing part of the puzzle. I actually avoid editing in areas directly related to my dissertation, partly because it was on a far less popularly comprehensible topic '-) ... but also because it would be dirty pool to quote the thing. --Yngvadottir (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
If we're talking about who I think we're talking about, a very early draft of their thesis can be found here. The Wikipedia references have nothing to do with DYK and DYK was not part of their thesis at all. No editing took place for research related to their thesis. Their thesis was submitted two months ago. They did not write about Bieber as part of their thesis, nor Paralympians, nor really Olympians in the context of Wikipedia. If we're talking about the person I think we're talking about, that person uses DYK as a form of personal goal setting to know when to stop improving an article and move on to the next one. They also have 90 or so QPQs banked and don't plan to be involved with the DYK process for a while as they have other things going on. But for clarification, if we're talking about the person I think we're talking about , the early draft of their thesis should make it 100% clear that there is ZERO conflict of interest regarding DYK. --LauraHale (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Until you posted this, I thought everybody knew what sparked this. It wasn't you or, as far as I know, anything you've done. What started this thread was after I passed this Nom, and Panyd promoted it..Maile66 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
If the DYK submission meets all of the criteria, including the hook being interesting enough (which I think a few of these have struggled with), then I don't see it as a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, sorry. I think this has been misconstrued, my apologies for not being clear enough. This is a project, independent of Wikipedia, being run in order to help attract tourism to Gibraltar. This is what I'm having an issue with. Not individual editors. Just having this sort of thing put on the front page in earnest. I don't like the idea that we're here to drum up tourism for Gibraltar.
I believe I understand what you're saying. From your perspective, DYK is providing free and frequent advertising for what amounts to a Visitors Bureau of Gilbralter. Did I get the gist of it? Back in June 2012, it became a part of Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA. What that means to any of this, I don't know. But it says it's a Wikipedia City. Maile66 (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
And in July the Gibraltar’s Director of Heritage was saying about how he was so happy the tourism board was helping with the idea and that they had to be assured that negative articles would not be written (of course that doesn't mean volunteers are deliberately making positive articles, but it does speak to who is behind this project). Anyone can make a GLAM page. PanydThe muffin is not subtle18:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I just totally got it, and I agree with you. It's not about the editor. It's about DYK being successfully used in a for-profit commercial venture by any entity. In this case, free advertising for tourism. The link you just posted is pretty damning evidence of that. Maile66 (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I should clarify that Gibraltarpedia is not actually a Wikimedia UK project (like the link says). It's run by people from the UK, but the UK chapter haven't funded it, nor are they involved in the running of it. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that's disconcerting. I don't like the commercial vibe that the linked article gives off or their idea of reverting "nasty" press. I wonder if anyone gets paid for doing the articles (definite COI) or if it's a volunteer type thing. I don't see how this is any different from advertising games/tv shows or political candidates, so the same general rules and cautions would have to be applied. Froggerlauraribbit19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe the term is, "We've been had." In addition to DYK taking note of this, wouldn't the whole issue be a larger scope that should be addressed somewhere? You can't deny the articles that have appeared here are well-written and well-sourced. Of course, they would be able to write professionally, wouldn't they? It's just that Wikipedia over-all has been successfully used by a for-profit venture. Doesn't that go beyond DYK for Wikipedia? Maile66 (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, no, I'm very sure the articles have been written by volunteers, they just get a lot of coaching from the people running the project. That's a different matter. I wouldn't dismiss their individual efforts, I think it's wonderful that people are being encouraged to write Wikipedia articles. Just not by people with a vested interest who are then getting them to get their articles on the front page. That's exploiting the new editor and DYK for exposure. PanydThe muffin is not subtle19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
They're not all new. List of those who joined that project are on Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA, some of which I recognize. But they do boast of having 32 Gibralter DYK's since July 12, 2012. So, you are correct about the excess. But there does seem to be more than one editor. Maile66 (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I mean in an ideal world I'd put a moratorium on putting articles promoting a commercial venture (or at least, one specifically designed to promote tourism of all bloody things) on the front page. I'm not sure that's practical, or if anyone would agree etc. etc. I don't want to be punitive but I also don't want Wikipedia to be a billboard. PanydThe muffin is not subtle19:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) This is indeed a dilemma. The articles I've seen are well-written and well-sourced, and they don't seem "advertising". But at the same time, the language used by the minister is disconcerting, and it goes against the spirit of the project. I don't think there's anything particularly sinister though, the project was launched at a Wikimedia event (even if it is an independent one), they have a Project page on Wikipedia and are tagging articles with it, and those contributing are forthcoming about their interests. I agree that special care must be given to the review of these articles; perhaps they must specify in a comment that this part of that particular project, so that the reviews would be scrutinized carefully. Yazan (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I should also say when I mean promoting, I don't mean "we can't ever talk about Sony" or something like that. But if you're working for a sports association and flooding us with entries. Or if you're working for a tourism board, same thing applies. PanydThe muffin is not subtle19:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yazan, I agree that the articles are very well written! Again, it's great that people are writing lots of articles on a plethora of subjects held together by one theme, but do they need to put them on the front page every 2 days? Is that really necessary to the project or is it advertisement (again, the placement, not the article). PanydThe muffin is not subtle20:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh! And (I promise I'll stop rambling in a minute) - they do mark them as part of the Gibraltarpedia project. It's just not something that's been noted as of interest as far as I can see. PanydThe muffin is not subtle20:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Panyd, we at WP:Syria (we = 3 editors, that is) have been pushing to expand articles on localities and other under-represented topics about the country and its history, and we want/try to put them on DYK whenever it's possible (not for tourism purposes, obviously), and if you look at the nom page you'll notice maybe 10 of them waiting there. I don't see the problem with that. It gives motivation to the author, and it gives exposure to topic-areas where not many people go to, which could help expand the articles and, indeed, better their quality. We have 4 hooks from the US on any DYK set, so I don't see the big deal in a group of editors trying to promote/expand knowledge of their topic-area by using DYK as platform. In fact it only helps tip the balance slightly when it comes to the systematic bias of Wikipedia. The problem here, when it arises, is whether the articles themselves are up to it. Are they NPOV or promotional. That's the issue. Yazan (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Fly in the Ointment: How do you enforce any solution agreed upon? IMO needs to be up to one or more set of eyes that are at least one level above reviewer. You can't depend upon all reviewers being aware of the situation. Maile66 (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Zozo2kx - I have to admit I'm in disagreement. I would've had the same objection to Monmouthpedia as I have to the current project. I've no problems with the articles themselves. I don't see you guys adding Syrian articles to DYK as the same thing as you are not backed by a commercial venture. That's the problem in my mind. PanydThe muffin is not subtle20:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, so in the earlier situation with Australian athletes there was a job involved? I was indeed missing part of the picture then. However, I don't think the conflict of interest line can ever be drawn firmly with regard to DYK. We're getting increasing amounts of GLAM collaboration; museums and galleries seek visitors, and in many cases entrance fees. And I've protested strongly before when one particular editor has objected to pretty much any DYK about a company (or even a book that is not out of print). I don't think we either can or should try to be such anti-commercial purists that we turn down DYKs simply because an institution or an artist might - conceivably - get more sales from the exposure. Particularly because it would logically require clamping down on articles on museums and galleries, as well as on companies that are not yet bankrupt and writers and painters who are not yet dead. And I think that regardless of the crowing by a person who understandably doesn't appreciate that Wikipedians might cringe at the idea of Gibraltar using us to get more tourists, the Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia projects are both basically jolly good competitive fun. So long as such projects produce decent articles, where's the harm? It will probably just lead to other projects, such as the small Syria one mentioned, or, I don't know, Bognorpedia or Fairbankspedia or UlanBatorpedia :-) Yes, collaborators on such projects probably shouldn't review each others' articles. Yes, on a case by case basis, DYK should probably throttle things back if it seems as if we are getting swamped with related submissions. But we're just as likely to be swamped by an individual or a group doing things that have no government/commercial/publicity angle whatsoever; it's happened in relation to the WikiCup, and a lot of us can probably think of series of articles that in our personal view were just over the top. It has to be on a case by case basis. And I believe that's the only way to deal with individual perceived conflict of interest, too. The project as a whole is divided over the issue of paid editing ... and it will almost always be a lot murkier, and harder to distinguish from personal enthusiasm, than paid editing. So I think we should explicitly reserve the right in this project to throttle back the number of DYKs from other projects, or from individuals on one topic, when it seems necessary - including when it seems we're getting too many and when it seems they're not individually interesting enough. But we already do have that right; there's no guarantee that one's DYK will be passed, or that it will run as soon as one wishes. I think it's not unlike the situations with the US election campaigns and India/Pakistan and Israeli/Palestinian articles that have been raised here recently. There's no guarantee of acceptance here, but we can't lay down hard and fast rules in advance and probably shouldn't try to. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC) [Edit to above] I don't know how, but the software inserted Panyd's comment above this one by me without my having ever seen it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a fundamental difference between wiki as a labour of love and wiki as a business. If the same guy has a business based on monmouthpedia and gibraltarpedia then we shouldn't allow ourselves to be exploited like this. We're allowing someone to make money out of access to the front page. Secretlondon (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
There is one way to look at this - disclosure or not, the individual is a paid lobbyist who has been successful at securing free product placement on Wikipedia's main page.Maile66 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
My main question is why should we care? If someone is making money off of the articles indirectly (not talking about paid editors here, that's a totally different subject) or getting tourism or whatever, why should DYK or even Wikipedia care? So long as the articles are properly made and don't have POV or copyright issues, then we're getting more and better articles out of their desire to get tourism. I don't see the problem with that. It's largely none of our business and we're definitely benefiting in the exchange. SilverserenC00:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see abuse at all. Actually, it's great that we have contributors working so productively. If we have many nominations of the same topic, we don't really need to use them right away. It would be the job of the hook-set builders to space out similar/related hooks in the prep areas and make sure we don't have too much of the same good thing within a short time. --PFHLai (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Firstly I have to say I have a massive issue with, and take some offense at, any comparison of the situation you seem to be against with that of promoting Paralympians. I grant you there were a lot of Australian Paralympians (& Olympians) featured recently but mostly I see that as a lack of the rest of the world being able to keep up with our Aussie sports enthusiasts (I may not have managed as many DYKS for GB but we won more medals :) ). As others have said we don't have to use every hook we get, but if I were able to churn out ten dozen decent articles on a single unpopular topic I see no reason why I shouln't be able to nominate them, the entire point of DYK is to encourage new content and i doubt if the boost to the tourist industry in Gibraltar is greater than the boost to our encyclopaedic content. Though saying that I do feel a sudden, uncontrollable urge to go see some monkeys - Basement12(T.C)01:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that Wikimedia UK does have a support role in running Gibraltarpedia, agreed to by the board. Roger is himself a board member of WMUK, and according to the WMUK website:
Roger's associations with other companies and councils in the past are well documented on-line.
At the end of June Roger signed a contract with the Government of Gibraltar. There is no known COI as WMUK does not have a relationship with this Government but it is hoped that one may develop. Roger has a business relationship with John Cummings [Monmouthpedia] and Steve Virgin [former WMUK trustee].
Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales.
Roger updated the board on Gibraltarpedia, and explained how he would like to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Wikimedia UK. This would not involve the transfer of any funds, but would mean that Wikimedia UK would offer in-kind support in the form of press coverage and various merchandise.
DECISION: It was agreed that the office can support Gibraltarpedia with in-kind contributions, but not funds
This situation does raise interesting philosophical questions. If Gibraltarpedia and Welsh town councils and tourist boards are fair game, then what about present and former WMUK board members taking payment for cooperation with other infomercial interests? And why is it okay for a WMUK board member to profit financially from Wikipedia, and have the WMUK board vote to support their paid project, while other paid editing is pushed underground? JN46608:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the minutes of the meeting are still being drafted, and in this case they aren't an accurate record of the meeting yet. We're working on finalising an agreement with Giblartarpedia, after which we will be supporting the project (but it still won't be a WMUK activity; it'll be an activity that WMUK supports). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
It still looks like corruption. You are giving in-kind support to a committee member's business interest, and it's not even in the UK! Charity law? Secretlondon (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone asked off-site, 'Is this the story? "Roger Bamkin, a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, is a paid PR consultant for Gibraltar and secured the agreement of Wikimedia UK to promote his client's interests.'" Frankly, it looks like this is indeed the story. If it isn't, then what about that description is incorrect? And note that according to present plans, chapter board members will be eligible to serve on the Funds Dissemination Committee, which will award funds (millions of dollars per year) to these selfsame chapters. [6][7][8] In theory, the Funds Dissemination Committee could be awarding cash to chapters which these chapters then use to support their board members' for-profit activities, through free PR work and the like. In my view, there should be far greater separation of powers in this entire area. People doing Wikipedia business should not be on chapter boards. Chapter trustees should not serve on the committee that awards millions of dollars of funds to the selfsame chapters. JN46620:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Secretlondon: this project is taking place in the remit of WMUK (since it's an overseas territory of the UK). I'm not aware of any aspect of charity law that is being contravened here - if you are and can point me towards them then I'd greatly appreciate that.
Jayen466: What's this "Wikimedia Foundation UK"? Why are you making the assumption that we are planning on setting up an agreement based solely on a single trustee rather than as board consensus? Why are you assuming that Roger is solely working to "promote his client's interests" here? You seem to be making many assumptions here that aren't based on facts. :-( I'm not sure why you think that your comments about the FDC have anything to do with this, so I'm not going to reply to those. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you guys have set up a charity claiming to represent Wikipedia in the UK and are using it as a basis to support your Wikipedia-related consultancy careers. It looks terribleSecretlondon (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I keep a very close eye on what WMUK gets up to (I'm a former board member) and some aspects of Gibraltarpedia have made me a little uncomfortable (mostly because it hasn't been made anywhere near clear enough that this isn't a WMUK project and that it isn't a continuation of Monmouthpedia, but is simply inspired by it, and there are various trademark issues) however I'm not sure there is actually a significant conflict of interest. It is in Wikipedia's interests to have lots of good articles about Gibraltar and it is in Gibraltar's interests to have lots of good articles about Gibraltar (it is also in Gibraltar's interests to avoid having articles about negative aspects of Gibraltar, as the minister mentioned, but I don't think this project actually does anything related to that). I think there is a problem with DYK being swamped with lots of articles on the same topic (it's difficult to have rules about that, though, since "topic" is so poorly defined), but that has nothing to do with COIs. --Tango (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Just ran across something interesting about this subject. One of the most consistent contributors of the Gibraltar articles submitted Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club, and it was reviewed and approved by Victuallers. Is it a COI now? My favorite is when Victuallers nominated Great Siege Tunnels, and then also reviewed it himself. Oops. You can read for yourself how those reviews turned out. Maile66 (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
"A VIP TRIP TO GIBRALTAR FROM ANYWHERE IN EUROPE", with this small print caveat " One person! If you are from outside Europe and North Africa or you need a 300 mile trip by icebreaker and helicoptor then we will "have to talk". But assuming the bill is not astronomic then we intend to do this (or find a mutually desirable prize)."
I'm going to notify the editor of this ongoing discussion, in case he hasn't seen it and in case he'd like to explain some things. This is a bit unsettling. Yazan (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Eh, are prizes really that big of a deal? I mean, the Vital Articles competition offers prizes and so have other competitions in the past. The prizes for this seem to be a lot better than those, but that doesn't really mean anything. SilverserenC19:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Prizes for volunteers is generally felt appropriate, I believe. The Core Contest has just completed with a WMUK funded prize (a reasonably valuable bundle of book vouchers) and I don't think that was held to be inappropriate. The widely-beloved Wiki Loves Monuments offers a similar main prize to this one (a fully-paid trip to Wikimania in Hong Kong) and a number of smaller prizes on a local level; all sorts of smaller local contests have offered prizes for contributors as well, such as the British Museum FA contest. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
In my estimation it's getting close to time for Wikimedia Foundation to shut down WMUK. Those idiots are going to damage the project with their unfettered fundraising and spending in the project's name... Carrite (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
In my estimation it's getting close to time to shut down Wikipediocracy. Those idiots are going to damage the project with their unfettered attacks on other users and crazy conspiracy theorizing in the project's name... Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been invited to have a read of this conversation and there are a lot of good points. Some points of clarification may be in order, andI'll address just a couple now. Firstly the Wikipedia article on Gibraltarpedia contains numerous errors and care should be taken in its interpretation. Obviously COI makes it tricky for me to correct those errors. The press releases issued by the project are much more accurate. Nominating and then approving a hook should not be done. It was a mistake on my part. (I will continue to make mistakes, hopefully not this one again.) You will see that I do have COI issues which are all well documented. This is because I stood for election on the basis that I did have commercial interests and the membership supported me. I don't intend to criticise their choice. I negotiated both Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia and these are both based on QRpedia and multi-lingual challenges which were both developed at Derby Museum which was another partnership I negotiated. To paraphrase Carrite, it would appear that we have read the project's mission and we are now gathering external money to deliver it in a variety of countries. Now what would happen if everyone did that?
Today I'm going to the local library and hall to train local people in Gibraltar in how to edit Wikipedia, load pictures and use Open Street Map. Do I need to find a government where the minister's think this is a silly idea, surely not. Victuallers (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, this thing is getting bigger than DYK and looks to turn into a full-on shitstorm of epic proportions. Not what WMUK really needs right now. Roger, whether you actually did anything improper or not, you must be aware of the appearance this creates. You are being paid by an organization that is recieving material support from another organization that you are on the board of. I'm sure you can see how this looks to outsiders. Hiding behind "the WMUK elected me and I won't question their judgement" is a pretty cheap dodge. I'm sure they can find somebody else who does not have these issues to cover for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Roger, while it is possible that what you are doing may be legal in the most narrow of senses, it is totally unethical: it is clear that you should step down NOW from any position of trust or responsibility in any Wikimedia operation, AND should cease to edit any article where you are operating as a paid agent of the subject, be it Gibraltar or Bashar al-Assad or Microsoft or the National Front. --Orange Mike | Talk19:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to personally make it clear that I have no beef with the Gibraltarpedia project itself, in fact I think it is a really cool idea and good for both WP and Gibraltar. What bothers me is the same thing that is bothering a lot of other users, that a WMUK board member is being paid for his participation in it. This is going to lead to exactly the wrong kind of attention if it is not nipped in the bud now, so that paycheck is possibly in jeopardy anyway if this situation is not deat with properly. If they are concerned enough to pay somebody to watch related articles and want to be sure no negative articles are written, imagine how they will feel if this issue spreads put beyond discussion int he back rooms of WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
According to Roger, he's being paid for the use of QRpedia, which as I understand it is software that he developed. I don't think there's any suggestion that he's being paid for any articles. Prioryman (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought QRpedia was free software. Do you mean he is being paid for the use of the qrpedia.org site that he registered, and which links people using the qrpedia codes to Wikipedia content? And do I understand correctly that ownership of this site is in the process of being transferred to Wikimedia UK? And does that mean that Wikimedia UK will thereafter be paid by others wishing to use the service? JN46621:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This claim that he is only being paid for the use of QRpedia seems like a desperate attempt to explain away the apparent conflict of interest. Since it is free software that argument really does not hold water. Gibraltarpedia is, for whatever reason, hosted here. He is being paid as a consultant for that project. Are we seriously expected to believe the claim that the money has nothing to do with how the project turns out and is just for access to free software? C'mon. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, the murky depths now seem to have been plumbed and various personal and professional issues raised - but what, if anything, is the upshot for DyK? Regardless of whether individuals should or shouldn't be doing x or y in their lives, were we to address the content presented, I for one am in agreement with the above line that, since Gibaltar per se is not a commercial venture and, as far as I can make out, no sinister political agenda is being advanced, then assuming the relevant pages are well-written, our readers can only be quids in, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
People will have various reasons for nominating articles for DYK. Just stay on top of it and make sure that no one topic is being favored too much over others. Don't put more than one article on Gibraltar on the main page more than once a week or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Would this apply to Gibraltar only, or to anything else where we have a surge of articles over a short time? If the latter, it's going to produce a lot of debate ("this isn't the same as that") and going to cut down an awful lot of the content at DYK - sharks, fishes, mushrooms, horses, Chicagoans, Paralympians, battleships, bridges, monuments... we've had people complain about short-term overrepresentation of a lot of different topics in the past. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Given that I found this because someone saw it on CNet via [9], I would like to re-iterate my previous concerns of 15 Feburary (later re-raised on 1 March�) over DYK being abused for obvious advertising: the massive first-page traffic probably resulted in a sales burst for this (digital download) product. Abuse can be subtle and hard to oppose effectively when noticed. Perhaps what we need is clearer rejection policy, err toward rejection? Or perhaps a multi-step process for approval whereby nominations are randomly routed through a series of volunteers any of whom can anonymously reject an addition? If that means slower updates, so be it. prat (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a fundamental difference between your previous concerns and the Gibraltarpedia project. You were previously, and I think rightly, concerned about the commercial implications of DYKs related to a commercial product. The Gibraltar DYKs aren't comparable. If you look at the list of Gibraltarpedia DYKs here, you'll see that they all concern historical, biographical or geographical topics. If we were talking about a series of articles on, say, businesses in Gibraltar then there might be a reason for concern. But that isn't the case. It's hard to see how articles on historic buildings, geographical locations or deceased people could have any promotional angle. Prioryman (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Leaving all other issues aside, I think you should recognize that Wikipedia's main page, with its 8 million hits a day, is valuable real estate. It will always attract gaming for promotion. An easy fix would be to cut down the frequency of "Did You Know" promotions to the main page. Fewer promotions (I'd cut the current rate in half for starters) would not stop paid editing. But it would increase the quality of the stories being offered to a general readership. The hooks would be more interesting, the quality of the articles would be higher (whether they were written by paid editors or anyone else). I suggested this long ago when you were dealing with a rash of plagiarism motivated by a desire to... win the WikiCup (from memory). The response was as if I'd loudly farted in a train car. The "Did you know" process is gamed daily for promotion, for political purposes, for no reason at all but misguided vanity. People are people and you won't change that. But slow your throughput rate and the quality of what you're doing will improve dramatically.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
How is any of that relevant to what is being discussed here? The claim at the outset was that DYK was being used for advertisement. The Gibraltarpedia DYKs listed here are not in any way promotional, nor even about commercial topics. Nor has there been any issue raised, as far as I can see, about the quality of these articles. Prioryman (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The enthusiasm and conviction radiating from both the Min. for Tourism, Neil Costa and Clive Finlayson who came up with the idea of marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture will truly be a success. That's from one of the many "reliable" sources in the Gibraltarpedia article. [10]Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
In late response to Pratyeka: I'm sorry, but I still feel your concern, which seems to boil down to "No DYK should be about a company or anything else that might be available for sale, such as an in-print book" are overblown and would rule out an unreasonable amount of topics on grounds of DYKs driving sales that seem ill-founded. (The hits on the average DYK appear to be in the 1,000–2,000 range - many of mine get 400s, 500s, many of mine get 3,000, 4,000; not many crack the magic 5,000 ceiling, and I haven't noticed many commercial products or companies in the list of top DYKs by hits. This is hardly great publicity, as I've said here before when this issue came up. Many of our readers don't even go to the Main Page, let alone look at the DYK section.) From my point of view, the most compelling reasons for throttling back the number of articles on companies or products are recentism/NOTNEWS and uninteresting hooks, and these only become applicable to groups of articles on places that someone just might choose to visit, or video games or popular music people just might choose to purchase, etc., when either of those becomes applicable. Conflict of interest/paid editing issues are a distinct matter and it's not the DYK project's place to police those except if a reviewer finds something wrong with the article (as unfortunately happened too late in a recent case where the article proved to be a near copy of a pre-existing one). I don't think there is going to be consensus here for not featuring DYKs on companies/products, and I believe that's so for good reason: they are encyclopedic topics. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm adding a bit here though I've been thoroughly informed that nobody at Wikipedia cares and nobody will help. My concern is that paid special interests have clearly worked their way up the "volunteer" ranks at Wikipedia and are editing pages in violation of Wiki policies to advance their agendas, yet since they have the most editing power, they simply dismiss all discussion to the contrary. In my case, the pharmaceutical interests have added one (and then when I objected, added TWO) unreliable cites to disparage my bio pages and falsely label me "anti-vaccine. In doing so, they use self-published blogs and non-fact-checked sources and violate policies of using special care with contentious material in bios, they violate policies of balance and undue weight and fairness, they simply lock into their position and lock out the bio so nobody can bring it back into compliance. Even worse, there are simple inaccuracies with my bio but when others or I have alerted or tried to change them, the conflicted Wiki agenda editors just change it back. The material isn't footnoted or sourced, the editors just "claim" my career on camera started on a certain date, they "claim" I anchored a PBS show and CBS Up to the Minute simultaneously (which is false). Those errors aren't terribly substantive, but they continue to whittle away at any credibility Wiki tries to have. And to top it off with the agenda editors advancing their pharmaceutical industry agenda on my bio page-- very inappropriate-- and on top of the Philip Roth ridiculousness, this whole "encyclopaedia" is being exposed as a conflicted mess. I'm surprised nobody cares, they just dig in and let the agenda editors and their partners do their work. My name is Sharyl Attkisson and I'm an investigative reporter for CBS News who is now, as a result of all of this, researching these processes. Wikipedia foundation refused comment on my last official request for comment. And when I vehemently objected to the paid agenda editing, the Wikipedia counsel in essence threatened me with the "Streisand effect"-- that the more I attempt to fix the false information, the bigger the agenda editors will make it. That doesn't seem like a way to run an encyclopaedia that seeks credibility. The conflicted editors in my instance are "yobol" and "the red pen of doom." they have enlisted others as well. They have deleted material off the talk page. They simply overrule anyone who points out they are violating Wikipedia policies on biographies and they put the material on and lock the page. As an investigative reporter, I am now digging into the many stories of Agenda editing at Wikipedia and am being flooded with similar tales. For obvious reasons, I'm not on Wikipedia much anymore, but you can email me on my about.me/sharylattkisson page if you have additional stories to bring to my attention or have comments. Thank you! I know there are a lot of well-intentioned hobbyists who are being sullied by the paid Wikipedia agenda editors and it's a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.95.192.140 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Late to the discussion, sorry. I have such a strong distaste for Wikipedia being manipulated by PR interests, that
I oppose any sort of "truce" or "arrangement" with PR interests. They will never earn my trust, as long as they do not act against bad actors in their profession.
I, as an inclusionist, advocate the immediate deletion of any articles proven to be written primarily by a PR actor or COI source for the purpose of SEO or marketing or any other demonstrably non-encyclopedic purpose. That's deletion and salting for one year of any such articles, as stern advice against PR interests and those who hire them.
I further advocate deletion of all the suspect DYK'd articles if substantially expanded by a PR actor or COI source, summarily. Dirty hands, dirty content: unsalvageable.
I advocate the summary banning of any PR actor or COI source found to be acting in the above capacity.
We should blatantly campaign to Deny PRgasms. I've made this clear before. So much for the vaunted "PR Code of Ethics" as suggested by PR association leaders elsewhere. PR scum out, and PR scum articles out. If this sounds like a presumption of bad faith, well, it follows a colossal act of bad faith, damaging the reputation of Wikipedia profoundly. If I had ever edited any of the DYK articles, I would still be campaigning for their deletion. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but not the encyclopedia anyone can damage as they see fit. --Lexein (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to make this about me, but this is about editors caught willfullywho may have been intentionally or not acting in bad faith against the purpose of the encyclopedia. You may observe, please, that I wrote primarily. For convenience, I've bolded it above, and expanded in bold, to clarify my meaning. I warned about this long before the Gibraltarpedia DYK articles ever existed, but after the PR Code of Ethics was proposed. Now that this has broken in the press, I'm incensed, because I warned that this would happen. If the Gibraltarpedia expanded articles are not summarily deleted, they will have to be manually, and exhaustively, combed over for OR, POV, and factual omissions by other editors. Deletion is the superior option. Here's a very very simple example: Google for Gibraltar and crime. First result:
"Gibraltar travel advice www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel.../gibraltar Violence or street crime is rare. However there have been reports of people walking from La Linea (Spain) to Gibraltar at night being attacked and robbed."
Quite apart from the WP:NOTTRAVEL] referenced above, this would have no place in article about Gibraltar, or indeed one about crime in Gibraltar. The FCO source you mention is talking about people being attacked and robbed in the town acrros the border in another country (Spain) - they just happen to be heading to Gibraltar. Should crime in Canada be discussed in a USA article? No of course not. People visit Gibraltar by many routes, and indeed even thouse coming across the border from Spain, only a small fraction pass 'through' La Linea itself, evne less on foot. It should be included in an article about La Linea. GibFusion (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this worth an RFC?
This page is used regularly by volunteers maintaining the DYK template. If your comment is not directly related to the intersection of this issue and DYK, please direct it to one of the many other places this topic is being discussed. Thank you. The Interior(Talk)21:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe somebody could take this entirely off this page and over to its own RFC page. Is that possible? This thing is getting really long, and it doesn't look like it's about to wrap up. If someone who knows how to take it over to an RFC page could do that, it would clear this page up for discussion of all other DYK matters. Maile66 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I would recommend that if people have further things to discuss they start an RFC page, but after reading through the C|net article and this discussion, I do not find myself so enraged that I wish to start one myself. So, someone who does feel upset, please do that. Shii(tock)05:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I was editing a Prep 4 hook that I felt wasn't worded as well as it might when it was promoted out from under me into Queue 6. If some admin feels that the following wording is a bit more elegant, please make the change yourself. (Note: if preferred, the less dynamic words "promoted" or "featured" might be used instead of "championed", though I think each is allowable based on the article's contents.)
My lack of English, sigh, all three words don't sound right for a hard-working man of the 1960s, rather something like "served", "lived for", "stood for" - you name it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to confess that none of those three sound right either, and I don't see how they're supported in the article (even "stood for" isn't). Perhaps "worked to promote" or "worked to present", if you want an echo of hard-working, or just "presented", even though it's a bit bland? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I said "you" (plural) name it, I am lacking the fine words. It is not in the article because it is a summary: in all he did "new music in the church" was his main interest which is unusual, - name it, I need sleep ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't move fast enough, but I think the extra time typing the revised hook here let me tweak it a bit more for its ultimate benefit. Gerda, that's the second time in a few hours I've missed the plural "you". Sorry about that: I don't know why it's all about me today... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
and I missed thanking you for the extra effort to improve the wording. I am sure it's more catchy now. I wonder if some admin will be able to swap it from Q6 to the following, for Kurt Hubert. Ziegler seems the more important fellow, Hubert can appear when Europe sleeps ;) - I was about to sleep when I noticed the heading Q6, got curious and saw that it was about a hook I had proposed. Q6 itself told me nothing, as it had just been moved there. - I'm not my politest after midnight ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Sept 19 DYK on main page
Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Oh dear. I don't even recall that article. I can't explain it. I assure you I didn't do that on purpose. All I can think of is that I got distracted while working a prep set and lost track of where I was in the process. My deepest and humblest apologies. PumpkinSkytalk02:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I guess I'm wondering what happens in the "second set of eyes" in the promotion process that this made its way to the main page. Is there something in our process that needs improving? Maile66 (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
There's supposed to be three sets of eyes. 1. The initial reviewer, 2. The editor who promotes the hook, 3. The admin who moves the prep to the queue. I don't know what more could be done! Yazan (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm the one who nominated this originally (and thanks for notifying me of this discussion - oh, wait, you didn't). While I agree that the process has technically failed, as it wasn't reviewed by three people, I can't see that any great harm has been done. Yes, as I said at the time of the initial nomination "gook" is a racial slur in the US, but Gook {racial slur) is a term originating in 1950s Korea and Gook (headgear) is an ancient term which went out of use 30 years before the racial slur was even invented, and it's obvious from the context which use is intended. PumpkinSky has enough experience and common sense not to have promoted it if there had been any sign of a problem. Did a single person actually complain that there was any problem with this hook (or that they'd been misled into thinking enemy combatants in the Korean War were protecting female mineworkers in 18th-century Britain from industrial injuries), or is this just an attempt to get PumpkinSky in trouble? Mogism (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
All of the above is beside the point. No one is trying to "get Pumpkinskin in trouble" (way to go with AGF, though). He is an experienced editor, but he obviously completely missed checking the hook, or the article (we all get bleary eyed on WP sometimes, and we all make mistakes). Had he checked the nomination, he would've noticed something as basic as an approval tick. The process failed, and we're discussing exactly that (the process) not the editor, nor even the article. I'm not even sure what are you exactly incensed about? Something like this should automatically result in the hook being pulled, and a discussion of what happened. What else do you think was going to/shoud've happened? Yazan (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Re "What else do you think was going to/shoud've happened?" - what should have happened, and should happen in any similar situation, is that whoever spots it should see if there is actually any problem, and if not should drop a polite note to the editor in question (PumpkinSky in this case) reminding them to be more careful. The mentality of "Something like this should automatically result in the hook being pulled" sums up all that's gone wrong with Wikipedia. If you're going to quote WP:AGF (which isn't and never has been a Wikipedia policy, despite the number of people who seem to think otherwise), let me see you and raise you WP:IAR (which is and always has been a Wikipedia policy, despite the number of process-obsessed people who seem to think otherwise). To repeat, did a single person actually complain about this or is this just you slavishly putting The Rules over common sense? Mogism (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Mogism, as a person who has had their share of DYKs, I understand how it seems so personal when someone questions something. But, believe me, I was questioning the process, whether or not something was not working right. It was not about you. It was not about PumpkinSky. Someone notified the promoter - PumpkinSky. But since you had nothing to do with the promotion, I guess that's why no one notified you. This was in no way meant to be a rejection of your nomination. It's not a question of whether or not your nomination should have been approved. But it doesn't hurt to look at the process when things like this happen. In the overall scope of things, Gook (headgear) is rather mild. But if this can slip through without a review, then so can something potentially legally libelous to Wikipedia. And, quite frankly, there's been some really volatile conversations on this page about various nominations. And, yeah, the process has been that when something gets on the main page that shouldn't have, it's pulled and discussed. That doesn't mean that if Gook (headgear) was pulled it wouldn't have been on the main page at a later date. But had it been caught in time, it would have been appropriate to pull it. Maile66 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
A short History of DYK - where are the people in charge?
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The gibraltarpedia project is an almost perfect clone of the Monmouthpedia Project - which was the "coolest project"
The idea of the project is to grow editors, install QRpedia plaques and better. The details of the contract are described by the Gibraltar Government in tomorrow's Gibraltar Chronicle (yes its on line).
I have been on DYK for so long that I remember when all the hooks one day came from a town in Oregon, and some people included a refeence to show off I have been involved in four projects that have run multiple DYKs - The British Museum, The Derby Museum, Monmouth and Gibraltar. The British Museum was our first Wikipedian in residence but the museum thrived on "A History of the World in 100 objects" where not only the British Museum but a radio series was included in front page DYKs. That was a cool project.
Then we had Derby Museum where we wrote 1200 articles as part of another competition. Derby Museum was judged best wiki-GLAM by WMUK members.
Monmouth - two paid organisers, an intern, volunteers, several PhD students, the whole staff in the town were trained, the town paid for advertising and the installation of free wifi. (Free wi-fi? who negotiated that?)
then we get to Gibraltar where the same two editors are working with volunteers in Gibraltar, Morocco, Finland, Spain etc to create a wiki-city. This is a city that is practically a country and certainly has a government. It has one active wikipedian - well it did have.
I was there all last week,
meeting people,
talking to professors of Anthropology about using Wikipedia in their courses,
I was talking to crafts people about making plaques,
I met the museum people,
and the botany people,
and the people who own the heritage of the Rock.
I went to church - good way to meet people
I met the canons of the cathedral,
I conducted two training sessions for locals,
I discussed the use of Hebrew on the signs with the Jewish Community,
I emailed the people who are spreading our project into Morocco
I went to Firework display and spoke about Wikipedia
I met the mens institute
I did some WMUK business
I met two local ministers
I arranged a meeting with Education minister to discuss wiki in 2ndary schools
I negotiated free wi fi
I took care of WMF branding issues
I arranged accomadation for visitors and John C
I met John C when he arrived from GLAMcamp and we discussed progress
And in the mean time people wrote cool articles about synagogues and war memorials who I now find are help in some kind of holding bay whilst a "which" test is devised.
Oh and Someone wrote an article about a ship and an M.P. I think my contribution was loading up pictures to Wikimedia Commons of professors of anthropology and pictures of Ceuta Cathedral (which is in the Spanish part of Africa and its included in the contest). Oh yes I also got notice that our new logo was agreed with WMF licensing. I did tell you that the Government of Gibraltar has an agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation to install QRpedia codes. If you look at the Gibraltar Chronicle then you will see that I'm paid for the above. Liam delivered the British Museum for nothing. I did Derby Museum for nothing. I did get some expenses for Monmouth until I was employed. John Cummings did the project management for Monmouth for a modest wage. We are now creating another project. Now some people might claim that this was all done in secret and behind closed doors. It was announced at Wikimania! I walked out on video as did the Minister for Tourism and the leading wikipedian on the Rock.
One nice thing about being a consultant to a place that's 1600 miles away is that when there's a problem they show much more faith than a project where I have worked for 5 years. Although I would like to single out the many editors who have supported me indirectly and by a supportive comment. I do apologise to the regular admins on the DYK project. Can I also note that Gibraltar is going to have wait to get "... that the Flemish Synagogue, one of the Synagogues of Gibraltar, was built in response to the informality that had evolved at the Great Synagogue?" .... come one guys. Who is in charge are you going to let these contributors be bullied? If necessary you can put the whole lot of us in an RFC but do AGF and support the editors who support the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I have tremendous respect for Victuallers' work and have no reason to question his good faith. According to his statements, he is being paid not for editing but rather for licensing his intellectual property in the QRpedia codes and in training volunteers. And to his credit, Victuallers was transparent in disclosing his paid relationship with the government of Gibraltar. No one has suggested (at least not that I've seen) that this arrangement violates any current rules or guidelines of the project. Some media sources have blurred the distinction and suggested that he is actually being paid for editing and promoting articles on Gibraltar. Not surprisingly, the fact that he has written articles on Gibraltar and promoted and approved such articles at DYK fosters doubt, whether warranted or not, about whether the distinction is clear. This leads me to conclude that Wikipedia needs clearer rules on paid editing and conflict of inerests. I would not want to hinder the efforts of Wikipedians to profit from their labors in creating valuable intellectual property (like QRpedia codes). The same goes with respect to paid training of volunteers and reimbursement of travel costs incurred in doing so. However, and in order to protect the integrity of the Wikipedia brand, I believe that a more fully developed conflict of interest protocol is needed -- a protocol that protects both against impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. This is so, because in preserving brand integrity, the appearance of impropriety can be no less damaging than actual impropriety. For this reason, I would support a strict protocol whereby a person who accepts payment from for any services whatsoever (whether as an employee, consultant, trainer, or otherwise) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the payor's area of interest. Such a rule would allow a person like Victuallers to continue profiting from his IP licensing and training work, while ensuring the project's integrity by prohibiting him from editing on subjects relating to his clients' area of interst. Others may have even better ideas, but that's my two cents. Cbl62 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, there are countless ways that a person can get paid for doing something without technically getting paid for doing something. As a businessman and PR professional Bamkin surely knows how to get a big pay-off for this sort of work without there being any documentation clearly stating that he is being paid for it. I imagine he is a sufficiently savvy Wikipedian to also know that the existence of documentation so much as hinting at that would look extremely bad for him. One thing I sincerely doubt is that the unspecified "people" with whom he met were all just local middle-class residents.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you really that tone-deaf, that you don't understand the possibly irreparable damage you've done to the reputation of "a project where I have worked for 5 years" by mixing your Wikimedia activities with your commercial interests? Was the money really that good, to shamelessly cross the line from editor to promoter, and without resigning your special privileges that properly belong to volunteers? --Orange Mike | Talk17:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Roger, thanks for the details. I'm in agreement with questioning "tone deaf?" here. Looking at dates in edit logs and discussions, here's how it looks:
The sudden creation/expansion/DYKs of all those Gibraltar-related articles has the appearance of serving Gibraltar's presumed desire for more content accessible to tourists with QR codes.
It is an uncomfortable coincidence of possibly innocent events.
It is arguably pleasing the benefactor, innocent (enthusiastic volunteers are great!), or not (sense of obligation in the mind of a senior editor, or worse, seeking a goal of more articles for the QRcode plaques). It has an unavoidable risk of appearing not to be fully independent. An encyclopedia must, at its core, be, and appear to be, independent.
Combined with the paid training of editors, it is a small predictable synaptic leap to the unhappy conclusions drawn by outsiders, and skeptical editors such as myself. Any PR person will remind us that appearance is reality.
In this case, I claim that the order of events matters more than the senior editors imagined.
If (1) the articles had already slowly expanded, and no DYKs had been sought, then Gibraltar had said, "Cool, we want to QRcode the nation!", my concerns would be largely, but not completely, addressed. Then, any consultation (paid or unpaid) would have been related solely to the creation of QRcode plaques to existing articles, a valid use and access of Wikipedia content, and could have been treated as a firewalled, non-conflicting activity.
If (2) your above disclosures had been widely publicly announced by Gibraltar and WMUK a) at the announcement of Gibraltarpedia, or b) instantly upon the breaking of the story, the damage may have been severely reduced. IMHO.
Done Good catch. I moved the article to Great Northern War plague outbreak and edited Queue 6 accordingly. --Orlady (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hooks are supposed to be understandable. What does "social sphere" mean. Also, if it is not vacuous, the claim is extraordinary and so requires extraordinary evidence. What kind of study supported the claim that all social spheres (whatever they are) have endemic violence? (Reading Fouccault and Rabinow at Starbucks...?) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
