Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 85

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80 ← Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 87 → Archive 90

How did yet another Gibraltar-related DYK just make it onto the main page?

After much discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Potential abuse of DYK, one might think that there would be at least a temporary moratorium in Gobraltar-related DYK items. As I write this, however, this item appears on the main page "(Did you know)... that the Gibraltar War Memorial of 1923 rests on an esplanade and steps built by a Governor of Gibraltar two years previously?". Given the situation, this is going from scandal to farce. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And this one "... that the Flemish Synagogue, one of the Synagogues of Gibraltar, was built in response to the informality that had evolved at the Great Synagogue?" is queued up for later today. Folks, someone needs to step up and address this situation before it gets any worse. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I think there should be a moratorium on the Gibraltar articles for now. We should set up a "Gibraltar" queue area in the special date area for all articles currently in queue, prep and on the nominations page. Since no consensus has been reached in the long (somewhat off topic) discussion above, we should still allow new nominations in the holding area as well with the proviso that they may be illegible ineligible for DYK based on the consensus. Definitely pull the current queue and prep articles. Froggerlaura ribbit 13:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
There are certain people whose DYK nominations are currently contentious. However there are a number of volunteer editors writing Gibraltar related articles and who IMHO should be treated as any other editor. So I would suggest that those who are getting money from Gibraltarpedia desist from nominating Gibraltar related DYKs until and unless there is consensus for them to resume that. ϢereSpielChequers 13:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
While I have no doubt that the editors submitting the DYK nominations are doing so in good faith, I think that perhaps you are missing the point. On the one hand, the project is being run as a contest (Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA/Gibraltar Challenge/The Challenge). Does "getting money" include possibly winning a trip to Gibraltar? On the other hand, any Gibraltar DYK, from any editor, is doing the work for which Bamkin et al are being paid. If it wasn't already clear, what is being bought and sold here is not plaques with Qr codes on them, it is publicity for Gibraltar with the aim of increasing tourist revenue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that we currently can't separate the "good" editors from the ones that may be receiving payment. The whole Gibraltar project is now subject to intense scrutiny and for the time being I still advocate halting all DYKs regardless of who wrote/nominated them. Froggerlaura ribbit 13:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody please set up an RFC page for this? Froggerlaura, you have a good temporary solution - the holding area - which does not discriminate. Except for the paid lobbyist mentioned in the other section, you really can't prove the motives of the editors. Maile66 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I question if this whole contest is even allowed as it does seem to smack of there being a conflict of interest by people just writing articles and then shoving them towards DYK to try and win a trip to Gibraltar or have a qr code that will allow them to (in my opinion) spam to self-publicise. I think that there are 3 ways to go about this this. Leave it alone or as suggested above, stick all Gibraltar hooks in one area or close DYK to all new Gibraltar noms in order to try and stop DYK being turned into a publicity area. I don't really mind personally what happens but I think that it's not really in the spirit of DYK to have aricles on it that the sole purpose for them being there is to gain "points" in a competition. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is longstanding precedent for DYK noms earning points in competitions, though having a tangible prize does move this into new territory. If you are going to have such a holding area may I suggest that you have a speedy way out of it for editors who are volunteers and aren't competing for a trip to Gibraltar? I suspect that some of these editors are already in Gibraltar. ϢereSpielChequers 14:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not new territory. The British Museum offered £100 prizes for Featured Articles during the WP:GLAM/BM collaboration. Prioryman (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
One prize per Wikipedia, in books from their shop, to 5 language WPS in total, yes (I won the English WP one). There is also the Wikipedia:The Core Contest, for Amazon tokens. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Message to Yngvadottir

Yngvadottir, you who are so good at words. Would you please come up with an RFC that puts into words the 1,2,3, and 4 Gibraltar recommendations, at the very least. It's unfortunate enough that Anne has been affected by this. But I think it's possible that other editors are being targeted for Gibraltar output - they just aren't telling us. Or maybe they aren't aware of what's been discussed here. Without any agreement on any of this, without any plan of action, I'm concerned that this might be getting out of control. We need to get a handle on this. Maile66 (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but I am not a lawyer and can't remember the last time I looked at an RfC! I agree, we need one. If you start it, I can tweak it? Or is that not allowed? (I'm also approaching my bedtime.) Who else is around who is more familiar with doing this? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The reason I haven't started one, is because I've never even participated in one. It needs to be someone who knows what they're doing.Maile66 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That would rule me out! However, I have stuck a draft on your talkpage to be chewed over. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It's a step forward. Maile66 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed RFC for DYK GibraltarPediA

Please visit Proposed DYK GibraltarPediA RFC to offer suggestions on how to contstruct this RFC. Maile66 (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar holding area

Per Froggerlaura's suggestion, I have opened a Gibraltar holding area for related templates. At the bottom, below the Halloween holding area. Does anyone want to start moving Gibraltar templates to it? Maile66 (talk)

Admins please note that Synagogues of Gibraltar currently in queue 5 needs to be replaced and pulled to holding area and the Gibraltar related hook currently on the main page needs to be pulled as well. Froggerlaura ribbit 14:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't hurt to pull the as-yet-unreviewed Gibraltar articles into the holding area, also. Reviewers will figure it out, and promoters will also. Having all of them in that area would certainly give us a better grasp at what is currently on the nom page in this subject area. Maile66 (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Not too sure about putting unreviewed noms in there as then they are less likely to get a review that way. I think it might be best is that whoever is going to move them, should also review them at the same time so we can avoid something similar to the gook (headgear) miss happening again. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
We might need a temporary message in the article nom creation box so that nominators will know to put the articles in the holding area, something like "Any articles relating to Gibraltar or sponsored by Gibraltarpedia should be placed under the Gibraltar related articles heading." It could prevent articles from slipping by unnoticed. Froggerlaura ribbit 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Right off the bat, I counted thirteen noms with Gibraltar in the template title. Not all Gibraltar use the name in the title, like the Great Siege Tunnels. Maile66 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
All of these articles have a "GibraltarpediA" extra comment in their nomination template, they can be easily identified. Not all of them actually. Yazan (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I was actually just looking at when you go into the Edit screen from the whole page, and then do "Find", it came up with that many. I wouldn't have seen the comment section from there, but that's a good place to look.Maile66 (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We're going to have to decide what to do with them. I guess the options are:

    1. Moratorium on all Gibraltarpedia noms. No new noms, decline pending ones
    2. Moratorium on all new Gibraltarpedia noms. Process the already nominated ones.
    3. Run them as usual, allow new noms from Wikiproject

Personally, I think we should go with option 2 for for now. The Interior (Talk) 14:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with number 2. It would be unfair to chuck out noms that have been nominated before the moraorium came in. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this may now be moving a little too fast. Has someone set up an RfC? I think Victuallers has a point above - the articles that have been promoted went through DYK's normal process, and at least two people signed off on them. Yes, aberrations like the Gook (headgear) one do happen, and yes, there was the one case where Victuallers reviewed an article he had himself nominated. But otherwise, I think we should have some faith in contributors - even if they do want to win a trip to Gibraltar - and in our process. And I note that one of Panyd's main concerns in the original posting is something we deal with all the time at DYK, and will continue to deal with - having a whole bunch of articles on related topics. I don't believe many people have felt that's terrible unless it overwhelms DYK or individual hooks are boring - so the hooks should be spread out, as they have been, and required to be at least normally "hooky". So let me propose a 4th option:
4. Unless and until the result of an RfC changes the situation by demonstrating consensus for rejecting further Gibraltar DYKs, we require Victuallers not to review Gibraltar hooks and we add a second review requirement for all Gibraltar hooks.
This would further strain our reviewing capacity, but I'm sure many of us would be willing to help, and it would allay fears that one of these hooks gets only a superficial review, while the concerns about motives seem to require they get an unusually careful vetting (for, for example, notability and lack of peacock language). Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that with the amount we're going to go through, every reviewer should get a trip to Gibraltar! In all seriousness though you are correct as it did move too fast. I think that the propose restriction on Victuallers is sufficiant given the circumstances (although I wasn't quite a fan of his claim that DYK discussors "bullied" contributors) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I like The Interior's suggestions and would lean more toward options 1 or 2. Option 3 would make it seem like DYK is not taking the controversy seriously. I would lean more toward Option 1 than 2 to prevent what happened today when the Gibraltar noms ran (would reflect poorly on DYK). This issue has made a lot of people very angry, left and gone beyond the realm of Wikipedia, and as much as Victuallers would like to rationalize the project, it can't be swept under the rug now. Froggerlaura ribbit 17:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Option 3 is a definite no-no. As I stated previously I was more in favour of option 2 but option 1 may have a point as it has gone beyond Wikipedia and made the American news. I think the best way forward is to look at all of the noms and see if they were made by people part of the GibraltarpediA project. If they are, then maybe they should be rejected but for those not made by people part of the project, they should be reviewed as normal but in my opinion should be held back for a while until the heat is off. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is the purpose of a moratorium? Prioryman (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
To help DYK maintain its last shred of credibility and to not trigger anymore "remove DYK from mainpage NOW" arguments. Froggerlaura ribbit 17:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
So, in effect, you want to ban any DYKs related to Gibraltar for the foreseeable future? Prioryman (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Much as I regret the unfairness, yes it has come to that. If another project had the same issues, I would advocate topic-banning them too. This whole mess needs to be addressed and the issues ironed out before we stir the pot anymore by approving Gibraltar related DYKs. I would assume this would extend to other mainspace efforts (FA, ITN, OTD, FPic etc.) and that DYK has been pushed to the forefront due to our high turnover. Froggerlaura ribbit 17:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
So if I write a DYK on 13th century Gibraltarian history, which has no conceivable commercial or promotional benefit to anyone, you would ban it? Why? Prioryman (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree in seeing this as excessive. (By the way, point of information; the CNet article was picked up by Le Monde and at least one Spanish newspaper; I would not consider Fox News representative of US media, however.) I've relabeled my fourth proposal as number 4 for clarity. I believe careful scrutiny of the articles is warranted, but I don't think it would be either fair or a good idea to put them on ice indefinitely. For one thing, that assumes bad faith; for another, it makes us look as if there was something wrong with them. Instead I propose a second rigorous check to determine whether there is. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't imposing a more reasonable limit (say, 1 per day) on the number of Gibraltar-related hooks be a better approach than banning them? Projects to create lots of good quality new articles should be encouraged, they just shouldn't be allowed to dominate the main page in an inappropriate way (and COIs need to be appropriately managed, so I agree Victuallers shouldn't be reviewing Gibraltar-related hooks). --Tango (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
A second rigorous check would be great (which is why they should be separated from other noms) but it will probably have to happen at the admin level for it to happen at all. I agree with Prioryman that an article with no apparent commercial/promotional interest shouldn't in theory be banned, but this argument is no longer about the articles. In the current climate (significant press, vehement arguments on both sides), the mere mention of anything associated with Gibraltar, no matter how innocuous, in mainspace will draw criticism. It's mostly about the intentions and ethics of Gibraltarpedia and not a reflection on the individual editors, but until the two can be separated it's probably wise not to inflame things further. I'm not saying put them on ice forever, but I think we should give the articles a rest for a short time at least or limit the number. Froggerlaura ribbit 18:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Why at the admin level? Plenty of experienced and wise Wikipedians - and DYK regulars - aren't admins. I understand the articles have already been pulled from queues and preps if applicable, and placed in a special holding area; the question is now what to do with them. This has already retarded their appearance on the main page and taking time to double-vet them will further slow their appearance. We were already limiting the number appearing on any given day, as we always do with clumps of related articles. I don't know whether there are other editors people feel should not review these in addition to Victuallers, but a stiff second review will help make sure they pass muster in any case. (I'm suggesting this methodology not simply and solely because we need to make sure these articles pass muster in every way, but also because we have an ongoing problem with hasty quid pro quo reviews.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Yngvadottir, that a ban is slightly excessive, but something must be done to ensure the DYK review process is being done in honesty. I've counted at least 7 hooks (of those that made it to the main page) that have been reviewed by someone with a clear COI (either Victuallers, or someone else who is significantly involved in the project). Some of the reviews were erroneous and were called on by other editors here, before they were promoted. Even if done with the best of intentions, this is simply inappropriate. I think a holding area, where nominations can have significant independent scrutiny is certainly in order. Yazan (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Yazan. The Gibraltar related hooks clearly will need rigourous checking before promoting and a limit would stop the page being swamped. I also would propose that if any Gibraltar related hooks are reviewed by anyone who has a COI with the project, then those should be classed as null and void and the hook should then be re-reviewed by someone who is not involved with the project as a member. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Why do all these articles need to be nominated for DYK anyway? Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Why shouldn't they be? DYK is open to all comers, right? Prioryman (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't say they shouldn't be, I asked why they should be. For whose benefit is DYK run? Editors or readers? Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Both. But the problem arises for two linked reasons: Gibraltarpedia was presented explicitly as a DYK project, and as I understand it editors have been encouraged to compete to produce the most DYKs. However, we frequently have bunches of DYK noms on related topics; see Panyd's original post for another example unrelated to Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia, and we frequently have such groups over longer periods - I note we again have lots of racehorses articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Both, obviously. But I fail to see how it benefits any reader to keep articles about Gibraltar out of DYK. The whole point of DYK is to highlight interesting, informative facts to showcase new articles that meet the DYK criteria. If Gibraltar-related articles meet the criteria, they should be accepted for DYK just like any other articles. Bear in mind that many of the articles that have already been produced on this topic for DYK have come from native Gibraltarians. Imagine how this is going to look to them - that because of Wikipedia's dysfunctional politics, they face being banned from contributing reviewed articles on their own city. Prioryman (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Option 4 looks judicious - no reviewing by related parties, particular eye out for peacocks, otherwise business (almost) as usual; doubt many readers know or particularly care about wikipolitics, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Gibraltarpedia controversy has attracted massive negative publicity to Wikipedia, much of it focused on the promotion of multiple Gibraltar related DYKs. The negative coverage has spread to many of the world's most prominent media sources including Le Monde (largest newspaper in France),[1] El Pais (largest newspaper in Spain),[2] Slate Magazine,[3] PC World,[4] Fox News, and others listed at Gibraltarpedia#Controversy. One article calls the scandal the biggest threat ever to Wikipedia's brand integrity. The issue led Wikimedia UK to announce late this afternoon that Victuallers (Roger Bamkin) was no longer a trustee.[5] In light of all this, it would be prudent to place a hold on all Gibraltar DYKs for a few days and see how the dust settles on this. To continue running Gibraltar DYKs at this time would add fuel to the media firestorm and potentially cause further damage to Wikipedia's brand integrity. Let's wait a few days and then revisit the matter after the full story has been considered. Cbl62 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I hardly think anything should change on the basis that Fox News wrote some garbled account about something; serene indifference might be a more reasonable response; things should be, as ever, resolved by internal discussion not extraneous noise, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with that Maculosae. Regardless of one's opinion of Fox News, the negative coverage is not limited to that outlet. Look at the LeMonde article or El Pais or Computerworld. This is causing a huge black eye to Wikipedia. Of course it's appropriate to take a step back to avoid damaging Wikipedia's credibility. I'm not advocating a ban of any sort, simply putting further Gibraltar DYKs on hold for a few days until we see how this whole thing shakes out. Strikes me as the prudent course. Cbl62 (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
"l'important est ce qu'il fait, avec quelles sources". Amen, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And who gets hurt by the feeding frenzy

As the blacklisted contributor, I don't have much to say except thanks for the lovely banner slapped on my meticulously sourced Synagogues of Gibraltar article. I would have appreciated earlier notification of the controversy. I don't keep up with the very disappointing politics of Wikipedia. As I've said before, the standards for DYK vary wildly. My articles have been singled out for intense scrutiny. I just started earlier this year, and now I have to prove myself all over again. I don't think so. As a parting comment, a matter that's probably trivial: The administrators should routinely notify contributors if their article does go to DYK (I wasn't notified in the case of Gibraltar Port Authority.) Anne (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Without doing this on an RFC, it's taking the wrong people down. Anne is, as I said at the beginning, is a really good writer we should want to keep around. Not punish them for writing about a topic that became controversial after the articles were written. Somewhere way back up at the beginning of this stuff, under the original section, said (I'm paraphrasing) that this is not about the individual editors, but about the project and its leader. This whole subject needs to go over to RFC. In the meantime, putting articles under a holding area hurts no one, anymore than putting anything else in the holding area. It just gives them their own space. I have no answer why you weren't notified about the DYK on Port Authority, since others in that same block seem to have been notified. Only the admin who did that can answer that one. This whole issue needs to be sorted out on an RFC and resolved. Maile66 (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't want to see Anne go over this. I suggest, for now, moving to non-Gibraltar topis. You did a good series on World War monuments before, I'm sure there's something similar available. I could bore you with a list of dozens of Indonesians who need articles, for example. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Damn. Anne, I'm sorry :-( I think it's time we decided what to do about those articles so we can let the editors who worked on them know. I'll even volunteer to be one of the extra-careful scrutinizers if my Proposal #4 is accepted - if you'll have me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I, too, don't want to see new editors discouraged. I am not advocating a ban on Gibraltar DYKs, only a temporary hold to see how the controversy shakes out. Whatever issues there may be with conflicts of interest need to be sorted out, but we should do what we can to avoid discouraging new (and old) editors from contributing their time and energy to the project. I hope Anne can be patient with us and not be discouraged. Cbl62 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
How do you expect anyone involved with the Gibraltarpedia project not to be discouraged when their articles are being quarantined or sent to AfD, and they are being subjected to bogus accusations of "corruption"? This affair has been an example of the Wikipedia community at its very worst, frankly. It was supposed to be a showcase for Wikipedia's ability to expand the world's knowledge and bring people together. Instead, the witch-hunt and wild accusations that have been thrown around here and on other pages have shown how utterly disfunctional Wikipedia's community has become. After the success of Monmouthpedia, numerous localities were keen to become the "next Monmouth" - but you can bet they'll have second thoughts after seeing how Gibraltar is being treated. This ridiculous nontroversy is simply reinforcing Wikipedia's reputation for flakiness and unreliability. The community is prone to occasional eruptions of mass hysteria but this is by far the worst case I've seen in my eight years as an editor, and potentially the most damaging long-term. Prioryman (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
How do you expect those editors not being remunerated for their contributions to Wikipedia to feel? It was an even playing field when nobody was being paid, but it appears that the rules have changed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is being "remunerated for their contributions". We're talking about prizes for the best contributors, not payments for a job of work. As others have pointed out, material prizes have been offered in previous collaborations with institutions, with no controversy whatsoever. Where were your objections to the British Museum offering £100 prizes for featured articles? Are you going to now going to denounce the editors who won those prizes, demand that they hand them back, campaign for the five articles to be stripped of featured status? There is nothing in Gibraltarpedia that has not previously been done with zero controversy. The present controversy is being driven by ignorance and manufactured outrage. Prioryman (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you ought to update yourself, and consider the effect on those of us who aren't being remunerated for our contributions. I assume you know who I'm talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
As I said, nobody is being remunerated for their contributions, so the question doesn't arise. Prioryman (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes they are, even if indirectly. Malleus Fatuorum 13:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop with the BS, Malleus. No one is being remunerated, as anyone can be involved in the project. That means that it is exactly the The Core Contest and a number of other contests in the past that have offered prizes. Remuneration would only matter if only certain people were eligible to be a part of the content. That is clearly not true here, meaning that this project should be treated just like every other contest, like the Wikicup as well.

I completely agree that extra scrutiny should be given to these nominations so that we don't get COI editors accepting the noms. But so long as they are reviewed by independent people and found to meet the DYK criteria, they should be let through. Anything less than this would mean that DYK is being biased against certain contributors. SilverserenC 20:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The BS is entirely on your side of the argument Silver seren, as I am of course talking specifically about Roger Bamford. Time to get real. Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Then the issue is only with anything nominated by Roger. All of the volunteers involved in Gibralterpedia have nothing to do with his actions and they have only been trying to create new articles for Wikipedia. SilverserenC 20:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Given that we should try to spread out our hooks, can I move my own hook about Jarl André Storbæk from Prep2 to Prep4 or Prep1, and replace it with another European sports bio, so that we don't get two hooks about Norwegian football on the same day? Mentoz86 (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Having a second look at it, I see that there are two football hooks in Queue 1, so it might be better to replace the Panajotis Dimitriadis-hook with another European bio-hook, and move Dimitriadis at the end of the queue, but that would require admin-attention. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused. An examination of the current contents of Queue 1 shows (in order):
  1. A Pakistani tomb
  2. A British Paralympic swimmer
  3. A Syrian town
  4. An American politician
  5. A British advertising campaign
  6. An American university library
  7. The Dimitriadis hook
  8. An American-based retail chain
The last edit to the queue was about 3 hours before your first post, so we should be looking at the same information. Where is the second football hook?--Allen3 talk 12:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The fifth is an advertising campaign about football. I didn't realise that it was an advertising campaign, I only noticed the football clubs names. I guess that's how it is, we notice different things :) Mentoz86 (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
To answer your original question, it's dicey to be moving your own hooks around. Best to ask here on the WT:DYK page; usually, someone will oblige if it's a clear conflict. Having single Norweigian football hooks in two different prep areas on the same day is not so bad (not great, but not awful), though if one would run during the Norweigian night I can see an argument for moving it out. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

GibraltarPediA Options

Victuallers has voluntarily agreed to recuse himself from any DYK involvement with Gibraltar-related articles.

As per discussion on my page mentioned above, two courses of action have been considered. For your consideration, please review and offer opinions on them at GibraltarPediA Options Maile66 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

On the front page right now

Please tell me if any credits were given for the DYKs now on the front page, or, am I the only one who did not get the credit for Yertsevo yet? Thanks in advance. Poeticbent talk 21:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any did, as this dyk batch had to be updated manually. I think the toolserver was having problems earlier. Chris857 (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Yngvadottir has fixed it now, I think. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, my apologies, there was a glitch and I saw the update was an hour late so I updated manually. I have now given you all your credits - I hope! - but haven't yet done the article talkpages. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK? Nomination Review

Can someone please review this Did You Know? nomination of mine--Template:Did you know nominations/Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections? Thank you very much. I recently fixed everything that needed to be fixed and I reviewed the necessary number of DYK? nominations myself. Futurist110 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? And for the record, I now reviewed this DYK? nomination myself--Template:Did you know nominations/Purshottam Solanki. Futurist110 (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A different proposal re: GibraltarPedia RFC

I think we might need an amendment to DYK rules based on this (see above). Please work out a proposal and put it to vote if you agree: "No corporate advertising allowed in DYK, period." If editor is found out to be acting toward a financial reward for DYK submission, he/she should be barred from the DYK nom page like a drunkard from a community center. Anyone's free to write about anything of value in mainspace (no limitations there), but the DYK hook is a reward in itself meant for the volunteers, and not a placement secured by the present rules, to be exchanged for a stuffed envelope. I have been involved in EthicalWiki controversy, and I regret that nobody made me aware of what it meant to be giving it a green-light at a DYK nomination page. I found out what it was only after the fact, which was not OK. Poeticbent talk 01:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I copied this topic over from where it had been posted on the Proposed GibraltarPedia RFC. It's broader than just Gibraltar, but thought some might like to comment on what Poeticbent has to say. Maile66 (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - as a good start. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. For ideas and further inspiration regarding possible content of the suggested disclaimer, see Why, How? by the UNESCO & World Radio and Television Council. Quote from the Foreword: "public service plays an irreplaceable role in providing citizens with information, education and entertainment free of commercial, State or political influences. " — Poeticbent talk 17:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – proposal is perfectly in line with WP:NOPAY policy. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Promoting admin?

If there's an admin around who can promote some of the prep areas to queues, that would be most helpful. All the prep areas are full, and there's only one queue that is. It would be nice to be able to get the backlog down, and be able to assemble more prep sets. Many thanks. I'll be posting a list of old nominations that need reviewing in a little while: what we have approved isn't enough to fill all the empty slots. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I reached around wider. Rcsprinter (orate) @ 16:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Prep areas

Just now, I made my first attempt at filling a queue from a prep area; Orlady says that I avoided substantial mistakes. I'm confused, however — why do we need prep areas? Are they commonly filled by non-admins? Are they often manipulated while they're being prepared? I don't understand why we can't protect them and then rename them Queue 7, Queue 8, and Queue 9. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Prep areas offer non-admins the chance to fix any errors without having to go through the hoops of bringing a mistake here and asking for someone else to do it; it lets a bunch of hooks be proofed in advance so they're (theoretically) sound before being protected. GRAPPLE X 03:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, non-admins commonly fill the preps; and also do the bulk of fixing errors in the hooks (like omission of the "that" and grammatical infelicities). And it's useful to have hooks stay in prep for a while not only to increase the chance such problems will be noticed, but so that they can be reshuffled to have a better balance of topics and allow for last-minute requests for something to run on a particular day. Also it adds a separate layer of checking having a different person promote the hook to the prep area and then move the set to a queue. (At least, this is how I understand the theory; sometimes in practice things get rushed :-) ) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Never realised that this kind of thing happened; I figured that things in prep areas stayed unedited except in cases of documented errors with the hooks or cases in which people realised that the hook never should have been approved in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
DYK's quite a big team effort :-) And the nomination page is so huge, frequently something like a grammar error in a hook doesn't get noticed until it's in the smaller setting of the prep set. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Shrubs in Prep 2

I just promoted Shrub (drink) to Prep 2, but giving it a second thought: Is this the kind of misleading hook that we should save for April Fools? I think it is a good hook that can go any day of the year, but maybe the rest of the Wikipedia-community has a different opinion about it? Mentoz86 (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a bad hook, but nowhere near interesting/weird/misleading enough for April Fools in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It should be pulled for now. The article doesn't even have a lead and I've tagged it for that reason. Ryan Vesey 21:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I edited the article to give it a more lead-like beginning, and I removed the tag. The article's style is odd (it started out like a disambiguation page), but that doesn't disqualify it from DYK. --Orlady (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I must admit that I struggled with how to open this article because of the fact that a shrub can refer to two related but different mixed drinks—one being liquor mixed with citrus and the other being any drink (alcoholic or otherwise) made with a type of vinegared syrup—and can refer the syrup itself from which the vinegar-type drink is made. I also said to myself that the opening read like a dab page and was waiting to see if someone would point that out, but I also felt that the bullet points made the destinctions clearer. And while I appreciate Orlady's efforts to make the intro statement less dab-like it was not an accurate statement because the middle point refers to a syrup and not a drink and so I have reverted the introductory statement to what it was pending further discussion. I also considered whether perhaps the original English shrub should have its own page and the vinegar drink and syrup together on their own page, but when I considered that an article like Pudding deals with both the sweet and savory versions as well as the baked versus the creamy—all truly very different yet related foods that have been given the same name—I figured leaving the article to describe the 3 related "shrubs" made sense too. I suppose I could just take out the bullets and make it one opening paragraph, like this:
In terms of mixed drinks, a shrub may refer to two different but related acidulated beverages: One being a fruit liqueur that was popular in 17th and 18th century England, typically made with rum or brandy mixed with sugar and the juice or rinds of citrus fruit and the other being a cocktail or soft drink that was popular during America's colonial era, made by mixing drinking vinegar syrup with spirits, water, or carbonated water. The term "shrub" has also been used to describe the sweetened vinegar-based syrup, also known as drinking vinegar, from which the latter drink is made.
...but again I think the bullets make the distinctions clearer, no? To me a paragraph like the one above seems kind of cumbersome, but maybe there is no better option. I'm more than open to suggestions for rewording. As for the hook, it is a bit cheesy to say the least, but I figured it was better than the "...that X is Y" type of intros one so often sees. I agree that it is not April Fools worthy, but I think it might be enough to make one go "huh?" and click on the link to check it out. Again, suggestions for better hooks are welcome. All of your input is appreciated. --Marchije•speak/peek 23:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Based on those comments, I tried once again to reword the lead section of the article. By avoiding phases such as "one being" and by creating some short paragraphs, I think that cumbersomeness is avoided. However, you definitely need to check the wording! (The hook is great, IMO.) --Orlady (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What do do when there is a non-free image within a DYK article

Chess in Armenia has a non-free image of File:Yerevan Chess House.jpg that I have nominated for deletion. Should we remove the image or pull the hook until discussion is finished? Ryan Vesey 21:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the Armenian law first. It says the following:
Where does it say that photo of that building can't be used here? It's not used commercially on Wikipedia, am I right? --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 21:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It's under a free license, on flickr too. This is a freedom of panorama issue? Secretlondon (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, no FOP in Armenia. Ryan Vesey 21:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Two problems. First, for Wikipedia (and Commons') purposes, all images must be allowed for commercial use to be considered free. In addition it is not allowed when the work of architecture is the main subject of the image (or so it seems). The wording that I took my second statement from is a bit confusing but it is clear that it can't be used for commercial purposes. In any case, this discussion should take place on commons. Ryan Vesey 21:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It's under CC-BY on flickr - you argument is whether that is possible in Armenia? The rules on freedom of panorama (which is what this is) vary from country to country. The people who are experts on this live on commons. Secretlondon (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, total flickrwashing, it is nominated for deletion on commons. The reason I posted here is that the image should either be removed from the article or the hook should be pulled until the discussion on commons finishes. I have no preference but we shouldn't put an article on the main page that contains copyrighted images. Ryan Vesey 21:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
This is in Queue 1 (when commenting on a hook in a queue, it's helpful to provide a link). Since the image is not proposed to be used on the main page and the issue with it is not very clear-cut, I don't see this as something that we would pull a hook for. Others may disagree, of course. However, I swapped two images in the article so this one is no longer featured at the top of the article. It's not obvious to me that it's even particularly important for the article. --Orlady (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Toakai Teitoi

Template:Did you know nominations/Toakai Teitoi The author of this was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. And now the article itself has been deleted. Perhaps we could remove this template from the nominations page. Maile66 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. It was a simple matter of closing the nomination as "rejected". --Orlady (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Spurious claim- Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University

The article claims that the Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University is the "only university for the handicapped in the world", but I'm aware of at least one other institution- Gallaudet University- that caters to the handicapped, and I'm sure many others exist as well. The claim is ludicrious and Wikipedia suffers for prominently displaying it on its main page.--209.2.224.195 (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (Simfan34)

Gallaudet is specifically for the deaf rather than for the handicapped in all categories - and according to our article, admits hearing students to graduate programs. The claim in this article has 2 references apart from the institution itself, one in German (does say that), and one in Hindi. If you're aware of any other tertiary institutions exclusively for the handicapped, please put them on the talkpage of the article. Especially since this was on DYK a year ago, that's a better place to discuss the matter. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Queues are empty

Just a note to say that following the last update, now all queues are empty. An admin is needed to move the finished preps there! Yazan (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done one days worth. Do you think we need to go back to 7 hooks per slot? Are we running out of material? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I filled prep 3 just a while ago, and it was quite an ordeal to find varied hooks. 7 hooks may not be a bad idea. There are only 23 approved hooks, and several of those don't have "full" or serious reviews. Yazan (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I say we stick to 8 hooks for a while, and instead use of time reviewing a lot of nominations so that we can get rid of some backlog. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
If we get reviewers, that will work. If we don't, we won't have much choice. Right now, there are 24 unfilled slots in the prep areas with 24 approved nominations (really 22, since two actually require re-reviews). Plus, there are three empty queues for another 24 unfilled slots. We have 172 unapproved nominations. Unfortunately, the rate of reviews has declined lately, and unless it picks up we won't have a choice but to decrease the number of hooks. As Yazan points out, once we're down below 20 hooks, it becomes difficult to put together a balanced set, and we end up using good lead or quirky nominations just to put together a reasonable hook set. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
One thing I think is that if DYK insists on "full" reviews, that would put casual reviewers off as it is much easier to do a simple yes, no or maybe on the main things rather than going through every little detail. I think we should assume a bit of good faith if someone reviews and just leaves good to go. Personally I usually just put "Date, length and hook all OK. Good to go" as I think that covers all the main bases. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
We walk a tightrope with requiring people to do quid pro quo reviews. On the one hand, as you say, we don't want to put people off. On the other, we rely on the reviewers to catch things; although the promoters and the admins who move prep sets to queues are a further two pairs of eyes, it's altogether best if things are caught at the review stage, when they can best be fixed, and promoters and prep-to-queue movers are under pressure and have 8 (or more) hooks to examine at a time. Your short version, for example, doesn't say whether you checked for overly close paraphrasing, which we've been in trouble over in the past when it's slipped through, or for adequate referencing; in the last set I moved from prep to queue, one article lacked a ref on one (single-paragraph) section, which I was luckily able to fix with a ref used elsewhere in the article. Also I wish more reviewers would speak up when the article's English is hard to read. We don't expect masterfully limpid prose, but basic grammar (things like verb agreement issues that are not covered by English variation and lack of articles), and such poor translation that it makes no sense in English are not AGF, they're either SOFIXIT or raise the issue at the review and work with the article writer on fixing it. I've seen some reviewers politely raise such issues, sometimes with a specific quotation that gave them pause, and we need more of that. Waving an article through, particularly if that means you only skimmed the prose, is asking for trouble; at a minimum, it means it has to be fixed in a hurry before or after the article hits the Main Page, and it makes it far less likely the article writer can then help and learn how to deal with such issues in their next article. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Granted it doesn't cover all the bases however I think that we should AGF on people who do review that they have done it. I know that if I see a problem I bring it up on the review (example: the until futher notice holding section) and I imagine the same occures with others. But, as you point out, that's why we have people checking when promoting as a second line of defense to stop errors getting through. I suppose we could always require 2 green reviews before promoting to make sure it is caught at the first stage but I think that would just slow the process down. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing needed: Hook for Oct 2 (special occasion)

Time value: A DYK special-occasion (Oct 2) hook was nominated several days go (Here its own Page, and Here on Template page). Tomorrow, there will be only 5 days until the special occasion (Oct 2). The hook still has not been reviewed, although it was nominated it several days ago. I hope that someone can review it in time for the special occasion. I think it should be smooth to review -- I am the nom, and my DYK nominations seldom have major issues. Many thanks in advance -- Presearch (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we can use the fair use text quote on the main page. Ryan Vesey 21:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems alright per Moonriddengirl. Ryan Vesey 22:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, good, I'll assume the current hook is OK unless I hear otherwise. Many thanks. And nomination still awaits a review. --Presearch (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done Reviewer no longer needed. -- Presearch (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar Dam

Is it okay to get this hook on Queue 5 (Prep 3), rather than Queue 3 (Prep 1), please? I am hoping to get more clicks before bedtime in Gibraltar and the UK, and it will be daytime at Gibraltar Dam in California, too. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Clicks? Clicks? Clicks? FYI, for anyone noticing GibraltarPediA_Options, only one person so far has voted in favor of a moratorium on the subject matter hooks. And that one person in favor of the moratorium makes me cock my head and wonder, because they wrote a Gibraltar article that's in the holding area. It seems that DYK-ers will go along with the special holding area and closer scrutiny on reviews, but see no reason for a moratorium. Maile66 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but his article is not part of Gibraltarpedia. ;) Yazan (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I know that, Yazan. I'm the one who reviewed and approved the nom, the one who keeps mentioning that it's in California. But the idea of placing this when it's daytime in Gibraltar is to get clicks from those who think it's about the location of Gibraltar. That's all. Just that DYK editors aren't necessarily as edgy about that idea as the above controversy would lead one to believe. Just in case anyone was antsy about this. That, and nothing more.Maile66 (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
My comment was actually in reference to the user you mentioned (that one person in favor of the moratorium makes me cock my head and wonder, because they wrote a Gibraltar article that's in the holding area.), not this article. ;) Yazan (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for mentioning that. Good point. Maile66 (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, Yazan, maybe you thought I meant a different nom and author. I was referring to Gibraltar F.C.. Seems it has the GibraltarPediA banner on its talk page, and it was put there by the author who later voted for a moratorium on the project. Maile66 (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No I was actually talking about the same person. He probably added the GibraltarPediA banner in good faith as a relevant banner only, because a) he's not part of the declared contributors to the GibraltarPediA project. b) the articles he edits are mostly about football (and sports in general), so to him I think this was more about football, than Gibraltar. Yazan (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, clicks, and I mean clicks from MainPage, i.e. general traffic to the wiki, not necessarily DYKsters. --PFHLai (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. I moved Gibraltar Dam from P1 to P3, moved the displaced hook from P3 to P2, since the hooks in P3 would have hit the main page in their nighttime if moved to P1 or P4, and added a new hook to P1 to replace the departing Dam (one from New Zealand, which will run during the NZ daytime). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, BlueMoonset. Have a wonderful day! --PFHLai (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Image copyrights on Gemstones of Pakistan

I'm reviewing Gemstones of Pakistan, which has some really beautiful photos of gems. This is the Hook image at Commons. Could someone knowledgeable about image licensing comment on the template. I believe the images are above-average and any of them would make a nice lead hook image. But I'm not familiar enough about licensing. Thanks for your time. Maile66 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The photo licenses appear to be acceptable. The ones that are not user generated have Commons OTRS ticket information and the license has been verified and checked with OTRS. Froggerlaura ribbit 14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Got it done. Maile66 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Old nominations needing reviews

Here's the usual list of older hooks that need a re-review or a first review. It would be very helpful if the multi-article hooks could be taken care of; I think it's far preferable than to have them be split into single hooks, which results in, say, seven hooks on similar things rather than a single unified hook.

There are also plenty of unreviewed hooks in the September 9 through 11 range to be taken care of. Many thanks to all who review. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Failure

Hello,

someone changed the blurb of Karl Schneider (activist) without permission. It should definitely include the German word in brackets as it does not make any sense without. Also why was the picture removed? I find this more than ridiculous. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The picture was removed because we can only have one picture per set, and the promoting editor deemed the picture inferior to other options (and I agree). The photo adds nothing to the hook, and has no relation with the subject matter, and isn't even in the article.
As for the hook, removing the German makes it read better (it had several grammatical mistakes), and makes it more interesting and hooky, and invites people to go to the article to discover what it means. No "permission" is needed for changes of this nature, as the DYK guidelines specifically say:
A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. Watch the suggestions page to ensure that no issues have been raised about your hook; if you do not respond to them, your hook may not be featured at all.
Cheers! Yazan (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
All this being correct, including the German "(heilen)" as a translation of cure would make the bitter pun obvious to people not knowing that much German. Picture: a hook can be quirky OR pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but heilen has several meanings. An English reader would think that it has something to do with "greeting", but here it is not the case. It should state "cure" in brackets. Also I would like to know who changed this blurb. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This is simply ridiculous. You need to ask me if the blurb is ok to avoid such failures. This is not the first time this happened.--Kürbis (✔) 09:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't watch it, but you would find it in the history, and it was discussed above. - I think that anotification of the author in the many cases where changes are needed is practically impossible , - I try to watch my hooks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I would not see an easy solution to word for people who don't get the double meaning of "Heil" understood not as "hail!" but as "cure!", that Schneider responded to the latter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but you are talking nonsense. How can I "watch" my hooks if this was changed directly in the preparation area, and changed without my permission? Also what was the problem with "(cure)"? Why was it removed? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
So I talk nonsense. I watch all prep areas and all queues for changes all the time. (Of course, I look rather when I have a hook there. For this change, I looked and thought it was easier to grasp, so more attractive to click, so saw no reason to interfer.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It isn't YOUR hook, you don't OWN the article. Please, try to be more civil with other editors who are just trying to help. The hook you presented had several grammatical issues (the article itself had several issues too), and per DYK regulations (please read above) no such permission is needed, because things happen very quickly here. If you understand the hook, then you understand what a pun means. Adding the German word, would take the piss out of the whole pun. Readers can simply go to the article and find out for themselves. Simply saying in response to Hail Hitler, reveals that there's an interesting pun, and that's just enough to hook people. Yazan (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I plead guilty to fixing the hook, but I fail to see the failure: diff. I'm afraid it made little sense as it was. The reviewer should have pointed that out. I'm sorry they didn't; I know it's disconcerting when one's hook gets changed after being promoted (some of mine have been made less effective in my eyes), but in this case I'm sorry to say it needed surgery. If I hadn't fixed it, someone else would have, or would have asked here. I hope it didn't reduce the number of hits; I suspect rather the reverse though. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Queue 5

"... Gibraltar Dam ... 14,500 acre feet (17,900 dam³) of water ..." What is a dam cubed? Art LaPella (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It would make far more sense to use units that people actually use, ie 18 million m³ than confuse them and send them to look something up. Kevin McE (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It came from the convert template, so maybe somebody should ask at their talk page. I thought it was something used in the UK, but if you don't use it either ... Art LaPella (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
But it has gone up on tha MP anyway with a unit that is not in widespread use anywhere... Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
All the more reason you and the Template talk:Convert people should come to a consensus for next time. It will happen every time somebody uses "acre foot" in the convert template. Art LaPella (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
And admins at the main page simply wash their hands of the requirement to be informative? The documentation at that template has no mention of either acre feet or of decametres. Kevin McE (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Both are in the full list of volume measures here. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine, I asked your question for you. Art LaPella (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you: Yngvadottir, because I had overlooked that link to the full list, and Art for framing a question while I was investigating on a sandbox what might happen. However, it would appear that the template doesn't select anything, and editors can choose whatever obscure unit they wish for the out_unit field. This is not a template issue except in that the template is permissive: if the editor had decided to render acre feet into hogsheads or firkins, they could have. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
If he overrides the default. Why did they choose that default? Art LaPella (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Default is m³: enter {{convert|14500|acre feet}} and you'll get 14,500 acre-feet (17,900,000 m3) Kevin McE (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. Art LaPella (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It happens occasionally ;@) Kevin McE (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Helen Turner on Prep 4

I'm not sure it's that good an idea to highlight someone's failures and futility on Wikipedia's MainPage. Not very nice. Really, hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. Can we find something more positive (maybe her four bronze medals at various European Championships?), and perhaps save this for use on her birthday (October 15th), please? --PFHLai (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It bothered me a bit, too; I probably shouldn't have promoted it as is. I've changed it, and went with the suggested four bronze medals, which is inline cited. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Help converting single hook to triple hook

I want to switch from a single hook to a triple hook on Template:Did you know nominations/San Pedro Springs Park, and could probably use some formatting help on the switch. Thanks. Maile66 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Maile66 (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltapedia DYKs

I have semi-automatically created a list of all Gibraltapedia DYKs.

Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA/DYKs

There appear to be some potential problems with back-scratching in these DYks, but I believe that this is par for the course. I expect that the patterns here also happened for Monmouthpedia and Paralympics without complaint. I can re-run this report for those if anyone wants me to. I dont mean to suggest that this 'back scratching' is necessarily a bad thing provided the quality is upheld. Anyway this thread isnt to talk about the past, but looking for problems if they exist and consider solutions. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that there was a further issue at Great Siege Tunnels (since it was discussed on this page) that has led to the nomination being rejected. But otherwise, we've been discussing what we want to do going forward here. I invite anyone who hasn't yet, to comment there; there's also a further proposal above at A different proposal re: GibraltarPedia RFC. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3

The sound of the 52-Hertz whale has been speeded up ten times, according to the article. So it sounds like 520 hertz (about an octave above middle C). That isn't explained in the hook or the caption, and it says "its unique sound (listen)". So that will confuse anyone who knows what 52 hertz sounds like (more than two octaves below middle C). Art LaPella (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've notified Braincricket, who is the author. I'm the one who reviewed the hook, and totally missed that aspect. Thanks for catching. Maile66 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes thanks for catching it. We could tweak the hook to make that clear, but I'm not sure how to do that at this point. Maybe something as simple as (listen, speeded up ten times). We could also scrap the sound clip altogether, although I don't often see sound clips in DYK and I thought this would be a good opportunity to include one. Braincricket (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
my edit Art LaPella (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Queue 4

gemstones from Pakistan

"... that since 1979, after Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Peshawar is the only direct market for both gemstones from Pakistan (example pictured) and Afghanistan?"

This could use a couple of tweaks: that since 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Peshawar is the only direct market for gemstones (example pictured) from both Pakistan and Afghanistan?"

And btw, why is the edit request page protected so that nobody except admins can request an edit when admins can edit anyway? I'm curious. Awien (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind my question about [7], can we just get the hook sentence straightened out, please? Awien (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ERRORS#Gemstones from Pakistan Art LaPella (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Risky connection on Wikipedia

I was looking at the image on the nom for Robert John Sholl and wondering who this user Multichill is who is offering free uploads. My anti-virus blocked the "User:Multichill" connection as risky. Thought I should mention that. Maile66 (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Multichill is a member of Dutch Wiki and has an account on Commons that categorizes the public domain or "free" uploads by date. I'm not sure why your antivirus would have labeled the link as risky (mine doesn't) but it may be due to the page relying on a bot script that the antivirus determined was suspicious. For the nom, the source info on that picture should not be "unknown" as the uploader got it from somewhere, website or name of book if it is a scanned image is needed at a minimum even if the original photographer is unknown. Froggerlaura ribbit 03:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I had posted this over on Village Pump, and someone with the exact same browser as I have checked it, and it was not blocked for them. So, it's probably just my anti-virus being zealous. I agree that the uploader got the image from somewhere. You can see the nominator's response to the copyright issue on the template. Maile66 (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion proposal for GibraltarpediA

FYI - yet another discussion site on the subject: Deletion proposal for GLAM/GibraltarpediA.

Maile66 (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Template problem

DYK template Robert John Sholl - something went awry in the last few edits. Froggerlaura's comments, and mine below hers, are not showing up. Can anyone fix this, please? Maile66 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone's faulty signature broke the template. I'll leave a note for the user about how to fix their signature. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Maile66 (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hooks with Pictures

Is it common and acceptable for a hook that was approved with a picture to be promoted without the picture? Consider Template:Did you know nominations/Gandhi as a Political Strategist which is now at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. Granted, the hook doesn't need the picture, but I feel like some level of discussion should have been taken. On another note, can an admin ensure that the hook ends up in queue 4 per the discussion on the nomination page? Ryan Vesey 15:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that this isn't a one time thing. I've seen it happen multiple times before. Ryan Vesey 15:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems ok to me - though I know it is annoying when it happens to your own noms (as has happened to me). There are more hooks approved with pics than slots for pics, and some of the pics are either rather boring, or unclear at the tiny DYK size. We wouldn't want a pile of noms backed up as they wait for slots with a picture. When the pic seems essential (but is it ever, really?) a moan about the matter here is appropriate I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Over the past few days, about 40% of nominations have images - if we run eight hooks at a time, then this is 12.5% of them running with an image. So about two-thirds of the images are going to go unused.
If memory serves, there used to be a lot more imageless hooks, so "relegating" them may be more common than it used to. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Prep 2, special occasion hook, and lead placement (now Queue 4)

The Prep 2 set (since moved to Queue 4) was built without the special occasion hook that had been saved for that particular time slot. (It's all too easy to miss the special occasion hooks since they don't show up on the queue page.) It's the one mentioned in the "Hooks with pictures" section above: a book about Gandhi set to run on Gandhi's birthday starting at 1:30 in the afternoon local time (October 2).

When I realized what had happened, I didn't feel I could demote the lead hook that had already been set in place -- a German music-related hook, with a picture of a related church interior -- so the best I could do was put the saved hook second, and move one of the later hooks to an open space in another prep set. But I was wondering then, before I had to be away from the computer for many hours, and I'm wondering now, after I was asked about my decision on my talk page, whether we should swap the two hooks and let Gandhi have the pictured hook.

The next special occasion hook will be running at the same time as Prep 2 (soon Queue 4) will be, only exactly one day later: a German music-related hook, with a picture that again includes a church interior (though this time filled with people, the choir in question, rather than empty). Under the circumstances, would it be appropriate to decide now to make it a lead hook, while swapping the two in Prep 2 to show Gandhi? I'd be interested in people's thoughts. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ghandi to Q3? Twinkle Toes can wait 24 hours. --70.31.12.229 (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The request was for it to start at 13:30 India time, rather than run from 5:30 to 13:30. It's now in the correct set. I also don't feel we should pull any hooks back out of prep (which is what we'd have to do) to make room for it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Update: The set is now in Queue 4; if any change is to be done, it will require an admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3, item 2

The hook for the Fred G. Hughes article is blatantly sensationalising in its suggestion of divine retribution, whereas according to the article, "after" the crime was in fact some 14 years after.

... that after Fred G. Hughes, President of the Council for the 19th Arizona Territorial Legislature, embezzled funds allocated by the session, he was killed by a lightning strike?

Awien (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So how about simply adding the time period: ... that some fourteen years after Fred G. Hughes . . .
Awien (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the suggested change is hat it defeats the primary purpose for the hook's existence: giving readers a reason to click on the article link to learn more details. While hooks are required to be factually accurate, there is no requirement for every relevant fact to be placed in a hook. Hooks instead are teasers designed to create interest. The proposed change is nothing but a text book example of how to kill a hook by adding too much information. There is no need for a reader to read an article to get the "rest of the story" when the entire story is crammed into the hook. --Allen3 talk 13:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand the purpose of a hook perfectly well, and absolutely agree that my suggestion kills this one. That isn't an accident. As I said, I am objecting to the misleading impression given by the half-truth "after", which falsely implies that some supernatural being struck him down for his misdeeds. Cheap, and unworthy of WP. Awien (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
How about: ... that Fred G. Hughes, who embezzled funds when he was President of the Council for the 19th Arizona Territorial Legislature, was killed by a bolt of lightning? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I just came back to propose something similar - so yes, that's fine by me. Awien (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done BencherliteTalk 16:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Awien (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Edit protected|Template:Did you know/Queue/3}}.

Proposed alternative is not acceptable as it inserts a new "fact" that is not supported by either of the hooks articles or by any of the sources referenced by the articles, namely that the embezzlement occurred concurrently with the legislative session. As for the original request, it should be rejected as per WP:NOTCENSORED unless/until Awien can provide a reliable source showing his objection to the mere possibility "that some supernatural being" might have been involved is something more than an attempt to impose his personal WP:POV upon the Wikipedia community. Yes, the current hook was written in a manner that encourages the reader to fill in missing details. Just because one person did not like the results when this was done is not just cause to deliberately sabotage the hook by inserting an explicit untruth and violating multiple core Wikipedia policies. The original hook needs to be restore immediately. --Allen3 talk 16:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Having now checked the article, it seems to me the original hook oversimplified; he embezzled from both the Historical Society (money allocated by the 19th Territorial Legislature) and the Pima County Board of Supervisors, and whether the legislature was still in session is not stated in the article. So let's see, how about: ... that Fred G. Hughes, who served as President of the Council in the 19th Arizona Territorial Legislature, was a gambler and embezzler and was killed by a bolt of lightning? Rubbishes the poor guy, but he's long dead ... Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Now that I've taken another look at the article, it looks to me as though Yngvadottir's revised suggestion, ... that Fred G. Hughes, who served as President of the Council in the 19th Arizona Territorial Legislature, was a gambler and embezzler, and was killed by a bolt of lightning? is both a good hook, and true to the content of the article. Fine by me (preferably with the addition of a comma after "embezzler"). Awien (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
While I believe that the second alternative will generate less than half the clicks the original hook would, it at least is factually accurate.
To add some extra context not in either of the articles, the appropriation to the Historical Society was passed by the legislature on the last day of the session (March 18, 1897)[8]. There is nothing unusual about this as most sessions of the Arizona Territorial Legislature waited until the last day to vote on the majority of the proposed legislation. It does however mean that the embezzlement of those funds must have occurred after the legislature adjourned. As for the Pima County funds, the only date I have seen is the October 12 date when the board asked for their accounts to be reconciled. This leaves roughly seven months following the session for any misdeeds to occur. As the charges involving the county funds were dropped after Hughes' friends paid back the money, no court records exist to provide additional details. The forgery and arson charges in Hughes' arrest warrant also appear to have disappeared after he entered a guilty plea to embezzling the society funds. --Allen3 talk 22:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Sigh, I changed it to my 2nd suggestion after it had hit the Main Page. Better late than never, I guess. Apologies. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Prep areas empty....

Just sayin' - I gotta run so can't do nowt now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Queue 4

For the nom on Maps (application), be sure to also credit User:Sebwite since he created another article, which was merged with mine. Thanks.—Chris!c/t 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate {{DYKmake}} added to the credits section. Credit should be handled by ‎DYKUpdateBot when Queue 4 is moved to the Main page. --Allen3 talk 23:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers needed: only 22 approved hooks available for 32 prep area slots

We're badly behind in our reviewing: all four prep areas are open, requiring 32 hooks, but only 22 are approved. Here are some of the older hooks needing reviewing or re-reviewing, ready for you to click and work on. If reviewing doesn't pick up, we'll have to cut back the set size from 8 to 7, not because we don't have a nominations glut still (currently 140 unapproved hooks), but because we don't have enough reviewed to promote into the prep areas.

There are another 26 unapproved hooks dated September 16 through 18, so there are plenty more older ones available when these are done. And even more recent ones. Have at 'em! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Seven hooks per set going forward

We're now at the point that we can't fill the prep areas because we don't have enough approved hooks, and it's been getting worse for days. Until things get better, as in we can fill all the queues and preps at once, we should go to seven hooks per prep area. I'm boldly setting the two as-yet-unbuilt prep areas to seven hooks (we don't even have enough approved hooks to fill them!). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably the right thing to do. If it helps to fill a space, Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Le Bourgeois‎ appears to have been reviewed and cleared but the reviewer didn't place the green tick on it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

All the queues are empty

Some preps should probably be moved up. Chris857 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I was about to do it but I found a problem with one of the Prep 3 hooks. I will switch it with a hook from Prep 4 until the issue can be resolved. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Pant, pant, done. Yngvadottir (talk)

Something's wrong in prep/queue

See Template:Did you know/Queue. Look at this. Prep2 is separated from the other prep sets. I haven't figured it out yet, but I think something happened to prep2. Can others look too? PumpkinSky talk 23:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it was me in my first attempt to do this. I duplicated something on Prep 2 - and have fixed it now. Have another look, please. Maile66 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Admin to close GibraltarPediA Options

As discussed above, it's time to close the talk page GibraltarPediA Options . Could an uninvolved Admin please close this discussion. Maile66 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Request posted at WP:AN, Maile66 (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Promoting the already-approved Gibraltar noms

The discussion at GibraltarPediA Options has not been closed, since it seems to be up to me. And I think it's OK to let people vent about this. However, the only thing for sure on that site is that the majority who post over there are not supporting a moratorium on the GibraltarpediA articles. That said, we have that holding area where the below nominations have been approved. It seems to me there is no reason not to promote these. Since Anne has created the most, she seems to the editor who suffers from this. Unfairly, IMO. She's being singled out for being the most productive, and perhaps the most talented, of those who chose to accept the Gibraltar challenge before anyone decided it looked askew. I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's next here. But isn't it time to promote these, since no one is agreeing on a moratorium? What are we holding them for? Maile66 (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that if there is no consensus for a moratorium, and no-one is prepared to say what we should do with these legitimate nominations or what additional criteria they should meet in order to be allowed, then we should proceed to promote them if objections to them individually cannot be found. There will, of course, be some "political" fallout from the peanut gallery when more Gibraltar hooks appear on DYK, but I'm not sure we should allow that to pressure us into (or out of) doing anything. Jimbo Wales opined on his talk page that DYK is a "broken process" for promoting "an absurd number of Gibraltar-related DYKs". However, the place for that discussion is here, not there, and he didn't answer my request for him to justify his opinion so there doesn't seem to be anything forthcoming from that direction. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Other articles in that holding area:

I think the GibraltarPediA Options discussion should be closed by an admin who hasn't taken part. Unless anyone wants to resume discussion there; it seems to have died down. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely. Maile66 (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It was closed, but part of the summation was that Gibraltarpedia articles need two complete reviews, and there is no evidence that either of the two promoted articles have received the extra scrutiny. Further, while there wasn't a consensus on only one per day, the average is certainly that, and it seems inappropriate to putting the first two out at sixteen hours apart. Under the circumstances, I think Maile66 has been too quick to promote the two, and given this start, should refrain from promoting any Gilbraltar hooks for the time being. Because the promotions have violated the summarized consensus, I am pulling them back immediately. We should probably set up a section within the Gilbraltar for articles that have received the second review, which is supposed to be a particularly close scrutiny. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Concur. Maile66 (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Queue 1

June Anne Devaney became Death of June Anne Devaney; I wonder if you can pipe or correct it or something. --George Ho (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Change hook for Hopi time

I need someone who can edit the protected queue to make a change to the hook for tomorrows DYK Hopi time. It has come to my attention that Ekkehart Malotki may not be German, for which reason it may be best to remove that word and describe him simply as "linguist" without mentioning nationality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: this hook is scheduled to be promoted in about 75 minutes. The request should probably be duplicated on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors just to be safe, and to increase the likelihood that it's seen and done. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The queue is now de-Germanned. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I still think he is most likely German (he studied in Germany and wrote his first book in German) but apparently one source describes him as Polish-American. So its better to be on the safeside.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver (DYK Duplication Detector) is down

FYI - Toolserver seems to be down. Not just the Duplication Detector, but that would be affected. For approximately the last 3 hours, I've been getting various messages on anything I try to access via Toolserver. But it seems to be a server issue. I've also posted this at the Village Pump. Maile66 (talk)

Seems to be working again for now, but the technology report in the current Signpost talks about the recent problems with Toolserver. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

I've just been reviewing the Edward Upcott article which was created on 26 September and was only reviewed today. I noted that the article was too short and out of time for it to be classed as a new article. The creator has expanded it but I would like a second opinion on this as should the article be considered to be promoted under WP:IAR as the creator didn't know and the review was done out of time so should it still be classed from the review or not? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. If it was nominated soon enough, and is long enough now, fine with no IAR needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, just wanted to know if we class expansions to take it over the prose limit outside of the 5 day window as acceptable. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
If I understand what I see, it was 1,194 characters on the day it was created. The author brought it up to 1,514 characters today. And you want to know if it still qualifies because the author took a couple of more days to bring it to 1,500. Yes? I would think so, because of all the noms we see listed that have similar situations, and the reviewer gives the nominator time to bring it up to passable length. If it's short when it's nominated, I think the author gets a chance to bring it up to code. Maile66 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but, nominators should be encouraged to make a good faith effort to ensure articles meet the criteria at the time of nomination. Otherwise, it (potentially) wastes reviewers' time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reduce to six per queue?

There are either insufficient reviewers or insufficient approved articles anymore. --George Ho (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We just reduced from eight to seven a couple of days ago. If things haven't improved in the next day or two, I think we'll have to consider it, but we should probably give it a little more time. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
(This also relates to the section two above) The Gibraltar-related hooks discussion has now been closed, with consensus to keep them in a special holding area but to resume including them in preps providing they are passed by two reviewers, with special attention to issues of notability and not having promotional language. They will increase the number of available hooks for promotion once those conditions are satisfied. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
While there wasn't a specific consensus, it seemed that no more than one Gibraltar-related hook per day was the best takeaway from the commentary -- I didn't comment on that aspect of the discussion, but I certainly don't think we should start out with a frequency of more than one hook per 24 hours, as I noted in that earlier section -- so it won't aid much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If anything, it's gotten worse in the past 27 hours: we currently have three prep areas and four queues completely empty, and only 11 hooks approved. Sustaining at seven hooks three times a day is untenable, so I'm reducing to six effective immediately. If an admin thinks that moving to two times a day is a better, whether with six or seven hooks, they're welcome to make that adjustment, but I don't know how and don't think I have the privileges to do so in any case. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing DYK Credits

When Maile66 (talk · contribs) filled the Prep 2, he added Deir al-Bukht, but forgot to add the the DYKmake credit for Huldra (talk · contribs) (the DYKmake templates, were corrupted for some reason in the nomination template). So the DYKbot didn't give her the credit, could someone do it manually please? Yazan (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin needs to fix queue 6

from DYK errors: q6 needs fixed PumpkinSky talk 22:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:did you know nominations/Innocence of Muslims

Innocence of Muslims is not that easy to cleanup and to write neutrally about. In fact, recent events happened, like an arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Also, we cannot wait this nomination any longer. I wonder if green tick is still valid; otherwise, needs a reviewer. Shall we use a two-article hook or separate both articles? --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As the nominator, I can say I think you're right. I'm open to suggestions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure the tick is still valid as we also have those Gibraltar hooks being promoted and the ticks are still valid if they were done by someone without a COI. But I think that here we still need to think, has the furore died down sufficiantly to avoid sparking anything else? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I strongly oppose any suggestion of "wait until DYK is not in the news, before running a hook that might prove controversial". (Apologies if I completely misinterpret what you meant there.) Rather, if we are going to run a potentially controversial hook, we should be able to editorially defend our decision to do so. If we're not sure we can do that, then we shouldn't run the hook. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, so a double check then promote it? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the hook could use updating to include Nakoula's arrest? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Chicago Teachers Union nom - specialized reviewer needed

Chicago Teachers Union nomination is a 5X expansion. I've kind of dipped my toe into this, enough to know that it really should be done by someone familiar with labor unions, and hopefully familiar with Chicago politics. This article has had many editors over its 4 years of existence. I don't have the knowledge base to spot POV, or plain old B.S., in the article. The spot check I did on the "screaming" citations - the ones all in caps - require union membership to access. I didn't check all 96 citations. The article is in a state of flux due to current events. The article has a non-free union logo, which the nominator removed, and someone else put back. In order for this to be on DYK, it needs a reviewer who knows the subject matter. Maile66 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  • This review has been completed by Laura Hale. I bow to her expertise as a reviewer. Impressive. Maile66 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

All queues are empty

Admins pls promote some. Need some prep sets built too.PumpkinSky talk 10:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Tweaking needed on promotion

Common rocket frog was promoted to a prep area by a new editor, but the template remains in the nominations. Maile66 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the template, "DYKsubpage" hadn't been replaced with "subst:DYKsubpage". —Bruce1eetalk 12:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Two thumbs up, Bruce Lee. Maile66 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Another promotion tweaking needed

Heydar Aliyev's cult of personality seems to have gone to Prep 2, but still listed on noms. Same reviewer as above. Maile66 (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed – same problem as above. —Bruce1eetalk 15:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot down for the moment

The server they live on was rebooted. I'll start them back up once I get back to my machine, which will be around 01:00 UTC. If someone wants to do the 00:00 update manually, feel free, otherwise it'll happen once I start up DYKUpdateBot again. Shubinator (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And they're both up again. Shubinator (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

More reviews needed (please see more recent list below)

We're still behind in approved reviews for prep areas (only 16 of 153 are approved), so here's another bunch of older reviews to sink your teeth into. Happy reviewing!

Thank you very much. As always, when you take on a review, please mark it above. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

SS Santa Paula (1916)

This article should be pulled from the queue and checked for copyright. I already truncated it to remove direct copy-paste, but it looks like there is more and I cannot take time now to rewrite it. Kablammo (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It will probably need a more in depth look the site credits Wikipedia. Are we able to see when the material was added? Ryan Vesey 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Nope, not reverse copyvio, what queue is this in, it should be pulled. Ryan Vesey 14:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be pulled, AFAICT Kablammo already appears to have pulled all of the potentially copyvio content. Two thirds of the rest is actually sourced to DANFS, which is public domain, and I couldn't detect any copyvio in the remaining paragraph. Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a large amount of copyvio of NavalHistory.com [duplication report. Ryan Vesey 14:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Navalhistory.com (or rather historycentral.com) is just a republication of the original DANFS source, which is PD. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Ryan Vesey 14:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
No probs :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Need to fix DYK topic balance

Please see this bad publicity for the movement, published today, including the caption to the pic of Jimmy Wales: "Co-founder Jimmy Wales said the frequency of Gibraltar-related material on the front page of WIkipedia was 'absurd' ". Tony (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have already been fixed. There are no Gibraltar-themed hooks in the queue or the prep area at the moment. Manxruler (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Nor has the topic balance ever been inappropriately skewed towards Gibraltar-related articles.
Nice of The Telegraph to describe DYK as 'the prized “Did You Know?” section' in that article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I, for one, have gotten more recognition from the community for some 6 FAs than for 400 DYKs... its nice that outsiders view us at DYK in high regard, at least. Going through the archives shows that's not always the case on-wiki — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Congrats on the 400! Flooding DYK with Bach cantatas and their performers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo, not for the first time, is speaking out of his backside (perhaps not surprising given his semi-detached role these days). In July, 8 Gibraltar-related articles appeared on DYK, 16 in August and 12 in September. Assuming 8 DYKs per queue, rotated three times daily, that means that Gibraltar-related articles comprised 1.23% 1.07% of all DYKs in July, 2.46% 2.15% in August and 1.9% 1.66% in September. The average frequency of Gibraltar-related articles on DYK over the last three months has been one DYK article every 2.5 days. If Jimbo had bothered to find out the facts instead of shooting his mouth off about Gibraltarpedia, a great deal of the recent controversy would have been avoided. Prioryman (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo should not be complaining about any work which is done for free on his website. Seriously.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Those percentages are a bit too high. We had 8 DYKs per queue throughout those months. --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I've amended them accordingly. Prioryman (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming figures for racehorses and Australians were higher, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Figures for the Olympics and Paralympics would certainly have been higher, but I didn't notice our beloved founder complaining about an "absurd" frequency of such DYKs. Prioryman (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh, nobody notices anything until they need a reason to criticise you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The fact that that "absurd" number was pushed through in a short period (I agree with Jimmy), yet still equated with only a few percent of the total, tells me that we still have far too many DYKs flushing over the waterfall. The quality and the thoroughness of the reviewing process are both wanting. You know it. I know it. Tony (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Numbers are on the decrease again. University season. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
      • They should be further reduced and not be allowed to increase after the university break, in my view. The way to go is to increase the quality and policy-compliance of DYKs on the main page, and in tandem with this to reduce the number of shifts a day and the number in each shift. Further, it is patently clear that the QPQ system is an invitation to behind the scenes collaboration to push through favoured topics. The appearance of "absurdly" large flows of certain topic areas is inappropriate on the main page. Tony (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I wish someone would make this same argument in regards to the number of hurricanes and battleships in TFA and the number of sports events in ITN.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
You have hurricanes, battleships, mushrooms, places in the US and England, because their authors tend to bring their articles to FA standard. I try hard to find others and request them, please help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Which is exactly the same situation in DYK. My point is that when relying on volunteer work you have to take what people make. If thats hurricane and gibraltar then so be it. I didn't mean my point as a critique of TFA, but as a defense of DYK against the idea that people should be told what topics they are allowed to work on. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a matter of balance. "If you make the perfect system, no one has to be good any more", TS Elliot said. I'm not asking for a perfect system, but just for the gaping loopholes to be plugged, for the protection of both the main page and DYK against more public scandal. Please see my comment at the talk page of Ocaasi's interview with Jimmy on paid editing. Tony (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
If there's "public scandal" then it's a result of both the WMF and the Wikipedia editing community being perfectly OK with a publicly declared project (and the approach to it) one day, and gravely troubled by it the next. It's not in any way the result of the prevalence of battleships, specific basketball teams, specific Iberian countries, or Johann Sebastian Bach, on the main page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Tony here. There have been controversies about repeat appearances of topics before, although never to my recollection one where one topic reappeared 36 times in the space of a couple of months. The DYK rules do state, "Try to avoid country- and topic-centrism", so no new rule is needed, just better implementation of the existing ones. JN466 23:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Saying "36 times in the space of a couple of months" (actually three months, not two) might sound a lot to an uninformed individual but it's not so many when you consider that around 2,200 DYKs ran during that period. Gibraltar DYKs accounted for only 1.63% of the total. How many articles about mushrooms or classical music or Olympic/Paralympic athletes ran during the same period? Significantly more, I would guess. That's just how DYK works and has always worked - if a topic is of particular current interest, or you have a particularly dedicated editor or group of editors working in a particular area (like Gerda Arent and Dr. Blofeld on Bach cantatas), you will get an uptick in DYKs on a particular topic. In fact, if you have a look at User:Gerda Arendt#2012, you will see that she and the Dr. have been knocking out Bach cantata articles at a pretty high rate all year. So why are a handful of people objecting to Gibraltar DYKs rather than Bach cantatas? Prioryman (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Slight correction: Dr. Blofeld is working on MANY things, but not on Bach cantatas. Cantatas come about one a week, this is the "third annual cycle" already (of three extant) ;) I am not against any high rate if there's a good reason, see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that this handful of people may in fact be receiving payment by Gibraltar's enemies? I've been suspecting something like that myself. ;) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Umm, no, where on earth did you get that idea from? I certainly didn't suggest it. Prioryman (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Must have been me then. ;) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Why? Because Wikimedia trustees were involved, who had pitched ideas about how to "energize" places and "put them on the map", cheaply, by putting them on Wikipedia's front page. That's what led to the original discussion here on this page that sparked the entire incident, was it not? Your Bach cantatas will be instantly controversial if it turns out they are written by someone with a business connection to music publishing, just like your 120 DYK articles on horses will become instantly controversial if it should turn out they are written by a Wikimedia trustee who gets money from the horseracing or betting industry. Even without the element of payment, and charity-related conflicts of interest, DYK rules state quite clearly that DYK should not be country- or topic-centric. Ten DYKs on horses a month are a problem; they don't serve the reader as much as the editor. It's selfish. JN466 02:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is the second time you've misused the "DYK should not be country- or topic-centric" rule in your argument. The context in which it is stated is quite clear: it's in a section that tells how to select hooks for a single DYK set. The final sentence sums up what the rule is really about: "No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue, and no more than one is even better." BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It's flat-out false (and I think Jayen466 knows this perfectly well) to suggest that the Gibraltar DYKs were "written by a Wikimedia trustee". I think one of them was reviewed by Victuallers, who is indeed a DMUK trustee, but I don't think any of them were written by him (though he may have contributed to a few). If you look at the actual authorship of those articles, you'll see that their principal authors and creators have been relatively new editors like ACP2011 and local editors like Gibmetal77. One of the most annoying aspects of this affair, to me, has been the way that certain people have sought to minimise or ignore the fact that many other people have been contributing to this project and falsely portraying its output as the work of one or two individuals. I might have given their arguments a bit more weight if it wasn't so obvious that they were lying about the project. Prioryman (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It's flat-out false (and I think Prioryman knows this perfectly well) to suggest I said Gibraltar DYKs were "written by a Wikimedia trustee". Where am I supposed to have written that? Victuallers was mainly heavily involved in the articles' nominations and promotions, and that was inappropriate. JN466 09:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
What, so you think if you have three a day, in separate sets, that is okay? That is the meaning you read in that rule? Really? Pull the other one, this one's got bells on. JN466 09:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Since it's clear you have no plans to discuss what the phrase you're so fond of actually says in context and was meant to address, preferring instead to impute to me an outre interpretation of what I wrote, there's no point in continuing this. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
BlueMoonset is correct, and in addition I would add that not only is "three a day, in separate sets" okay, we've done that on more than one occasion. During the Titanic centenary weekend, for instance. Nobody thought then that it was an inappropriate use of DYK, and in fact we got nearly a million pageviews for Titanic articles that made Main Page appearances on that day. Prioryman (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
... exactly. It's why Wikipedia's main page is remarkably valuable real estate, and explains why it was sold as such in the Bristol Wikimedia UK presentation I quoted from. Look at the slide at time code 12.22. What does it say? We made the front pages of the main Wikipedias. [...] This will result in more hits to Derby Museum's webpage. You may be happy to exploit that effect, and have others exploit it for cash, as long as they fly below the radar, but it's pretty clear that once these sorts of arrangements become public, the general public's response is one of disgust. JN466 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the general public give a shit about what appears in the DYK. I think the general public would welcome quality articles regardless if anyone is making money off it. The general public have made Wikias very popular, and they plaster themselves with advertising. - hahnchen 21:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Maunus, the argument that it is really odd to have, say, dozens upon dozens of featured articles about videogames, and almost none on philosophy or psychology, or other core encyclopedic topics, is made with some regularity, both here and in the media. Yesterday for example here in The Independent: "I've long found Wikipedia a fruitful source of accidental entertainment. There's the fact, for example, that the cast and events of certain series of fantasy novels are covered in greater depth than the periodic table, say, or the Second World War. I'm also a fan of a page with the title “Lamest Edit Wars”, detailing the battles that have been fought over such matters as a list of fictional ducks." JN466 02:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
But that doesn't make it a valid argument, it sikmply betrays a lack of understanding about what wikipedia is and who writes it and why. If someone wants more DYK's about philosopher's they should write more articles about them, not complain about what others write.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course it is a valid argument, and it is exactly the type of argument you claimed above no one was making. There is such a thing as social criticism, you know. You seem to claim that just because anybody can join Wikipedia, Wikipedia is somehow beyond criticism. It's fun to transfer this line of reasoning to other contexts: "You are criticising our political party/business/social movement for X? That is not a valid argument; it simply betrays a lack of understanding about what our party is and who is active in it. If you want us to do something different from what we are doing, then you should join us and do it yourself, not complain about what we are doing." That sort of argument does not usually absolve people from criticism, and I don't see why it should here. JN466 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes, let's have balance, and put those 36 DYKs in perspective. Toolserver counts 122 DYKs on this two-page list (116 were in 2012) Here . All to one user - all on a singular subject. Given who the user is, I don't think these are for nominating somebody else's article. And there's more yet to come already listed on the noms page. I still think this is someone in the British royal family. "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" Richard III, Maile66 (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
"Given who the user is, I don't think these are for nominating somebody else's article." -> Quite the opposite, actually; but that shouldn't really have any bearing here. But yes, Gibraltar is a blip on the radar compared to some trends in DYK, and none of these recurring items are unhealthy for the project. GRAPPLE X 01:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It's extraordinary that DYK regulars don't care that paid editing is going on under their noses and can, under current rules, lead to system abuse. I'm actually pro–paid editing, because I accept the reality that it's usually impossible to identify unless self-declared (and has potential advantages for the project, anyway). Jimmy's bright line is just whistling in the wind, and I wish he'd pipe down and become more practical about it. "Practical" means you stop wasting time talking about banning it outright, and instead work to at least close off glaring loopholes that encourage abuse. One of these loopholes is the torrent of DYKs that are put through to the MP, then used (as above) as an excuse-through-percentage-dilution to do nothing about product placement. To begin with, the back-scratching QPQ system needs to be terminated forthwith and the flow of substandard articles stemmed in favour of greater scrutiny and higher standards: recent creation should not be equated with low editorial standards. There is definitely a need to impose limits on the number of nominations a single editor can have promoted over a specified period. Tony (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Product placement? Tony, this has to be about the silliest argument yet made on this matter. Gibraltar is a place, not a product. As I've stated in User:Prioryman/Gibraltarpedia, monetisation and myths, the vast majority of the Gibraltar DYKs so far relate to its geography, buildings and history. They've attracted a very modest number of page views and have no realistic potential for monetisation. As I've said repeatedly, there is no paid editing happening with Gibraltarpedia, so it is unequivocally false to claim or imply that there is. You also say "There is definitely a need to impose limits on the number of nominations a single editor can have promoted over a specified period." So you would restrict Gerda and Dr. Blofeld from contributing their Bach cantatas, for instance. I can't see how that would be of any benefit to DYK. Prioryman (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
You may think it is daft, but that is the idea that was being presented here; was it not? I picked out some relevant quotes here; among them: "We made the front pages of the main Wikipedias [... English, French, Polish, Russian ...] It's giving us more hits to Derby Museum's web page, so it's actually going from our page, clicking through to their web page, it's fulfilling our mission to educate and to share information around the world, and it's raising the interest and status of the city." [Time code 12.22] That is product placement, "sold" as product placement, and understood by the customer as product placement, as is apparent from the publicity they put out: they clearly described it as a cost-effective marketing exercise. Let's not forget that this was (or is) not just happening here, but in other Wikipedias as well. Someone told me the other day the Hindi Wikipedia had a DYK set in which more than half the hooks were about Gibraltar. JN466 09:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
What's your issue with this? The video tells cultural institutions to embrace Wikipedia, to write new articles, to translate and improve existing ones, which improves both Wikipedia and the institution's visibility. I think the GLAM projects and broader initiatives like Monmouthpedia have been great for Wikipedia. DYK is to promote new and expanded content, it seems to fit in with what these projects are doing. - hahnchen 20:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
You've read the media reports, right? This sort of pitch is what leads to Wikipedia being seen as a marketing tool, and "the idea of marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia". The moment money changes hands, it's what is known to the press as a "PR scandal". JN466 21:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
You should pay less attention to the 24hr news circle jerk. I wish Jimmy wouldn't either, and just let the thing die of its own accord rather than prolonging the agony with some pointless enquiry. It's already yesterday's news, like that Philip Roth thing. Stop paying attention to some press hack's spin cycle, and start looking at the content. If it's good, it's good. Governments subsidising the creation of quality content is something we should be relaxed about. - hahnchen 21:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

JN, yes indeed. Prioryman, to take two of your points:

  • "have been knocking out Bach cantata articles at a pretty high rate all year"—very bad for the main page, which needs to present a balance of topics over time. Horses, Bach cantatas (an area of my own expertise), Gibraltar, paralympics ... whatever the topic, it's unacceptable to allow either floods or a continuous background presence of these specific areas—whether they're pet hobbies or the result of a paid-editing deal. For example, am I right in thinking that more than 80—that's eighty—nominations on Australian paralympics and olympics were pushed through from the start of August to mid-September? Is it true that as many as five DYKs were put on the main page on 1 August alone? Three on the next day, three on the day after, and seven on 4 August? And is it true that the some of the hooks were as lame as "that Australian Olympic equestrian dressage competitor Lyndal Oatley is the cousin of fellow Olympian Kristy Oatley and wife of Swedish equestrian Patrik Kittel?" That is a topic-skew writ large, made worse by the generally lacklustre quality of the stubs and the flat-as-a-tack hooks.
  • "Product placement? Tony, this has to be about the silliest argument yet made on this matter. Gibraltar is a place, not a product."—Gibraltar tourism is very much a product. Like WP's main page.

DYK has now completely subverted the original raison d'etre of encouraging new editors. Tony (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

See above for "knocking out Bach cantatas" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Tony, over at the Signpost discussion you said, "[t]onight it has come to my attention that someone has been lining their pockets by creating rafts of articles that have been pushed through DYK's laughably uncritical and back-scratching process." Apart from the Gibraltar business. It would make your argument a lot stronger if you could elaborate on this second case. The Interior (Talk) 10:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
He has done so at vast length in previous bouts of DYK-bashing, but please don't encourage him to further conflate his long-standing objections to DYK (in which he is not alone of course) with the particular issues here. Can someone supply a link to the last massive DYK bash? Johnbod (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem with a temporary over-representation of some topics, whether it is Bach, English country churches or something else. But if this really is an issue, the easy solution would be to loosen the requirement for articles to be new or newly 5x expanded. I don't see why a new article would be inherently more interesting than any other article that I haven't read. By all means, keep the quality requirements; in fact, I think it may be a good idea to increase them, and without the pressure to finish something in a few days, chances are that people will be able to produce something better and even more interesting for the main page. --Hegvald (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've rarely felt the pressure to finish articles within a few days. My view is that articles should be brought up to standard off-wiki (or in user-space), then created and nominated. That's what I do most of the time. As for newness, that's kind of DYK's whole point, and I don't feel that should be changed. Standards have been increased recently, and as long as those standards are enforced, we're fine. That is, proper reviewing and demands that articles should be something more than semi-stubs. Loosening the newness requirements is a step in the wrong direction.
By the way, I agree with Johnbod with regards to the DYK-bashing, and with Maunus with regards to a solution to the supposed lack of variety. I remember some years ago when a number of people were agitated by the number of Norway-related items on the main page, mostly at DYK. The number of DYKs from a specific subject rise and fall, based on the time and enthusiasm of the folks who are interested in writing articles on said subjects. Setting limits on the number of noms a subject can have is a really terrible idea, and likely to lessen the enthusiasm of contributors. Manxruler (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Responses.

  • Paid editing. Interior, you ask about my wonderment that the Gibralter-related editors have been given a public torching while other paid editors of DYK-nominated articles still operate under the radar—encouraged by the rules here. I call on the editor to whom I was referring to step forward and declare themselves.
  • 5x rule. Thanks for raising this, Hegvald: as we know, it's full of loopholes. I understand why it was instituted, but it's a pretty ham-fisted one-size-fits-all filter. An obvious problem is its encouragement of bloated, poor-quality text to meet the multiplication threshold. This has been said before, but as usual in this forum has met with a brick wall.
  • Topic skew. Hegvald, I do see "a problem with a temporary overrepresentation" of a topic—at least to the extent of three to seven hooks a day over six weeks. Am I unique on this page in seeing things from the perspective of a professional main page that is well coordinated and balanced, showcasing excellence in the project? Perhaps I'm the only one who cares about that. I'm very pleased to hear you say, "I think it may be a good idea to increase [the quality requirements]"; but to do that means slowing down the cascade, given the limited reviewing capacity we have at DYK.
  • Civility. Please keep it civil and productive, guys. Johnbod and Hegvald, I don't "bash"—nor do I accuse others of running "the silliest argument", as I've been accused of above; I present what I believe to be sound reasoning, and so far it hasn't been met with anything that looks remotely like a set of solid counter-arguments. The round of debate and soul-searching about DYK about a year ago saw marginal improvements, but the bad press the whole WM movement has had to cop over the Gibraltar thing at DYK, inter alia, brings home why DYK still needs reform. Johnbod, yes, a link to the debate last year would be good. Can you fish it out?Tony (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I asked first. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Plots

Hello,

Template:Did you know nominations/Poor Folk was rejected as it was not expanded fivefolds. However, the plot section was already there before I expanded the article. I was once told that the plot section is not a "real" section and can be ignored in regards to DYK. I would like to here what you think. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of a plot exception. What the rules (WP:DYKSG, A4) say about the 5x expansion is: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it was up for deletion." This would clearly include pre-existing plot sections, even if they badly need cutting. I've seen any number of DYK nominations that failed 5x expansion because they had too much pre-existing text, plot sections included. Either they were further expanded to reach the 5x requirement, or were not approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I would include a plot section when reviewing an article to see how long it is, so I'm not sure it would be wise to rule it exempt from the "before" count. However, given that previously the article was little more than plot before the expansion I'm sure it wouldn't be amiss to grant this particular one an exception. Had the plot section been kept to a realistic length rather than the brick it was, it would have been entirely realistic to achieve 5x expansion properly, and I would wonder if articles on works of fiction with overly-long plot summaries are perhaps being avoided for expansion because of this (I could put the same amount of work into a stub and get a DYK hook out of it, or into an {{all plot}} article and do without). GRAPPLE X 15:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid plot summaries do count for length purposes (the exception they get is that they don't have to be referenced). This is even more of a perennial issue than I'd thought - I just went on a fine long chase through the archives finding the previous discussion of it that I half-remembered from earlier this year - which is here. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue with plots is this: They do not need to be cited. The text (movie, television episode, book) is the source for it is the reason. That is where the DYK rule about the whole thing must be supported by inline citations rule is ignorable. It doesn't have to deal with 5-fold expansion. --LauraHale (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. All article prose counts for DYK, including plot sections, which for films MOS:FILM suggests 400-700 words; citations are not required for plots. Where are DYK expanders getting wrong information about this? It's annoying. --Lexein (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say (understanding that this could be gamed) that there are articles that do start off as excessively long plot sections (1500 words for films, for example). A proper update, which may trim the plot to 700 words, and then expands from there 5fold (3500) that includes the appropriate reception and development sections, is a good update we want to encourage, and would be the type of thing that would make for a good DYK once the article's in that state, but because someone decided to plot dump the entire movie at the start, it would fail it. I think common sense should be made here, if it is clear that a short-term effort to trim plot and expand the rest of the coverage was made. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding Gibraltar nominations

The following DYK nominations have received a second review (per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options) and are ready to be put into queues:

The following nominations still need reviewing or re-reviewing:


As we have a bit of a backlog with the approved articles, I suggest that they should be released to the Main Page on a one-per-day basis so that there isn't a flood. Prioryman (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't see any sign that the second reviews have addressed the potential COI or promotional issues as mandated by the discussion. Without that clearly being addressed, I wouldn't feel comfortable about promoting the hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Short of questioning all the nominators, I think we need to assume GF that the reviewers have checked the nominators to see if they are part of the GibraltarpediA or are running for the prize. Some of the hooks clearly aren't promotional, example: I can't see how the Gibraltar F.C. one (yes, I know it's my nom) is promotional in any way. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There are no "potential COI or promotional issues". Gibraltar F.C. is a long-defunct football club. North Face Cemetery is, well, a cemetery; unless you're planning to get buried there, it's hardly an attraction. Rosia Bay is a place. The synagogues are long-established non-profit religious institutions. Three of the four articles were self-nominated by ACP2011 (Anne) who is a Gibraltarpedia contributor, but it would be very improper to bar DYKs simply on the grounds that they come from Gibraltarpedia contributors. Prioryman (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm the one who moved the Gibraltar F.C. nom to this holding area in the first place, because of the project template on its talk page. However, Wikipedia is an open book. If anybody thinks C of E has COI with the GibraltarpediA project, they need only look at the body of work for C of E. If we were looking askance at sports-related articles, C of E would be up at the top of the list. The Gibraltar F.C. nom seems to be just one more of C of E's sports articles. I'm the primary reviewer on this one. I see Malleus Fatuorum has made some edits today to make this a better article. But on the COI issue, I would say C of E's body of work speaks for itself. No COI. But because of the way things have gone down about all of this over the last few weeks, my input on this is negated to ZERO, less than ZERO. So, somebody who is not a MINUS ZERO to the NTH DEGREE needs to look at C of E's user pages and confirm the lack of COI.  —  Maile66 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I did look at it, yes, prompted by a discussion elsewhere. There's absolutely no possible COI in play here, and any suggestion otherwise is absurd. I could be critical about other aspects of the article, and have already fixed a few, but not the author's COI. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I wish I was getting a prize but we're genuine. The fact that Rock Hotel is being stalled is just wrong, its no different to any of my other articles, it has even been rigidly edited for anything which might appear "promotional". Anne's articles are the same, there is no agenda. I can understand the reluctance to put Gibraltar articles on the front page because of the scandal but Rock Hotel at least is 100% genuine. These article are almost purely historical. There is only one sentence in my hotel article which could be misconstrued as promoting it but it is generally considered that way..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) (Originally intended for C of E's comment) Given that these are new criteria, I think it's reasonable to expect that the reviewers specifically address them in their reviews. This is a special situation that came about because of earlier problems: let's specifically cover all the criteria, please. All the good faith in the world doesn't mean that the reviewer knew to check or remembered to check, so I think a request that reviewers specify that they have indeed checked and found no issues as part of their review is reasonable and appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh I quite understand the circumstances and why it is necessary to be cautious but Rock Hotel has already been scrutinized by many. You only have to quickly browse it to see there is no promotion and its almost entirely historical info.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't see any promotional or COI issues with the first four articles, so unless anyone else has any thoughts on that, then I suggest we get on with it and push the articles up. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • When did common sense leave the house? Someone has to formally tick a box saying that they've checked for the presence of something that clearly isn't there? Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • To be fair to BlueMoonset, we do something similar when looking for copyvios/close paraphrasing. That is relatively straightforward, though, whereas I can imagine that the question of what constitutes a COI is much fuzzier. I don't see any conceivable COIs with any of these articles, though. Prioryman (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    But ticking boxes proves nothing. I found a "too close paraphrasing" and misrepresentation of the source in a DYK on the main page right now, Hassan II Mosque. Actually reading the article and checking the sources beats ticking the boxes hands down. Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We don't have a quota for DYKs of any topic, and there hasn't been a single Gibraltar-related article on the Main Page since 18 September. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, since 20 September if you look here. JN466 10:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we move the "Did You Know..." section on the main page a few inches down, cut two entries from "In the News" and three from "On this day" (I mean who cares, really), reduce the featured picture to a 30px by 30px thumbnail (but come on, it's a BIG thumbnail) and use the space to have a new "Articles about Gibraltar" section with both new and old articles about Gibraltar. And especially about things relating to tourism in Gibraltar. I'm sure Prioryman and whoever else can keep that juice flowing. Volunteer Marek  23:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There has already been enough nominations of Gibraltar-related articles for at least the next year. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please see my thread on topic skew and risk of abuse. Tony (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We reached consensus that this was what we would do. There was a clearly advertised discussion that was touched on on this page several times. The point about clearly labelling the extra review as satisfying the requirement is a valid one, but has to be balanced with some good faith, or else we'll get into who's qualified to do the second review and so on ad infinitem ... There have been far fewer Gibraltar-related hooks than, for example, Monmouthpedia hooks, and we appear to have reached agreement to run only one a day in any case. So no, I don't think this is either premature or excessive. As to carving out space on the Main Page, that applies more obviously to the Good Article proposal, but I disagree with the idea it should be within DYK! Maybe the Featured Article blurb could be shrunk to accommodate it, if something has to shrink .... but if it's decided (at the discussion elsewhere) to have such a section, I would more logically expect it above the Featured Picture, like what's done with Featured Lists, rather than poaching real estate from other sections. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Someone put one of the top four through already. Waiting is only going to let the people who don't have consensus complain more. SilverserenC 06:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess I forgot this was Wikipedia and didn't make my proposal over the top enough. Volunteer Marek  06:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I think there is another unspoken issue in play here: Fear - and whether or not any process is dictated by it. Yes, we had the public discussion. Very few participated, I might add. Very, very few. The moment someone - anyone - promotes a Gibraltar nom to a Queue, one or more persons will pounce on this, demand an explanation for the rash promotion, and demand it be removed. And that will probably come from someone who didn't bother to participate in the discussion. The original issue was really about how one individual set the GibraltarpediA deal in motion and had questionable methods and motivations. That person is no longer part of this. What's left is Fear, and the atmosphere it has created. The good of the many is now becoming the good of the one who needs to complain about a subject matter that's had far fewer hooks than horses, or any number of other things.  —  Maile66 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Taking your last point, because this project doesn't have the institutional memory of some other projects, I started making a list in my head of topics that have been featured at Did You Know in considerable numbers, far more than Gibraltar and many of them more than Monmouth. Perhaps it would be useful to put that list here, and others can feel free to add to it (especially the things they personally find boring or overdone, just please don't say which those are, I might have written on one and get all hurt '-) ):
  1. Summer Olympics and its athletes
  2. Winter Olympics and its athletes
  3. Paralymics and its athletes
  4. Monmouth
  5. Indonesia
  6. Indonesian films
  7. Australian national teams and their athletes
  8. US college football
  9. Baseball
  10. Indian cricket
  11. Racehorses
  12. Mushrooms
  13. Birds
  14. Fossils
  15. Bach cantatas
  16. Buildings in Germany
  17. NHRP buildings and architects in the US
  18. Churches in England
  19. Recently published books
  20. Pop singers and their songs and albums
  21. Battleships
  22. Mountains, lakes, and villages in non-English-speaking countries

While we say that a set of hooks should not have an undue focus on one country or topic, we regularly make previously agreed upon exceptions to that - most recently for the Paralympics, before that for the Olympics and other such deliberate groups have included Indonesian Independence Day and Bastille Day. (That rule should probably be modified to add "except by agreement at the Did You Know talk page".) And some topics are perennials - or temporarily frequent - because one or more editors are into writing about them, or there's an effort somewhere to improve our coverage of the topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Yeah. And they're all OK with me. And probably all OK with a lot of people at DYK. I just think that while the GibraltarpediA had some genuine issues the others don't necessarily have, we had the discussion open to anyone who cared to input their view. Now it's time to get on to the business of incorporating it back into DYK. I don't pretend to know what's in the head of anyone who would be in a position to promote the hooks. But if all other DYK issues are taken care of, putting up with ensuing drama for promoting a Gibraltar hook is not desirable. From that point of view, doing nothing is the path of least resistance. You can't hang blame on a volunteer for no action. There are other topics and other nominations. At this point in time, Fear by any name, has shut down the process.  —  Maile66 (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I feel all special. How did Indonesian films not fall under Indonesia? (and yeah, we've had some 300 articles on the country in the past year) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
And all of that is perfectly fine. We want people to be interested and feel invigorated about the topic. Since that means they're more likely to pump out more content, it's all for the better. Really, it's great that we get some topics in a large abundance, that means that we have content producers that are taking the time to make all of them. SilverserenC 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
These topics form a spectrum, with two opposite extremes. You cannot liken the Summer Olympics, an event that dominates the news all over the world during the period it is on, to a topic like Gibraltar, which rarely makes the news anywhere, and where the topic's prominence is quite specifically limited to Wikipedia, and linked to a commercial Wikipedia project. JN466 19:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It is quite simply a lie to call Gibraltarpedia "a commercial Wikipedia project". There is nothing commercial about any of the articles nominated above. Prioryman (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a project described by its funders as a project to market Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia. It's a lie to call that anything other than commercial. JN466 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
However people in the Gibraltar government may have described it, that doesn't alter the fact that many ordinary Wikipedians are contributing to it in good faith, and producing good-quality articles on topics of their own choice. It's those people who are being treated unfairly here. Note also that the English Wikipedia is the only Wikipedia to have gone down this road of singling out Gibraltar articles - in every other language, they're being treated no differently than any other articles. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Andreas, I appreciate your concerns, and share some of them. But in the end it's quite hard to draw a hard-and-fast boundary: are you saying that Pete's paid job for the foundation improving our help pages is commercial, since he derives income from it? Tony (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, Pete's job is not for the Foundation, but for his own account. He and the University of Mississippi are the recipients of the grant, not WMF. [9] Of course, he is also a lot more classy than the Gibraltar effort, and does not peddle DYKs, or make sales pitches based on Wikipedia's SEO value (see this screenshot of a Wikimedia UK slide entitled "Improving a city's Google position on the web", and then watch the entire thing). In fact, Pete makes it quite clear to clients that he is not in the SEO business, and that if his clients are even thinking of SEO, and asking for SEO metrics, their approach to Wikipedia is probably inappropriate. However, both Pete's WP:Communicate OER project and Gibraltarpedia have project pages in Wikipedia project space. There is a sliding scale here, from Pete's project at one end through Gibraltarpedia to WP:Communicate Nestlé at the other. There has to be some way for users and editors of Wikipedia to tell the two apart.
Lastly, an argument is made here that the editors contributing these articles are deprived of their "reward", i.e. a DYK credit on their talk page. I am rather wondering about another reward withheld from them. I wonder why the people telling them to create these articles are paid by their clients, while the editors who do the work just get a paltry pat on the back. After all, that economic imbalance is why Wikipedia is sold as "a phenomenally cheap, and very, very imaginative way to absolutely energize a city and put a city on the map" (time code 17:41), or "marketing ... done at the lowest possible cost". JN466 11:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No Consensus reached on no more than one per day

I just noticed that with Gibraltar F.C. having been put into Prep 2 by Victuallers, Malleus Fatuorum added Rosia Bay into Prep 3. This is flouting the consensus of a maximum of one Gibraltar hook per day on DYK, so I have undone the promotion. If we're going to go through the trouble to come to a consensus, we ought to proceed on that basis: no more than one hook in any 24 hour period. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

How did this happen? It was Yngvadottir who promoted Gibraltar F.C. to Prep 1 (by the edit summary, anyway). Doesn't it take an admin to move it to another prep area? Am I looking at the wrong thing? I see that Prep1 history that Yngvadottir put it there. Allen3 moved it to Prep 2 because of time considerations. I don't understand how Victuallers figures into this.  —  Maile66 (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
And the agreement reached there was no concensus on one per day, although it was an option offered. There were other options suggested, but no consensus was reached at all on how many per any time period.
 —  Maile66 (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't tell when "limitation" was firmed down to "one per day", but even if it hadn't been inserted for some of the supporters, "limitation" is clear, and the sense from discussions we've been having is that one per day seems reasonable. Putting hooks in consecutive sets is not "limitation" by any definition I'm aware of. But, y'know, if you really want to do two in a row to start out with, it's the best way to restart the controversy that got us here in the first place. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying how many times we should, or should not, put these out there. It's not my call, especially since you suggested I not be allowed to promote any Gibraltar hooks at all. I'm just saying that on the Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options recap done by someone not involved in the discussion, this particular item had no concensus on anything.  —  Maile66 (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, the summarizer doing the recap was clearly confused, since those who listed Support there did so for the entire list, and therefore some sort of limitation, as part of the long list of agreements that included the IP addresses. As I noted, I don't know when the undefined limitation changed to one per day, but it's been the default in the discussions above, and it seems a reasonable way to start. I did suggest that you not promote any further Gibraltar hooks because you did so prematurely; now, with you reviewing so many of them, reviewers are not supposed to promote hooks they reviewed, which keeps you from doing so with those for the time being. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I understood why you suggested I don't promote Gibraltar DYKs at the moment. And, in fact, I don't have any incentive to promote anything at the moment, so it's a moot point. I find promoting interesting and fun, but not something I just have to do. This whole Gibraltar issue has been a learning curve for me. Confusing? Heck, yeah. I feel like I had a hand in creating it by mentioning something way back (seems like a thousand days ago) that the project was offering incentives. So, I, too, bear some responsibility for this. There is also the human factor at play - where people just like to complain to have a purpose. You could have rules etched in stone by the team of God Almighty and Moses, but somebody in the crowd would throw rotten fruit at the stone tablets. If I ever do another separate-page discussion, I believe I've learned that things need be very, very specific therein. Saying something like "limitations" doesn't mean a thing, unless you spell it out. Dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s and leave no vague wiggle room. —  Maile66 (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Updating: looks like my brain hasn't started this morning; it was, of course, Yngvadottir who did the first Gibraltar promotion; Victuallers had nothing to do with it. (I'd just seen the latter's name several places in the special holding area, but that's no excuse for my fingers to type the wrong name.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
No excuse needed. This particular subject matter is a bit like dancing on the head of a pin, while chewing gum and patting your head at the same time.  —  Maile66 (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it. Think I slipped off that pin. Should I put the chewing gum on my shoes, or will that mess up the dancing too much? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

‎Remote trivia as a hook on DYK

I would like to question why this DYK hook was let through. I quite understand that DYK hooks are often elements that appear trivial but yet are interesting leads into the article. However, I do not find the particular hook for Ars Nova particularly relevant. I presume the T-shirt was washed in the interim, but that's not the point. ;-) As the article's on the MP right now, as raison d'etre for the hook, I wanted to raise the matter here instead of removing that section like a piece of mindless trivia which, the last time I looked, was discouraged. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(Cross post at WT:Main Page. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

I think that's a good hook. Do I need to explain why? Johnbod (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Need help with archiving a nomination

I can't work out how to archive a nomination after moving it to a prep area, as the instructions given don't seem to work. Can someone please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Rosia Bay, Gibraltar and let me know what I'm doing wrong? Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're being reversed out by Bluemoonset. Please see above back up at the Gibraltar discussion.  —  Maile66 (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's another story. Is there or isn't there a one-per-day restriction on Gibraltar-related articles? Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
There was no consensus reached on that issue. I offer no opinion on how many should be out there, how often. All I can say, is that if we are going by the discussion agreement, there was no consensus on this item. Here's the recap Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options  —  Maile66 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I was coming here to say - there was no consensus on a number, but consensus on limiting them. So I concluded we were being gentlemanly about it and voluntarily limiting them to one a day. (I checked something like 3 times that there wasn't already one within a day of the prep I started to fill.) Thanks for trying your hand at prep filling, Malleus, that reduces the need for me to try it again :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Someone asked me to help with shifting the Gibraltar articles, as there seems to be a certain amount of reluctance to take responsibility. But as there seems to be no basis for Bluemoonset's reversal of my promotion of Rosia Bay I propose to promote it again unless someone comes up with a convincing reason why I shouldn't. And properly this time, now that Crisco 1492 has pointed out my stupid error with archiving. Malleus Fatuorum 15:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the timing particularly matters, given that there's no consensus on what it should be, but I think it would be a gesture of good faith to "the other side" to limit the new DYKs to a daily frequency. The DYKs aren't time-sensitive so there is no need to rush them onto the Main Page all in one go. Prioryman (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, you have not substituted the template (at least on the try I saw). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    You're absolutely right. What a donkey I can be sometimes! Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sankt Gall?

Now in Queue 1, Leiden Glossary, I read Sankt Gall, linked to Abbey of Saint Gall, in German Fürstabtei St. Gallen. The name of the Place is St. Gallen in German, possibly St. Gall in English? The combination of a German Sankt with an English Gall looks strange to me. In the abbey article I read that it is a religious complex. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Too complex, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

St Gall is the traditional English name. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"St Gall" is the traditional English name of the Saint. I would understand "St. Gall" (short for Saint Gall), but not "Sankt Gall", see above. Many abbeys are not named for a Saint, but for a place, for example Eibingen Abbey. So is this, at least in German, St. Gallen. However, the Unesco said "Convent of St Gall", it would make sense to me to move the article to that name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Even if we don't move, I think a couple of redirects could be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I took the discussion further, quoted
  • "Convent" is only properly used for communities of nuns in English. UNESCO's English translations are very often bad, and are of no consequence whatsoever. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
?? That is mixing English and German just as much as "Sankt Gall"! The current name is correct, following WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
May I know who is using that name? - You are right, my suggestion was not good, the construction matching Eberbach Abbey - indeed mixing German and English, instead of Kloster Eberbach - would be St. Gallen Abbey. We can't help that the original name refers to a place not to the Saint, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

end of quote, ideas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Schloßborn

Template:Did you know nominations/Schloßborn should not have been passed. Almost the entire article is uncited. It does not look like the reviewer checked that the article was fully sourced. As this is one whole section, this strikes me as incredibly problematic. I would reccommend front page pulling. --LauraHale (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Look again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. Review remains unchanged to say "for German-language source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 3:26 pm, 8 October 2012, last Monday (4 days ago) (UTC+11)". Review does not indicate anything was checked beyond German sources. The reviewer didn't indicate they checked that the article was fully sourced. It doesn't actually look like the reviewer checked anything before passing. they gave it a AGF tick, not a green one. If the reviewer only reviewed the German sources, then the person who moved it to the prep area was in error. This article was clearly NOT DYK eligible at the time it appeared. --LauraHale (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments: 1) If you have foreign language sources you can never give a green tick. 2) Articles in the German Wikipedia - like the model for this one - typically come without inline citations, they are sourced to books and/or other literature. 3) In the article, you added "citation needed" tags for the location on a map, I don't understand that. - By "look again" I meant at the article, sorry if that was unclear, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
You can give a green tick if you understand the sources! Secretlondon (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't precise, by "foreign" I meant a language I don't know, like Norwegian, accepted AGF today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Reduce to four or five hooks per queue?

It's been two days, and amount of approved nominations has slowly gone down a bit. At least we have right now four queues, one completed prep area, and three incomplete areas. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And/or increase the exposure of the shifts? I feel sorry for the good ones that appear and disappear within a few hours. Tony (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think any number fewer than six is feasible, in terms of balance to the main page. If we need to slow down, which I'm not yet sure we do, we ought to promote queues every twelve hours rather than every eight. However, given that we have 12 approved hooks and only four empty ones in those three incomplete prep areas, I think we're not in desperate straits at the moment. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Please consider 12-hour shifts. If we occupy too little space in MainPage, we will mess up the layout on MainPage and force ITN and SA/OTD to reduce what they can show on MainPage.--PFHLai (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand this argument about balance on the MP. So TFA is seriously unbalanced because only one appears each day? Twelve-hour shifts and a slight reduction in the number of hooks would be ideal. Then we'd have the capacity to review the noms properly and do the main page proud. Tony (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Balance is a layout issue, about how much room each section takes relative to the other, not how long each iteration appears for. If DYK goes down to four hooks, it takes less vertical space, and ITN and OTD combined have less room to work with. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep it at 7-8 hooks, too small skews layout. Increase time to 10 or 12 hours.PumpkinSky talk 14:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I concur; having 18 hooks per day is too much. If 10-12 hours and 6-8 hooks per queue, we may have 12-16 hooks per day. --George Ho (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Cutting back to two hook sets per day is an extreme over-reaction. The queues are well-populated and there's still a healthy backlog of noms. --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
6 hooks is too small, messes up the layout. Three sets at 7 each now, = 21 hooks a day is good for now. PumpkinSky talk 16:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Yet we have three filled queues, four completed prep areas, and three empty queues. We'll see what happens today at 00:00 (UTC)... To me seven is too much, as I have thought. --George Ho (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) There is not a healthy backlog of approved noms, and we're unable to get enough to fill all prep areas and queues. Right now, we're at 18 hooks per day, which is a barely sustainable rate, though contra George Ho's original assertion, I think 4 or 5 per set isn't necessary. If PumpkinSky is right about 6 hooks being too small for the main page, then perhaps we should be doing 8 hooks twice a day, which at 16 daily is about the same as the current 18. We've been averaging fewer than 18 new hooks a day lately (September 21 through October 1, which are the latest complete days), and some of these are being rejected. We simply can't sustain sets of 7 or 8 at a three-a-day rate just now, if that's the number of hooks we need to achieve balance on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Now we are back to five queues, one empty queue, and four empty prep areas. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

George, if you were counting, you would see that we have 32 approved hooks, just enough to fill that empty queue and four empty prep areas at six per with two left over. What we haven't had over the past 24 hours or so are people who have time to fill the prep areas. They'll get filled eventually. At the moment, there's no sign that we need to decrease or increase the number of hooks per set from the current six. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Correction: 30 hooks. I don't see two extras. As a result, I expect two more queues for the day and three more for tomorrow. Nevertheless, let's wait... --George Ho (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
According to the list on T:DYK/Q, there are 160 nominations, of which 32 are verified (and thus, presumably, ready to be promoted to a prep area). That's what I was citing; it's updated every half hour if there have been changes, and still shows 32 as of the update five minutes ago. More hooks will doubtless be verified over the next day; we seem to be keeping pace with the rate of main page promotions at the moment. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I put the first two into Prep 1 but then got sidetracked by gnoming. I'll leave it at that for someone else to complete the set (with or without changing what I've done; I haven't tried prep building previously and there may be better choices). Yngvadottir (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Now we are down to two filled queues and two filled prep areas. --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

True. And there are enough approved hooks to fill the remaining six areas (queues and preps) with two left over, just about where we were five days ago. The situation hasn't really changed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Right now there are two queues and two prep areas filled in. Is it too soon to make a 12-hour queue? --George Ho (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem wasn't the lack of "filled" preps and queues, but rather the shortage of approved hooks. Now we have enough hooks to filled the preps and queues twice over. So I think we're fine. Yazan (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just askin' about Jimbo Wales

Reading the posts hither and yon about what Hizzoner J Wales opines about DYK. Has he ever submitted an article of his own for DYK consideration? Has he ever jumped in and done a review of someone else's? There's nothing like baptism by immersion. — Maile (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo and writing content is rather like eating marmite with ice ceam. For somebody seemingly passionate about building an encyclopedia his interest in writing is very minimal. Writing is left to the "lesser folk" who build the website he dictates, solely founded, is chairman of. I believe he does occasionally add bits to articles on controversial people/topics and he did once write an article on a restaurant somewhere in Zululand which the lesser folk tried to delete, so he does do something every now and again to add to wikipedia... Don't get too excited though; the lesser folk built it up and promoted it to GA to impress their beloved master, Jimbo's article contribution was roughly 275 bytes. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo does have a DYK credit at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 28#Did you know. If memory serves, Jimbo started the restaurant article as an unsourced single sentence and a flood of volunteers jumped in to bring the article up to DYK standards within 24 to 48 hours. The DYK nomination was made by a third party. --Allen3 talk 21:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
He had sources for his one sentence, two of them. Bare URLs both. Perhaps that was the role model for why DYKs can't have bare URLs. — Maile (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the same article as I mentioned above. Shows a real passion for writing eh? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems a little unfair. This was his first new article. No copyvios, at least. No sources, though, and a distinct whiff of WP:OR.  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfair is that the foundation get paid and are capable of raising over $20 million yet the people who really produce the goods get not a cent and never even the smallest word of thanks annually from Jimbo. Not even a yearly email thanking contributors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I read that when someone's article is featured on wikihow they get a personal message from the founder and a gift of some sort. Ryan Vesey 15:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
What's wikihow? Certainly doesn't happen on Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
http://www.wikihow.com – "wikiHow is a wiki based collaboration to build the world's largest, highest quality how to manual." Prioryman (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not a wikimedia project, but it runs on mediawiki. It's a wiki Collaborative how-to manual. It actually wasn't the founder who sent the message though, it was a community support person, but it still seems like a good idea. Ryan Vesey 00:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Older nominations needing review

We still have many older hooks that need reviewing, since the newest seem the most popular. Plenty to choose from, including a couple of Gibraltar hooks that are actually located in the special holding area at the bottom of the nomination page, but which you can get to using these direct links.

Please cross these off once you have reviewed them. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Q2 article needs a look

Could someone take a second look at personal relationship skills (currently in Q2)? It was passed by very new reviewers, and I think it needs someone experienced to have a look at it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's certainty interesting material for an Encyclopedia of all knowledge. Sasata (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"<good faith quote was a copyvio - removed by Franamax>"

Oh dear, that one really should be brought back for another look. There are some issues there. It has got me thinking about thinking though. The Interior (Talk) 04:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Eek, shouldn't that be in some sort of deletion queue or other? It sure looks like synth and OR to me. Well, not the book copyvio bit about Love which I removed from both the article and Sasata's quote above (correct me if I'm wrong, page 223 if my book search worked) - that was someone else's rather airy work. Should at least be pulled from the DYK queue IMO. Franamax (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Pulled, feel free to comment at the nomination page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have commented at the nomination page.
I am transcluding one comment here as well, to respond to the reviewer's comments above and show a humble apology for transgression due to over-sight.
  • Responding to reviewer comment above: I have reworded the paragraph entirely from the source. Please comment if this is still too airy-fairy, it can be re-worded again.
"Loving well is a gift which people can delight in. Loving another person well enriches both - the sum of the two halves adds up to more as a whole. The hope for a joyous future together can allow a partnership to overcome seemingly intractable obstacles which come their way.
<ref name=St_AC_of_Grayling1>{{cite book|last=Grayling|first=A C|authorlink=A_C_Grayling |title='''Ideas That Matter'''|year=2010|publisher=Weidenfeld & Nicolson|isbn=978-0-7538-2618-8|pages=315}}</ref>
If the above is ok then I will add it to the article. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to delete this transcluded comment if this is not the right place for it (and the comments should all go on the nomination page). ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Russian corvette Navarin

This article was nominated and approved for a DYK within a 2 day time frame. Unfortunately, the nominator did not (and could not have at the time) noted that I had made a substantial contribution to the page. I would like credit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I added you to the credits, after looking at the article history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Prep 2's Canon hook: too promotional?

When I read the hook "... that the Canon EOS-1D X is a full-frame flagship model for Canon?", it reads to me like an ad, rather than simply descriptive. (I'm also dubious as to whether it qualifies as "interesting", another DYK requirement.)

Both the reviewer and the promoter would seem to disagree with me on this, the former explicitly, so I wanted to check with other people to get their opinion rather than be precipitate and pull it just on my opinion. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - too promo, uninformative and bland. Should never have been promoted. (That's why for the separate nom EOS-1D C I suggested a 138-character hook which included its actual contribution to the state of the art, and astounding price, sans lenses.) It's not called Did you read my promo, it's called Did you know --Lexein (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the other Canon hook is too promotional, not I'm not sure what to do with it. Do we actually want these on the front page?Secretlondon (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
(Here's the one I meant: ... that the Canon EOS-1D C is the world's first 18.1 megapixel DSLR camera capable of shooting 4K resolution video, and costs US$15,000 (body only)? - I thought it took the wind out of the promo ... I could be wrong. --Lexein (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC))
Hooks dealing with commercial products/services always walk a fine line. We do not want to be used as a mechanism for advertising but would not be fulfilling our encyclopedic duty if we ignored the existence of many well-known brands and products. Where do we draw the line? Do we exclude consumer products while routinely featuring hooks dealing with entertainment offerings such as recently released/upcoming music, television shows, and movies?
As for the hook currently in Prep 2, I an not a fan of the hook but I am also not troubled enough to raise an objection. I use a literal interpretation of the hook that indicates the product in question is currently the lead/most important offering within a significant class of cameras by a well-known camera manufacturer. Many hooks use facts that are of interest primarily to fans of moderately narrow fields (e.g. sports hooks that require an understanding of the sport to fully understand the hook). This hook seems to fall into this category. That being said, I agree with Secretlondon that most of the proposed hooks for the other Canon nomination push too far toward advertising by focusing on product features. --Allen3 talk 22:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I think advertising is a real problem. I mean, do we want a non-hooky hook on the front page so we can be part of the hype over a movie release? It's just free advertising. Secretlondon (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The other problem is that there's very little differentiating the two? three? simultaneous product releases, or the articles are written indistinguishably. --Lexein (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I would have appreciated to be notified about this, but anyways I am just going to say that I in no way am trying to make a certain companies camera's look better than another nor promote the product for purposes of advertising. Do note how I am working on one nikon camera in my sandbox and another was just promoted to DYK today. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, nobody's on your ass, or claiming you're being promo. It's a serious question: what are the damn differences between the Canon gaggle? At least two are $15K, with no obvious differences! I'm of a mind to suggest that that family of *-? cameras get a single page, rather than separate, nearly identical articles. Especially since they're introduced at the same time. Sorry. --Lexein (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said anyone was on my "ass", I just wanted to put that out there. There are a few differences between the articles. For starters, there are a few big differences between the cameras. "At least two are $15K" - The Canon EOS-1D C is $15k, the other is a cheaper knockoff with less features which costs around $6K. The biggest difference is that one is a 4K resolution (4096 x 2160 pixels) Full-frame DSLR which has never been introduced before. By "introduced" I don't know if you mean released or announced. Either way, they are not being "introduced" at the same time. I am not a camera expert, I know nothing about these camera's except for what the sources say (which I wrote onto the article of course). Having a list of all X (in the case, Canon) cameras would just not work. :) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong about the prices. But the feature overlap (or differences) are not clear. I don't much care about that, really. What I wanna know is this: is my longer 138-character hook more, or less, promotional? If less, why not use that one? I don't want credit, btw. Whatever. --Lexein (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Mentioning a specific price strikes me as quite promotional. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
As written, the price is mentioned incredulously, as in are you kidding me? That's stupid. --Lexein (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
It's amazing how intent doesn't always come through in the written word, while it's hard to miss with the right verbal inflection. What makes you think everyone who reads it will "get" your incredulousness? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Time-sensitive DYK nomination

I've added a nomination that is time-sensitive, as it's intended to run on 21 October (this Sunday) to mark the anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar. Could someone possibly review Template:Did you know nominations/Trafalgar Cemetery in good time? Thanks in advance. Prioryman (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ack, another Gibraltar DYK. Binksternet (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This whole idea that Gibraltar DYKs are "limited" to appearing once a day (!!!) on the Wikipedia main page is ridiculous. Even in the August period that attracted the negative press coverage, and the unfavourable comparisons to the Olympics, there were only 17 Gibraltar DYKs in the entire month – one every other day, and a volume Jimbo rightly called "absurd". And now we are running 6 in the space of 6 days, and will run another 14 over the coming fortnight? Nuts. AndreasKolbe JN466 10:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
No "once a day" frequency was agreed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options - the only reason we've had a run of articles appearing recently because we've been dealing with a backlog that built up during the options discussion. That backlog is now almost cleared. And nobody is suggesting "running another 14 over the coming fortnight". The articles are in the review queue, but they can be spaced out. Most have not even been reviewed yet and none are time-sensitive, with the exception of the one I've highlighted above. I would anticipate them appearing over the course of several weeks, assuming they pass the reviews (which I'm sure they will, as I wouldn't have nominated them otherwise). Prioryman (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Quote: "No more than one Gibraltar hook promoted to the front page per day". That is what it says on that page. You have run 6 over the past 6 days, so I do not see any evidence whatsoever that you intend to space them out any more than your rule requires you to. On the contrary! Two days actually had two Gibraltar DYKs, contrary to your own decision, and you are already hurrying reviewers above. 14 more articles are waiting on the DYK nominations page, and the Gibraltarpedia competition will no doubt lead to the creation of dozens and dozens of additional articles for the remainder of the year ... colour me surprised if you won't want all of them to appear on the main page too. Could you possibly care a little about the bigger picture here, rather than just your own project? AndreasKolbe JN466 18:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Read more carefully: "[Proposal] No more than one Gibraltar hook promoted to the front page per day. [Outcome] Alternative suggestion from one editor on limiting to one per set; another diametrically opposite suggestion for a stronger limit." There was no consensus on this proposal. Note that every other proposal other than a total moratorium (which was unanimously opposed) achieved a consensus - this one didn't. I don't know what you mean by "you", either, since I've not had any control over when the articles have appeared on the Main Page. As for the bigger picture, the bigger picture is that you're trying to reopen the whole issue again, overturn the outcome of the previous discussion – in which you didn't bother to participate – and blacklist an entire topic area. That isn't going to happen. Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The agreement at [10] was predicated on the assumption that people would behave in good faith. It was meant as an upper limit and as a way of making sure that if you have 17 noms for a month you spread them out more or less evenly over 30 days. It was not based on the assumption that some people will abuse that agreement in bad faith, play WP:GAMEs and amp the product placement and tourism promo.

In fact, given how bad faithed the response to a reasonable compromise has been, I'd say it's time to place a total moratorium on Gibraltar related DYKs until things quiet down and the profit seekers chill the hey out. Even if that does hurt somebody's pocketbook or forces them to break whatever promises they made to the tourist board of Gibraltar. Volunteer Marek  18:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, there is no "profit seeking" and it's a flat-out lie to claim that the editors of these articles are motivated by profit. One of the most dispiriting aspects of this affair, if I might say so, has been the way that a number of editors have sought to belittle and bully fellow editors. This is just more of the same. Let's get specific; most of the DYKs I've nominated in recent days have been written by User:ACP2011, a relative newcomer who has been widely praised for writing exceptionally high quality articles (for which, indeed, she was awarded an "Exceptional Newcomer Barnstar"). She's already said that she is participating essentially for fun.[11] You have no possible grounds for accusing her of "profit seeking" and that is, frankly, a rather nasty personal attack. I invite you to withdraw it. Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
it's a flat-out lie to claim that the editors of these articles are motivated by profit. - I don't know if that would be a lie or not, but that is not what I said. What is an implicit lie however is to suggest that I did, but hey, I'll chalk that one up as another misunderstanding. What I did say is that Gibraltar articles have been promoted (generally speaking) for profit. Which is true and verifiable. Volunteer Marek  21:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless, there have been and still are too many Gibraltar DYKs. Editors here can apply their own justice by ignoring them, letting them scroll off the page into oblivion. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
That's simply not the case. As mentioned in a now-archived discussion, the number of Gibraltar-related articles appearing on DYK has been vastly outnumbered by those on other specific topics of interest. 120 articles on racehorses, 19 of them in the last 6 weeks alone. 300 articles on Indonesia in the last year. God knows how many Bach cantatas contributed by Gerda Arendt. Churches. Mushrooms. The list goes on. DYK's approach has always been that if an article meets the DYK criteria it should be accepted. There is no quota on the number of articles contributed per topic area, nor should there be. Prioryman (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
19 in 6 weeks? Yeah, that is a lot. But how about 6 in 6 days? When I scan the list of DYK nominations to review one of them, I often make note of the ones that I think are from a set that is too-heavily represented and I pass them by. I usually choose to review a DYK nom that is from some other set. Just sayin'... Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I support a moratorium on any more Gibraltar-related DYKs for the moment. --John (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Likewise. No more Gibraltar DYKs submissions should be accepted until the end of the Gibraltarpedia competition. (Or if they are accepted, then only to establish eligibility for the extra 2 points in the Gibraltarpedia competition, but not to create an actual eligibility for the main page.) AndreasKolbe JN466 20:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      • A moratorium was discussed two weeks ago and rejected unanimously. Nothing has changed since then. Prioryman (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Have we really had 6 in 6 days? That seems like plenty for now. --John (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I've had no control over the timing (and in fact I questioned it here) but there is certainly no need for a one-per-day frequency for the remainder of the as-yet-unreviewed articles. They can be spaced out as people see fit when they've been reviewed. However, given that Trafalgar Cemetery has been written specifically for Trafalgar Day this Sunday, and has now passed its review, I think it's reasonable to request that it should appear on Sunday. Prioryman (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
            • Prioryman, the one thing that is not reasonable is to request that yet another Gibraltar DYK run this weekend. AndreasKolbe JN466 21:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
              • There's nothing unreasonable about it. It's passed the review criteria, there is nothing COI or promotional about it, and it couldn't be more timely as it relates to a specific historical anniversary and a commemoration which is due to take place on the day. It meets every criterion set out in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options. That was agreed to by a cross-section of editors. Overturning it now, when there's no ongoing external controversy, would be an act of very bad faith. The only reason this is even attracting controversy now is because of your incessant campaign here and on Wikipediocracy. You are keeping the issue alive when there is simply no need to do so. Prioryman (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
                • You are keeping the issue alive by wanting yet more main page appearances for Gibraltar, and it is becoming really hard to assume good faith here. Of course the articles themselves should be welcome, but not on the main page. Your insistence to the contrary is becoming quite impudent. AndreasKolbe JN466 22:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
                  • Let me remind you, everything that has been done over the last few weeks has been as agreed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options. You didn't participate in that discussion. You have no business now trying to bully and browbeat DYK contributors into reneging on the solution that was agreed. Prioryman (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
                    • I certainly would have participated if you had advised me, or if the discussion had been here, rather than hidden away on a specially created subpage. AndreasKolbe JN466 08:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes, we have had 6 in 6 days. See the discussion on Jimbo's talk page for the dates. There is another one on the main page right now, so I guess that makes it 7. AndreasKolbe JN466 21:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd support an absolute moratorium for up to a year. The lies by Prioryman and other Gibraltarpedia supporters - including a claim in this thread that "there is no "profit seeking"" (Perhaps there is no profit seeking by the DYK authors, but there absolutely are people who have a financial interest in getting Gibraltar to the main page on a regular basis.) have eroded any confidence I have that this project is compatible with Wipipedia's principles. Kilopi (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      • A year is too long. I support a pause of a month or two without anything Gib-related on the front page. --John (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

One a day is nothing. The press have moved on, we shouldn't be editing to press pressure anyway. Earlier today, we had 3 sealife hooks in one update, 50% of the hooks were on one subject written by one person - Wikipedia:Recent_additions#18_October_2012. There's two culinary ones in a single update at Wikipedia:Recent_additions#9_October_2012, and evil of evils - User:Miyagawa even had a Monmouth article on DYK today - The Crown at Whitebrook! Really not a fan of this "moratorium by the back door" approach after having that suggestion taken apart in the original discussion. - hahnchen 21:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

One a day is too many. Who took part in the previous discussion? How were they informed? --John (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
One a day? Yesterday we had 3 Millennium (TV series) hooks. - hahnchen 21:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, Millennium (TV series) have not publicly been involved in a scandal regarding promotion via Wikipedia, whereas Gibraltarpedia have. I would still say more than one per day on any one subject is too many, but I would vehemently resist letting any more Gibraltar DYKs onto the main page for now. --John (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If getting the DYK credit is what is all important here than there is a simple, within the rules, way to do that, without spamming up the que - for articles which are all on related subjects you can do a multiple-article-single-hook nomination, which incidentally isn't subject to the usual word length restriction. That's usually what I do when I end up writing several articles on the same subject - just one nom, up to five articles. That way the issue of promotion will be at least muted. Volunteer Marek  21:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Enough already. I support an absolute moratorium for up to a year. Huldra (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • There should at any rate be a moratorium until the Gibraltarpedia challenge ends (it's currently set to end 26 December). And that moratorium should be for DYK nominations rather than main page appearances – because otherwise, there will be a backlog of 200 Gibraltar articles come New Year, and Prioryman & Co. will argue that they should all run, at a rate of one a day. AndreasKolbe JN466 22:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      • That is complete and utter nonsense. Nobody is arguing that articles should appear on sequential days. The only reason that has happened in the last 6 days is (a) because the people promoting them (not Gibraltarpedia participants) have promoted them on sequential days, and (b) because there has been a backlog of approved articles waiting to be promoted. There is no backlog left so there already is no more likelihood of further sequential promotions. I have asked for one fully reviewed article to be promoted on Sunday. The rest have not even been reviewed yet. I've no idea when they will be reviewed, or when they will appear on the Main Page. I would think we're unlikely to see more than, at the most, a couple a week, if that. The idea that we are somehow going to have Gibraltar-related articles appearing every day from now till Christmas is a fantasy. There simply aren't that many articles, and the relative slowness of the review process means that they aren't going to appear on a very regular basis. Prioryman (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid you misunderstood. If nominations for further Gibraltar articles are accepted now while Gibraltarpedia is ongoing, but are not run on the main page, then whenever the moratorium ends, there will be another backlog like the one we have just had, only much bigger. And we have seen what happens with backlogs: we end up with one Gibraltar article a day on average, like we have done for the last seven days, which have seen 7 Gibraltar DYKs. Gibraltar, a territory of 6.8 sq km, with less than 30,000 inhabitants, has truly had more than its share of main page appearances now. AndreasKolbe JN466 23:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
          • The answer to that is to not have a moratorium, which would be utterly unjustified in any case. Let the articles go through the review process normally, don't allow a backlog to build up and you will find that there will be a normal, low-frequency distribution of promotions. The recent high frequency has been entirely caused by the fact that we had a several weeks-long backlog to clear. Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
            • The high frequency over the past four months has been caused by the fact that there is a competition underway to create articles on Gibraltar, initiated by paid agents of Gibraltar. It needed no backlog at all for that to create a media scandal. AndreasKolbe JN466 08:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support one year moratorium on Gibraltar DYKs. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, support one year moratorium on DYKs relating to Gibraltar (all topics), and also on DYKs relating to whatever country had more than 50 DYKs in the last year about that country's college sports (that moratorium only to affect all college sports from that one country, broadly construed). What say you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose any moritorium and any attempt to one-sidedly change the consensus without obtaining a full new consensus. Do note that almost every responder in the above discussion is a member of Wikipediocracy, where said members have been discussing and criticizing this topic for a long time and have also made statements to each other on their website that are verbally abusive to a number of people involved in this topic. SilverserenC 23:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Not everyone who thinks this is abusive is from wikipediocracy, I can assure you.. Secretlondon (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I used a fair amount of shoe leather and library time to research, write and photograph for the article Moorish Gibraltar, which is in the DYK nominations queue and is a spin-off of the History of Gibraltar article I wrote several years ago. Please explain why it was "abusive" of me to write this article and why I should be deprived of the chance to show the quality of my work to Main Page readers. Prioryman (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Because you should be able to put Wikipedia's needs before your own in a case like this. AndreasKolbe JN466 08:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Good to note. But when they are the majority of the above people in the discussion, it is concerning. I should also note that it's usually the people who have a negative opinion about something that are the most vocal about it. And the people who are neutral or positive often don't want to bother getting into a debate. However, when you run a poll, then the neutral or positive people feel fine about voicing their opinion, because they don't have to get into the endless arguments, they just have to state their opinion. Therefore, that's why when there was actually a poll on this issue, the overwhelming response was that people were okay with it. It's just the vocal negative lot here that are trying to bring up more drama that the people who responded before don't want to get involved with. SilverserenC 23:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I think if there's any cabal on this issue it's people connected to Wikimedia UK. There's been a major ethical bypass somewhere and I'm not sure they're saveable. Secretlondon (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Can I also propose that the one year moratorium should apply to the Falkland Islands (Las Malvinas)? The similarities with Gibraltar are really rather substantial, and whether Bamkin has yet flown down to meet the penguins or not, we should take clear and harsh action before he can get any marketing tendrils in place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm sure its tourist board would love some main page space! Secretlondon (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • In the same spirit, I also propose a one year moratorium on (a) all articles on Bach cantatas, (b) all articles on mushrooms (40 since 1 October), (c) all articles on racehorses (19 since 1 September) and (d) all articles on Indonesia (300 in the last year). Prioryman (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, oh! And I also propose that we should all do an official RfC for them all together and let everyone know what we're doing. SilverserenC 23:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely! The mushrooms in particular should be interesting, they've been running at a frequency of up to 3 a day since the start of October. Let's make sure that DYK's most prolific contributors are barred from contributing - it'll improve DYK no end! Prioryman (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If anyone has been trying to sell space in the project for any of these.. Secretlondon (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, so Anne (ACP2011) has been getting directly paid to do this? Prioryman too? Or did you mean the Foundation was selling the DYK space? SilverserenC 23:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know but nobody said she did. But someone has been paid for promoting Gibraltar articles and pushing them onto Wikipedia's front page. I really DO wish you guys stopped trying to be sneaky in the way you present the situation - you're arguing that just because the article writes themselves didn't get paid anything (except that chance to win the trip to Gibraltar) there's nothing happening here. But that's a classic lie of omission. The omitted part being that someone did get paid.
Hence, pointing out that what makes Gibraltar related DYKs different from articles on Bach, mushrooms or sea urchins or whatever is the fact that in case of Gibraltar there has been some for-profit-monkey business going on, but that is not case for the other subjects.
You know this, I know this, most everyone who's been paying attention for past few weeks knows this. So why this masquerade where you are pretending that no Gibraltar-related pay-for-promotion scandal happened?
Like I said on Jimbo's talk page, while this whole shtick has been weaselly and dishonest, and in violation of Wikipedia policy, it was done in a pretty smart way; putting the unpaid article creators as a human shield between Wikipedia policies and the people getting the money so that it can be argued "this isn't paid editing". But doing that with a straight face? Shame. Volunteer Marek  00:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Split trousers.jpg
Split on the Rock of Gibraltar
Let's shoot this fox once and for all. Per http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/gibraltarpedia-the-facts/ , "It is co-ordinated by two Wikipedians, Roger Bamkin and John Cummings, who are working with Gibraltar residents to train them in how to use Wikipedia and add appropriate photos, etc to Wikimedia Commons; as well as adding QRpedia codes which link places and buildings in Gibraltar with their Wikipedia articles. Roger and John are being paid as consultants by the Government of Gibraltar to help deliver this project." Roger and John are playing no part in "promoting Gibraltar articles and pushing them onto Wikipedia's front page." I'm the one who's principally been nominating these articles in the last couple of weeks, and Anne (User:ACP2011) and Aymatth have been the principal authors. None of us are being paid to "promote Gibraltar articles", and DYK's rules mean that none of us, as authors or nominators, is authorised to put articles on to the Main Page in the first place. That is simply, completely, an egregious falsehood. Prioryman (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Roger certainly did play a part in promoting Gibraltar articles and pushing them onto the main page: that is how this discussion started four weeks ago on this page. Following the media scandal and Roger's resignation, and your trip to Gibraltar and meetings there a couple of weeks ago, you have taken over for him. (Mostly; he still does some Gibraltar editing.) Big deal. The fact remains that this is a project Gibraltar paid for. AndreasKolbe JN466 09:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I managed to split my trousers climbing the Rock of Gibraltar to photograph the fortifications for a forthcoming article (proof on the right). Do you think I can sell some project space to cover the cost of a replacement pair? Prioryman (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You should hand in an expenses claim to the Gibraltar tourist ministry. ;) I am sure they will look upon it favourably, given your loyal services to their agenda. AndreasKolbe JN466 09:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose any moratorium. The above negative comments were made by contributors who had ample opportunity to contribute to the previous discussions. I had stopped reviewing DYKs and submitting DYK nominations weeks ago, because of my disappointment with the DYK/Wikipedia community over this issue. I just started contributing again this past week by reviewing DYKs, when I thought that cooler heads had prevailed. I have spent a considerable amount of time the last few months volunteering, writing articles for Wikipedia. However, my children and I have used Wikipedia for years and I thought that it was time to give back. Gibraltar-related articles are already subjected to a substantially higher standard than other DYK nominations. It was the temporary blacklisting of the articles that led to the backlog and the one a day frequency of the past week. I expanded the article in question specifically for this weekend's anniversary and it has passed two separate reviews.Anne (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The proposed moratorium would also apply to all college sports teams in the USA (as the leading submitter nation of college sports DYKs over the last year), as proposed above. Not just the teams, huge money-making behemoths that they are, quite dwarfing Gibraltar - but also their coaches, athletes, players, managers, and all related topics, past and present, broadly construed. That includes U.S. college basketball, U.S. college football, baseball, do they play some other sports too? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose college sports: @Demiurge1000, While I think you have a completely valid point as the literature suggests that United States universities are essentially running professional sport teams at the Division I level and that name recognition and branding are essential to player recruitment and creating brand value, I oppose this because of its broad nature. I would support a broad general ban of all United States related hooks because the USA government is certainly getting its moneys worth out of the Wikimedia Foundation because of the Foundation's almost exclusive efforts to promote USA related work. Look at the education program they are promoting! It is all about getting USA students funded through the government to pay government funded entities to update articles of interest to the United States that clearly have business interest. Think of the dangers of these students editing important articles like Bacon. --LauraHale (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's also not overlook the commercial value of promoting Bach cantatas. After all, if people read about Bach cantatas regularly on the Main Page, that's probably going to encourage readers to go to music stores and buy them. Clearly the answer to that is to ban Bach cantatas from appearing on DYK. Prioryman (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support temporary suspension of new Gibraltar DYK nominations until the contest ends. If, after the contest ends, Gibraltar DYKs are proposed, they should be immune from the time-related eligibility requirements. This way we can still recognize the work without having the front page artificially flooded by people who are trying to rack up points in a game instead of improve Wikipedia in the normal way. Gigs (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody is trying to flood the Main Page. The only reason we have had a relatively high number of articles on the Main Page in the last few days is because we have been clearing a backlog caused by the last moratorium. That's now cleared. No moratorium, no backlog. No backlog, no rush of articles. No rush of articles, no problem. Prioryman (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • How many more DYKs do you expect we'll see as part of the contest between now and the 26th? Gigs (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you mean nominations or Main Page appearances? If the former, I would expect probably one or two nominations a day for a few weeks. I don't know if that rate will be sustained though. If you mean Main Page appearances, I doubt that there would be more than a couple a week. It's completely unpredictable how long a review takes, and there are still (non-Gibraltar-related) articles from August that are in the nomination list. There certainly hasn't been a rush of people to review the existing nominations. Don't forget that per the earlier agreement, two reviews are required, so the process will take at least twice as long as it normally does. Realistically, we are likely to end up with a few dozen more articles which will end up being released onto the Main Page at a low frequency over the course of several months. The only way we would end up with another "flood" would be if a fresh moratorium resulted in a new backlog. Prioryman (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The competition is due to continue until Boxing Day, so it will run for another two months (65 days or so). If we have one or two DYK nominations a day, the overall number will be about 100, i.e. more than ten a week. I am not quite sure why Prioryman says this would result in "no more than a couple a week" ... that is certainly not the pattern we have seen. The idea of having another 100 Gibraltar DYKs is just preposterous, and I am frankly amazed that anyone can say with a straight face that having them would be a good thing for Wikipedia. AndreasKolbe JN466 09:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • 100 more? That would be clear product placement. May I suggest one a week max? Tony (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any type of moratorium. This is ridiculous. Either articles meet the criteria or they don't. There should not be any type of restrictions based on the topic; however, I'm willing to accept the one per day limit. (Note that I have never written about Gibraltar in my life) Ryan Vesey 00:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We really need to organise what we're going to ban under the moratorium. Thus far, I have anything relating to Gibraltar, Morocco, or southern Spain (broadly construed), anything relating to "college sport" in the USA (including basketball, soccer, football, and other well known sports, but not less known ones), broadly construed, and anything related to Bach, including his music, orchestras that play or have played his music, his relatives, and any towns or cities or musical instruments with which he or his relatives or orchestras or musicians influenced by him have been closely involved. Also anything relating to mushrooms in any way. Or battleships. I think that should cover everything - it ends on what date? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you think comments like this are productive? Gigs (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes. How about you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I think they are starting to border on disruption of useful discourse. At best it's an "otherstuffexists" argument, and repeating it ad nauseam isn't accomplishing anything. Gigs (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You need to spend a great deal more time re-examining your rather arbitrary personal definition of "disruption". WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an unacceptable argument related to deletion of articles. What we're talking about here is not the retention or deletion of a single article; it's whether all articles related to a broad topic area should be arbitrarily placed under a moratorium (or other sort of ban), because some people don't like the reasons for which some of those articles were allegedly created. What's "disruption of useful discourse" is the constant battering-ram attempts to push through such a moratorium, both here and on Jimbo's talkpage, and elsewhere. Now accompanied by ridiculous behaviour like extending the complaints to articles about things that aren't even in Gibraltar. That sort of behaviour is appalling, and goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. You really should look at what you've said and reconsider it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • 22dragon22burn is best voter. SilverserenC 03:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any type of moratorium. People who want more variety can write more articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, you know what? That's exactly what I was told just over two years ago, when I had concerns about some sock wanting to write articles to skew public perceptions about Israel. And I did indeed write more articles to provide more variety, and somewhere along the way they got banned. I don't know why some people think this kind of thing is a huge crisis that they need to run to uncle Jimbo about. Unless, perhaps, he has ideas about Israel that we don't understand? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems like the Gibraltar government are still getting excellent value for their money. Hack (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey you know what? It looks like an interesting little piece of land, slightly more interesting per acre then the Falkland Islands, but a lot easier to get to. I might write a DYK article or two about it myself, along with the parts of Spain I have to pass through to get there. (It will take me a while to establish notability for queues for car rental at Malaga airport, but I might manage it, and I think I have some photos to freely license. Luckily, thanks to travel guides that think Gibraltar is crap, I was wise enough not to drive the car into Gibraltar itself, so I have some photos of queues of that too... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Any suspension of Gib-based hooks until new year at least. And none of this submit/backlog malarky either. They can be re-submitted after the suspension ends. Having 100 lined up and approved ready-to-go is just delaying the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
      • @Only in death does duty end, Clarification on support question. Articles have a five day eligibility window where they can nominate. The articles cannot be re-submitted without being expanded five fold. Are you proposing they not be eligible period? Or that instead, articles are eligible but they all be put into a special holding area, where they can pile up and we can run several Gibraltar hooks a day starting after the new year? --LauraHale (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer waiving the eligibility period entirely due to this issue. If rules are going to be put aside due to the special circumstances, holding to some and not others is unduly punishing those who have worked hard on the articles. Avoiding pile-up as soon as any time-out period ends is the aim. Not removing them from consideration entirely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Is there some humour here that I'm missing? Good-faith reviews being completed in a timely manner is "delaying the issue" how? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem is too many. They continue to give Wikipedia the appearance of being in the pocket of the Gibraltar government, given the publicity over how they paid a high-ranking member of WMUK to subvert Wikipedia for their marketing purposes. Wikipedia can talk about how its all above board and the articles were created in good faith and so on, but thats irrelevant to how it looks to outsiders. The Government of Gibraltar is paying professional PR consultants, one of whom was until recently a high-ranking member of WMUK, to 'consult' on using wikipedia to promote themselves. Other editors (in good faith, although mine is being stretched to breaking point with regards to certain WMUK members with close ties to both Bamkin & Gibraltar) are nominating articles. A lot. It doesnt take a genius to connect the dots here. And the press are not full of genius, so we cant rely on them looking into the DYK process to see that its all above board. This is *hurting* the credibility of wikipedia as a whole and needs to be shut down until it blows over at least. The alternative is that perhaps the DYK process itself needs to be opened up under a spotlight to the wider wikipedia community, since its clear on this issue that its unable to self-regulate when it comes to blatant marketing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of the project is to create a free online encyclopedia, not to create a particular impression in the minds of a press which is "not full of genius". The press can either learn what DYK is about or not, their incompetence or apathy is of no relevance to us at all. Besides which, the "wait until it blows over" approach is both (1) putting appearances over actual progress, and (2) plainly didn't work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no point having an encyclopedia if the public perception is that the articles are paid for and promoted as a marketing tool. But lets get away from that discussion, thats completely irrelevant to the DYK issue. The articles still exist. The encyclopedia is not any 'less' for them not being in DYK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In my opinion, the considerable number of high-quality articles about Gibraltar demonstrates the enormous potential of Wikipedia. I hope the same approach will be far more widely adopted and that we will see comparable coverage of many other towns and cities. The reason there have been so many DYKs on Gibraltar is that those writing the articles have obviously been motivated not only to research their subjects carefully but also to ensure the widest possible readership. Adopting a moratorium of whatever length would be unnecessarily demotivating not only to the editors currently involved but to all those who might become part of a QRpedia drive in the future. Gibraltarpedia has revealed how those working in the GLAM environoment can quickly adapt their expertise to building up Wikipedia-based coverage of their local community. I sincerely look forward to similar results from other parts of the world. Well done, all of you involved in the excellent Gibraltar coverage. From the start, I have read your articles with interest. Don't be discouraged by those who are attempting to diminish your success. And if DYK really does prove a problem, then I am sure many of the articles could be developed up to GA standard without too much trouble, and from there to FA. --Ipigott (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's quite normal for Wikipedia to have an organised focus upon some class of articles - every WikiProject has a goal of this sort. If a project is successful in generating enthusiasm then it's a natural consequence that DYK will see increased activity in this area. This is a good thing not a bad thing and attempts to stifle this are therefore disruption per WP:CTDAPE. Note by the way, that I have reviewed the article in question and so this section should be closed. This straw poll is an improper tangent and there is no consensus for it. Warden (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose moratorium, also I withdraw my previous suggestion of one per set, since frequency of appearance has been upsetting some, and instead I would agree with the limit of 1 per day as the previous discussion. We just have to keep the flow trickling through. Keep the conditions of the previous discussion with the double review and careful check. People have all sorts of motivations for writing articles, and that may not be pure knowledge distribution, but we can make use of these imperfect contributions by checking and improvements by others, Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Ipigott. A net plus for wikipedia, system of regulation of one per day is already in place.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support suspension of all Gibraltar-related noms until such time as the investigations into the operations of Wikimedia UK have been completed, the report has been considered, and action has been taken. Until that happens, WP is tainted by the suspicion that space on the main page has been, and can in future be, bought, and that is detrimental and damaging to the whole project. I feel sorry for the good faith editors who have been caught up in all this, but these things happen in life, and the overriding priority must be that trust in Wikipedia is re-established. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I oppose this motion as a draconian measure that is hardly in the interest of the encyclopedia and because it has already been discussed to a satisfactory result; I have severe reservations about Prioryman (talk · contribs) and his involvement in the issue. The canvassing, badgering and almost constant pushing and lobbying for Gibraltarpedia makes me very uncomfortable with his role in nominating articles, "reviewing" them or finding reviewers for them, and then forcing them down DYK's throat. There's a process here, let it take its course. I have nominations who've been sitting in wait for weeks, they're not controversial, they're not under any "special measures" but they still take time. Just let the bloody process take its course without trying to game it and walk away from the dead carcass. Almost all the newly promoted material had a review from Prioryman, which, in light of his heavy involvement in the issue, should be declared null, IMHO. Yazan (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Please Note: With regard to the above comment, I feel that your characterization of Prioryman (talk · contribs) is unfair. I regard his role as more that of a peacemaker and mentor. I normally submit nominations for my own articles, but had decided to stop participating in DYK a few weeks ago because of the toxic atmosphere. Prioryman (talk · contribs)'s nomination of some of my work is the only reason that I've started reviewing articles again. By the way, as someone who was completely outside the Wikipedia community a few months ago, I need to point out that there seems to be an unjustified inflation of the importance of the main page to the general community. While my family had used Wikipedia thousands of times before I started writing articles this year, not once had we ever visited the main page. I'm signing this manually because suddenly my signature, as of a few minutes ago, no longer works. So, does this mean that now I've been completely blacklisted from Wikipedia? Anne 24.7.222.55 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Anne, it is surely a technical issue. Your account is not blocked. Whatever comes of this, do not be discouraged in your editing endeavors. You have unwittingly fallen into a very unusual situation here, this is not how things normally work. Gigs (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If I had to venture a guess, I think you're simply logged out. As for Prioryman, he's a seasoned editor on Wikipedia, and he should know that canvassing on a large scale and badgering every opposing opinion seldom help and usually turn people off. I'm not passing a "value" judgment; I'm stating facts. Prioryman has "reviewed" at least 6 hooks from the Gibraltarpedia backlog, with an almost identical summary and a green tick. Forgive me for being suspicious given his involvement here. Yazan (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I have foiled the evil gremlins with the magic of a new password. Anne (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It was discussed by a dozen people on a subpage that nobody had on their watchlist. Given the amount of press there had been, it would be worth running an RfC that is advertised on WP:CENT, and by watchlist notice. AndreasKolbe JN466 13:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
      • While I agree with you there that the previous discussion wasn't well advertised, the early results here are not encouraging. There's no point in having a well advertised RfC if our random sampling here (discounting all the voters that are already heavily involved) is indicating a high likelihood of no consensus. I see a lot of reasonable editors opposing further restrictions. Even though I supported a temporary suspension until after the contest, consensus for further restrictions looks like it's going to be an unlikely outcome. Gigs (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, there is the fact that this discussion is taking place on the DYK talk page, which is filled with DYK regulars. :) It is in no DYK regular's self-interest to have a rule that might come back to bite them when they have their own set of DYKs they want to get onto the main page. I'd be interested in seeing a properly advertised community RfC on the desirability of having competition-driven DYKs swamping the main page. Would you care to raise one? AndreasKolbe JN466 16:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
          • No, hard cases make bad law. This situation is exceptional and I can understand reluctance to set any precedents based on it. Gigs (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose reinstatement of the moratorium on Gibraltar-related articles. While I recognise the strong feelings some have on this issue, I agree with Anne that a DYK is not in fact a very valuable piece of advertising, because going to the Main Page is not by any means the normal way of accessing Wikipedia - and even if it were, who reads the whole Main Page? More importantly: banning Did You Know articles related to a specific topic is a slippery slope, and not fair to contributors. And there was a wideranging discussion at the end of which the DYK project reached a consensus (which is quite an achievement) and we've voluntarily set a limit on the rate at which we promote Gibraltar hooks, since that was an area of continuing disagreement. I believe this is a reasonable response to the situation that is fair to contributors while responding to the concerns of those who wanted the moratorium. But I dis and do believe it's time to move on and pick up the pieces. True, we're currently only running 18 Did You Know hooks per day, which gives more prominence to a Gibraltar hook than if we were running 21 or 24. True, it would always be nice if there were a wider range of topics at Did You Know. The solution to both of those is for more editors to write more good articles and submit them to Did You Know - and/or to lend a hand reviewing; we have quite a backlog of non-Gibraltar hooks awaiting review. But it's not the fault of a particular editor for writing about racehorses, Berlin, Bach cantatas, mushrooms, Indonesia, or even Gibraltar if you perceive there to be too much at DYK about that topic; and if the pool of nominated articles at any one time has such a concentration, it's not DYK's fault either. Nor are the editors who choose to write about Gibraltar, IMO, worthy of censure for that (with the exception of the one editor with a documented conflict of interest). We don't assign topics at this encyclopedia; volunteers are free to voluntarily write about what they want to. I apologise if this comes off as a defensive or hostile statement (I had difficulty composing it); I recognise the difference of opinion over this, and have tried to help come up with a way forward that let people express their feelings and opinions; but in my opinion we should now go carefully forward promoting articles that deserve it while trying to have balanced DYK sets. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You have probably put your finger on it when you said: "the DYK project reached a consensus". Why wasn't the discussion widely advertised? Why was it on a newly created subpage? Just look at the incoming links for that page: [12] (Bear in mind that the link on Jimbo's page was placed after the discussion closed.) As far as I can make out, you began the thing on Maile66's talk page [13]. Jesus! The DYK project will reach a consensus on what is in the interest of the DYK project and its contributors, but not necessarily of what is in the best interest of the Wikipedia project. That is because it is composed of people who would like it to be as assured as possible that they can get their own DYKs on the main page. What a fucking joke. DYK contributors have a natural interest in having an assured "right" to get their own DYKs on the main page. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Whoah, take it easy. Throwing insults at the people who help out here is hardly going to advance your position. The Interior (Talk) 02:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    • e/c I have struck the intemperate parts. However, let me assure you that I am not impressed with the "help". It looks more like people are helping themselves. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • In hindsight, I think it was a good thing that it was handled in the way that it was. The contributors to that discussion were experienced editors who know how DYK works (compare and contrast to the GA/DYK discussion above which is full of people who don't seem to have any idea of the practicalities of what is being proposed - anyone who knows anything about how DYK works is opposing it). It was a calm, collegiate discussion precisely because it wasn't widely advertised. Your preference, I have no doubt, would have resulted in you flogging it on Wikipediocracy and turning it into a shouting match, just like the thread you started on Jimbo's user talk page. If solutions are needed rather than posturing, getting self-proclaimed defenders of the wiki involved is not the answer. Finally, I think DYK contributors are perfectly aware of the interests of the Wikipedia project and as The Interior suggests, it's insulting to suggest otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It is a good thing that the wider community was shut out, and only people with a conflict of interest took part in the discussion? AndreasKolbe JN466 10:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No, Yngvadottir, don't worry: there have been plenty of defensive and hostile statements but yours was not one! JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support moratorium on Gibraltar DYKs for at least six months, and then a limit of one a week. That is an unprecedented step, but this is an unprecedented situation and one which I hope, if we are firm now, will not be repeated. The vital difference from previous spates of articles on college sports or Bach cantatas is that, this time, there is a commercial deal behind it and the world knows it. The pretence that there is not is (let's be civil) disingenuous.
This whole debate is too internally focused and keeps being sidetracked. The vital point is: we should be worrying about our external reputation for independence. Let me recap, using other people's words:
After Monmouth, Roger Bamkin "picked Gibraltar, at the southern tip of Spain, as his next project after being flooded with invitations from places around the world". According to WMUK's press release: Roger and John are being paid as consultants by the Government of Gibraltar to help deliver this project. The Gibraltar Government's stated aim for the project is "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia."
There is no need to repeat that article authors are not being paid to edit: that is not the point. Does anybody seriously suppose that if Roger had picked Mexico or Scotland for his next client there would now be so many Gibraltar articles in DYK? The Gibraltar government has bought product placement. That is the story that got press coverage - not trivial, not local, not just in the technical press, mainstream international newspapers - see list here. They got details wrong, of course, but the embarrassing bones of the story are unfortunately true.
Forbes commented favourably on the fact that the problem was detected internally: "the incident reinforces the power of Wikipedia’s community to monitor itself and self-discipline violations of its norms". Unfortunately, if we let the flow of Gib DYKs continue it will be apparent to all who watch the main page that while we may be able to detect a problem, the "self-discipline" bit doesn't work: even when we know that DYK is being exploited, we are unable to stop it, all we can do is argue in circles while the Gibraltar Ministry of Tourism achieves what their Minister called: "marketing but done at the lowest possible cost", and more clients join the queue. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Have you spent much time working with WP:AFC or WP:NPP recently, John? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No. Why do you ask? I spend most of my time at CAT:CSD dealing with what the NPP-ers have filtered out. JohnCD (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_85&oldid=1142150852"