Misplaced Pages

talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:54, 28 January 2013 editMaile66 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators142,759 edits →Speedy deletion nomination of an approved DYK← Previous edit Revision as of 18:57, 28 January 2013 edit undoMuboshgu (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators376,170 edits →Speedy deletion nomination of an approved DYK: speedy declinedNext edit →
Line 443: Line 443:
], which I wrote and which was approved for DYK a few days ago (see ]), has been nominated for speedy deletion by a Scientologist (perhaps predictably). I'd be grateful if someone could take a look. I'm happy for the article to be re-reviewed if there are genuine POV or sourcing issues with it. ] (]) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC) ], which I wrote and which was approved for DYK a few days ago (see ]), has been nominated for speedy deletion by a Scientologist (perhaps predictably). I'd be grateful if someone could take a look. I'm happy for the article to be re-reviewed if there are genuine POV or sourcing issues with it. ] (]) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:I saw this. And it is by an editor who admits on their user page "I'm really here because I feel Scientology has terrible representation on Misplaced Pages and believe neutral point-of-view is not utilized in many of the Scientology-related pages." A speedy deletion would seem to go around any discussion about the deletion. How does a user stall this? ] (]) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC) :I saw this. And it is by an editor who admits on their user page "I'm really here because I feel Scientology has terrible representation on Misplaced Pages and believe neutral point-of-view is not utilized in many of the Scientology-related pages." A speedy deletion would seem to go around any discussion about the deletion. How does a user stall this? ] (]) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
:I removed the speedy. It seems to be sufficiently sourced from secondary sources necessary for GNG and is clearly not an "attack" page. Whether or not there are POV issues is a legitimate issue that should be reviewed. At a glance, it seems okay to me, but I didn't evaluate it closely for NPOV, just N. – ] (]) 18:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:57, 28 January 2013

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main PageT:DYK
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

Archives
Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals


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


DYK queue status

There are currently 4 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 01:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 78 minutes ago( )


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

Proposals for handling GibraltarpediA nominations were discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options

Proposed minor wording change to Gibraltarpedia restrictions

I'm proposing a small change to the terminology of the Gibraltarpedia restrictions to resolve an ambiguity. When the restrictions were (rather hastily) written in September 2012, they were specifically intended to cover Gibraltarpedia nominations (hence Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options). However, they were worded to cover only "Gibraltar-related" nominations and not specifically Gibraltarpedia articles.

This has caused uncertainty about what exactly is covered by the restrictions. A good example is my own article on José Cruz Herrera, a Spanish painter. He had nothing to do with Gibraltar so the article was not treated as "Gibraltar-related" and was reviewed in the normal way. However, it was given a Gibraltarpedia article banner on its talk page. There were subsequently some arguments about whether this article should have been subject to the restrictions, but this question was never resolved.

To avoid future confusion of this nature, I propose to amend the wording of the restrictions to replace the term "Gibraltar-related" with "Gibraltarpedia". This would not in any way change the substance of the restrictions - Gibraltarpedia articles would continue to need two reviews, be put in a special holding area, not be reviewed by IPs and Victuallers, etc.

Please indicate below whether you support this bit of tidying up. I propose to keep this discussion open for 10 days (i.e. until 18 January). Prioryman (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have posted a notification of this discussion to Talk:Main Page, Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) and Misplaced Pages talk:GLAM/GibraltarpediA. Prioryman (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  • That's just the problem, what is a "Gibraltar-related" article? José Cruz Herrera wasn't born in Gibraltar, didn't live or work there and had nothing to do with it as far as I know. I counted it as non-Gibraltar-related for that reason. Others counted it as Gibraltar-related because he was born in the nearest Spanish town to Gibraltar. What constitutes a "Gibraltar-related" article is subjective and open to dispute, but what constitutes a "Gibraltarpedia article" is easy to check just by looking at the talk page templates. It's a clear and objective standard. Prioryman (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm the one who originally wrote the "Gibraltar-related", and I was flying blind on the issue. Without knowing it, I had unintentionally worded something that penalized editors who had nothing to do with the contest. Change it to "Gibraltarpedia". I'm not sure which paranoia George Ho is referring to, but I'm tired of the quarantine and all the hysteria that has happened over this topic. — Maile (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
  • That's actually an argument I don't buy. Whether the drafting editor did or did not intend it or knew what he was doing, Gibraltar is what was supported at the time when the restrictions were put into effect, not merely Gibraltarpedia. It was clear from comments on the many Gibraltarpedia threads that a number of people thought this should affect all Gibraltar-related hooks regardless of Gibraltarpedia affiliation: when I read the original proposal, I thought it was deliberate and probably a good idea to make sure all bases were covered. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I had always thought that the discussion was about Gibraltarpedia - that's why it was called "Gibraltarpedia options", after all. It was only later that the inconsistency in the wording became clear, as did the collateral damage to other WikiProjects. "Gibraltar-related" impacts on a lot of other WikiProjects. For instance I wrote Carteia as part of my ongoing work on classical archaeology, just after I'd finished rewriting Volubilis which I'd also visited on the same trip. It wasn't written with Gibraltarpedia in mind (it's covered by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spain) but because it's near Gibraltar and was rediscovered by Britons from Gibraltar it could be considered "Gibraltar-related" and therefore subject to the restrictions. What sense does it make to cause collateral damage to other WikiProjects? If the intention is to restrict Gibraltarpedia, then restrict Gibraltarpedia and avoid damaging other WikiProjects that have nothing to do with the controversy. Prioryman (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The original discussion started out as being about Gibraltarpedia, its use of DYK in determining its prize structure, and its association with organizations on Gibraltar. It became an issue of access to Misplaced Pages's main page, via DYK, for Gibraltar-related hooks—Gibraltar was making frequent appearances on that page. Gibraltar presumably benefited by a DYK appearance whether the article was inspired by Gibraltarpedia or not, and they clearly believed they were benefiting by the competition-inspired Gibraltarpedia articles. In this case, the upstart Gibraltarpedia WikiProject has caused collateral damage to the more venerable Gibraltar WikiProject by covering the same topic area, Gibraltar, and making main page access a prize goal. It's not fair that they did this to you, but it's been done, and we all have to live with the repercussions, which makes Gibraltar-related articles have to jump through extra hoops to get to the Misplaced Pages main page via DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WTF are you talking about? I've not sent any "secret emails" to any of the supporting voters. If you can't bother assuming good faith, you're not contributing anything useful to this discussion. Prioryman (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I was commenting in good faith, and haven't received any emails on the topic (or, from memory, ever from Prioryman). I'd suggest assuming good faith rather than making accusations. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It should probably be pointed out that Prioryman did email George Ho on the subject after George opposed above, so he's understandably sensitive on the subject. And Prioryman has been letting people know about the proposal on their talk pages (I was one). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I've been struggling with this for ten days, and ultimately I can't see separating Gibraltarpedia and Gibraltar-related hooks. The original restrictions hit all Gibraltar hooks equally, as noted above, and I think they need to come off all Gibraltar hooks together when they are lifted (and I'm assuming they will be at some point in the not-too-distant future). This is not a small change, as advertised in the description, it's a fundamental one, as evidenced by the original discussions: the meaning was not ambiguous to me. If the restrictions are fully removed, I'm ready to dismantle them, but I don't think redefining them in midstream is appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: Has there been any other DYK's which have had a similar problem where people have had differing opinions on whether an article was "Gibraltar-related" or "Gibraltarpedia". If it is happening infrequently, I suggest leaving the current wording in place, and let uninvolved people decide. John Vandenberg 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • John, since the restrictions put in place were to "Gibraltar-related" articles, which covered all articles related to the territory of Gibraltar whether written for Gibraltarpedia or not, the question has not been relevant: if an article was seen to be about the European Gibraltar in some way, it was subject to the restrictions and treated as such. The only differing opinions were on whether Gibraltars in Australia or the US ought to be considered "Gibraltar-related" because they had the same name; the general (but not unanimous) feeling is that they weren't related and shouldn't therefore be subject to the restrictions. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    However I'm wondering how often there has been a general feeling that they weren't related. I saw a few strange cases, like the one in Australia, but there are a limited number of Australian places named after Gibraltar, and they have been done now. If its not a regular problem, I think its worth keeping the current definition in place and focusing on lifting the whole restriction. John Vandenberg 08:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Added comment to above proposal

I have to retract my statement that I'm the one who first-used used the phrase "Gibraltar-related". This is Who Originally Said What to start the whole mess. I had requested input from Yngvadottir and BlueMoonset (perhaps also Orlady, but I'm not sure) so we might come to some sort of a resolution on the Gibraltarpedia arguments going on at that time. I didn't know what I was doing, and I wanted so badly to make this better for all concerned. They responded in good faith on my talk page (later moved to DYK). It was actually Yngvadottir who came up with the original test draft on this and used the phrase. I built on what he had written. In my intent, it was all about Gibraltarpedia. The others can answer for themselves - or not, but their involvements were the same reason as mine, to make an uncomfortable situation better. As some DYK nominators/editors proved shortly afterward, there is more than one Gibraltar on this earth. There are several Gibraltars on the earth and on Misplaced Pages. So, if we cannot fine-tune this to Gibraltarpedia, than we must apply the rules to any and all DYK nominations that are related to any Gibraltar anywhere on the earth. Is it all Gibraltars on the earth, or is it just the project Gibraltarpedia? If there's one thing I regret to my soul being involved in, it's this. It's never-ending, and it often looks like a personal grudge against anyone who is willing to pitch in and get the job done. — Maile (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

While in theory there is no reason that those non-Mediterranean Gibraltars would fall under this restriction, in reality these DYKs were created by the exact same people, and were generally badly written, badly sourced, and badly nominated DYKs, with the same small group of people involved in each of them. The problem is not really with the topics per se, it is with the conduct of some people. The below subsection on Prioryman is relevant to this, others involved in these and similar pronlems include LauraHale and Hawkeye7 (perhaps others, these are the ones that I immediately associate with it). Fram (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, this was to try to find a way to deal with a very uncomfortable situation and find a way forward that would work and satisfy the concerns raised about the project and the way it was employing DYK. It definitely helped. I do note that all of the proposals on that page are stated as "Gibraltar-related" DYK submissions; Gibraltarpedia is hardly used on that page (6 times in the body vs. 35 for "Gibraltar-related", and half of those refer to the possibility of reviewing restrictions on Gibraltarpedia members). Your desire may have been Gibraltarpedia, but the intent—as you say so yourself—was to reflect Gibraltar-related because that's what the other people were looking for. In short, you went with what you believed was consensus.
"...then we must apply the rules to any and all DYK nominations that are related to any Gibraltar anywhere on this earth." I'm sorry, but that's absurd. This has been, from its beginning, about that little piece of Europe called Gibraltar. Yes, those DYK nominators did make their point that there was more than one Gibraltar on this earth, but the underlying articles—most of which were pretty mediocre, and took quite a while to meet DYK standards—did not advance any interest in the sites and history of the original Gibraltar, and there's no reason to include them in the restrictions. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Fram and BlueMoonset, let me ask you both something. First of all, Fram, I believe your overall concern is about DYK quality and what you believe to be editors who clog up the system with nominations that don't meet that quality. While I believe BlueMoonset is concerned about intent and controversy caused by the Gibraltarpedia project, whether it has that label or not. Let's say an editor not connected to any of this, someone who walks in off the virtual WP landscape, self-nominates an article that just happens to be about something over on Gibraltar. I don't know what - pick any subject - Irish jig dancing on Gibraltar or something. And the nomination is of decent quality and doesn't clog up the system. Does this editor get subjected to the same system now in place, just because they happened to write about something on Gibraltar? I think I already know the answer, but go ahead. — Maile (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course you know the answer. Everyone who writes a Gibraltar-related article has to jump through a few extra hoops for the time being, whether they're new, old, Gibraltarpedian or non. This sort of thing happens all the time when something goes wrong in the world: extra restrictions for a while on doing something, which are eventually loosened, but while they're in force they affect everyone. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

How long?

How long do we have to wait for the rather inane restrictions to be removed though? Its been 4+ months since the furor or a possible conflict of interest. All of hte conditions that were being complained about are gone, yet the restrictions and extra hoops are purposely being maintained here.--Kevmin § 04:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As said above, I wouldn't mind the restrictions being changed to just name a few people who aren't allowed to review any Gibraltar-related articles and any articles by each other instead, which would basically remove the need to have the two reviews. But the current restriction is an acceptable second-best option as well. Fram (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know. The restrictions serve no useful purpose at all now that the original issues are gone. I suggested a lifting of the restrictions above at #Ending the Gibraltar restrictions, which resulted in 10-3 majority in favour, but for reasons I don't pretend to understand the closing admin decided that there was not a sufficient consensus to act on the proposal. So here we still are. So where do we go from here? The closing admin mentioned two issues of (debatable) relevance: a report on Wikimedia UK (including Gibraltarpedia, though WMUK didn't sponsor it, and the report won't address editing issues on Misplaced Pages such as DYK) is due to be released on 31 January and the discussion linked above was not advertised outside this page. I'm looking at essentially re-running that discussion in February following the release of the WMUK report, advertising it on a number of pages including Talk:Main Page and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals), and probably notifying the 100 or so editors who participated in the discussion at WT:Did you know/Archive 87#Gibraltar, again. If anyone objects to this, please let me know in advance. Prioryman (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Kevmin and Prioryman, I'm sectioning this out in case it gets long.
  • Carcharoth closed with this comment, "Consensus to lift restrictions is forming. More discussion needed for precisely how this should be done": Carcharoth's Post-consensus comments. And while it does seem like a never-ending issue, Carcharoth did suggest rewording the proposal and publicizing more widely. There's merit in that idea.
  • BlueMoonset also had some valid comments in the Post-consensus comments, which referred to This Here One from Fall 2012. I don't discount what BlueMoonset said, because that particular discussion had been well-participated in, and BlueMoonset was correct in his comments. That one was 39 in favor of a ban and 66 Opposed to a ban. But there just seems to be a hill we can't get over on this.
  • The original proposal I had put together was only publicized here at DYK, and very few people bothered to vote. Shortly after it closed, this talk page had a heated debate by many saying they were unaware there had ever been a vote at all. There was some discussion that the ones who posted were part of a set community.
  • DYK talk page is good, but we all tend to be set in our opinions. As long as the input is limited to a handful here, this is just going to go around in circles forever. I don't know anything about Carcharoth except that this person is an Admin who is also part of Overslght, who has been on board since 2005. Maybe Carcharoth is pointing in the right direction. Prioryman, this is something you would be good at constructing, allowing all voices to be heard on both sides of the issue. Publicize it at Centralized discussion and on the Watchlist. Redo the original proposal and expand it into a comprehensive proposal much like the GA thing you ran up a rough draft on. Open it up to all of Misplaced Pages. — Maile (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I think waiting for the WMUK report to be released will be essential - two of the no voters referred to it as the reason for their opposition (though admittedly one of those opposes was barking mad). Additionally I think it would be useful to clear the existing backlog of Gibraltar-related DYKs, some of which are three months old, which is inexcusable, and get the accepted DYKs out of the way and onto the Main Page. Ideally I would like to be able to say that there are no more Gibraltar DYKs in any nominations, prep areas or queues. I'm also not sure how I can expand any further what I posted earlier. The competition was the main reason why the restrictions were imposed and now it's over. There's no ongoing controversy and no further media coverage. What more is there to say? Prioryman (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
What is the WMUK report? I don't know what else you can say, either. (I would like to see a proposal that bans the use of the phrases "Jimbo said" or "Jimbo Wales is on board with this..." or any variation that assumes that name carries the day at DYK) I like to think many who originally opposed Gibraltarpedia did so in good faith and had genuine concerns about DYK selling out. That said, it got way out of hand. It would not be hard to draw similarities to a mob riot, where some go with the flow just because everybody else is doing it. This has not been DYK's finest hour, and it's an experience I could have lived my whole life without. A lot of it was - and sometimes still is - about personalities. And so much anger, just so much anger. COI is a fair issue, as is the issue of quality of product and reviews. But some of these people just seem to have a grudge that isn't reasonable. Maybe they're like that in RL. I don't have an answer for you. I do find it interesting that the Admin who originally stirred this up has not been heard from since. Makes you wonder. — Maile (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the WMUK report is the report that Jimbo ordered outside consultants to carry out concerning Wikimedia UK's affairs. See here. As I've already pointed out in an earlier discussion, it has very limited relevance to DYK as its authors are not experts (or even editors) on Misplaced Pages and editing on Misplaced Pages is not part of their terms of reference (). Nonetheless some people seem to think that it is relevant. It's apparently due to be released around 31 January. Realistically speaking, we are not likely to be able to move beyond this until the report has been released. I don't know what will be in it but I anticipate that (unless it gives WMUK a totally clean bill of health) some people will use it as a justification, however thin and unreasonable, to filibuster any changes to the restrictions. As for your suggestions about advertising a new discussion, I think using the watchlist would be over the top - surely this isn't an issue of such monumental importance that it has to be advertised to absolutely everyone on Misplaced Pages? I guess one of my concerns is that it will turn into a circus once again. Prioryman (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Number of DYKs

Has the number of "Gibraltar-related" and "Gibraltarpedia" DYKs dropped in number now that the competition is over? Or is there a backlog still in effect? I think I was one of the people keen to wait for the WMF-WMUK report before dropping the restriction (and I might even be the barking mad person that Prioryman refers to), but if we're back to a trickle of DYK's then the restrictions are unnecessary provided people working on these topics don't resume previous patterns of overexposure of Gibraltar-related articles. John Vandenberg 01:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked Prioryman on my talk page (when he asked if I was willing to close the discussion) how many of these DYK nominations are left. I remember thinking it was quite a small number. The backlog is less to do with the number of these DYKs, but the general slowness of DYK at this time of year (when a large influx arrives from the WikiCup) and the added slowness caused by the need for a second review. If everyone commenting in these discussions reviewed one Gibraltar-related DYK nomination, and one non-Gibraltar DYK nomination, then the backlog of unreviewed Gibraltar-related nominations would go down quite a bit and it wouldn't take long to clear. Whether that should be done or not is another question. For the record, I disputed Prioryman's 10-3 characterisation of the close here. I stand by my assertion that those supporting a partial lifting of the restrictions cannot be counted as supporting a full lifting of the restrictions (in effect, they count as people supporting a continuation of some form of restrictions). Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
There is now, I think, only one unreviewed Gib-related nomination left - all the rest have been reviewed and are waiting to go in queues. There are no more pending. There has never been an "overexposure" anyway and since the restrictions were imposed the number of DYKs mentioning Gibraltar has dropped steadily throughout the second half of 2012. (I've done a graph on this point, which I'll post later). I don't think the backlog has had much to do with the WikiCup. The main reason has been (and has always been) that the nominations have been hidden away in the special occasions area where nobody ever looks. When I nominated Fourth Siege of Gibraltar and Fifth Siege of Gibraltar in the regular date area, rather than putting it straight into special occasions, they were all reviewed within a matter of hours. When they were moved to special occasions it then took another month to get a second review, and that only because I'd posted an appeal to WP:MILHIST. The requirement to put these nominations into special occasions has been an unmitigated disaster, causing delays of up to three months (!) in getting reviews completed, and should never be repeated if we ever find ourselves in a similar situation in future - that area of the page was never meant to be used for doing reviews.
John, I wasn't referring to your comments as "barking mad" but rather to Kilopi's earlier suggestion here that, and I quote, we should see what the forthcoming report on WMUK "reveals about how deep the conspiracy goes". I've no idea what will be in the report - I've had nothing to do with it - but one thing I'm sure of is that it won't and can't reveal anything about something that doesn't exist. There's about as much chance of it revealing a "conspiracy" as there is of it revealing the existence of the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. Prioryman (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, but am open to evidence. For example, if I was shown a memorandum of understanding signed by Nessie and Bigfoot which had the intent and effect of sabotaging the neutrality of Misplaced Pages's most visible page for their own gains, then I would say they were conspiring to harm Misplaced Pages. Now it turns out that neither Nessie nor Bigfoot signed that contract. But other people did, and I consider those people to have conspired against Misplaced Pages. Kilopi (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Graph of DYKs which mention Gibraltar
Graph of numbers of DYKs in selected topics
I've added the graph I mentioned of DYK hooks which mention Gibraltar. The peak was in August, just before the restrictions were imposed. Since the restrictions were imposed there has been a steady fall month on month. There has been a slight uptick in January as a result of the backlog mentioned above being cleared. There is only one unreviewed nomination left, so on current trends it seems unlikely that there will be more than one or two DYKs in February, and perhaps not even that if the unreviewed nomination gets run before the end of this month. The Gibraltarpedia competition ended a month ago so there is no longer any ongoing spur to create new articles in this topic area. Prioryman (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the graph and for your estimates of future DYKs. There are quite a few people who believe that 17 is overexposure; you can disagree, but as a subjective assessment I think you shouldn't negate their opinion, but could instead change their opinion by providing pretty graphs of similar peaks of 17 DYKs. Maybe an analysis of the bacon WikiCup would show similar peaks..?
Anyway, based on that, I think we may as well hold one more month, by which time we can confirm your prediction of only a few DYKs in January and February, and then remove the restriction irrespective of the status of the report, which is anticipated "will be published by January 31 2013, and in any event by 15 February 2013." But if someone is counting votes now, count me as happy to have the restriction lifted now. John Vandenberg 09:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't see any justification for a further month's restrictions given that there is only one unreviewed nomination left. There's nothing more to be restricted. As for pretty graphs, here's a new graph comparing the numbers of DYKs in six selected topics - Indonesia, mushrooms, horses, Olympics, Paralympics and Gibraltar. As you can see, Gibraltar (the thick orange line) is dwarfed by the numbers of the other DYKs, some of which (Indonesia, mushrooms and horses) have been the work of a single editor. There were 131 Olympic DYKs in August alone, with up to 11 running per day. The number of Gibraltar DYKs in the peak month of August was less than the number of Olympic DYKs in just two days that month. Frankly, that demonstrates how completely bogus the claim of "overexposure" is and always was. Prioryman (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Second reviews

  • Comment - I'm not seeing the significance of this. But it does bring up another issue. Does it really seem appropriate that Prioryman reviews Gibraltar, or Gibraltarpedia, related articles, basically rubber stamping their approval? That seems to defeat the whole purpose of having two reviewers for these articles. So we're basically back to one reviewer, per standard DYK, which is NOT how this is suppose to work. Add to that that in some cases the second reviewer is some friend of Prioryman's and we're back to a situation where the whole restriction designed to address the COI issues are made a mockery off. It's almost funny how quickly they figured out a way to make a run around community consensus while keeping to the letter of the "law". Probably says something more general about the DYK process.Volunteer Marek 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll split this off for convenience since it's at a tangent to the main discussion. Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options specifically states: "Gibraltar-related DYK nominations require two reviews by two separate reviewers (One of the two reviewers should not be connected to GibraltarPediA)." This was agreed after I pointed out that many of Gibraltarpedia's contributors are in fact native Gibraltarians and therefore subject matter experts (I suppose I count as one too, as I was responsible for starting Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gibraltar several years ago). Excluding them is wholly counter-productive and unnecessary, as there has never been any suggestion from any sensible person that anyone other than Victuallers has had any actual or potential COI. I know I certainly don't. As for "rubber stamping", that's simply not true, as (for example) my review of Template:Did you know nominations/Political development in modern Gibraltar shows. If I was "rubber stamping" I would have added the green tick straight away instead of asking the nominator to fix various issues. Your comment about "some friend of Prioryman's" doesn't deserve a response except to say that you aren't doing yourself any favours by gratuitously smearing other editors. Prioryman (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with this being split off, though really it should have its own section, as in "Proposed wording change to Gibraltarpedia restrictions - should Prioryman be excluded from doing reviews". As to the essence of the matter, let me get a better feel for the issue. Out of all the Gibraltar related articles that have appeared/been approved in the past several months (since the restriction has been imposed), how many of them have you been one of the two reviewers on? I'm fairly sure it's a sufficiently high number of observations to give us an idea of whether this is a problem or not. If that proportion is low, then I'll be happy to drop this. If it hasn't then there's obviously a problem and potential gaming of the restriction going on here.Volunteer Marek 23:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Since the restrictions explicitly allow Gibraltarpedia contributors to review these articles, your premise is invalid. I don't propose to contribute further to your troublemaking. Prioryman (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Since the restrictions explicitly allow Gibraltarpedia contributors to review these articles - yes, but that exactly appears to be the problem. Let me state/ask again: how many of the Gibraltar related DYK noms have been reviewed/approved by yourself? If it was a small proportion, then no problem. If a high one, something fishy's going on, obviously. Don't try to derail the discussion and poison the well through name calling, it's very unprofessional and non-collegial.Volunteer Marek 02:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Answer? Volunteer Marek 21:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I second Marek's concern re:gaming the system. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you guys are concerned, I suggest that you extend Misplaced Pages:GLAM/GibraltarpediA/DYKs (which only includes the first month or two). John Vandenberg 09:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Joel Gilbert, but I'm uncertain about whether to allow the use of a couple of sources in that article. Could someone please take a look and give a second opinion? Prioryman (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved

- 21 Jan

Unresolved

- 22 Jan

Unresolved

- 23 Jan

Unresolved

- 24 Jan

Old unreviewed DYK hooks looking for reviewers of any age

We have 250 DYK nominations submitted, of which only 61 are approved, leaving far too many languishing. All included hooks are over two weeks old, plus there's one large multi with many unreviewed hooks and one old Gibraltar hook from those still sequestered in the special holding area, and thus harder for reviewers to find. Many thanks for your assistance.

The remaining megamulti hook:

Finally, there is a single Gibraltar-related hook from November that needs reviewing:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for input on the DYK nomination for the Bill Cosby in advertising article

I have posted a review to Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Cosby in advertising which highlights many issues with the article. I would welcome input from others as to how much of what I raised must be fixed for the article to be approved for the main page. The article has had a GA review but the comments made have gone unaddressed. I haven't been around DYK much for quite a while and I don't want to deviate too far from the accepted standards, but equally I would not be comfortable signing off on this article appearing on the main page. Maybe I am being too harsh. Feedback and comment would be helpful. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's too old. New articles should be nominated within 5 days of creation. The way I read the article's history, it was moved from the user space on January 5, which is 17 days ago. You could go for 5X expansion, but that would require a 5X expansion of 10217 characters "readable prose size" within 5 days, which would make a hefty article. There are also bare urls, and the reliability of the sources has been questioned on the talk page. Without going through the talk page items one by one, there are enough issues to bring this into doubt for a DYK review even if it was new enough. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm indeed. Duh. I just went straight to the article instead of the template. Double duh. Yeah, it was nominated in time, but there sure are a lot of other issues. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Based on what I see at the DYK review, there are several issues which need work (most pressing of which is referencing/ref formatting). The article is legible enough, so polishing the grammar isn't quite DYK material... although I commend Ed for a very thorough review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fuzzy lead picture

Is there any reason why the thumbnail of David Gunness in Prep 4 has to be so fuzzy? So far as I can tell, it's an uploaded photo by Gunness himself with all the proper licenses, but the thumbnail, while cropped, is done so at the lowest possible resolution. Something with better resolution should look clearer; as it is, I don't think it looks good enough for the main page. Can someone please do something to upgrade the image? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not coming out fuzzy for me. You're not using some kind of image compression on your Internet connection, are you? I've had that issue before, but only when using a mobile phone connection that relies on images being compressed upstream to reduce the amount of data needing to be downloaded. Prioryman (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I replaced the 100px version with File:David Gunness - cropped.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, George. It's much better now. Prioryman, I'm on a laptop with an extremely good connection, and went back and forth between viewing the original picture and the image in the prep area; the latter was distinctly less sharp there and on commons. It's amazing what those extra kilobytes will do. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. Good job, George! Prioryman (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK with bare citations currently on front page

Karl Beck (tenor), which is on the front page right now, has reference formatting that is in violation of rule D3 on Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines which says "References in the article must not be bare URLs". In the Beck article, about 10 of the 12 references are bare citations. Maybe they thought that because the refs said Example rather than http://example.com it was okay, but it's not. That is just as unacceptable. Urarary (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rule D3 says "Many bare-URL references can be automatically completed with Reflinks." All reflinks does is to give the link in the ref a title, exactly as the references appear in the article in question. More complete citations using templates are preferred, but not required as I understand it - I sure that someone will be along to correct me if I have this wrong. Mikenorton (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
If that's all Reflinks does, then that's not a very useful suggestion, and it should be removed from the rule. It makes the bare URLs look a little better, but does not solve the actual problems of bare URLs. DYK has higher standards. The article in question has very inadequate referencing. Urarary (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems that 9 out of 12 are not really bare URLs, as they do include the name of the author and the title. Am I missing something? Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
"Bare URLs" is simply a URL with nothing else. None of the references here fall under that definition; they may not be full citations, but they do have a title to stop them appearing in the ugly bare-URL format. Do we need to insist on yet another bit of DYK standards-creep? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fish day, again

So people continue to add new, unreviewed nominations to the April Fool's subpage, where they are getting next to know attention. Could we please make it explicit that "Please do not nominate new articles for a special time in this section." at T:TDYK applies not only to that section, but the subpage as well? Nobody will be able to build an April Fool's prep without reviewed hooks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So new nominations need to be placed on T:TDYK under the individual dates as per normal? Prioryman (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Almost nobody watches the other page, and I've always put mine through the process like normal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've added those that haven't yet been listed on T:TDYK to that page. Prioryman (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The only problem with doing so is that April Fools hooks operate under different rules in that the size requirements, both 1500 for all articles and the additional 5x minimum for older ones, doesn't need to be within 5 days, but only since the most recent April 2. Someone will need to keep their eye out to make sure hooks aren't flunked when they actually meet the looser AF time frame. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
How many fish hooks (sorry, I couldn't resist that pun) do we need anyway? Assuming that the unverified ones are all signed off we will already have 18 ready to be used. Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • @Blue: A comment, clearly. Although several editors still follow the DYK rules more or less exactly when expanding an article for April 1
@Prioryman: depends on how many we get. Last year we ran 3 sets of 8. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK section on the front page is not updated

Unlogged visitors see an old revision of the DYK section on the front page (this one). I think the DYK section should not be updated until the technical issue is solved. Cause no one sees them anyway. The problem is ongoing, since January 22. It is being discussed here: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Users reporting site time issues. I've also already posted about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia_front_page_backlog and Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors#Huge backlog. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also check the view statistics for all revisions of the DYK section since January 22 and re-featured the revisions with low view counts. It wouldn't be fair otherwise. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As a data point, I'm seeing the page as it is (and should be) right now, not the old version. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The edits are there in the database, but when I log out, I see some old revision. At Template:Did you know, I see the revision from 16:00, 22 January 2013. On the front page, I see the revision from 08:00, 23 January 2013. So it has been 24 or 48 hours. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm seeing exactly the same thing. It appears that the servers are serving up an old (~24 hrs) version of Misplaced Pages for logged-out users and an up-to-date version for those logged in. This appears to be affecting everything - articles, talk pages, even pages histories. The history for this page, for instance, shows the last edit as supposedly being at 11:48 UTC yesterday. This is going to have a big impact on readership for DYKs and TFAs until it's sorted out, unfortunately. Prioryman (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this is resolved, based on the fact that I am now seeing the same content whether logged out (I accessed Misplaced Pages with a browser that had never previously accessed the Misplaced Pages mainpage) or logged in. --Orlady (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Expansions following copyvio

From the supplementary guidelines, it seems that if an article has major copyvio issues and is stubified, it can be eligible for DYK following a x5 expansion from the stub version. Is this correct? Further, what is needed for establishing copyvio? For example, if I see a case I think is an old copyvio from an editor who worked on only that article quite some time ago, I know I can revert to the version before the copyvio occurred - but would I need more to establish that this was a copyvio? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The 5x expansion from the stub version would be eligible. I'm assuming you know what the article is copyvio of, if so that should be all you need. I usually get it revdeleted. You can ping an admin or use {{Copyvio-revdel}} for that. Ryan Vesey 13:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that supplementary guideline is just making difficulties for us to tell if it is satisfied or not. There needs to be proof of a copyvio, and it would be best if someone else does clean it out and not the person claiming the DYK credit. If I see and editor delete text and then claim to have expanded, I will count before the deletion. The benefit should be to our readers. To demonstrate a copyright violation you should give the link or reference of the material infringed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

28 January

I would like to see Template:Did you know nominations/Ich hab in Gottes Herz und Sinn, BWV 92 on 27 or 28 January. It needs a review first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

reviewed now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for promotion

Can anybody promote Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Chao? Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this is insane

I wrote The Hole (Scientology)‎ a few days ago and nominated it for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hole (Scientology)‎. I'm feeling a bit shocked now to see that it got over 102,000 page views yesterday. The crazy thing is that it hasn't even appeared on the Main Page yet! Is anyone up for reviewing the nomination? I'm curious to see how many page views it gets when it actually does get Main Paged... Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That is! crazy-cool.—My76Strat (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it in the news right now? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Appears it got Reddited: This is the second time in a week that's happened to one of my articles. :O Prioryman (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed it for you. I know I've had something similar happen on Baron Carrickfergus, the day after the Royal Wedding it got something like 18,000 views without being on the main page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Tagged with {{high traffic}} :) Legoktm (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll be keeping a close eye on the stats! Prioryman (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject?

Is there an actual WikiProject for DYK, if so please link the page. Thank you.—My76Strat (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not part of Category:Active WikiProjects, if that's what you mean. It's pretty much Misplaced Pages:Did you know, — Maile (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

This relates to DYK only in the sense that it has been recommended that the new feature Today's Article For Improvement be added directly below DYK on the Main Page. Here's the test page for TAFI's presentation on Misplaced Pages's Main page

It leaves rather a huge gap below "On this day", doesn't it? Prioryman (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that long note will still exist, but is it possible to have the blurb cover the length of the page rather than being split? Ryan Vesey 16:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The link up there in the first sentence is the talk page about it. I think they're still figuring out the exact details, but it seems open for comment. — Maile (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Prematurely scheduled DYK - needs rolling back urgently

Could someone please replace John le Fucker in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 - it's supposed to be for April Fool's Day. Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead images might need a shuffle, since they're all men. Not too many approved hooks with good images at the moment. Froggerlaura 04:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

March is Women's History Month

I submitted a DYK the other day which has been approved (Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanna Gray). I then realized that March is Women's History Month (see also Misplaced Pages:WikiWomen's History Month). I left a note at the nomination asking if it could be held over until then. I plan/hope to create a few more DYKs pertaining to women's history. Is February too early to submit them, and do I just leave a note on the nomination template to ask that it be held over until March if it's approved? Voceditenore (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do leave a note on the nomination template that the article should run during March for Women's History Month. That way, when the nomination is approved, it will automatically be moved to the special holding area. There's a six-week limit for holding articles. If the articles can run any time in March, you're all set today. If you want them to wait for a particular day later in March, then you might want to hold off creating it until six weeks before you want the article to run. (By mid-February, it won't matter any more, because there will only be six weeks left.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DYK/N

Could we change WP:DYK/N from pointing to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 to Template talk:Did you know since the latter is the nomination page. I've attempted to use the shortcut on a number of occasions. Ryan Vesey 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

More old unreviewed hooks than ever need reviewing

We have 261 DYK nominations submitted at the moment, of which only 60 are approved, a difference of over 200. All included hooks here are over half a month old, plus there's one large multi with many unreviewed hooks. I'm happy to report that we're finally caught up on the old Gibraltar hooks. Let me urge you to take a look at the December hooks needing review, most of which are quite straightforward. Many thanks for your continuing assistance.

The megamulti hook:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of an approved DYK

The Hole (Scientology), which I wrote and which was approved for DYK a few days ago (see Template:Did you know nominations/The Hole (Scientology)), has been nominated for speedy deletion by a Scientologist (perhaps predictably). I'd be grateful if someone could take a look. I'm happy for the article to be re-reviewed if there are genuine POV or sourcing issues with it. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw this. And it is by an editor who admits on their user page "I'm really here because I feel Scientology has terrible representation on Misplaced Pages and believe neutral point-of-view is not utilized in many of the Scientology-related pages." A speedy deletion would seem to go around any discussion about the deletion. How does a user stall this? — Maile (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I removed the speedy. It seems to be sufficiently sourced from secondary sources necessary for GNG and is clearly not an "attack" page. Whether or not there are POV issues is a legitimate issue that should be reviewed. At a glance, it seems okay to me, but I didn't evaluate it closely for NPOV, just N. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)