TomCat4680 (talk | contribs) |
m →No rompás las bolas!: new section |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
{{Talkback|TomCat4680}} |
{{Talkback|TomCat4680}} |
||
== No rompás las bolas! == |
|||
You can say something, or stop you fuck, or get short of supplies, Hear? |
|||
Good. |
Revision as of 01:47, 27 April 2009
Click to leave me any other kind of message.
Please sign your message by typing ~~~~ after it.
Archives |
Inquiring minds want to know
Is there any quality control at DYK? I am becoming disillusioned. The editor of the endless articles from the Book of Tang has a DYK several times a week and his articles don't pass WP:V and WP:RS. Are there no standards at DYK? The people who promote the hooks seem not to have good judgment. It is discouraging. Probably time for me to move on. I was hoping that things had improved from the bad judgment that was so common there not too long ago. But I don't see that happening. Maybe I should find some book or list and churn out endless hooks, as seems to be the practice of so many. The Book of Tang guy has several years worth of hooks left. And his articles are a mess. No one goes back and cleans them up. I think DYK encourages the wrong behavior. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I try to quality control most of what I review (although I haven't been reviewing much for the past month or so), but there are a couple "problem editors" whom I just avoid. Nlu has been around for a while and the sources in his hooks are questioned repeatedly, to the point that I've gotten tired of dealing with; there have been threads at WT:DYK and WT:RS discussing him and I don't think any of them have ever reached a consensus, and I don't have the energy or interest to re-hash all of it over and over again, so I just avoid his hooks (which generally means someone with lower standards will eventually come along and let them through). Another problem editor is Billy Hathorn, who repeatedly nominates articles about television shows or television actors based almost entirely on IMDB and other non-reliable sources, often with improper ref formatting and no real content (the articles are often just lists of stuff, in prose format). He's getting better and has been slowly starting to use some book sources, but for the most part he just ignores repeated messages from DYK editors. His noms I generally reject straight off if I see problems (since they're easier to evaluate Nlu's), but it's a similar sort of issue: DYK (like any other area, I'm sure) has its share of relatively experienced editors who have their editing style, know what their editing style is, and aren't interested in changing it just because some young upstart whippersnappers like me leave them a message.
- As to the general question of quality control, it's a kind of sticky situation, as you have probably seen from the responses to Awadewit's proposal at WT:DYK. I am more or less in the camp that wants to see the standards raised, but I can also understand the views from people like Yomangani who are concerned about raising the bar too high. I generally try to enforce relatively high standards for the basic "homework" part of a new article—sourcing, inline citations, de-orphaning, proper format—and remain a little more lax in terms of content issues like breadth of coverage. Basically, I agree with those people that we shouldn't require "mini-GAs", and that it would be hard to do content assessments that quickly anyway, so when I review an article I just do a quick once-over to make sure there aren't egregious content problems (blatant POV slant or slanderous material, wording that's totally incomprehensible to a lay reader) and then focus mostly on making sure the writer has "done their homework" as far as using proper format, providing sources, links, etc. That way I feel like I can have some quality control over what's going to the main page and can uphold some standards about making sure new articles have those minimum essentials, without getting into the more controversial area of doing in-depth content and quality assessments. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- And, of course, as you point out, what happens to DYKs after their 15 minutes of fame is another issue to consider. One of the arguments I hear a lot from the people against raising the DYK bar is that part of DYK's purpose should be to showcase new articles that still need work, and to invite improvement....so obviously the question of whether or not DYKs do get improvement is worth considering (although someone could respond by saying "well, they would get improvement, but you raised the bar too high and now there's not any easy improvement to be done). That's part of the reason I made User:Rjanag/DYKfuture, to get a sense of what some DYKs go on to do in their life after DYK. Of course, as I always point out, that page is useless and was just something for fun, since it doesn't really put those numbers in perspective; if we took the 1700 or so DYKs that have gone on to be good/featured content and compared it to whatever the total number of former DYK articles is, we'd probably find that it's only a tiny percentage. Just for me, three of my 23 DYKs have gone on to be GAs, which is not a whole lot. But I'm not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing. We've hit a point where, although there is still lots of worthwhile content that needs to be written, at least half of DYK is articles about Joe Schmoe baseball player, some politician from Bulgaria, a road, or a mushroom. A lot of these articles just intrinsically don't have much that can or should be written about them, so after they go through DYK it's not necessarily bad that they don't see much improvement; if they're boring articles that no one will want to look at anyway, DYK is the only chance to make sure they're not terrible, and they have good sources, etc. I guess the real question is that, if a good portion of new articles are boring, should we really be devoting such a big chunk of the main page to showing 8 new articles when at least half of them are pretty bland? But that question opens up the extremely messy issue of how to judge what hooks are interesting and what aren't, and that idea has pretty much always been shot down; in practice, it's very rare to reject an article or a hook for being too boring. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Nlu doesn't touch his articles after his DYK. They all have the same formatting errors. I think he just copy/pastes. Many DYK's just are more junk for Wikipedia to deal with. Many are orphans and will probably never be touched again. Many look like they should be immediately merged out of existence or never should have been created. Instead, the editor gets to rack up another reward for his collection.
- I can see lowering the bar for a new editor, or a foreign language editor etc. but not a repeated abuser. Nlu is egregious. The low standards of those that promote make it virtually useless for someone like me to bother putting time into quality evaluation. Eventually, I believe something from outside will bring DYK down, as the standards of Wikipedia are rising dramatically, and eventually the glaring problems at DYK will bring attention to it. Bad grammar and punctuation, meaningless hooks, repetitious hooks, the same thing over and over. Oh well. There just are not enough editors that have basic writing skills or even basic article evaluation skills who are willing to work at DYK. Is it that poor editors are attracted to DYK work? Is there any form of quality control? Why is the skill level so low? I am puzzled that quality editors are not interested in DYK, when there are so many good editors on Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Many nominate their article for DYK as part of their march to FAC. So those articles would have become FA or GA, regardless of DYK. The editor has that goal in the beginning, like Ottava. I don't think DYK has any material influence on an article going on to FA or GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- (re your first point) Yeah, that's part of the reason why I don't bother with those articles anymore—I believe there are problems, but I'm just one person and not really able to tackle the amount of work that would be necessary to change the Nlu issue at DYK. Many editors have brought it up before at various talkpages and noticeboards, and nothing has ever come of it, so I'd have a lot of material (old discussions) to work through before I could even think about what needs to be done.
- As for poor grammar, copyediting, etc...yeah, I used to spend a lot more time copyediting and cleaning up articles, but eventually I got frustrated doing what I felt was the article writer's work...going through and putting spaces after all the periods, stuff like that, can get annoying after a while. I still do it sometimes, but not as a rule. To be honest, I think bad grammar and copyediting are surmountable problems (just establish more of a precedent for slapping cleanup tags on an article and rejecting/delaying the nom until the issues are fixed), and articles with content holes or poor coverage are not necessarily a problem (it's ok for DYK articles to be incomplete, as long as they don't have egregious POV problems and stuff like that), whereas the biggest problem that DYK has to face is the problem of lackluster hooks and articles. It is beginning to get a reputation for being a collection of boring trivia (and I'll admit, even though I usually make an effort to write interesting DYK hooks, there are probably 4 or 5 of mine that are guilty of the same problem as most DYKs) and there's no easy way to change that. Requiring hooks to be "interesting" raises all the subjectivity problems that have been talked about already, and it intensifies the existing problem of people highlighting or puffing up a bland fact (State Road 234087 is the fourth-longest road in Boring County, Kansas? oh, boy!). If anything is ever going to "bring down" DYK, I think it would be that issue, rather than copyediting and formatting concerns. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I was talking about bad grammar, copy editing in the hooks. Surely there must be a group of editors that can actually write and evaluate to do the hooks! Many of the ones doing it seem clueless. I used to post an error on the talk page when I saw something egregious, but now I don't bother. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Yeah, that's just a problem with reviewers; personally, I try to be pretty brutal in trimming down hooks and copyediting them, because most nominators seem to cram as much information as possible into their hook (which, contrary to what they expect, just makes it even more boring...a five-word quip about a boring fact is a lot less boring than a four-line rant about it). Another problem is that I think in our hurry to move verified hooks over to Next without getting in an edit conflict, we might sometimes accidentally grab the non-copyedited hook; one thing that might help would be to standardize a procedure for marking hooks that have been verified (like by sticking them in with the auto-generated credits). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Something is needed. Not that I know what. But it is becoming a joke.
- The hooks are boring trivia. I used to rewrite them, but now I see it's pointless because why bother when a plethora of boring trivia is going to be promoted anyway. And I think the hook writers know that, so they don't bother, for the most part, to worry if their hook is "interesting or intriguing" as they know that is irrelevant ultimately.
- And the effect is to increase the submission of boring, trivial hooks. It is easy to tell that there are no standards. Soon you will be flooded. Perhaps you have notices that DYK is becoming an easy mark.
- I don't understand the hook selection process. But why is it all done at the last minute. Why is there no quality control. Why is almost every hook guaranteed to be used? Why is it no honor whatsoever to be selected for DYK. Just manage to get 1500 characters in an orphan article, that's all. And if you have an endless resource, like the Book of Tang (or whatever), you will have several weekly DYKs for the foreseeable future. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- For a long time, the general feeling was that DYK was not so much an "award" as a pat on the back, especially for new users. (And, to be honest, I'm not all that happy seeing RfAs with stuff like "so-and-so has written 20 DYKs"; I don't think they should be used like that...I keep track of my DYK hooks but just because I like having a record of them, not because I think it shows people how stellar a guy I am.) Therefore, there was a general idea that if you wrote or expanded an article and it has references, you were "entitled" to a DYK, no matter how interesting the article was (like I said, it's rare to reject an article for being boring, although I have done so a couple times, only after a week or so of discussion trying to find good hooks and failing). That probably needs to change, especially now that a lot of people seem to be trying to make something of their DYK tallies—if a DYK is going to be an "award" then you should have to earn it. The problem, of course, is how we would implement that change...there's no good objective way to measure interesting-ness (if I were vetting hooks on a given day, I can guarantee you not many sports hooks would get through because I think most of them were stupid; on the other hand, if someone else were vetting, I get half of mine, including this one up right now, wouldn't make it) and if we had extended discussions of each hook we wouldn't be able to keep up. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- What about having some (gasp) criteria, especially since, as you say, editors are avidly racking up their DYK counts as if it means something besides having nothing else to do. FAC is unpopular because of its criteria, but it does have respect. And editors are willing to put work into achieving it. I am not suggesting anything like that for DYK. But lets face it, if all you have to do is scrap together 1500 characters on anything, or nominate an article that you have not clue what it means so you can't possibly write a coherent hook, and you get to collect a DYK for your next RFA, it would be bad enough. But the fact it gets on the main page is a travesty. I would be willing to offer a "help" service for those editors who are truly at a disadvantage. But most of the DYK regualars now seem to be big time professional collectors. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is, what would the criteria be, and how would we uphold them? Looking at the current DYK batch, I think hooks 3–6 are utterly boring, and 1 is borderline. 3 and 4 are particularly bad. But ask anyone else, and I bet they will single out different hooks; some people might even like some of the hooks that I think are stupid. I don't know of any way we could objectively reach an agreement on what hooks are interesting, without having a discussion for each hook that would last a while; to make that work, we would pretty much have to accept way fewer hooks than we do now, and leave the accepted ones up for much longer (like, maybe only 1 update a day) so that those hooks get us farther. And, since I'm sure people would still be nominating stuff just as fast as we are now, we'd get a pretty big backlog...we would have to have some sort of "quick-fail" criteria to get rid of hooks that are so boring they're not even worth discussing, but again it's not very clear how to do that objectively. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It definitely would take some working out. But what you seem to be saying now is that the lowest common denominator determines the outcome. It used to be that if a hook was not chosen in the five day, then goodbye hook. I know I had many overlooked through that system. But I had much more respect for DYK then and I actively worked on hooks and articles with DYK criteria in mind. Now, as you say, DYK is an entitlement. And the DYK hook posters, apparently care about being liked more than quality. And now that Orlady is back, I expect things to go down hill, as that person, whatever her excellencies in other areas, lakes editorial judgment and skill. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I mean, I agree that it shouldn't be an entitlement, and something somewhat TFA-style (where people support or oppose proposed hooks) could be nice (although that won't happen anytime in the forseeable future, since it would be a major battle to implement a change that big). But in practice it's hard to reject most hooks if all the stuff has been verified, especially if you know your personal opinion is coming into play (ie, if I rejected some boring sports hook, I'm sure people could scroll up the page and find some different topic hook that was just as boring, objectively, but I didn't reject)...it would invite a lot of squabbling over whether or not something is "interesting" and how many people out in the real world care about X. Letting hooks older than 5 days disappear might reduce squabbling, since it's a bit more objective (it basically seems to say, "Yeah, your article was verified, but your hook was so boring that it didn't catch anyone's attention; if you can't hook anyone in within 5 days and get them to promote your hook, then it doesn't deserve to be featured). Going through the dregs in Older Noms is often quite a chore, since they're the hooks that didn't excite anyone and no one wants to deal with. But again, it would require a lot of fighting to get this changed, since right now the status quo is still at the entitlement thing and the idea that every nomination deserves to get looked at, no matter how boring it is. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- And yeah, right now it pretty much is the lowest common denominator. If I think a hook is boring, I'm obligated to ask myself, "But will anyone else find it interesting?" If the answer is yes, I usually have no choice but to clean it up as best as I can and pass it (assuming that no hooks that are more interesting are possible). Only when the answer is no and the hook is truly trivial (along the lines of "... that Joe Schmoe and Joe Schmoe's brother both had the same father?"), and there are no other possibilities, do I get to reject it without getting in trouble. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It definitely would take some working out. But what you seem to be saying now is that the lowest common denominator determines the outcome. It used to be that if a hook was not chosen in the five day, then goodbye hook. I know I had many overlooked through that system. But I had much more respect for DYK then and I actively worked on hooks and articles with DYK criteria in mind. Now, as you say, DYK is an entitlement. And the DYK hook posters, apparently care about being liked more than quality. And now that Orlady is back, I expect things to go down hill, as that person, whatever her excellencies in other areas, lakes editorial judgment and skill. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is, what would the criteria be, and how would we uphold them? Looking at the current DYK batch, I think hooks 3–6 are utterly boring, and 1 is borderline. 3 and 4 are particularly bad. But ask anyone else, and I bet they will single out different hooks; some people might even like some of the hooks that I think are stupid. I don't know of any way we could objectively reach an agreement on what hooks are interesting, without having a discussion for each hook that would last a while; to make that work, we would pretty much have to accept way fewer hooks than we do now, and leave the accepted ones up for much longer (like, maybe only 1 update a day) so that those hooks get us farther. And, since I'm sure people would still be nominating stuff just as fast as we are now, we'd get a pretty big backlog...we would have to have some sort of "quick-fail" criteria to get rid of hooks that are so boring they're not even worth discussing, but again it's not very clear how to do that objectively. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- What about having some (gasp) criteria, especially since, as you say, editors are avidly racking up their DYK counts as if it means something besides having nothing else to do. FAC is unpopular because of its criteria, but it does have respect. And editors are willing to put work into achieving it. I am not suggesting anything like that for DYK. But lets face it, if all you have to do is scrap together 1500 characters on anything, or nominate an article that you have not clue what it means so you can't possibly write a coherent hook, and you get to collect a DYK for your next RFA, it would be bad enough. But the fact it gets on the main page is a travesty. I would be willing to offer a "help" service for those editors who are truly at a disadvantage. But most of the DYK regualars now seem to be big time professional collectors. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- For a long time, the general feeling was that DYK was not so much an "award" as a pat on the back, especially for new users. (And, to be honest, I'm not all that happy seeing RfAs with stuff like "so-and-so has written 20 DYKs"; I don't think they should be used like that...I keep track of my DYK hooks but just because I like having a record of them, not because I think it shows people how stellar a guy I am.) Therefore, there was a general idea that if you wrote or expanded an article and it has references, you were "entitled" to a DYK, no matter how interesting the article was (like I said, it's rare to reject an article for being boring, although I have done so a couple times, only after a week or so of discussion trying to find good hooks and failing). That probably needs to change, especially now that a lot of people seem to be trying to make something of their DYK tallies—if a DYK is going to be an "award" then you should have to earn it. The problem, of course, is how we would implement that change...there's no good objective way to measure interesting-ness (if I were vetting hooks on a given day, I can guarantee you not many sports hooks would get through because I think most of them were stupid; on the other hand, if someone else were vetting, I get half of mine, including this one up right now, wouldn't make it) and if we had extended discussions of each hook we wouldn't be able to keep up. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Yeah, that's just a problem with reviewers; personally, I try to be pretty brutal in trimming down hooks and copyediting them, because most nominators seem to cram as much information as possible into their hook (which, contrary to what they expect, just makes it even more boring...a five-word quip about a boring fact is a lot less boring than a four-line rant about it). Another problem is that I think in our hurry to move verified hooks over to Next without getting in an edit conflict, we might sometimes accidentally grab the non-copyedited hook; one thing that might help would be to standardize a procedure for marking hooks that have been verified (like by sticking them in with the auto-generated credits). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I was talking about bad grammar, copy editing in the hooks. Surely there must be a group of editors that can actually write and evaluate to do the hooks! Many of the ones doing it seem clueless. I used to post an error on the talk page when I saw something egregious, but now I don't bother. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Many nominate their article for DYK as part of their march to FAC. So those articles would have become FA or GA, regardless of DYK. The editor has that goal in the beginning, like Ottava. I don't think DYK has any material influence on an article going on to FA or GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
← (out dent and edit conflict) The more power to you for hanging in. I admire you. I see you have given it thought. However, acceding to the lowest common denominator is not the way to quality, although I certainly understand your reasons. When I think of the difficulty involved in getting one criteria into FAC, that of requiring a search of the literature; it was a massive and lengthy battle, heated at times. But finally it was added, and it will make a difference. What should the goal of Wikipedia be? Keeping most of the editors comfortable most of the time? Meaning no one has to exert themselves out of their comfort zone. And here I am referring to the DKY reviewers and those that chose and edit the hooks. (I don't think those that submit hooks can be blamed as they go by the cues as set forth by reviewers and hook passers.) Unfortunately, an undiscriminating group of editors is attracted to work on DYK, perhaps because it is so undemanding, having only minor criteria to worry about. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Haha...I don't know if you could call what I've been doing lately "hanging in"; I probably review about 1 nom a week. I am hoping i can get back into it once I have more time, but right now I'm just tired from RL and when I do get on Wikipedia I feel like doing other stuff.... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Based on Street newspaper, I would like to see you write more articles. You are a smoothing/soothing influence at DYK, but is the time/energy sink, with little net positive outcome, worth if for you? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
All your base are belong to us
Hello, you deleted my addition to "viral video" with the comment "(rv good faith edit: "all your base" is a phrase, not the name of a video) (undo)" , Will try to rephrase and make this clearer, hope you do not mind me adding it again. You are correct in that it was badly fomulated, but the flash-animation/videos made from the flash animation are quite widespread. Sas2009 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
文言, new dinos
Hm, we have a couple of new Chinese dinos, Xiongguanlong and Beishanlong,
and I see that 该用户能以地道的北方话进行交流。
Is there any chance that you could link our articles on these critters to their counterparts on 文言 Wikipedia?
Thanks. :-) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can do that, but I don't know the names of these dinosaurs in characters. Is it 雄关龙 and 北山龙? Also, by "文言" do you mean 中文 (zh-wiki)? As far as I know, there is no 文言 version of Wikipedia, only 现代中文. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have no clue at all. I just cut-and-pasted. The "languages" section in the left-hand bar of some articles shows "中文". Hm, that's not what I originally copied, is it? Sorry, I goofed somewhere. I'm sure I copied that from somewhere on Wikipedia, but don't know where.
I took a quick look at 中文 Wikipedia earlier: en Tyrannosauroid = http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/暴龍超科 and has a list of genera.
帝龍 (Dilong) and 冠龍 (Guanlong) are listed and linked there. I didn't see anything on the new "?-冠龍" (Xiongguanlong) on that page or on zh Wikipedia's main page. Maybe no article just yet?
Sorry for my clumsiness! - 鬼子 mistake. :-) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)- Hm, yeah, I looked around (did a zh-wiki search for any page with "冠龙" in the title) and couldn't find any article for Xiongguanlong... it looks like there just isn't an article yet. Once I figure out which character xiong is I can watchlist that page on zh-wiki and then I'll know when someone starts an article, and I can link it.
- (And by the way, no worries; I'm a 鬼子 too!) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have no clue at all. I just cut-and-pasted. The "languages" section in the left-hand bar of some articles shows "中文". Hm, that's not what I originally copied, is it? Sorry, I goofed somewhere. I'm sure I copied that from somewhere on Wikipedia, but don't know where.
Suggestions page
It occurs to me that one way to cut down on the number of links is simply to stop linking the section headers. It's not as if we need these headers to be linked, when the articles are already embedded in the hooks. Just a thought. Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, yeah, that's a good idea. I'll make the change. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's killed DYKcheck on the nominations page. DYKcheck detects nominated articles by links in the header (for one article noms it's easy, but for multiple article noms it has to distinguish between the articles). Shubinator (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I'm looking at the HTML for the noms page, and it might be possible to code DYKcheck to find titles another way. The easiest might be to take it from the credits in the hidden div. Of course, this means more cleanup when people don't use the nom template. Or we could add some sort of code to the section headers so the script can distinguish hooks – the comma won't do because then "Kimberly, Maryland" would be seen as two hooks. Picking out bolded wikilinks is harder than it sounds, because the order of the tags can be either way (either bold first, or wikilink first). Almost all the time people put the bold outside the link, but I've seen both. I'll look into detecting bolded wikilinks tonight though; it's probably the most intuitive for editors. Shubinator (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- What if I just add some random stuff that would be invisible on the actual page and that wouldn't cause the page to have to render anything, but that DYKcheck could recognize? Something along the lines of
- Hmmm, I'm looking at the HTML for the noms page, and it might be possible to code DYKcheck to find titles another way. The easiest might be to take it from the credits in the hidden div. Of course, this means more cleanup when people don't use the nom template. Or we could add some sort of code to the section headers so the script can distinguish hooks – the comma won't do because then "Kimberly, Maryland" would be seen as two hooks. Picking out bolded wikilinks is harder than it sounds, because the order of the tags can be either way (either bold first, or wikilink first). Almost all the time people put the bold outside the link, but I've seen both. I'll look into detecting bolded wikilinks tonight though; it's probably the most intuitive for editors. Shubinator (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's killed DYKcheck on the nominations page. DYKcheck detects nominated articles by links in the header (for one article noms it's easy, but for multiple article noms it has to distinguish between the articles). Shubinator (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
==== <!--hey DYKcheck, here I am!--> Article ====
- Not that gaudy, but you see my point. Anyway, would that work? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- If people use the template, DYKcheck could just scrape it off the credits, so no extra template code is necessary. Now that I'm thinking about it, I can't resist the challenge of detecting bolded wikilinks. Theoretically DYKcheck would take the first hook detected and assume all bolded wikilinks are nominated articles. The problems here would be 1) If DYKcheck can't find the hook, but so far it's been pretty good. For multiple sentence hooks, though, it only sees the first sentence (before the question mark) as a hook. 2) If an article is added to or removed from the nom. If the first hook is checked, articles added later won't be detected, and if the last hook is checked, articles removed won't be detected. Shubinator (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds good. Both the cases you mention above (multi-sentence hooks and article additions/removals) are rare—the latter is somewhat rare, and the latter extremely so—so if DYKcheck chokes up on a couple of those from time to time I don't think anyone will mind. For a lot of other potential problems, they're things that usually get cleared up by hand anyway. For example, sometimes people don't bold their article, which would break DYKcheck, but we always fix that right away anyway (sometimes with a somewhat miffed edit summary, at least if I'm the one doing it), so it's not a problem. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I like to make the script intuitive so people don't have to go out of their way to make the hooks script-readable. We already check for bolded article links, so it works out. Hopefully today or tomorrow I can work something out. I'm thinking I'll have it display an error if it can't find a hook. Right now it doesn't because it can (well, could) find the article title independently, so only the hook character length broke. If the whole system depends on hook-finding, though, I'll definitely add in "Error: Hook not formatted correctly" or something like that. Do you have a preference between first hook and last hook for finding titles? Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Last hook would probably be best, since it's the most likely to reflect recent changes (removals of articles or, more commonly, additions). In the rare cases when the last hook won't work for checking all the articles (for example, if someone suggests a three-article multi-nom but no one likes it and it gets split up into three separate hooks) I think people can just bite the bullet and check manually; that doesn't happen very often so it's not a big deal. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- There, it's done. 'Twas a nice challenge. I tested it out on some trickier noms including Dan Pagis (error message) and HMS Seine (1798) and HMS Vengeance (1800) (multi article), and a test nom I made myself. While I was testing out some random noms, I stumbled across Charles Peebler, Pork. The Other White Meat, National Pork Board, which for some odd reason was only giving one article. I investigated, and found that DYKcheck was confused by the "?" in "Got Milk?", and interpreting that as the end of the hook. So I added in a check for question marks inside wikilinks, and that should also work now. The script goes by the last hook detected, and gives separate errors for 1) can't find a hook, and 2) no bolded link in hook. You might need to bypass your browser cache for the browser to load the updated script (shift refresh instead of just refresh on Firefox). Shubinator (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Last hook would probably be best, since it's the most likely to reflect recent changes (removals of articles or, more commonly, additions). In the rare cases when the last hook won't work for checking all the articles (for example, if someone suggests a three-article multi-nom but no one likes it and it gets split up into three separate hooks) I think people can just bite the bullet and check manually; that doesn't happen very often so it's not a big deal. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I like to make the script intuitive so people don't have to go out of their way to make the hooks script-readable. We already check for bolded article links, so it works out. Hopefully today or tomorrow I can work something out. I'm thinking I'll have it display an error if it can't find a hook. Right now it doesn't because it can (well, could) find the article title independently, so only the hook character length broke. If the whole system depends on hook-finding, though, I'll definitely add in "Error: Hook not formatted correctly" or something like that. Do you have a preference between first hook and last hook for finding titles? Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds good. Both the cases you mention above (multi-sentence hooks and article additions/removals) are rare—the latter is somewhat rare, and the latter extremely so—so if DYKcheck chokes up on a couple of those from time to time I don't think anyone will mind. For a lot of other potential problems, they're things that usually get cleared up by hand anyway. For example, sometimes people don't bold their article, which would break DYKcheck, but we always fix that right away anyway (sometimes with a somewhat miffed edit summary, at least if I'm the one doing it), so it's not a problem. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- If people use the template, DYKcheck could just scrape it off the credits, so no extra template code is necessary. Now that I'm thinking about it, I can't resist the challenge of detecting bolded wikilinks. Theoretically DYKcheck would take the first hook detected and assume all bolded wikilinks are nominated articles. The problems here would be 1) If DYKcheck can't find the hook, but so far it's been pretty good. For multiple sentence hooks, though, it only sees the first sentence (before the question mark) as a hook. 2) If an article is added to or removed from the nom. If the first hook is checked, articles added later won't be detected, and if the last hook is checked, articles removed won't be detected. Shubinator (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not that gaudy, but you see my point. Anyway, would that work? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Congrats!
Very well done on the Featured Article - it is a great article. :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Because?
Porque lo transformaron al articulo si no tiene nada de malo?. Siempre recibi alabaciones por la actividad de importacia del artículo en Wikipedia, ya que tiene razones para hacerlo. No lo borren porque no tiene nada de malo, y no tendría sentido, y repongan el artículo TAL COMO ESTABA Y NO ME INTERESA QUE NO QUIERAN. Muchas gracias --ervinnnnnnn 01:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruuta 25 (talk • contribs)
IGN
As I said, I'll edit and source all criticism. Two days may not be enough to give it this length, but there will at least be something by then. It's just that in the span in which I've used Wikipedia, there has never been a section for it. Also, the information is from the last time the article had a section for criticism. I'm for the idea of being fair. I have had a battle with GameStop/EB for about the same amount of time, and the consensus on many forums and several google results on their practices indicate they aren't favorable. I don't want to kill the site for anyone, but I'm tired of the PC-PR bullshit on this site, you know? Even if there is negative mention, if it is encyclopedic (for example. scientific, industrial, or public consensus), the section should be included. I would hope you agree with me on principal of fact vs. diplomacy, especially with the overwhelmingly unrepresented negative view of IGN and wikipedia's absolute defense of it so far. Despite a select few running this site as they've seen fit for the last few years, I still love it and want to preserve the original intent. I hope you will help me if there is further consult on the part of editors. I've been without any ally for a long time in a seemingly endless battle to make this site work for a greater purpose than internet penis endowment, such as the public that we strive to make the site accessible to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudewhiterussian (talk • contribs)
Wanted to let you know I haven't had the time this weekend, so I removed the section and will get around to making it legit eventually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudewhiterussian (talk • contribs)
Youtuberooni
Thanks for your collegial discussion of the issues regarding the Youtube fame article. I made a mistake invoking the "a merge doesn't require an AfD" argument in the discussion, since we had discused using AfD as a way to get broader input and consensus. Sorry about that, bad form on my part. I didn't mean to fight dirty, even though I was raised on the mean streets of New York. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- No worries, I didn't consider it dirty! Of course, I'm not satisfied with the result, but oh well. Time to move on, I guess. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the anniversary wishes!
I wonder where the project will be in another five years? When I started it was barely in the top 500 sites and had about 250,000 articles. Thanks for the nice community-building infobox! Jokestress (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Adoption Category Project
Hello Rjanag. The adoptee categories have sufferred from overcategorization, with 20+ subsets, the majority of which are underpopulated with only 1 entry. The overcategorization has stopped people from seeing larger connections and creates significant confusion. Additionally, we have a lot of people adding articles to the category who have no connection to the main Adoption article, creating numerous errors, which could be serious in regard to WP:BLP issues (in fact many of my edits have finally removed these issues). We will have better control with consolidated categories. The final result will include the sub-categories: Adoptees, Adoptees adopted by family, Fictional adoptees, and Historical adoptees; covering the waterfront. It's a long process, but it is bearing fruit. Thanks for taking interest. This will culminate in a new "Adoption project" to link together the now fragmented Adoption series of articles.Tobit2 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. Concerning your first question, this was put in the Talk pages on a few of the Adoption Category pages. I've been the main guardian for the adoption pages for some time now; but I work in spurts. Sorry for the sudden changes. Anyway, the categorization by nationalities caused under-population of categories and frankly makes little sense. Tristian drowse for example appeared as both an Indonesian and Irish adoptee. Huh? There was no consistency. By having all adoptees in the same page, we can better distinguish between related adoptions (adoptions by family members), unrelated adoptions (adoptions by unrelated individuals), fictional adoptees, and historical ones (the number of historical errors I encountered in biographies was scandalous). If we had to put each of the 4 categories in each of the nationalities, we would have a mess compounded on a mess and would never be able to watch all new enteries. Concerning your second question, you are right they should be deleted by the normal process. I will revert those and propose deletion. Thank you again.Tobit2 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The nationalities were a big problem. In an age of international adoption, in climate where the definition of adoptee changes over time and by culture, we end up getting very different categories that should not even be lumped together in the adoption group. The Japanese category was a good example. Only one article in the group had any relation to the English word adoption. Someone who likely knew little about adoption probably set the nationalities up originally. In contrast, the related vs. unrelated is the true split here. Adoptee experiences are divided largely by this. There are even better sub-categories, e.g., interacial adoptee, but I don't have time now to make this. Historical and Fictional is required also, but these were already there. Anyway, I am putting the nationalities back and then will formally propose deletion. So then people can vote if people they want to retain them to make sister-categories.Tobit2 (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
my thoughts exactly
actually I just referred the whole matter to the BLP noticeboard so recommend you learn to stop biting off more than you can chew. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I already saw the BLP posting, thanks. And don't worry, I can chew quite a lot. No need to make any more threats, let's keep this civil. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do apologize for saying you didn't edit the chinese gymnast pages alot, I now see you have worked on deng linlin quite a bit. Maybe then you can make the wiki link work on the BLP page, for yang lilin because it won't take for what ever reason and I have checked the spelling repeatedly. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I already did fix the link, twice (because you broke it again after the first time). All that you need to do to keep the link working is not change the spelling again. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also, you should know that I've worked on all those articles, not just Deng. I used to edit under the username Politizer, which you can find quite a bit of at the He Kexin talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do apologize for saying you didn't edit the chinese gymnast pages alot, I now see you have worked on deng linlin quite a bit. Maybe then you can make the wiki link work on the BLP page, for yang lilin because it won't take for what ever reason and I have checked the spelling repeatedly. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Lateralized readiness potential
Shubinator (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't use sarcastic remarks like "the article is pretty crappy" in your edit summaries. If you have a problem, fix it, no need to be derogatory. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
No rompás las bolas!
You can say something, or stop you fuck, or get short of supplies, Hear? Good.