Line 235: | Line 235: | ||
::Maybe this should be brought up at [[WP:ANI]], with a request for a topic ban on Broccoli verifying any hooks at DYK. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC) |
::Maybe this should be brought up at [[WP:ANI]], with a request for a topic ban on Broccoli verifying any hooks at DYK. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Yes, I am fond of Mbz1 contributions that I am watching on both Commons and Wikipedia. If I see she wrote an article or nominated an image for FPC, I review it, and, if I feel like supporting it, I do. As a matter of fact I am translating [[Sol Hachuel]] in Hebrew for Hebrew Wikipedia right now. In case you do not know how to call my behavior, you may call it [[collaboration]]. |
:::Yes, I am fond of Mbz1 contributions that I am watching on both Commons and Wikipedia. If I see she wrote an article or nominated an image for FPC, I review it, and, if I feel like supporting it, I do. As a matter of fact I am translating [[Sol Hachuel]] in Hebrew for Hebrew Wikipedia right now. In case you do not know how to call my behavior, you may call it [[collaboration]]. |
||
::Your behavior is shameful and is a disgrace to this project. I don't have to justify my actions on front of petty people like you. It is more likely that you have an agenda against Mbz1, and therefore try to taunt her. Go and do something constructive. You make yourself pathetic. --[[User:ברוקולי|Broccoli]] ([[User talk:ברוקולי|talk]]) 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC) |
:::Your behavior is shameful and is a disgrace to this project. I don't have to justify my actions on front of petty people like you. It is more likely that you have an agenda against Mbz1, and therefore try to taunt her. Go and do something constructive. You make yourself pathetic. --[[User:ברוקולי|Broccoli]] ([[User talk:ברוקולי|talk]]) 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Doodlebug disaster== |
==Doodlebug disaster== |
Revision as of 20:45, 7 July 2010
Template:Archive box collapsible
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.
Did you know? | |
---|---|
Introduction and rules | |
Introduction | WP:DYK |
General discussion | WT:DYK |
Guidelines | WP:DYKCRIT |
Reviewer instructions | WP:DYKRI |
Nominations | |
Nominate an article | WP:DYKCNN |
Awaiting approval | WP:DYKN |
Approved | WP:DYKNA |
April 1 hooks | WP:DYKAPRIL |
Preparation | |
Preps and queues | T:DYK/Q |
Prepper instructions | WP:DYKPBI |
Admin instructions | WP:DYKAI |
Main Page errors | WP:ERRORS |
History | |
Statistics | WP:DYKSTATS |
Archived sets | WP:DYKA |
Just for fun | |
Monthly wraps | WP:DYKW |
Awards | WP:DYKAWARDS |
Userboxes | WP:DYKUBX |
Hall of Fame | WP:DYK/HoF |
List of users ... | |
... by nominations | WP:DYKNC |
... by promotions | WP:DYKPC |
Administrative | |
Scripts and bots | WP:DYKSB |
On the Main Page | |
WP:Errors | WP:Errors |
To ping the DYK admins | {{DYK admins}} |
Newness rule question
Let's say I have an article in article space in January 2010, move it to my user space in February 2010, gradually expand it there, and then move it back into article space in June 2010. Is this a "new" article at that point DYK-wise? Crum375 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I assume this is about Chris Limahelu at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Chris_Limahelu? An important part of the history is that this was deleted through PROD, restored and userfied, then moved back to the mainspace from the userspace. My instinct is to say that in the circumstances, it's not a "new" article (it's got the history from before its deletion, and it's the same article as before, after all: it's not as though a previous article was deleted as a copyvio, or a new article has been written without any reference to the old article) but it could qualify as a 5x expansion if sufficiently expanded. At present, I note that it has not been expanded enough to qualify under that head. BencherliteTalk 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- This was my feeling too, but someone claimed it's now a "new" article, and that the 5x shortfall is therefore not applicable, so I wanted to get more opinions. Crum375 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- It can't possibly be treated as a "new" article – otherwise any article that was deleted via prod and later restored upon request (which happens a lot) would be "new" for DYK purposes, regardless of whether it spent time in userspace post-deletion or not, and potentially regardless of whether it had been on DYK before or not! That couldn't be right. BencherliteTalk 19:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- That interpretation would act as a discouragement for the recreation of any deleted article. I saw a redlink on a page, learned that an article was deleted for having not being addressed during the prod period, and asked it be userfied so I could see what it was that had been deleted. 7 sentences were the entirety of the article that was deleted. I see now that I should not have done a "move", but rather a cut-n-paste, as my work on the article made it significantly different from the one that was deleted. My bad to think "significantly different" might also equate to "new". Live and learn. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- However, and my error notwithstanding, expansion should be relatively easy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're not being picked on specially - see Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules rule A4, which shows that this type of situation has come up before; I don't think the fact that the article in question has been deleted and restored in the interim makes a difference. With all articles submitted to DYK, regardless of whether they've previously been deleted or not, we don't look at the old article and the new article and see how many sentences have been reused in the new article. We don't look at the quality of the old article either (so if someone says "the previous version was 2,500 characters without any references, mine is 2,500 characters with full references", we don't count that as a "new" or expanded article for DYK purposes). Except for copyvios, we simply use the crude measure of a fivefold expansion of text. If we were to expand the scope of DYK to cover articles that have been made "significantly different" in the last 5 days, regardless of whether there was any overall increase in the length of the text, that really would be a massive extension of the project's scope. It's no more a "discouragement for the recreation of any deleted article" than the existing bar at DYK against old articles that have not been expanded x5 is a "discouragement against the improvement of any existing article". BencherliteTalk 19:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- This was my feeling too, but someone claimed it's now a "new" article, and that the 5x shortfall is therefore not applicable, so I wanted to get more opinions. Crum375 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I claimed the article was "new" as I saw it had been moved from userspace today, and DYKcheck doesn't tell you if an article was moved TO userspace. I've seen many times where reviewers have missed that it had been moved from userspace, and I was concerned that this had happened here. ErinM (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- DYKcheck tells us that it was created in May by another user (bold added):
- Prose size (text only): 2384 characters (413 words) "readable prose size"
- Article created by Aardvarkzz on May 2, 2010
- Article moved from User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Chris Limahelu on June 21, 2010
- Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 42 edits ago on May 2, 2010
- If another user created the article in May, odds are extremely high it was not created in that same user space, and it's a very strong hint that you need to check the History page, if you haven't already done so. Crum375 (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- And of course, had I asked for the userfication, and then requested deletion of the userfied version after seeing what it had lacked that caused its deletion in the first place... and then continued creating a better article by that same name... we'd be having a discussion about recreated content, and not about a userfication/improvement/and move. Inre "additional rules" #D8, can anyone tell me just how long was it actually in article space before deletion? I see by the history that it was authored on May 2 and prodded on May 5, but cannot determine when it was actually deleted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with Bencherlite's interpretation. A4 says "no matter if it was up for deletion." This is not just a case of an article that was up for deletion (signaling bad content, which is what A4 is discussing), this is an article that was actually deleted. If a reader tried to go to that article between May 12 and June 20, they would have been invited to create the article (and warned that it had previously been deleted). If you compare this article today to this article 5 days ago, it has been infinitely expanded, because there was no article in articlespace 5 days ago. We can discuss how we think this should be treated, but this is not as simple as just pointing to A4. I don't think there is an existing DYK rule about re-creation of previously deleted articles. cmadler (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- AGF and cookies all around. While this discussion may well lead to a clearer interpretation of just what "new" means when speaking about significantly different recreations of deleted articles, I wish to announce my own efforts and perhaps make this discussion moot in regards the case of the Chris Limahelu DYK nomination, as I believe I am now past 5x... having taken the 759 characters/141 words of "readable prose size" of June 20, and expanding it to 4229 characters/726 words of "readable prose size". If my math is not wrong, this makes a 5.7 expasion of characters and a 5.15 expansion of words. It was not too difficult, as there is much available about this fellow... just took some time. But please keep me informed as to the ultimate decision here, as the rules are not clear about these instances. I note that User:Bencherlite's comments convince me I would have been better of to have requested deletion of the original 7 sentences after having finally seen the original article, and simply proceeded with a complete rewrite that would have then not included the brief and unhappy history of its predecessor, and User:Cmadler brings up a valid point in that this probably should be addressed to prevent future confusions. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- The reason that it's 5x expansion without regard to the previous article's quality is so that the people here don't have to assess quality, correct? (broadly speaking) It seems to me that an article actually being deleted is a clear indication based on other standards of poor quality in some fashion. ErinM (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Or, think of it another way. If the article, having been deleted, had been rewritten from scratch (i.e., an editor clicked on a redlink, and created the article) I don't think we'd be having this discussion -- that would clearly and undisputably be a new article. But because the deleted article was moved to userspace, stripped down, rewritten, and then moved back to articlespace, it's more questionable. cmadler (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any consensus on this issue? I'm sure it will come up again. ErinM (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK credit for a banned user
I just wanted to draw attention to the discussion at T:TDYK#Kubla Khan (and the same issue just above that at T:TDYK#Ode: Intimations of Immortality, where questions have been raised about crediting a banned user for these two DYK items. That discussion could probably benefit from more input from DYK regulars. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- There's more to this, towit: 1) should proxy editing be allowed, 2) if so should the article be allowed at DYK, 3) if so, who should get credit? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, DYK rules don't say anything about who writes the articles, so I think that if proxy editing is allowed by Wikipedia, the article should be allowed at DYK. As to how credit is assigned, that has to go back to the question of whether proxy editing is allowed, and under what conditions. My personal take on it is that you have to look at the circumstances and rationale for proxy editing. If an editor was having computer problems, asked a friend to make some edits for them, and they both acknowledged it (so there's a clear trail), that's one thing, and I think that's just fine. But in this case, the original source of the edits is a banned user. The relevant section of WP:BAN states that Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them. In the section on reverting, reinstating, etc., the policy also states that Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content. My reading of those statements is basically that the user actually making the edit takes responsibility for it, and therefore should get any credit for it. The whole point of banning a user is that a banned user may not edit no matter if the edits are good or bad. Finally, the "Difference between bans and blocks" section indicates that a site-banned editor is not "a member of the community". If they're not a member of the community, they can't be credited for work by the community. cmadler (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that logic. I would like (in an ideal world) to reward "good" even if someone has done "bad", but we said "you're banned" - writing a DYK from a proxy is just playing a game which we should not be interested in or encouraged. They must go away until told or until their appeal is granted (and don't play here till then). IMO Victuallers (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I suggest we protect these two pages? I'm assuming the person who moved these pages did it it by mistake and is very sorry Victuallers (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- The more I think about it and look into it, I think this should be treated the same way we treat information imported from a foreign language Wikipedia. It appears to me that: 1. A user, who was site-banned on English Wikipedia, is now making contributions at Simple English Wikipedia (no problem there); 2) In writing Simple English Wikipedia articles, the user is first writing the articles in userspace, then simplifying the language (no problem there); 3) A English Wikipedia user became aware of this and copied the content into English Wikipedia articles (possible problem). The third step is possibly problematic if the content is being added verbatim, because Wikipedia's license requires attribution. Is indicating the source in an edit summary sufficient attribution? As for DYK, I think the hooks can be used, and nominator credit can be given. If the copying is not verbatim, I think creation/expansion credit can be given to the user who actually added the material to English Wikipedia. If the copying is verbatim, and if the edit summary note is sufficient attribution, I suggest that no creation/expansion credit be given. cmadler (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Its a case but Disagree. I have edited at simple and they have few/no articles that look like these two. They would be full of comments for simplicity. Its a game. No DYK credit. Consider action action against those aiding and abetting and for extending bans. IMO Victuallers (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, action against them would have to be taken up at WP:ARBCOM or WP:ANI; that's far beyond the scope of DYK. cmadler (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that we should take a step back and use some common sense. If the editor were blocked for adding content of dubious quality, then I would agree that there would be a problem, but in this case the editor was blocked because he created a disruption. So, at this point we have an editor, though banned for disruption, working quietly outside the project and writing quality material which is then added by a 3rd party, and yet the arguments still arise. Bans are not meant to be punishment but a means keeping the project functional, and yet we are getting tied down in arguments because it irks some people that a banned user gets DYK credit for work he did off project? If the community finds it is more important to punish a banned user than allow his proxy edits, which undoubtedly add to the quality of the project as a whole, I would be greatly disappointed. Likewise, denying DYK credit as a punitive measure seems a bit puerile if you ask me. Mrathel (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ottava was banned notwithstanding the quality of contributions he/she made. To suggest that the ban is somehow less important because it's been imposed on a productive editor rather misses the point of what a ban is. WP:BAN says "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad", and it also notes that for the duration of the ban, banned editors "are no longer considered a member of the editing community". I fail to see how someone who has been "completely ejected from the project" (to quote WP:BAN again) can be given any credit (through DYK or otherwise) for work done off-project, even if (and I think it's a very big "if", personally) those copying Ottava's edits here are not themselves breaching WP:BAN. BencherliteTalk 15:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can't get very excited about this. If the content is usable, use it. Even if it is in OR's sandbox at SE, it is licensed and thus usable elsewhere. This is no different than translating from another Wikipedia in my view. I think that credit in an edit summary would be ample. As for DYK credit, it is not worth arguing about. A DYK credit is really no big deal and I feel any answer on this one is acceptable. I personally would give no credit to anyone, taking the position that we do not have DYKs based on existing content and the entries in OR's SE sandbox "exist".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- My views on the questions asked by Rlevse above: 1) Yes. If it improves the encyclopedia. 2) In some cases I think it's okay, others probably not. In the particular case right now, the article is extremely good and I think it would be a shame not to feature it at DYK. 3) Don't care. -Atmoz (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can't get very excited about this. If the content is usable, use it. Even if it is in OR's sandbox at SE, it is licensed and thus usable elsewhere. This is no different than translating from another Wikipedia in my view. I think that credit in an edit summary would be ample. As for DYK credit, it is not worth arguing about. A DYK credit is really no big deal and I feel any answer on this one is acceptable. I personally would give no credit to anyone, taking the position that we do not have DYKs based on existing content and the entries in OR's SE sandbox "exist".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ottava was banned notwithstanding the quality of contributions he/she made. To suggest that the ban is somehow less important because it's been imposed on a productive editor rather misses the point of what a ban is. WP:BAN says "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad", and it also notes that for the duration of the ban, banned editors "are no longer considered a member of the editing community". I fail to see how someone who has been "completely ejected from the project" (to quote WP:BAN again) can be given any credit (through DYK or otherwise) for work done off-project, even if (and I think it's a very big "if", personally) those copying Ottava's edits here are not themselves breaching WP:BAN. BencherliteTalk 15:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, content originally prepared by editors blocked/banned on this wikimedia site should not be featured at DYK. We should absolutely not be giving public recognition to blocked users, and especially not to those blocked users who aggressively sought these types of "rewards" before their blocks. In this particular case, Ottava Rima was banned for 1 year because of tendentious editing and bullying around "his" articles. By giving him recognition for these contributions, we are encouraging him to continue his games - why shouldn't he write articles, get someone else to copy them to en.wikipedia, get DYK credit, and leave himself the freedom to potentially badger other editors over email/IRC/talk pages at other wikis, since he can't use the talk pages here. (Since his block, I have received emails from him concerning comments made by others at an FAC nomination for an article he had previously nominated - these emails displayed precisely the behavior mentioned at his ArbCom case which led to his ban. I have a hard time believing I'm the only one receiving these.) If Ottava Rima's sole goal is to improve the encyclopedia, then let him write articles and find someone to proxy them without any fuss. If he refuses to do so without the recognition - for himself or the content - , that would show that improving the encyclopedia is not his primary goal. I'd much prefer we not encourage anything else. Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Based on policy, I can't see any reason to reward a banned user for text they crafted while banned. - Dravecky (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Writing content has become a reward? Or is being recognized for writing content a reward? I didn't even know we called DYK credits rewards. I thought it was just due attribution, moral rights, etc. Blurpeace 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- The problem (one of several) with that view is that Ottava Rima is no longer a member of the ENWP editing community. He is prohibited from contributing to ENWP for the duration of the ban -- that's what "banned" means. cmadler (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I still don't understand what your concern is. He writes freely licensed content elsewhere. We find the content useful and import it. From the banning policy, "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." I'm pretty sure this isn't about rewards. He should either be credited or nobody credited. Blurpeace 19:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- The problem (one of several) with that view is that Ottava Rima is no longer a member of the ENWP editing community. He is prohibited from contributing to ENWP for the duration of the ban -- that's what "banned" means. cmadler (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Writing content has become a reward? Or is being recognized for writing content a reward? I didn't even know we called DYK credits rewards. I thought it was just due attribution, moral rights, etc. Blurpeace 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Arbcom precedent-the one case I recall on this was when ScienceApologist was banned for 3 months and he wrote an article on another project on optics. Someone, I forget who, made a motion at RFAR for this article to be imported so no one would get "in trouble" for aiding a banned user. The motion passed. This case is different as people are just simply going and doing the importing. If someone wants I or a arbclerk can try to find the motion in the archives. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Here it is. BencherliteTalk 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nicely remembered. Sounds correct and avoids accusations of sockpuppetry as policy descibes. This is causing a lot of heat. We can continue to debate, forget it, make a resolution or refer this back to ARBCOM or "your suggestion". The current debate at Simple here is also causing much debate. I am resisting joining that one as the banned editor has no reply here. I am surprised that a Bpard member is allegedly involved and there may be a justifiable reason in line with policy, but that makes no difference as to who is right, We do need to agree/find a way forward. Victuallers (talk)
- Did you mean simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#For info? BencherliteTalk 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest monitor the situation, and let it proceed for now. If it becomes a problem, start an enforcement case and forbid people to copy his content here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- That it's causing all this talk here on en wiki (and not just on this page mind you) and on simple wiki tells you it's a problem. My suggestion is a motion like ScienceApologist's. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think a similar motion was passed for Piotrus, though I forget the name of the article now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Found it: Wikipedia:EEML#Proxy authorization for work on Lech Wałęsa. 01:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- That it's causing all this talk here on en wiki (and not just on this page mind you) and on simple wiki tells you it's a problem. My suggestion is a motion like ScienceApologist's. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nicely remembered. Sounds correct and avoids accusations of sockpuppetry as policy descibes. This is causing a lot of heat. We can continue to debate, forget it, make a resolution or refer this back to ARBCOM or "your suggestion". The current debate at Simple here is also causing much debate. I am resisting joining that one as the banned editor has no reply here. I am surprised that a Bpard member is allegedly involved and there may be a justifiable reason in line with policy, but that makes no difference as to who is right, We do need to agree/find a way forward. Victuallers (talk)
- Here it is. BencherliteTalk 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It's important to keep in mind that neither Chzz nor Ottava (even as a banned user) broke any rules here so any talk of "action against those aiding and abetting and for extending bans" is out of place. Folks who have a problem with this kind of thing need to go to the relevant policy change and get consensus for changing it, specifically the unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them part - though IMO that would be a totally counterproductive and unnecessary change. Along the same lines, since technically speaking Chzz created the articles and is responsible for them (for good and bad) I see no reason why s/he shouldn't get credit. Whether or not Ottava gets credit should be left to DYK regulars and reviewers to decide; personally I don't have a strong opinion on this, though I'm leaning towards "no credit" for some of the reasons articulated above. It should also be noted that the only reason this has come up and is generating heat here is because of Ottava's high profile as a (former) Wikipedia editor - if it had happened with someone else nobody would have even noticed.radek (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, this is not the first time this has happened. There was an earlier article that was submitted for and placed on DYK and credit was given on the user talk page in that case - the article was Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. I read through that article at the time it was added to Wikipedia and made some suggestions on the talk page as well as making some minor edits to it, but I restricted myself to making suggestions and copyediting the content after it arrived here. I avoided actually doing any importing, as I wasn't able to check and verify the sources used to my own satisfaction, something I think anyone importing such content should do. The key is to focus on the content and not the contributor. It is easiest to think of the contributor as a writer who is not a member of the community, and to focus on checking whether the content is suitable for use here (just as you would for any freely licensed content you wanted to import). The other important point is to avoid interacting with the contributor if they try and influence any subsequent editing of the content, as that would indeed be something akin to proxy editing (in practice, though, it is difficult to know where to draw the line). About DYK credit, having considered some of the arguments above, I think that featuring such articles on DYK is OK if the articles have been independently checked. The approach that should be used is the one that would be used if importing from a non-wiki freely licensed source, or translating from another language wiki. In those cases, the identity of the contributor is sometimes relevant, but mostly not, and I don't think the issue of DYK credit ever arises in those cases (i.e. just have no credit). Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- There was also a DYK for Optics, done by ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) over on English Wikisource while banned.(see the talk page for details) The import was coordinated/achieved by Durova iirc.
- Russavia (talk · contribs) may have also created an en.wp DYK over on simple while he was topic banned here.
- wrt the credit, it should go to whom it is due. Ottava is banned for behavioural reasons rather than content issues, so if simple.wp is happy to let him develop en.wp articles over there, importing them to en.wp is a win-win solution. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- The "credit" issue is a red herring except for those engaged in an imaginary competition. Does anybody really think that Ottava won't claim the articles as his work unless somebody adds a few lines of wikicode to his user page? What other worry is there? That he'll come back from his ban and add two to his total on the "just for fun" DYK counting list and that will let him "beat" somebody else or "win"? I also like the idea of Simple as Proxypedia: let's send all the problem and banned users over there to develop non-Simple articles and then import them. It is a win-win solution. Yomanganitalk 09:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unless you administrate Simple, in which case that solution would seem like enwp exporting problems. Courcelles (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Er, this is English Wikipedia's problem, not Simple's. Don't make it ours. Take care of your own. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I was being sarcastic, but it didn't travel through the ether apparently. Yomanganitalk 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh. My sarcasm detector always goes on the fritz when I'm sick, sorry. Courcelles (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I was being sarcastic, but it didn't travel through the ether apparently. Yomanganitalk 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- If the administrators on simple have a problem with OR's use of the simple wiki, they can address it on simple by improving policy about use of user space, and/or show OR the door.
- For the purposes of en.wp, it doesn't matter where the content is written, as long as it is under an acceptable license and the content is good quality. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- True...I think it is a fair exchange: we export trouble and import articles. Much simpler to push problems onto another Wikipedia than to work out an effective system here. Instead of banning from now on let's exile them to Simple! It sounds more impressive too. (Not that I can quite figure out what in OR's behaviour merited a year's ban anyway. That some people were fed up with his occasional histrionics and intransigence? There should be a quite a few others joining him in the Simple Gulag then.) Yomanganitalk 01:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ottava was banned from here; he is free to do as he wills on any other project that will have him. If simple.wp doesn't want to become a haven for banned English Wikipedians, it needs to create policy which prevents their project being used in this fashion. My guess is that http://www.mywikibiz.com/ would be happy to be the preferred haven for banned English Wikipedians. Pavon Prison indeed. We have imported articles from mywikibiz.com too. The issue of whether or not it is appropriate to import articles from other projects is best discussed in another forum; it is the issue of the DYK credit which is here for discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Which isn't worth discussing. We don't have to worry about giving or not giving credit because a DYK credit doesn't give any benefit. Despite attempts to dress it in some sort of official clothing, it's just a bit of wikicode that notifies somebody that an article they worked on is on the main page. You don't need it to add to your figures on the DYK chart if that's what you want to do, you don't need it to entitle you to work on the article, you don't need it to qualify for some role in the WP hierarchy. There's nothing to stop anyone giving a "DYK credit" to anybody for any article at any time and, as I said above, I don't suppose anybody seriously thinks that Ottava isn't going to take credit for an article just because there isn't a box on his talk page. Do whatever is easiest for how the bot is set up and be done. Yomanganitalk 09:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ottava was banned from here; he is free to do as he wills on any other project that will have him. If simple.wp doesn't want to become a haven for banned English Wikipedians, it needs to create policy which prevents their project being used in this fashion. My guess is that http://www.mywikibiz.com/ would be happy to be the preferred haven for banned English Wikipedians. Pavon Prison indeed. We have imported articles from mywikibiz.com too. The issue of whether or not it is appropriate to import articles from other projects is best discussed in another forum; it is the issue of the DYK credit which is here for discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- True...I think it is a fair exchange: we export trouble and import articles. Much simpler to push problems onto another Wikipedia than to work out an effective system here. Instead of banning from now on let's exile them to Simple! It sounds more impressive too. (Not that I can quite figure out what in OR's behaviour merited a year's ban anyway. That some people were fed up with his occasional histrionics and intransigence? There should be a quite a few others joining him in the Simple Gulag then.) Yomanganitalk 01:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- The "credit" issue is a red herring except for those engaged in an imaginary competition. Does anybody really think that Ottava won't claim the articles as his work unless somebody adds a few lines of wikicode to his user page? What other worry is there? That he'll come back from his ban and add two to his total on the "just for fun" DYK counting list and that will let him "beat" somebody else or "win"? I also like the idea of Simple as Proxypedia: let's send all the problem and banned users over there to develop non-Simple articles and then import them. It is a win-win solution. Yomanganitalk 09:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
(out) My thought is OR was ultimatley banned because s/he was causing too much disruption and wasted effort by others - after all, we are primarily here to write an encylcopedia. Attempts to circumvent the ban, whether credited here or not, still are turning into more wasted effort. I have no problem with importing properly licensed content, or even allowing it . I see no reason to give DYK or any other kind of credit here to a user who is banned. ArbCom made its decision to avoid further drama, but I guess we never learn. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ruhrfisch: exactly. If it weren't for this meta-drama, this type of addition of quality content wouldn't be problematic. Nor does it seem to have been a problem when Elegy was added, which as Carcharoth noted is a close precedent. It's up to simple:wp to decide whether this is 'gaming [a] system'; currently there is no consensus there that the work done isn't also appropriate for that wiki (which is what I assume, in the meantime). –SJ+ 07:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Aw gee so what? OR gets a feeling of self satisfaction and having gamed the system. We, as Ed points out, are consolated with exceptionally good articles by OR, and we don't have to put up with him, just with his articles. He can call himself DYK God for all I care. The only possible downside I see is if people start transmitting his objections to changes in the articles, in which case, pull the switch on it. If other banned editors choose to write excellent articles in their Simple sandbox which get brought over here, well, the project will last our time but a little extra help on it wouldn't go amiss.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion
The articles appear to qualify for DYK (I have not verified the hooked facts myself) based on 5x expansion (actually more like 10x to 20x). Therefore I suggest that they should be used in DYK. Chzz nominated them both, and should get nominator credit. Ottava Rima can not receive DYK credit for the 5x expansion because the site ban means that he is not part of the ENWP community. Either Sj can be credited as the user who actually added the content, or (my preference) no one gets that DYK credit. If anyone believes that action needs to be taken against any of the involved editors (circumvention of a ban, problematic proxy editing, etc.), that should be taken up either at WP:ARBCOM or WP:ANI and not discussed here any further. cmadler (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Another suggestion: Stop giving "credits" completely. The people who contributed to and nominated the articles know who they are, so they don't need crediting unless it is for some imaginary WP-aggrandizement - and we all know how very non-WP that concept is. The notifications were originally a way of letting editors and nominators know that the articles they had contributed to were featured on the main page because they might not have known (the first time I got a notification I didn't even know what DYK was). Nowadays it is extremely rare that the author doesn't know the article is listed at DYK so the notifications have become essentially useless. "Credits" from DYK don't mean anything: they don't have any official status (should I wish to, there's nothing to stop me putting a notification on Ottava's page whatever is decided here), they don't come with free ice-cream, you can't redeem them for a set of cut-glass goblets or a screwdriver set when you collect enough and you can't use them to wedge a wobbly table leg. Admittedly they can make the "New Messages" bar appear, but that's hardly a unique selling point. Yomanganitalk 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion before Yomanangi. A lot of people like getting DYK credits, as evidenced by WP:DYKSTATS. It's your prerogative to disdain awards but obviously that is not the view of many Wikipedians. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- The question of who deserves a "credit" seems to be a bone of contention here, and since "a lot of people like getting DYK credits" seems to be the answer as to why we shouldn't scrap it, the alternative solution would be to make everybody happy by sharing it round to anybody who wants it. Yomanganitalk 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion before Yomanangi. A lot of people like getting DYK credits, as evidenced by WP:DYKSTATS. It's your prerogative to disdain awards but obviously that is not the view of many Wikipedians. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is not a win-win, it is aiding a banned user in skirting their ban and gaming the system. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- So what? We're coming out ahead and if there is a problem, ArbCom can cut it off cold.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I can't believe you said that. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, what is the alternative? Endless drama over two projects? Watch it and hope there's not a problem, if there is, intervene.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, Wehwalt. We get the good part of Ottava—ridiculously detailed and complete articles—and avoid most of the drama. If someone is willing to write good, neutral, and complete articles while banned, why shouldn't we take advantage of that (and them)? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, what is the alternative? Endless drama over two projects? Watch it and hope there's not a problem, if there is, intervene.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I can't believe you said that. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- So what? We're coming out ahead and if there is a problem, ArbCom can cut it off cold.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
confusing
Hi all, As a non-regular who stopped by, the directions on this page about how DYKs happen are pretty confusing. Is it correct that an editor wishing to submit a DYK nomination should:
- write the article :)
- make sure their article meets the DYK criteria
- write the hook, following the instructions
- edit this page with their suggestion?
Do I have that correctly? If so, I might edit the instructions a bit to emphasize where to leave suggestions. Thx! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yup, that's the general idea :) Shubinator (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- To that I would just add, you don't actually have to write the article. You can nominate someone else's article, assuming it meets all the DYK criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
How can I help?
OK, I'm constantly being told in RfA and various talk pages I stalk that DYK is constantly in need of more admins, so one of the first things I did when I passed RfA was add my name to the list of admins willing to help. Nobody's come begging me for assistance yet, but I'm active around ITN and WP:ERRORS so what can I do to make my mop useful around here? :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Approving (disapproving if appropo) hooks is the biggest need, especially the older ones as people focus on the newer noms, but you don't have to be an admin to do that, nor to move them to a prep queue. You do need to be an admin to move the preps to queue rotations and to protect the lead hook's image. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)I guess everyone could give you their own advice. There are many parts in the DYK process and I would say take what you like most. IMO, the weakest DYK spot is reviewing the nominations at T:TDYK. There are many and you might find some of them interesting. Another one. You're working around the main page, fixing DYK errors. Thus you can extend that into preventative action, that is going through the Queue from time to time and checking the hooks for anything (grammar, facts, already featured in DYK/ITN, etc., etc). Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Special occasion holding area 2 July
Please remember, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Got it. In prep1 now, should end up in queue 2, which'd make it July 2 for wiki time. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Review needed -- it's been a week
could someone take a look at the Florida legal article at the top of Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_June_24, it hasn't been reviewed yet, thanks Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 09:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Queue 4 fix
Hook 1 of Queue 4 is missing a "(pictured)". Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 05:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Added. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Queue 3 fix --- need to swap out one hook for a different one
Okryugwan (3rd hook in Template:Did you know/Queue/3) already appeared at DYK yesterday [1]. Thanks, cab (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Same hook in Queues 4 & 5
- ... that Gerald S. Lesser wrote Children and Television in 1974 to defend Sesame Street against its critics?
This hook is currently sitting in both Queue 4 and Queue 5. Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 07:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Removed from Q4, new hook promoted. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Queue 1 tweak
There should be a space between "..." and "that" in the first hook of Queue 1. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Added. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Issue with Prep 1 hook for Ernst von Dobschütz
The lead hook in prep area 1 states that "Ernst von Dobschütz (pictured), after the death of Gregory expanded List of the New Testament manuscripts". What's throwing me off is the ungrammatical wording (and capitalization) of "expanded List of the New Testament manuscripts", and the wording is exactly the same in the article. I thought that there might be an article titled List of the New Testament manuscripts, but that doesn't exist. Should it just be "expanded the list of New Testament manuscripts" (or some variation thereof), or am I missing something. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- If "List of the New Testament manuscripts" is the title of a document or book, then it should be italicized: "... expanded List of the New Testament manuscripts". Otherwise I believe it should be "... expanded the list of New Testament manuscripts". —Bruce1eetalk 05:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear to be a title. See the comment with the nomination at the time it was moved to Prep. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Queue 3 error
In the fourth hook of Queue 3, I don't think John Nihill was an attorney, so he couldn't be "disbarred". That should be "barred". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Queue 4 slight mistake
In queue 4, last hook, please change {{*mp}}...in 1944 the [[Lyon]] to [[Paris]] rail line was blown up 22 times by the [[Special Air Service]] during '''[[Operation Houndsworth]]'''?
to {{*mp}}... that in 1944 the [[Lyon]] to [[Paris]] rail line was blown up 22 times by the [[Special Air Service]] during '''[[Operation Houndsworth]]'''?
, as it is missing " that" after the ellipsis. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Additional DYK criterion suggestion
AFAIK, DYK has a relatively plentiful supply of candidate articles. I'm wondering if we might consider adding a new criterion directed specifically at articles on geograpically locatable subject matter. The suggested criterion is:
- Articles covering geographically locatable subject matter should provide latitude and longitude using {{coord}} or an infobox counterpart.
Should that suggestion not get support, a watered down version would be:
- Articles covering geographically locatable subject matter should provide latitude and longitude using {{coord}} or an infobox counterpart, or else should include {{coord missing}} to encourage the addition of such coordinates.
The de facto standard for geographically locatable subjects is that they display coordinates. DYK's adoption of this standard would support other wikipedia efforts to geocode articles, such as WP:GEO.
I note, by way of example, that four of the current DYKs are geo-locatable, and none has coords nor "coord missing". They are Three Pigeons, South Carolina Highway 291, Portland City Grill, Battle of Lucas Bend. And that seems a missed opportunity. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- What's the easiest way for someone to find such coords? And in the case of something like Hwy 291, which piece of highway to you set the coords for? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:GEOCODE is perhaps the best "how to" page that has been put together. It points to, amongst others, Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates. As to Hwy 291, the best advice is a rough centre point, and the use of scale or dim parameters such that the map viewed when following the coord link shows the extent of the linear feature. Example. See also WP:LINEAR. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose sounds like instruction creep to me. I see no reason to disqualify an article merely because a coord is lacking. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why would you oppose something as trivial as adding {{coord missing}}? It takes next to nil effort. Why stop there? Why not dispense with the need for references? Part of the point of DYK criteria is to ensure a bsic good standard of article. DYK has and can still be used to push to quality bar higher. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - correct me if I'm wrong: it's possibly that coordinate tagging might be required in the featured article criteria (falls under comprehensive coverage?) but I see no suggestion that coordinate tagging is required in the good article criteria. New articles at the DYK level should certainly not be held to a higher standard than good articles. Also, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no mention in the WP:MOS that coordinated tagging is required or even desired. I'm not arguing against it per se, but questioning the degree to which there is project-wide desire to implement this. cmadler (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why would you oppose something as trivial as adding {{coord missing}}? It takes next to nil effort. Why stop there? Why not dispense with the need for references? Part of the point of DYK criteria is to ensure a bsic good standard of article. DYK has and can still be used to push to quality bar higher. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose sounds like instruction creep to me. I see no reason to disqualify an article merely because a coord is lacking. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:GEOCODE is perhaps the best "how to" page that has been put together. It points to, amongst others, Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates. As to Hwy 291, the best advice is a rough centre point, and the use of scale or dim parameters such that the map viewed when following the coord link shows the extent of the linear feature. Example. See also WP:LINEAR. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Per Mj and cm, I can see little reason to add this to DYK. You might insist on it at a GA I suppose, but at DYK it's only going to be instruction creep if we start adding rules about such minor details. Gatoclass (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think for our new comers creating their first article it complicatews the DYK process even more. I think it can be suggested howver (per GA) but not as a requirement for DYK. So essentially oppose per WP:Creep. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose – Agree that this is instruction creep; we do not need to complicate DYK any more. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree that the coordinates should be provided, wherever possible in an article, but I oppose making it a mandate. My favorite tool for getting the necessary data is http://www.batchgeo.com/lookup/, which provides geographic coordinates based on an address. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
More hooks
Can we start adding an extra hook or two to the template- it would make Main Page balancing easier and, as a bonus, it might slightly reduce waiting times. the last few days, DYK has been noticeably shorter than OTD, but ITN is is very short already because of the TFA and nobody likes trimming form OTD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- TFA length is very variable and will change in 7 minutes, thus usual practice is to stick to 8 hooks no matter what. There are currently 6, which surprised me, I guess it is because of one long hook, but I would keep 7. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well there'd be no harm done in having 9- worst case scenario is I have to add to OTD, which I can deal with. Could we try a it for a day and see how it looks, perhaps? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, if there was a 6-hook update for some reason, that's usually too short, though they do slip through sometimes. I know we've sometimes had 7-hook updates when a hook got pulled out of the queue and not replaced. The normal 8-hook update is usually about the right length; as Gatoclass pointed out, the main page looks (very) different on different screens, so there's not really any way to guarantee a balance. cmadler (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Stalag Luft III murders article from July 3
I self-nominated the Stalag Luft III murders article from July 3 and notice it hasn't been reviewed yet. I just added a scan of the book that I used as a reference for the hook, if this makes a difference...?Michael DoroshTalk 12:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Collusion between Broccoli and Mbz1
A clear pattern has emerged with these two users in recent months. Mbz1 submits an article, and Broccoli drops in a short time later to verify it. Typically, Broccoli completely ignores any outstanding issues and adds a verify tag regardless, as he has just done again today, falsely declaring on a hook of Mbz1's that I had challenged that "All issues were resolved." Another of his recent verifications, for Sol Hachuel, consequently slipped through to the main page in spite of having numerous problems.
Broccoli has made a total of ten edits to T:TDYK - every one of them a verification of an Mbz1 submission. Evidently they are colluding off-Wiki, with Mbz contacting Broccoli whenever one of her nominations is up for review or has run into trouble.
I therefore recommend that from this point, any verifications made by Broccoli on the Suggestions page are ignored. I am also asking myself at this point whether further action should be taken against Mbz1, who not only continues to submit problematic articles to T:TDYK, but who now appears to have been engaged in a concerted attempt to subvert our normal review processes. Gatoclass (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe this should be brought up at WP:ANI, with a request for a topic ban on Broccoli verifying any hooks at DYK. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am fond of Mbz1 contributions that I am watching on both Commons and Wikipedia. If I see she wrote an article or nominated an image for FPC, I review it, and, if I feel like supporting it, I do. As a matter of fact I am translating Sol Hachuel in Hebrew for Hebrew Wikipedia right now. In case you do not know how to call my behavior, you may call it collaboration.
- Your behavior is shameful and is a disgrace to this project. I don't have to justify my actions on front of petty people like you. It is more likely that you have an agenda against Mbz1, and therefore try to taunt her. Go and do something constructive. You make yourself pathetic. --Broccoli (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe this should be brought up at WP:ANI, with a request for a topic ban on Broccoli verifying any hooks at DYK. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Doodlebug disaster
This article is currently on the main page, but all refs are bare urls. I'm not suggesting we remove it, but can we please ensure that it doesn't happen again. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)