Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:00, 22 October 2011

Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

• WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

DYK queue status There are currently 5 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 12:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 02:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 2 hours ago( verify reset purge )

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

2011 DYK reform proposals

Numerous threads moved to the Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals subpage:

• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Good articles redux
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal - minimum character requirement increase from 1500 to 2500
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Some thoughts from a semi-regular
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal to replace DYK with new Good article DYKs and demote the current system to a sub page
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Multiple RFCs confusing, simply remove DYK from the mainpage
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Brainstorming related to RFC

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

Time to return to 3 hook sets per day?

The hook supply has been growing, leading me to think that it may be time to return to 3 sets per day (one every 8 hours). Alternatively, we could increase the number of hooks in each set to 7. Note that three sets per day increases output by 50%, whereas an increase to 7 hooks per set increases it only 17%.

Regardless of the number of queues per day, I'd prefer larger hook sets, as it is easier to balance the content of a hook collection when there are 7 or 8 hooks than when there are only six. --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think we're ready. Looking at the bot's report, we currently have approximately 18 nominations a day. At 3 preps a day, we would be using 18 to 21 hooks a day; this would keep the number of hooks on T:TDYK stable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• More haste, less speed. --Ohconfucius 04:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• From what I see below, the system is not coping at all well with two shifts a day. Tony (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Too early to return to 3 per day IMO - I would at least wait until the hook count is over 200. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Regretfully concurring that it's a bit early to be sure of a trend, although I'd like to see us back at 3 a day soon, let's first increase the number of hooks per set and revisit the issue after Hallowe'en. (I'm also thinking we don't yet have enough Hallowe'en hooks for 3 sets that day to be spooky enough.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time to return to 7 hooks per set. Before we increase, we need to warn the other Main Page projects, so I've inquired at Talk:Main Page. --Orlady (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Eiler Larsen (Q3)

I removed the description of this man as a vagabond, as was not one when he became the "greeter". I was reverted, on the grounds that it is true that he had been a vagabond, and later became the greeter. In that case, it is equally true to say that he was a pupil at a Danish school before he became the greeter. This looks like an attempt to crowbar onto the main page a word that an editor decided to put into the article, but is not in the cited material, and thus display our ability to use words that many readers will have to look up. Not, I would suggest, a noble use of our main portal. Kevin McE (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who restored the original hook. The article clearly documents that the man was a vagabond in the pure sense of that word -- someone who was a wanderer for many years, with no settled life, before he settled down in Laguna Beach and took on the role of greeter. For me, your removing that term from the hook converted an attention-getting hook into one that I would not give a second glance to. --Orlady (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, for reasons given above. But the pathetic amount of attention that hooks receive before reaching the main page (basically, anything gets there if about three people fail to object) mean that this has appeared without further discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer to this, really: offer yourself to be another overseer of the process. It's really that simple; the more people looking at the hooks, logically, the closer we get to perfection. Moaning about the "pathetic" nature of the process gets us nowhere. — Joseph Fox 09:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone doesn't know: at WP:ERRORS, Kevin often offers specific suggestions for the Main Page ("overseer") as well as some negative comments ("moaning"). Art LaPella (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Joseph: have you seen how many corrective changes I have made at the prep stage over the last few weeks? The problem is that there are very few eyes at this stage, and many of those are, I believe, more focussed on providing hooks than seeking to hold them to a high standard. Obviously there is a need for the production, but there are too few critical eyes to effectively check them. There was clearly a matter of dispute in the phrasing of this hook, but next to no people aware of the discussion to render anything that might vaguely be considered a consensus before it went to the main page.

Art: I'm sorry that you choose to interpret some of my contributions as moaning. I don't believe that I have knowing ever made observations at WP:ERRORS that have not been intended to improve the encyclopaedia, or at least draw the attention of others to that which needs attention. If you think you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to discuss it at my talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-mandatory addition of something to the nominated article's talk page

I just nominated an article, and when I did that I saw that I could add something to the article's talk page, but I forgot to do so. It wasn't mandatory to do so, but I'd still like to know what that was. Could anyone advice? Manxruler (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

== DYK nomination ==
{{Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE}}

rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be handy if this were mandatory or automatic, at least until after it has appeared on the MP. At present, to trace how a hook was arrived at, one has to trawl through the What links here list (which even for new pages can be lengthy if the page is in templates). Is such a thing possible? Kevin McE (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Some editors are automatically adding that to the article talk page, but I don't see the need; the template title always has the same format so I can find it by remembering what that is. It usually comes up as a suggestion in the search box when I start typing in the article name after the beginning bit. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to make it mandatory. There are links to the DYK nomination pages in the prep areas and the queues (so if you're reading articles in the queues it should be easy for you to get to the nomination page), and after it runs there's a link to it on the article talk page. Furthermore, as Yngvadottir pointed out, you can usually find it easily even without a link. If anyone wants to make a bot that will do this automatically, they are welcome to, but I don't see a reason to require people to do it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Once a hook is in the prep area or the queue, the discussion as to how that hook was arrived at is not any longer at T:TDYK. Although it is available after the hook has appeared, discussion on it then is futile. It is precisely at the time that the nomination is made available for wider discussion that it is least accessible. Kevin McE (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• As noted above, the discussion is linked directly from the prep / queue page... Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: am I missing something really obvious here? I look, for example, at the queue page, and in the Prep 1 section I see a hook on the Lost River sucker. Are you telling me that, when looking at that, there is a one click jump to ]? If so, where? At present, I either have to type 35 characters into the search box, or click on the article, then on the "What links here" tab, then search down the list. If I am being really daft and missing the obvious, please point me at it so that I can kick myself. Kevin McE (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

From there, if you click the link to prep area 1, you will find links to all the nomination pages (each labelled "View nom subpage"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah: that's what everyone meant. Thank you. Problem arose from confusion of the page called queue that has all the queues and prep areas transcluded, and the 6 pages called Queue 1, Queue 2 etc. Kevin McE (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter Beck (prep 2)

I can find no evidence for the claim of this man becoming figurehead of the city. One colour piece in one Sunday paper refers to him as a symbol. That is no more establishment of a fact than is the same article's description of the people of Sheffield as blunt or of Beck's hairstyle as a thatch. To be a figurehead is to be a leader and inspiration, to be a symbol is to be a recogniseable person associated with the place. Suggest that after the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, dean Peter Beck (pictured) was described as a "symbol of the city"? Kevin McE (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed in Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Beck and I found the hook in Prep 3. I agree that the hook fact does not accurately represent what the source says. I'm moving it back to the noms page for additional discussion. PS - I, for one, really appreciate having links to the items that are discussed on this page. --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination month not showing up when pages are created

Hello everyone, I noticed something odd while building the preps. It appears that the month of the nomination is not showing up automatically when the nomination is created. I verified this by creating a fake nomination and it didn't show up. It appears this has been so for a few days (5 maybe), and I thought that we needed the categories to keep the entire process easily accessible. Could someone fix the template? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the MediaWiki update has broken some stuff about the way the {REVISIONMONTH} and {REVISIONYEAR} magic words work, and those are what was used to fill in the month and year. I'll have to leave a message at the village pump about it; I don't know if it will be possible to fix the template until that stuff is dealt with.

In the meantime, people doing promoting of the hooks can just fill in the nomination month and year manually while promoting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it. (There is still a problem with the magic words; I just switched to some different magic words that can accomplish the same thing. The new version is actually more appropriate anyway. ) rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad hooks

There's seems to be a trend here towards more and more catchy or sensationalist hooks, resulting (at least three times this week that I know of) in original research and false statements (see Talk:Maroon Creek Bridge and stab wound). If we're going to put something as a "factoid" on the main page, we really should make sure it's right. If we're going to put words in a dead man's mouth, do we not have some sort of responsibility (to his surviving family and friends, for example) to get it right?

• Did you know ... that immunologist and AIDS advocate Robert Frascino considered himself privileged after being infected with HIV?

No where is that found in the sources, it's a supposition and original research, trying too hard to be hooky, and inspired by the DYK reviewer, Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Frascino-- not wording that was originally proposed by the article writer. I wonder if his family, on reading that, considered him "privileged" to be dead? Please, let's be more careful on the mainpage to avoid original research-- if the man had said he was "privileged", it would not be plagiarism to restate that, but he did not say that. Neither is Maroon Creek Bridge the only significant remnant of rail travel on that line, as anyone who has taken a train to ski in CO will know. It's on the mainpage-- please stop stretching hooks to make them catchy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, its gone off the main page some 2 hrs ago. Materialscientist (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I was speaking generally ... as I recall, the original Billy Hathorn problem (finally) came to broader light because the same reviewer moved forward an unreviewed hook. There seems to be generally an overemphasis on catchy hooks, that is resulting in original research, and it often seems to be passed by the same reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: the sources say Marook Creek Bridge is a relic. They do not say it's the most significant, nor do they say it's the most visible. Would a primer on following sources correctly help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In its current form, the Frascino article quotes him saying he considered it a privilege to be able to care for his dying brother. That happened after he was diagnosed, and it clearly indicates he considered himself privileged, so the hook is true, albeit sneakily worded. I verified that element of the hook before I moved the hooks from the prep area to the queue. The same cited source (quote not currently in the article) also quotes him as saying "I quickly realized as an HIV-positive physician, I held a unique and privileged position. I was able to speak with the knowledge and authority of a physician specialist but also with the eyes, heart and soul of an HIV-positive patient.” If I had read all of the article's sources before approving the queue, I probably would have added that to the article, but I didn't. Regardless, the hook was not original research. --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady-- it's that "sneakily worded" business that DYK might stop striving so hard for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's beyond sneaky, that's deliberately misleading. Kevin McE (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the omission from the article of that quotation in which he actually used the word "privileged", it's clear from the article as a whole that he received his infection in much the same way that a devout Christian would receive a calling to ministry. For example, a boxed quotation in the article says, in part: "Maybe I was meant to get this disease for a purpose." --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not the same as "privileged"; can we please review hooks for sourcing, avoiding original research and personal opinions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian rabbis

The discussion for "Palestinian rabbis" has been on the noms page for over 2 months, during which time the article has survived an AfD and a couple of requested-move discussions and has undergone extensive editing to resolve multiple issues of copyvio that I identified. There also have been 6 or 7 different hooks proposed, of which I believe only one (ALT4) is supported by the article and RS citations therein.

The article creator is adamant that his preferred hook, which I contend is not supported by the article, must be used. I have given him the choice of using ALT4 or failing the nomination. He doesn't like my opinion, and now is saying "If you are not happy with approving this hook, please don't reject this nom, but request comment from others." He also has suggested that Gatoclass thought one of his hooks was OK.

I've expended an inordinate amount of time reviewing this nomination, but now I'm wondering why I bothered. I am not interested in receiving the inevitable flak that will ensue when this controversially-titled article goes to the main page in DYK if I am also going to get flak from the article creator.

Accordingly, "comments from others" are requested. --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the discussion at all but I think it should be failed. It's nothing close to "new", and the fact that it's taken 2 months and still there's no agreement over it indicates that it's probably not stable or ready for the main page either. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read and closed the discussion as "no consensus" to promote. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick check would be appreciated

I just submitted my first DYK, at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the birth control movement in the United States. Could some DYK black-belt please check to make sure I've followed the process correctly, and that my submission meets the requirements? I read the instructions, but you never know. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• You did the nomination process correctly, but for a full review of the article you have to wait in line (between 3 to 10 days usually). Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll grab a newspaper to read while I'm waiting :-) --Noleander (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hope you've got a thick one; once you've finished, War and Peace may be a good start. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Seriously though, based on what I saw I wouldn't expect too many issues to be raised at the nomination. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Anniversary

I recently expanded one article (HMS Temeraire (1798)) and created another (Thomas Fortescue Kennedy), and since both are strongly linked to the Battle of Trafalgar (fought on 21 October 1805) I thought it would be good to have them displayed on the impending anniversary, Trafalgar Day. Temeraire has been updated and moved to the queue to appear on that day, but the Kennedy nomination, though approved, is still in the regular queues. I wonder if I could get some action on that before it might be too late? It would also be a nice gesture if the image with the Kennedy nom could be used as well, though perhaps suitably cropped (seen here)? The battle isn't appearing in the 'on this day' section, so this would be the only way to give it some prominence. I don't have a problem though if people would rather not do so for any reason, I'm happy to abide by what people here think. Benea (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert regarding the Kennedy hook. I have moved it to one of the prep areas that will go to the main page on 21 October. --Orlady (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Al Hamma (q6)

A village cannot be a railway station; it can have a railway station. Kevin McE (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Karet Bivak, Q1

"more than 48,000 graves on just 16.2 hectares (40 acres)": comparison with some London cemeteries suggests that this is by no means a densely packed cemetery: Highgate Cemetery has 53000 in 37 acres; West Norwood Cemetery is also 40 acres, but has more than 3 times as many burials as Karet Bivak at 160,000; Bunhill Fields has 10 times the density. The word just is not defensible. Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This cemetery is in Jakarta, not London, so it seems like you're comparing apples to oranges. The source also seems to be about crowding issues in cemeteries. Admittedly this is not the most exciting hook, but I don't see a problem with it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Further to Rjanag... The first proposed hook said that the cemetery was at capacity and burials were now being stacked. It was correctly pointed out on the nom page that stacking of burials is not unusual; also, I found that the sourcing for that statement was weak -- notably, that they were only stacking graves of people in the same family. I wrote the new hook because I was satisfied that the fact was supported by reliable sources. Different cultures have different burial practices, and it's apparent that this cemetery is densely packed in the context of burial practices in Indonesia. --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That just suggests that it is exceptionally crowded. Comparison with other cemeteries shows that this is not the case. The impression given is misleading, and an encyclopaedia should not mislead. If there is a factual hook that can be compiled about the local perception of it being crowded, or steps being taken, that is a different matter. Kevin McE (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You've cited examples of three cemeteries (in another part of the world) that are more crowded. That doesn't mean anything; who knows how many are less crowded. Clearly there is some subjectivity in determining what constitutes "crowded", but the sources suggest the cemetery is crowded and you haven't provided any real evidence that it's not, so I don't see anything misleading here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could be surprised that the regulars here would rather defend a proposed hook than avoid misleading readers of Misplaced Pages's most visited page. Kevin McE (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, please don't give up-- I think you may be DYK's only hope (and I note that you work in many areas of the mainpage as well). Now, as to DYK-- this is exactly like the other recent cases-- original research. The question(s) should not be those raised here, nor the defense of another poor hook, but 1) what exactly do the sources say, 2) why isn't that text even in the article, and 3) just fix it, for gosh sakes, instead of constantly defending the status quo here. Do y'all ever consider how many very good editors have left DYK, even Misplaced Pages, in disgust over what goes on here? Just fix it-- we have too many reviewers trying to write sensationalist, catchy hooks, resulting too often in original research. I remember that once, just once, when a problem was found at DYK, the nominator just fixed it. It doesn't have to be that rare, and you don't have to keep causing good editors to give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I think cutting the "on just so many acres" is fine. I didn't include the size of the cemetery as I didn't think it was overly interesting (and to avoid using something like "just"). If they want to see how packed it is, there are two pictures there that can be used to give them an idea. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
• The point, Sandy, is that I (and apparently some of the other commenters) don't agree anything needs to be fixed. It's no wonder many people have stopped contributing to DYK when merely disagreeing with someone subjects them to rants like this where they're accused of being "defensive" and driving people away from the project. Can we all just agree to grow up and accept that there are differences of opinion without attacking one another?

  Regarding the actual content issue: In this context, it doesn't need to be the case that the cemetery is unique for the word "just" to be OK. All that "just" implies is that, from the point of view of the person saying it, "16.2" hectares is a small amount of space to put "48,000 graves" in; there's no requirement that it be uniquely small. It seems that from the point of view of the person who wrote the source this is indeed a small amount of space. Thus, I don't see anything misleading about saying "just". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I changed the wording from "on just" to "in a space of". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

See how easy that was? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

When it was demonstrated that 10 times the density is achieved in a manner considered perfectly socially acceptable in an affluent city like London, inclusion of judgemental words is flying in the face of evidence. It is not the place of an encyclopaedia to pass such judgements, and when the inclusion of unencyclopaedic content is proposed and flagged up, I would hope that encyclopaedic standard, rather than the text as proposed, is the defaulkt position as to what should be defended. Kevin McE (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Article renamed to be more concise, please verify

I nominate an article a few days ago. I just renamed it to be more concise: from History of the birth control movement in the United States to Birth control movement in the United States The DYK nom is at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the birth control movement in the United States. Could someone please validate that I did not screw up any links or transclusions? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio checks

Why was Alicia Aberley not checked for close paraphrasing?

• Template:Did you know nominations/Alicia Aberley
• Duplication detector

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The link to ref#1 in the article is not working for me, so it's hard to see what your concern is. I just checked four other references using Duplication Detector and found no problems, although I appreciate that the first one is used to support more text than the others. Mikenorton (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK it's become available again and most of the matches are lists of events, e.g. "record for the 50 metres 100 metres and 200 metres breaststroke" which are pretty much factual. I would regard these examples as borderline too close paraphrasing at worst, but I'm no expert. Mikenorton (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I honestly didn't intend to do word those the same for those phrases found on hansard. I'm just not certain how to otherwise word them for she broke the world record for these events. World record can't really be reworded. The events she set them in are rather specific. Changing the order from longest to shortest isn't standard for how to list. Swimming and athletics tends to pretty consistently do shortest to longest. Just not sure how to fix that. :( --LauraHale (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of anyway to reword this either. Calling this out for close paraphrasing feels nitpicky, since there's no way around that unless we start adding modifiers or reverse the order, which doesn't work. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wizardman. The world of sport is full of names and facts that can only reasonably be described by a rather specific string of words. I find it very hard to imagine anyone claiming copyright over a phrase like "in the 200 metres individual medley and the 50 and 100 metres freestyle" -- and even less likely any court would uphold such a claim. Running the detector can be useful, and it's worth considering its results; automatically assuming its reports are overly close paraphrases, though, wouldn't be an appropriate use of the tool. Sandy, I hope all you were suggesting was the former? -Pete (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed this nomination. Like others have said, there really isn't any other way to write those phrases because they are just the event names. - PM800 (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks ok to me as well. For future reviews, though, it would always be good to indicate that you've checked for this (i.e., something like "Length, date, and hook verified, and no copyvio problems" or something like that. If you checked it, might as well take credit for checking it :) rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same as Wizardman and followers. Some facts loose the very facts we should go for in rewording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's always curious to me when copyvio concerns are met with responses based only on wording-- copyvio occurs when structure is copied also. "There's only one way to word it" isn't the right answer in those cases. Besides, the question was, was it checked, or have we already stopped checking ?? Since there is still no directorate at DYK, when admins pass the hooks to the mainpage, do they verify that necessary checks have been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, in calling attention to this issue, the only explanation you gave was to the results of a bot, which highlights specific word matches. If you feel there is something deeper going on here, you might find we could be persuaded -- but it's much more likely that will happen if you share your thinking with us. -Pete (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't typically use any of the copyvio detection tools (it may be the first time I have), but I saw elsewhere that this particular tool can be helpful in looking at the structure of the article around the instances of similar wording. I'm more curious that it seems that copyvio checks are no longer being done on some nominations, so I checked one. I disagree that with the entire premise that there is no other way to write this article, but since it's not a hugely egregious case, my real question is, was it checked or not? The history at DYK for many years has been that as soon as non-DYK regulars stop shining a light on plagiarism here, DYK goes back to business as usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm finally beginning to understand where you're coming from: you've got a WP:POINT and this just happens to be the article you're seeking to demonstrate it on. Personally, I don't feel that's very kind to the writer, the nominator, or the reviewer of this particular article. So I'm going to disengage. If this particular instance isn't hugely egregious, I'll just watch for a discussion that doesn't unnecessarily ensnare good faith contributors in cross-fire. -Pete (talk)

So Sandy, your original question was "How can I tell if Alicia Aberley has been checked for close paraphrasing?", because it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the review. I personally think it's helpful to specifically mention it in the review, but you would get a clearer answer if your question was clearer. Mikenorton (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Why was Alicia Aberley not checked for close paraphrasing?

Looks pretty clear to me ... still concerned about the close paraphrasing and structure, and still wonder if y'all have just stopped checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

DYKmake

Is this right? Art LaPella (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Furthermore, in the past the update bot would not issue credits from lines like {{DYKmake|Palacio de las Dueñas|Dr. Blofeld|subpage=Palacio de las Dueñas}} , but Shubinator said he fixed that. Materialscientist (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, what you did was correct. It looks like the nominator messed up the credit templates here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Expansion

I am in the process of expanding BWV 169. I remember that DYKcheck gave me a result for any in-between state, such as when expansion began 2 days ago, to compare, - but no more. Help, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that if you bring up the version from 10 September, that DYKcheck won't give you the character count? It gives me 1143 characters for that version compared to 4027 now. Mikenorton (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't quite understand what "bring up" means. I used to click on "prev" for a certain version, and then DYK check, and got a result, yellow for the prose, char count etc. When I do that now for an older version, nothing happens. It works for me for the current version only. I guess I overlook something simple? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I just tried it and it worked fine for me. Open the version from 10 September and run DYK check or prosesize.js and it'll give you the character count. If not, it's probably a problem with your browser or skin, try clearing your cache. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on with DYKcheck, it's been playing up for the last few days (see also here), for instance it no longer gives me results when I use preview, a pain because I use it to check hook lengths in one of my sandboxes and I now have to save each version for comparison. I just clicked on prev for the 10 September version and it gave me the same character count of 1143 characters. Mikenorton (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, helped, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to say

I think the DYK team are doing a fine job. I find that I continually return here to find the same people up to their OLD TRICKS of looking after the Misplaced Pages project. Why is it that I have to be only person who turns up here and notices that despite doing a tricky job to the best of your ability you are getting little respect or admiration. At Wikimania Jimmy was talking about retaining editors. DYK is still retaining editors - just. Well done. Some of us count your successes. I do admire your ability to perservere and I hope one day you will return to your previous productivity of encouraging new editors and articles. Victuallers (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you vic, I needed that. Wish more people left praise of the people who keep DYK running here instead of just complaints and pointing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I second Victuallers' comments. I just submitted my first DYK, and as I watch the process, it is apparent that a lot of important, but tedious work goes into the daily preparations. Editors that do that day in and day out are really doing some yeoman's work. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)