Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Did you know?
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
Holding area	WP:SOHA
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	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
	v; t; e;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:11, 26 November 2009

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

DYK queue status

There are currently 2 filled queues. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested.

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 05:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 5 hours ago(

)

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.

Alternative hook format

I was walking around at work yesterday trying to figure out if it is possible to construct a valid DYK hook that doesn't start with "that". The only thing I could come up with is if the hook starts with a question word. For example, instead of:

... that London-born actress Sarah Badel made her acting debut in India?

An alternative could be:

... where London-born actress Sarah Badel made her acting debut?

I realize that, as the rules are currently written, this would not be a valid hook. I also realize that it isn't entirely grammatically correct, as this construction would be better if it started with "Do you know..." rather than "Did you know...". However, I think that this would be a fresh, fun alternative to the current hook format. I also think it would encourage readers to actually read through the article to try to find the fun fact. Any thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd agree with that. Hooks that contain few facts but sound interesting are much more likely to attract readers than those where the most interesting parts are already in the hook. But for such a change we need a clear consensus and much input, an RFC maybe? Regards So Why 18:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would be agreeable to having words other than "that" as the first word of a hook (If memory serves, there have been past nominations beginning with "when"). The example and alternative however show a separate concern. While the example contains a complete fact (the location the highlighted article's subject made her acting debut) the alternative is simply a game show style question. The existence of a stand alone fact needs to preserved instead of converting DYK into a series of trivia questions. --Allen3 ^talk 18:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right in that it is a bit like a game show. However, it was not my intention to suggest that the alternative format should replace the current one. Instead, I think it would it should complement the current one. If need be, perhaps a limit could be imposed on the number of question hooks in a single batch. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bureaucratic answer is that we do not have a rule about "that". See WP:Did you know/Lore#Debatable rules. But according to User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Rapid-fire mode on T:TDYK, "The hooks are detected by "... that " at the start and "?" at the end." So DYKcheck's "rapid-fire mode" won't work without "that". In practice, "that" is often omitted; later the "that" is often, but not always, added by others. Art LaPella (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, "Did you know where ... " doesn't make sense. For such a question, the phrase should be "Do you know ... ?" Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYKcheck and Prosesizebytes are down

I tried them on several articles. Instead of results, I got a mostly blank screen that says:

You are looking at the HTML representation of the XML format.
HTML is good for debugging, but probably is not suitable for your application.
See complete documentation, or API help for more information.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<api />
Art LaPella (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same for me (using Vector, Firefox, Mac). Ucucha 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a temporal solution, I copy/paste the text (not the code) from an article to MS Word and do "word count". This gives bytes too, which are close to (but not same as) DYK check. I compared results long ago when I only started using the DYK script. BTW, I always used MS Word for hook length check. Materialscientist (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, I'm getting a "No connection" message for it. Yet, every other page works...strange.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a bigger problem. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Scripts are down Art LaPella (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be related to clicktracking. (I've weighed in at the VPT thread as well). As a workaround you can use the javascript trick for running scripts. E.g. to run prosesizebytes, type the following in the address bar of your browser when you're on the desired page

javascript:importScript('User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js'); getDocumentSize();

The corresponding thing should work for other scripts as well—hover over the link in the toolbox you usually click, and look in the status bar at the bottom of your browser to find out the name of the corresponding command (instead of getDocumentSize). Note that this way of calling a script does not require it to be installed in your monobook.js, so it's a convenient way of trying out a new script to see if you want to use it. Dr pda (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's working for me on Safari and Firefox now that I have removed the banners by using my preferences... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr pda:) Question through, in MS word do we count the brackets and wiki directs also (ie. [[World war II|WWII]]? Calmer Waters 04:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't count brackets; we count the article page, not the edit page. For more details see WP:Did you know/DYKcheck#Counting prose characters without DYKcheck. Art LaPella (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about my comment then I paste the output article text (cutting out figures, tables, quotes, etc, manually then) - never the code. Materialscientist (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure. Thanks. Calmer Waters 05:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

600B or 0B

User:Una Smith/Queso flameado has a strange history. It began in January 2007 as a text dump that was shortly deleted. A few hours ago I requested that it be undeleted, simply to recover the page history. For purposes of DYK, should the page size start from 600B or 0B? That is, do I have to provide 3000B or only 1500B? The original 600B was entirely in Spanish. --Una Smith (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say 0B, as it was never really an article and was only online for about 2 weeks, over 2 years ago. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. A copy/paste of Spanish text into English WP doesn't qualify as it was an article. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length check?

Sorry, I'm too stupid to get this working... can someone do a length check on Cabinentaxi? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-expansion 5848 characters; currently 21677 characters, which is a 3.7x expansion, not yet a 5x. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we doing proper fact checking on hooks?

This was the DYK tagline:

... that the crematory at the Oahu Cemetery in Hawaii was used to burn $200 million in U.S. bank notes after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941?

Note mark 3 indicates Nuuanu Mortuary. Note mark 4 notes Nuuanu cemetery crematorium. Note mark 5 notes Oahu cemetery crematorium.

I ask because I did the Hawaii overprint note article, and I had to make a note mark because two of my sources (A book and note mark 3 in the recent DYK article) couldn't agree on the location seeing that there are two separate businesses with the same/similar names in the area mentioned in the article. Even my DYK hook had to reflect this:

... that more than $200 million in US currency was burned at both a crematorium and the Aiea Sugar Mill in Hawaii, due to being redeemed for HAWAII Overprint Notes ($20 Note pictured)?

And I just had to seek advice at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on how to handle this dilemma of conflicting references. I know we have to assume good faith with nominations, but when you have three references with 3 conflicting location names, wouldn't have that raised a red flag in a sense that "Wait, something's not quite right here"?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite clear that $200 million were burned there, not at a single locations but at several, and that the crematory at the Oahu Cemetery was one of them. Any contradiction with the hook above? Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you have 3 references that cannot provide a clear name on where the notes were burned. 3 references that were apparently used to support the DYK hook. And given my experience in the matter concerning a 4th reference and the associated fact checking, there is now doubt as to the usage of the references. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly said that neither facility was capable of disposing that amount of paper and that the burning occurred at several nearby locations. Those 3 refs confirm that statement and indicate the locations used for burning: "Oahu Cemetery located in Nuuanu valley", Nuuanu Mortuary and Nuuanu Mortuary cemetery crematory, as well as a Sugar Plantation mill. The former 3 do appear as three different names of one establishment mentioned in the hook. I could only see a few lines of refs. 4,5 and AGFed the fact. Thus I don't understand your concern. If it is about repetition of your hook at talk:Hawaii overprint note, I admit it is regrettable, but didn't see your hook until now. Materialscientist (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting another editor to address my concerns. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I've just realized that this debate is a surfacing of quite an old story. Materialscientist (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is pretty much about whether or not Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research has even been followed in relation to this hook. I only became aware of the DYK wrinkle quite recently when I saw it on the front page, not during the whole argument over who's right/who's wrong within the Hawaii overprint note article. I had no knowledge Oahu Cemetery was even nominated for a DYK during the whole argument elsewhere.

By my observations, I see 2 verifiability problems, a possible attempt at original research, and perhaps a violation of DYK rules when tying in the hook to an inline citation.

Now, even thought DYK rules only state: cited with an inline citation , I can only assume that all three citations were used in trying to verify the hook. This shows, to me, that someone looked at the links, did not adequately question the discrepancy in the site name differences thru the three sources (their was a one-word difference), and allowed it to go thru. This became a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability since it appears the three citation links are helping to cite the passage which in turn helped support the DYK hook as legitimate when two of them have conflicting information. Also, because there is a location called Nuuanu Memorial Park and Mortuary, I now have to question whether or not the citations are being used in a Original research type of way, as it is being used to support facts that do not agree with the statements posed.

Also, I don't know the exact reasoning, but is it DYK policy to allow a hook with one credible source (assuming we throw out the Nuuanu Cemetery/Mortuary references)? I know for my hook, I made sure I had at least two sources that could at least agree in some way with each other. just in case someone had reservations about the hook and wanted me to prove it.

The associated quarrel over the citations only backs up my claim that proper fact checking was not done. The latter link Materialscientist posted contains a passage near the end of the section from another unrelated editor noting the business locations of the two sites (one having similar name to two of the sources) mentioned after User:W Nowicki did the edits to Hawaii overprint note and conflicted with my fact checking and reasonable attempt to provide any subsequent fact checker the notations over the location discrepancy in my sources and for them to do searches on their own. Note User:W Nowicki did accuse me of providing dead link for Nu'uanu Mortuary in the Hawaii overprint article, but a search on the internet wayback machine with the web addy in the link did produce archived copies of the pages up until 2007. Even thought they are located in the same general area, they do have separate business locations separated by a street. Combined with the references, this clearly shows that upon comparing the citations with the physical documented locations, one has to ask why we have 4 citations spread across two articles with two separate locations. Yeah, you could accuse me also of OR, but the fact we have two physical locations that match the citations passages perfectly leaves abit of a doubt.

So I dunno where you got the whole ripping-off bit (seeing that this is Wikipedia, where the content can be taken by anyone), here is the evidence as I see it: It's a matter of the citations not matching the text and the evidence to support the claims that something is amiss. Which in turn, would've potentially disqualified a DYK hook due to faulty citations.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency with reviewing the nominations

We are running out of approved hooks. I'll try to contribute, but have less than 1 hr left online. Materialscientist (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the perceived problem, but realistically there's no issue with the number of verified hooks moving down. Reason being that, the editor who fills the prep area can always review an unverified hook and immediately move it to the queue.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should generally avoid verify-promotes; it's good when more than one person has a look at the article. I quite agree with MS that we have too few approved hooks at the moment. I might do some more later today. Ucucha 15:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it is NOT a proper practice to approve and move to preps right away, it is an emergency, and technically, it slows down the filling process a lot. Time zone and similarity of the hook topics dictate that we need many more approved hooks than formally required to fill up the queues. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay, because the admin who moves it to the queue should be taking a look at which is two people. Three is just a reward for hard work and is usually uncommon.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting, lack of reviews again (we need to make some button for that :-) - several are approved, but might be better for lead hooks, pity to put them as regular just because of emergency. Materialscientist (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a firewalled connection right now but more than happy to help in a about 2 hours Calmer Waters 13:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horton Plains National Park

Hi all, From from this edit 2029b to current version of Horton Plains National Park of 10146 b, I count exactly *5 plus 1 b expansion. But Dykcheck says otherwise. Could someone please tell me am I missing something. Kind regards.--Chanaka L (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYKcheck regularly misses 5x expansions. Please try it this way: open a certain version of an article from its history, run DYKcheck, note than count, repeat with another version, divide manually. Materialscientist (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more explanation, see User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Expansion and this edit. Art LaPella (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MS, Art for the replies. I did exactly what MS is telling me. From above edit to now, article has under gone a 10166/2029 = 5.01 expansion. I see, Because of article size fluctuations DYKcheck missed it. I am confident enough to suggest it for DYK now. Thank you very much, guys. Kind Regards!--Chanaka L (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR Award - straw poll

Editors are invivted to vote in this straw poll about whether the FOUR award should recognise DYK qualifying ITN contributors or not. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: USS Borie (DD-215) ... let's talk about editing the DYK criteria

I've "adopted" this article but do not WP:OWN it, of course. Please leave a note on my User Talk page with any concerns or questions. At this point, it almost satisfies Good Article criteria. I devoted the better part of two days to expanding this from a 660-word stub to over 3300 words. When I started, it didn't even have one inline citation of a source; now it has over 20 (some added by reviewing admin Harrias, for whom many thanks are in order). Most of this was in response to critique from the DYK admins. I reviewed the DYK criteria, and after the first day it satisfied the "written" DYK criteria regarding inline citations. I've since learned there are more stringent "unwritten" criteria.

I respectfully suggest that we should either revise the written criteria to include these unwritten standards, or have a brief discussion with DYK admins so that they will enforce only the more lenient criteria currently written. For what it's worth, I prefer the latter course of action. I perceive DYK as an initial threshold step in the development of a new (or substantially, 5x expanded) article.

The tale of USS Borie's final battle is amazing when properly told. My first glance told me that the existing stub did not do it justice. This was extremely unusual for a modern naval battle, since the ships were engaged for an extended time at very close range. They were so close that Borie's guns couldn't be depressed enough to fire accurately; they used all manner of weapons on each other, including Tommy guns, rifles, pistols, shotguns, and even a flare pistol, a sheath knife and a thrown shell casing; the last three weapons listed were each responsible for successfully dispatching an enemy.

There's plenty of time in the lifespan of the new article to bring its inline citations up to Good Article standards, but the initial five-day window limits opportunities to do that, particularly with a four-day holiday weekend starting tomorrow, and when starting with a 660-word stub that had to be expanded 5x. Adding more inline citations could have been done in the weeks or months ahead. But the reviewing admin conceded initially that the article was well-written and had a very interesting hook, that was supported by source citation; this satisfied the DYK criteria as currently written. I hope that all will accept this criticism in the constructive and collegial manner it's intended, and that it's the start of a discussion that's constructive for the DYK project. Skoal, and have a very Happy Thanksgiving. I'm off to Grandma's. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the one cite per paragraph rule is now universally used, so it should be on WP:DYK. The current set of "additional rules" and "unwritten rules" and what not is only confusing. Ucucha 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: (i) one cite per paragraph doesn't apply to lede and plots (books, movies). Otherwise my full support to bring this to the rules. We can always tolerate exceptions as we do with 5x expansions and 5-day rule. (ii) I sometimes see that the article is artificially blown off to reach 1500 limit - this is not a big deal though, as I can just quickly copyedit and bring it to <1500. Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It never ceases to amaze me that people, when given constructive criticism that their article has unreferenced chunks, would rather start a big push to change the rules instead of, I don't know, adding the references and improving their article? What is it about writing good articles and adhering to WP:V that is such a turn-off to people? Or do these people care more about getting an easy DYK (without having to do any more work than they wanted to) more than about writing a good article? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to delay my holiday trip to Grandma's just long enough to stress that these criteria shouldn't be all that stringent. I'm thinking specifically of the UNWRITTEN "one cite per paragraph" rule. As long as the hook itself is supported by facts in a WP:RS citation, that should be enough for DYK. There's still a lot of time to add more citations later, Rjanag. Particularly in this case, where a 660-word stub was expanded to 3300 words, it certainly isn't a case of laziness. First, I fully satisfied the stringent criteria by adding about 16 in-line citations and obtained approval from a DYK admin for inclusion on the WP main page. Only after obtaining that approval have I now lobbied NOT to change the rules, but to limit enforcement to the rules as currently written. Standards for DYK should be a new (or 5x expanded), reasonably well-written article with a well-sourced hook, not necessarily a "Good Article" as far as source citations go. Enforcing new and more stringent DYK standards may discourage editors from writing new articles, or substantially expanding old ones. It's counterproductive. After my second full day of editing that article and being told that it still didn't measure up, I must admit that I was briefly very discouraged, and almost walked away. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not if anything it should be more strict. This is DYK, i.e. it's on the main page. Wikipedia doesn't need bogus stuff getting linked on the main page. People who complain about the 1 citation per paragraph should stop complaining and add the references since you clearly got them from somewhere, how hard is it to just add them in? Just do it.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See for yourself, Giants27. It isn't "bogus stuff." And it is, in fact, very time-consuming to add one reference per paragraph to a 3300-word article that started at 660 words with no inline cites at all. I don't mean to be argumentative, Giants27, but it's a new article and there's plenty of time for all that. I never intended to abandon the article once it was approved for DYK. Eventually I hope to take it to Featured Article status. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not time-consuming to add references if you do it at the same time you're adding content (see my message just below this). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by "bogus stuff" is "unreferenced material", the only person who knows who said it and where it came from is the writer. Any unreferenced material is bogus because it's unverifiable. And usually I add references as I go along no matter how many (see Nathan Horton for example which has 86 or so for a 13k article). Adding a reference using refTools (which I highly recommend) is usually quick and easy, since you don't have to type out all the code. BTW, there's no need to do the article in 5 days if you have a version in your own sandbox because the day you move it into mainspace is when the 5 days clock starts. Finally, I understand it's a new article and I appreciate the hard work you've put into it and the plans you have for it but being new is not an excuse for it being unreferenced, even if the original version was unreferenced.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone else coming to this discussion, I should point out that the version of the article Harrias (the DYK reviewer) first commented on is here. Clearly, Phoenix & Winslow's statement above is a bit misleading, as the article didn't have tons of inline citations added and only a small paragraph here and there missing citations; almost the entire article was unreferenced, with only 4 measly references for 13K character (and all those references in the same section). Harrias was absolutely correct in objecting to this kind of poorly-referenced article. There's no reason to criticize the people who point out shortcomings in an article, when your time would be better spent correcting those shortcomings.

Also, Phoenix, I see you are relatively new to the project so I'll offer a bit of advice... when writing or expanding articles, it's always better to include references as you're doing it, rather than adding prose first and finding references later. By the time you come back a few days later (if ever) you may not remember where exactly all the information came from, or you may miss things that should be referenced, leaving unreferenced things scattered throughout the article. For my part, when I'm working in-depth on an article, I pretty much never add anything without putting a reference on it in the same edit. I hope you will take these suggestions to heart and continue being involved with the project, as we can always use more bold editors who take the initiative to fill gaps in the encyclopedia's coverage. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with Rjanag (and Giants27, even though he gave me an edit conflict :) ) that we shouldn't ease the rules. The one cite per paragraph rule (of course with the exceptions Materialscientist mentioned) does a good job in stimulating the writing of quality, well-referenced articles. But we should make that rule clear on this page (WP:DYK), not on some hard-to-find backdoor page. Ucucha 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I always have this in mind - someone takes a fact, referenced it and builds around a dubious article for the sake of getting a DYK medal. Wait, some even fight referees who dare to ask where did that material come from (i.e. "mind your business and assess the hook, article length and date"). DYK system automatically stimulates quickly made articles. Whereas copyedit issues can be easily solved, referencing sometimes is trickier and IMO should be enforced. One cite per para can still be tricked by bogus refs, but this rule is better than nothing. There is another side off course, which IMO started this thread - we often friendly push the authors to further improve the article when it is close to DYK acceptance. The phrasing there should be careful as some take offense. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There is a rule somewhere that basically says an article with major cleanup tags, or cleanup-tag-worthy problems (i.e., someone could add a tag and not be incorrect), can be rejected until the problems are fixed. That basically covers most of these issues, as {{refimprove}} is a major tag if the lack of references is serious enough. It might help to make that rule more prominent. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there, precisely there, is the problem: there's "a rule somewhere." Not in the DYK criteria as written, but it's "somewhere." If you insist, rewrite the written rules to clearly include these stringent standards so that new editors don't make these mistakes in the future. But I think you'll get fewer submissions. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we used WP:Did you know/Learning DYK, it would be easier to find the "rule somewhere": it's R2. The regulars know what I'm going to say, but for others: I have always argued that we need to be easier to understand for newcomers. Unwritten rules should be written. If writing them makes them too rigid, then write about how flexible they are; we even have R6 to say the rules aren't intended to cover everything. Yes, unwritten rules and additional rules and WP:Did you know/Learning DYK rules are confusing; that was a compromise, and if the regular rules would adopt some of my Learning DYK ideas – especially the undisputed improvements – then maybe we could get back to a unified set of rules. I'm better at getting things done by myself than I am at Wikipedia politics. Art LaPella (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to change the text under "Selection criteria" after the current nr. 4 (neutrality) to:

5. Well-referenced. The article should make clear what its sources are; specifically, it should include at least one inline citation per paragraph (with the exception of the lead and plot summaries). These sources should be properly labeled; that is, not under an "External links" header.

Many submissions are made which fail to satisfy one or more of these points, but there is usually plenty of time to address issues after the nomination. We like it better when the article passes the criteria right away, however, and articles that still fail some points even when the article's writer(s) have had a reasonable amount of time to address the issues may be rejected.

This codifies the unwritten one cite per paragraph rule and simultaneously makes the text at the bottom a little more encouraging. Feel free to tweak the text. Ucucha 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Great. A poll. Who would agree to ask Art LaPella to modify the DYK rules to cover the above problems?

Full support. Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Just from reading his first comment, I can see that he recognizes the problem clearly. Skoal, and a Happy Thanksgiving to all. Even you. ;-) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that came down in the wrong place due to conflicting edits that didn't conflict. It seems I have usurped Art's job, but I still support the poll. Ucucha 00:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary in the current wording. We don't need a rule specifically about referencing; more appropriate would be a rule saying about serious cleanup issues in general. (That is to say, serious copyediting, lack of references, etc....NPOV is already mentioned, I think.) It would be more vague, but would also help preclude the need for rule creep since it covers more of the perennial issues. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Sure. That goes on top but is vague and leads to such threads as above (not the first time). Refs are a major issue, and IMO, whatever can be made clear cut (like min. 1500 bytes of prose, max 200 chars in hook, min. 1 ref per para) should be solidified in the rules. Materialscientist (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Insufficient referencing is by far the most frequently encountered issue, I believe, so it makes sense to mention it specifically. I may also support adding a general rule about issues with the article, but I think it makes sense to mention a frequently-encountered issue specifically. Ucucha 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Specific mention is better in the 'additional rules'; the main rules page should have as few rules as possible, and the rules there should be as general as possible. The longer the list of rules, the less likely a newbie is to read them. And as for other frequent 'gen cleanup' issues, severe grammar/copyediting problems, overuse of quotations, and plagiarism/paraphrasing are other perennial issues that articles get rejected for and nominators get bent out of shape over. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my experience, insufficient referencing is the single most frequent problem, and among the more difficult to fix, and I think it deserves to be mentioned separately. Ucucha 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, for what it's worth, I certainly don't think "one citation per paragraph" should ever be formalized as a rule anywhere in this encyclopedia. It's a quick-and-dirty heuristic to help with the enforcement of a fundamental rule (WP:CITE), nothing more. To lose sight of the fundamental rule in favor of the heuristic (which is meaningless on its own) is not a good direction to move in. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I assume you mean WP:Verifiability. My reasoning is that the rule is currently being enforced and is beneficial to submission quality by setting an unambiguous minimum standard for referencing quality, and that it is unfair to nominators not to have it documented somewhere (it's actually not even at the additional rules page). I believe my proposal addresses your concern by first linking to the general verifiability policy and then positing the specific heuristic we use to determine whether verifiability has been met. Ucucha 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even "Most reviewers enforce one citation per paragraph, but a couple reviewers object" would explain the DYK facts of life better than just letting people guess. Art LaPella (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another rule

(Moved down for clarity.) On the other hand, the rule "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators.", currently at WP:DYK, should perhaps be stricken, as I don't believe this happens with any regularity. Ucucha 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it in the past (I was more active in 2008 than I am now), although people sometimes raised a fuss. I don't know if it's still being done. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it often. Perhaps it would be better, also considering what Materialscientist wrote above, to have a general rule along the lines of "Crappy articles will not be promoted even if they have over 1500 b of readable prose." Ucucha 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much need to modify that. The current rule gives us a window to bash overblown texts, and people know we are friendly at DYK :-D. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; let's not change it when there's no real need. Ucucha 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 179: / Line 179: @@
 ***And, for what it's worth, I ''certainly'' don't think "one citation per paragraph" should ever be formalized as a rule anywhere in this encyclopedia. It's a [[quick-and-dirty]] [[heuristic]] to help with the enforcement of a fundamental rule ([[WP:CITE]]), nothing more. To lose sight of the fundamental rule in favor of the heuristic (which is meaningless on its own) is not a good direction to move in. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 ****I assume you mean [[WP:Verifiability]]. My reasoning is that the rule is currently being enforced and is beneficial to submission quality by setting an unambiguous minimum standard for referencing quality, and that it is unfair to nominators not to have it documented somewhere (it's actually not even at the additional rules page). I believe my proposal addresses your concern by first linking to the general verifiability policy and then positing the specific heuristic we use to determine whether verifiability has been met. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
+*****Even "Most reviewers enforce one citation per paragraph, but a couple reviewers object" would explain the DYK facts of life better than just letting people guess. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 ===Another rule===