Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 31

Inline citations

Are inline citations always a must? I recently nominated William Turner (composer) for a DYK without inline citations for several reasons. 1. This subject is too obscure to find reliable online references so all of the sources I used are offline. 2. The two offline references I used have identical information in them so there really is no need to cite anything in the article as either reference will support the material. In this case I find a list of properly cited sources at the bottom of the page preferable to inline citations.Nrswanson (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably all the info comes from the short entries in these two reference works. I would just add a note saying so to the lead, with another to the hook fact. Or a note per para. It may seem a bit of a nonsense, but what if down the line dubious extra material is added? Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Seems absolutely pointless but ok.Nrswanson (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think it improves it you can always remove them after it's been DYKed. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fives times count

How do you count 5 times expansion to qualify for a DYK article? Example, how many characters to you count for Parkesine? How long would it have to be expanded to, to qualify for a DYK? Using "Microsoft Word" I see 633 characters in this article - is that correct? Do you count References? Or External links? To qualify then one would have to expand the article to at least 3165 characters - correct? Is it hard and fast or is there exceptions? Under what conditions? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I count 684 characters, also using Microsoft Word, and confirmed by prosesize.js. So 5x would be 5x684=3420 characters of prose. I can't explain how you got 633 from Word. My count started from "Parkesine is..." and ended with "London.", 684 characters including spaces. The relevant rules are: Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria says "Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)." "Unwritten" rule A2 says "A2: The prose portion of the article, which must be 1500 characters, excludes (in addition to categories listed in the rules) block quotes, headers, images and captions, the "See also" section if any, and edit buttons, but includes reference link numbers like [6], although I think the character-counter prosesize.js excludes such reference link numbers." Thus References and External links don't count. How hard and fast is it? Harder and faster than it used to be. Sometimes it seems harder than others, but I can't imagine it slipping by if it weren't at least near 4 times. Uncounted parts of an article such as long lists are occasionally cited as a good reason to relax the 5x requirement somewhat, or maybe if the original 684 characters were a copyvio or something. Art LaPella (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed answer. That clears up a lot of this for me. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A clarification please

I need some advice on a question I have before the nomination expires on time grounds. I wrote a brand new article on U.S. Route 41 in Michigan in my sandbox and posted it to mainspace on Aug 30. I think one sentence of the section out of U.S. Route 41 was reused, and that's since been discarded in a copy edit. In fact that section was in such atrocious shape, I've since summarized the new sub article and replaced the original main article's section, but I digress. I nominated in good faith a hook from that new article. In the process of updating a second article to use the photo of the Peshekee River Bridge I took earlier that day, I find that the paragraph on the bridge was copied verbatim out of the new article into a separate article on just the bridge. I came back to change the proposed hook for the US 41 in MI article to another referenced fact out of the article instead. The editor who created the bridge article then advocated a combined hook. These three nominations are now sitting about to expire with no further activity than a debate over whether or not it's possible to do such a combined nomination. I'd like to know how to deal with the usurpation of a good faith nomination by the creation of a new article. I've been patiently waiting on information, but I'm afraid that the nominations will expire without any of them being complete vetted for inclusion, meaning both article lose out on a possible DYK. I appreciate any insight others can offer me. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• If the combined one can't be sorted out, then at least Route 41 only which qualifies should go up. If that is the case, the Bridge article would be on its own merit. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Are rewrites eligible?

I'm currently rewriting Evolutionary history of life from the ground up - reasons are given at Talk:Evolutionary_history_of_life#Structure_and_questions. There are many potential hooks in the rewrite, but "Late Devonian wood crisis" looks the snappiest. Since all the current content is new, is the article eligible? If so, I'll write a lead that summarises the content so far, otherwise I'll wait until the first draft of the content is complete.

PS I know there's a "cite" tag in one section, but I can fix that very quickly as well. -- Philcha (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Per precedent, it will only be eligible if the overall length has expanded x5. No allowances are made for new content replacing old. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Thanks for saving me the trouble of writing a temporary lead. -- Philcha (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Images from other articles

Template talk:Did you know#Instructions says "Suggested pictures should be...already in the article". This sounds like it means that

1. the image must be in the hook article, and
2. it can't be added to the article specifically for DYK.

The latter of these seems totally pointless, and the former has definitely been flaunted in the past. If the image is relevant and interesting let's put it on the Main Page - what matter if it's in the new article or not? Wikipedia:Did you know#Images contains no equivalent rule. Does anyone disagree with removing this one? Olaf Davis | Talk 10:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that does seem kind of silly. But I suppose the point is probably to discourage adding an image to a WP:DYK article just so it has an image to use on the Main Page, and then removing that same image after its time at T:DYK is up - but I doubt that type of things occurs that much. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like a likely solution without a problem. Besides, even if people were doing that - either the image is appropriate so it does no harm in the article, or it's inappropriate so the DYK reviewer should (hopefully) query its use. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One could imagine a situation on a visual arts article about say a painter with a large Commons group of images where the images in the article were selected carefully but another image was suggested for DYK because it had more impact at a very small scale - often a problem. If 1 was invoked, I can't myself see the harm in breaking 2, except that another picture might need to be removed to make room. But how would anyone know this was the motive? I have certainly added one picture to an article over another partly because it was better suited for the tiny DYK scale, though I can't recall substituting them afterwards. 2 should maybe be removed, & some exceptions allowed for 1. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So you agree with 1? Would you explain why? Olaf Davis | Talk 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, normally if a picture is relevant enough for DYK it should be in the article. Say the nom had added no pictures to the article, but put one on DYK, it is no bad thing (for the article) to say it should be included there. But I agree this is largely a solution without a problem. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. But I think there are cases where a picture is relevant enough for the hook but not for the article. For example, what made me think of this today was a hook I just nominated: "...that cosmologists C. B. Collins and Stephen Hawking once proposed an infinite number of universes to explain why the curvature of spacetime is so small?" A picture of Hawking would seem reasonable for the hook, but he plays such a minor role in the whole article that one there would seem a bit odd.

Anyway, it's probably unlikely to make a huge difference either way. Given the size of the DYK rules I see that as an argument in favour of dropping the rule; others may see it as in favour of keeping the status quo. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "Suggested pictures should be...already in the article" means "it can't be added to the article specifically for DYK." The article needs to be new or mostly new, so the picture ordinarily wouldn't be in the article for more than 5 days, and there would be no way to determine whether the picture would have been added if it weren't for DYK. I think "already" means only that if the picture is suggested, it should be in the article. Art LaPella (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wordiness

Would it be possible to reduce the wordiness of some of these "did you know"s? Look at this one:

"... that Adamson House, called the "Taj Mahal of Tile", uses local handmade Malibu tiles throughout and has an elaborately tiled dog bath (pictured)?"

Why not just: "... that Adamson House is called the 'Taj Mahal of Tile'"? That's the interesting bit. Just cite the most interesting factoid. You don't need to summarise the whole article in that sentence. Stevage 11:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We often do cut down hooks to make them snappier, but some long ones are used due to differences of opinion or just the fact that so many hooks come through DYK - and checking them for eligibility takes so much work - people don't always spend much time thinking of better alternatives to those we get suggested. The best way to increase the average snappiness of hooks is to glance through the suggestions page every few days and suggest some alternatives! Olaf Davis | Talk 12:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree ... get suggesting! I give priority to short snappy hooks ... (so I won't whitter on more here.) Victuallers (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A note

I wanted to note this. I took it down, because I don't think it is necessary to discuss it. My main argument was to have pages get onto the main page so they can be viewed by others and then have people contribute, clean up, etc. Bolding or not, the one page will make it to the main page, so it is moot. My concern right now are future pages if I submit a couple noms at a time that are connected - an author and two books, or two poems, and how much content is shared, etc. The nuances can be worked out above. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost hook - Georg Prahl Harbitz

Georg Prahl Harbitz is a DYK of 1 September 2008, now it's nowhere to be found on "REcent additions". What has happened? Manxruler (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone accidentally archived the set of hooks that was going onto the main page instead of the one coming off, causing a gap. Happens sometimes. I've put that batch in the archives now, though the timestamps are all muddled. Thanks for spotting it Manxruler! Olaf Davis | Talk 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Question: An article is in two Wikiprojects. It's rated as "Start-class" in one and "stub-class" in another. So, if I expanded it fivefold, would it be eligible for DYK (this isn't hypothetical BTW)? Thanks. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep! All that matters is that you expand it five-fold in five days or less, and that it's long enough (at a minimum, 15k of prose) when you're finished - but presumably that won't be a problem. The rating only makes a difference if it's still a stub when submitted to DYK. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1500 not 15k. Agree otherwise. Art LaPella (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, yes. Thanks Art. Olaf Davis | Talk 07:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Olaf Davis (talk · contribs), if it gets expanded fivefold, should be fine. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bondok's Classification of Thalamic Nuclei

This is Prof Adel Bondok, Prof of Anatomy and Neuroscience, Mansoura University, Egypt.

I adopted a new classification of the thalamic nuclei based on their function and connection so that medical students can easily recognize them and remeber their function. I called this classification "Bondok's Classification".

According to the main function of the thalamic nuclei, the thalamic nuclei are divided into 5 groups:

    1.  2 Specific Motor Nuclei: ventral anterior nucleus and ventral lateral nucleus.
    2.	2 Specific Sensory Nuclei: ventral posterior nucleus and metathalamus (medial and lateral geniculate bodies).
    3.	2 Limbic System Nuclei: anterior nucleus and medial nucleus.
    4.	2 Reticular Activating System Nuclei: reticular nucleus and intralaminar nucleus.
    5.	3 Association Nuclei: the 3 dorsal nuclei (lateral dorsal, lateral posterior and pulvinar)

--DrAdelBondok (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another chance please?

Hi, I was wondering if my new page, Skin Hunters, could be given another chance for DYK? It was included in the "Articles created/expanded on August 30" section, but got deleted because one editor put it up for AFD and so the deadline passed while the vote went on (the reasons to delete were completely rejected and it was voted to keep it). Any chance it can be considered again? The hook was:

• ... that "Skin Hunters" is the media nickname for four hospital casualty workers from the Polish city of Łódź, who murdered patients and sold information regarding their deaths to funeral homes? -- new article, self-nom

Another editor said regarding it:

1. The article has a delete template on it. This will need to be resolved
2. I don't understand the description of the crime. The motive is not clear

- held until "AFD" is resolved Victuallers (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• All this has now been resolved. Your pity and the hook's use would be greatly appreciated:) Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

5 fold rides again

Re the Samuel Johnson 28 Aug hook. I have queried this as it is a 12k character article, of which 4k is a split from the main Samuel Johnson. I think there is precedent that there needs to be a 5x expansion of the split material, but after a quick look in recent archives can't see a relevant discussion. Can anyone recall? Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The unwritten rules state that the new information does not count, and that new information must have at least 1.5k, or 1,500 characters. That is it. I have had multiple DYK, as with most literary DYK, that import biographical information or have duplicate information that is reworked, that amounts to more than 20% of the article, and this has never been a problem before. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, but it is not that clear - the rules also say flatly that split articles do not count as new (that is G7). Logically, if an existing article has to be expanded 5x, it is difficult to see why a split one should not have to also. I think this situation has arisen before & no doubt someone here will remember. The tendency here is to encourage wholly new articles. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, it also does not say it needs a 5x expansion. I believe it allows for the A rule to go into effect - 1.5k new. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, as I stated before, I put in the new information, wait til it hits DYK, and then add it later, which is redundant and doesn't actually do anything differently. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Relying on my unwritten rules here is somewhat circular, because I just added those rules, trying to record the consensus on this same issue. Art LaPella (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I see Victuallers has taken the article anyway, without commenting on the issue. I hope we can at least get further concensus on this for the future. As the unwritten rules seem to be suggesting, there appears to be a contradiction in what we currently have. To say clearly that splits that are allowed but must be 5x expansions seems sensible to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added some re-explanation. Art LaPella (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it again: "*A4: If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." I am now behaving more like a king than a scribe, so this would be a good time to object. But this version is more consistent with what someone who understands the normal fivefold rule would expect. Art LaPella (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Would this be easier to understand as say ""*A4: If some of the text was copied from existing Wikipedia articles, this text must not constitute more than 20% of the new article (ie five-fold expansion is required)"? As I've said, this seems logical to me, but I hope others comment. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think Art's current version is slightly better than your alternative, Johnbod. I don't feel strongly though, and both are better than what it used to be. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I found it needed reading a few times: "it" is potentially ambiguous, and "seperate" could have "pre-existing" or something added. Mine also deals with material added from more than 1 article. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either versions are fair. This means that a page cannot be developed properly because there may be similar information, which negates the ability for critical, scientific, and literary topics to be discussed. That goes against the spirit of the DYK and promotes creating cheap stubs instead of well developed pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I lost you at "because there may be similar information". The actual rule/proposed rule says "copied", not "similar information". If text is "copied", then "may be" is wrong because the author would know for sure that he/she copied it. Art LaPella (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was pretty clear here. Splits and forks off of other articles are not admissible, correct? Cirt (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:DYK: Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles that have been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles. Existing articles that have been expanded to only twice or three times their previous length are not eligible for DYK. - I agree wholeheartedly with that. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Splits are not former redirect, stubs, or short articles. Splits sometimes reuse content, sometimes create new content, and sometimes do a lot of things. A split is simply any page that is connected to another page's content. This includes all novels, poems, books, etc as splits from the author, and most science pages as part of a subject. In order to connect between these articles, they need to have necessary information. If author A writes a book, and you create a page that has background of 3k which is taken from the biography page, no, the page should not have to be 15k. This is not practical, nor is this how DYK operate currently. Any suggestion against it is absurd, as it would mean that people cannot put in such information until after the page is made into a DYK, and that defeats the purpose of having a DYK. DYK are there to let people know that there is a brand new page, or a previous page has a massive expansion. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe a Wikipedia split means Wikipedia:Split, or "copied" as I put it. If "A split is simply any page that is connected to another page's content", then everything is a split. A page unconnected to another page's content would be rejected as unverified. Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. There are many new pages on new topics not linked to other pages which have citations that make it verifiable. Verifiability has nothing to do with interconnectiveness of topics. Any anything is only a split when you define it as not being able to be contained on its own page, which would mean all novels, poems, etc with their own pages. Thus, to use "split" to not allow certain pages having duplicate information becomes ridiculous. New pages should mean new pages. If information is already used before, and then contained in a new page, that should not force the new page to jump through even more hoops. It is still a new page on a new topic. It would be extremely unfair to suggest otherwise, and completely against why DYK exists. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If only 1,500 new chars were required we would have all sorts of artificial new splits (I don't suggest these are). NB that Ottava has now nominated another example, as explained in the nom, 2nd item on September 2nd - only one of the 4 hooked articles is affected by this issue. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If a topic is notable to stand on its own, it doesn't matter if it was a split or not. We have notability as a requirement for a reason and I think it should be enforced strictly. If you want, you can raise the bar to say 5k is necessary for a direct split. However, 5x rule can become rather silly, especially if you talk about a book and want to export more than 20% in about background that may be duplicated in some form on another page. And yes, I know that one of the four is affected, and any reviewer can de-bold it if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If your definition of "connected" or "contained" isn't citation or copying text, then I don't know what it is. But can we start by agreeing that a Wikipedia split is a Wikipedia:Split? Art LaPella (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have misread me somewhere along the line and I can't identify where. I am referring to article topics and how articles in a subsection of that topic are counted as splitting. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We have certainly misread each other all along. According to Wikipedia:Split, a large Wikipedia article may be split into sub-articles. By that definition, your phrases like "splits from the author" are meaningless within the context of Wikipedia jargon, and all the alleged dire consequences from this meaningless situation leave me lost. Is a Wikipedia split a Wikipedia:Split? Art LaPella (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Art, splits are sub pages of a main page. Normally, if you have an author, you would discuss all of their works. A page devoted to one of those works rightfully counts as a split. It does not necessitate the page having to be "full" first, as a split can rightfully happen at any time. Because this is what a split is, your take on splits results in a logical fallacy. What I am saying is 100% what that Wikipedia page says, and I am confused why you don't understand that. Perhaps you are confused by the page mostly describing the process of splitting of a section using templates instead of building a new page from scratch. If you want, I can take you through a tour of how articles on major topics are created and how their sub articles interact with them. It might clear up many of your misconceptions and probably keep you from thinking that it would need to fall under a "five times" expansion, which clearly goes against the principles of DYK being there to promote new article topics. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That helped: a book as a split from the author means a Wikipedia article on the book has been split from the Wikipedia article on the author. But if you mean 100% what Wikipedia:Split says, and presumably what Wikipedia:Glossary says ("Split: Separating a single page into two or more pages"), then such articles would be split only if they were created by copying the section on that book into a new article. That leaves me wondering how "This includes all ... books as splits from the author", because it only includes book articles that were so copied. Treasure Island, for instance, wasn't "split" from Robert Louis Stevenson on January 11, 2003; the book article is much longer than the book description in the author article, and the phrasing isn't similar at all, both now and on 1/11/03. So I'm still confused.

The basic rule is that an article so copied isn't what we mean by a new article, which makes sense because splitting off a sub-article can be done in minutes, and if the "principles of DYK [are] new article topics", then mere splitting isn't really new. If you add a little new text to it, it's plausible to say it still isn't a new article unless it's 80% new. But if you write a new article that merely resembles a section of a larger article, and resembles other sources, that's as new as we can get short of original research, and belongs in Did You Know. Art LaPella (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Art, you are confusing the process of splitting with the after thought. Any time you have a sub page linked, even if its just through wikilinks (which are appropriate uses of WP:Summary style), it is a "split" of a previous page. Lets use Samuel Johnson for instance. When I first made London (1738), I created a page. I took the biography section and I moved it over. I then added more to the biography. I then added information about the poem. Even without importing the biography, the poem was still a split from its writer, because it matters to the writer in some regard (this is important for FA). You have to think of pages as ultimately complete, as there are those like myself who write large pages. If you are afraid people will just split pages and not do much, raise the threshold to 5k then. 5,000 new words is quite a bit. "merely resembles a section of a larger article, and resembles other sources" This is the tricky thing. If you look at the Samuel Johnson's early life page, I rewrote a substantial portion of that page, or altered it. However, it is still the basic idea and reuse of the same citations. That makes it the same information. Percentages don't work. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I too am somewhat confused by what different definitions of split are being used. But can we all agree that it makes sense for the DYK rules to have a requirement for articles split in the WP:Split sense of direct copying from a previous article, but not to treat any other definition of split specially? Olaf Davis | Talk 07:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the word split is best avoided - neither Art's nor my proposed text uses it. "text copied from (an)other Wikipedia article(s)" is the crucial thing surely. Often, the original text will remain in whole or part in the main article anyway. Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Any time you have a sub page linked...it is a 'split'". By that definition, excluding splits means only orphans are eligible. Later the definition changes to "it matters to the writer in some regard". I believe either of those are minority opinions on what Wikipedia:Split and Wikipedia:Glossary mean, so I agree to giving up on defining it, as the term doesn't occur in A4; it says "copied". London (1738 poem)'s biography and Samuel Johnson#Early life and education weren't copied, they were paraphrased to some extent (copying citations doesn't matter here because of the prose-only rule). Were they paraphrased enough? I don't know; that's a good reason why I don't issue green check marks. But I'm pretty sure a percentage works better than endless debate without guidelines. For Samuel Johnson's early life, for instance, its expansion is almost 5x anyway, so almost any change to the original puts it over the top. Art LaPella (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Art, please try to show the difference then, because if you read Split, it shows exactly what I am talking about. You are getting too bogged down in the procedure of splitting to talk about a split itself. Also, see Wikipedia:Summary_style. It shouldn't matter if the information is paraphrased or not, because it is the same information. Do you understand? The point to be concerned about "splitting" is that people just reuse Wikipedia information over and over to game the system and create lots of DYK. I think that should be our concern, and this is easily solved by having a 5k worth of text rule for pages if necessary. Anyway, here is another page that is important: Article spinouts. Content forks are splits. "the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique." Ottava Rima (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think sufficiently paraphrased material from another Wikipedia article should be expanded fivefold as if it were a pre-existing article? Art LaPella (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets rephrase - does anyone think that any page on a topic that matches notability should not be deemed new if it is less than five days old? Taking lines from Wikipedia is no different than taking lines from a source, so I don't think we should make such a distinction. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Art: I think a somewhat stiffer standard than we would use for a copyvio should be used to judge "sufficiently paraphrased" - clearly the last thing anyone wants is for hook-approvers to have to compare texts in detail all the time. If we take lines from a source, Ottava, that is called a copyvio. Since no one else has supported your position here, I will de-bold the "early Life" link, which still leaves you with 3 hooks. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

John, you wouldn't have a right to debold, as you are not impartial and are part of this. Now, there is no copyviolation that can be claimed when you cite the source of information. So using copyviolations in your above statement is not part of the conversation nor should it be considered part. "Paraphrasing" from wikipedia pages and using the same source is no different than paraphrasing directly from the source. There is no actual difference established by Art, which is the problem with Art's stance. Also, Wikipedia is rather clear, as I pointed above, that spinouts and spinoffs are the same. What was failed to address is the basis of what DYK is - promotion of new pages that are notable. The above concepts put forth by you and Art do not fit within this basic intention, and your views should be catered towards it, and not it catered to your views. Furthermore, precedence is against you. I have already established that. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) "there is no copyviolation that can be claimed when you cite the source of information" Unless I have misunderstood you, that's not true. If I copy a whole paragraph from a book, even if I cite it, that's a copyvio. If I copy it from one Wikipedia article to another (and say that's what I'm doing), it's not.

It is, however, not adding new material to Wikipedia. The purpose of DYK is to showcase new material, not necessarily new articles: it wants to encourage article writing, not moving material from one article to another (of course I'm not saying splitting big articles is unimportant, but it's outside DYK's purpose). I know it says "gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles" on WP:DYK, but I'm pretty confident that consensus agrees that it's the newness of the content that's important (and the 'rules' follow consensus and preferred practice, not vice-versa). Ottava, you say above that precedence is against Art and John, so do you disagree with my interpretation of past DYK consensus?

Given the above, it seems reasonable that DYK articles should be 80% new content, regardless of whether the article as an entity in itself is new or not. I think that what Art and John said about paraphrasing above was just meant to indicate that somewhat rewriting information which already existed on Wikipedia does not meet this requirement. Obviously there's room for debate about how similar is too similar to count, but I agree with them that the minimum amount of rewriting necessary to prevent copyvio if it's from an external source is not enough for this purpose - otherwise many short articles which have been rewritten but not added to would be eligible for DYK.

In the particular case of the Johnson article, I've looked over a reasonable portion of it (though not all - it's an impressive article!) and I agree that the content from the original article is so similar that it should count as pre-existing material, and therefore not make up more than 20%. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"If I copy a whole paragraph from a book, even if I cite it, that's a copyvio" If it is properly cited (citation does not mean just a ref tag, but has to have a true attribution), then it cannot be a copy violation unless it is over 300 words or a "significant portion of a copyrighted text". Since this is an educational site and it is used for educational purposes, it would take a lot to cause a problem worth mentioning.

"Ottava, you say above that precedence is against Art and John, so do you disagree with my interpretation of past DYK consensus?" Yes. Why? Because as I stated before, many literary articles, scientific articles, etc, rely on the same information, and it doesn't matter if it is worded slightly different or not, it is the same information. This information commonly makes up more than 20% of the body of the text. I can show you many novel articles or poem articles which reuse background material to establish the author's life. This is important to an article. If you want to push forth this idea, then people will not include vital information, which would defeat the purpose of having it go to the main page and get people interested in the topic.

And heres the thing about the Johnson article - there is at least 15k new text. This text warrants its own article. The rest is added as the bridge connecting this text. If I was to follow the idea put forth, I would put up only the 15k worth of text, keep the rest waiting on a subpage or a word document file, and just copy and paste it in later. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable to move pages from a user's sub page onto the main encyclopedia and it all counts as original from the first day it was moved.

If you want to keep people from gaming the system, you cannot rely on a 5x expansion, as they can do the above. If you want to keep people from gaming the system by just splitting articles all day, raise the bar to 5k worth of new text. However, I have already demonstrated how this idea is easily gamed and makes for a bad encyclopedia, which goes against the founding principles of Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"it cannot be a copy violation unless it is over 300 words or a "significant portion of a copyrighted text"." Sure, but you can't write a significant article from directly-quoted fair use snippets like that - whereas we can legitimately copy thousands of words from another Wikipedia article.

"I can show you many novel articles or poem articles which reuse background material to establish the author's life." But have they been accepted for DYK when over 20% of the material was copied directly from the author's article and the DYK reviewer was aware of that? If so it could indicate that I'm wrong about past DYK consensus; if not it just indicates that those articles are also ineligible under (my understanding of) current practice.

"it is perfectly acceptable to move pages from a user's sub page onto the main encyclopedia and it all counts as original from the first day it was moved." That's because we look at material new to the encyclopedia: user pages are outside the encyclopedia, but another article is not. I think this is a reasonable distinction to make.

As you point out, the system is gameable by carefully selecting what to add to an article before and after it goes through DYK. However, I don't believe it's worth trying to close that by changing the rules. Doing so would magnify the size of the rules (already large) and the confusion they cause to editors (already large), while solving a problem which I don't think is widespread. In my opinion it's much better to assume that people aren't spending all day splitting articles to game DYK, and disqualify otherwise eligible articles anyway if it does look like they've been gamed. If we do realise that loads of people are gaming the system in this fashion perhaps a more stringent solution will be warranted, but at present it seems to me like a solution without much of a problem. Of course if you have evidence to the contrary I'll be more than happy to reconsider my position. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sure, but you can't write a significant article from directly-quoted fair use snippets like that - whereas we can legitimately copy thousands of words from another Wikipedia article." Actually, 300 words equals about 1,500 characters. With citations and the rest, this would mean that a page 7k with the exact amount of fair use (for one source) would easily be over 20%. Combine multiple sources, and you can go even further.

"ut have they been accepted for DYK when over 20% of the material was copied directly from the author's article" Yes, they were aware of it. When I created the Christopher Smart article, I also rewrote two of his poems to go along with it, and the reviewers knew that I built the biography while building those and using shared information on both. The two poem articles were also built after the original biography was completed.

"That's because we look at material new to the encyclopedia:" No, we look for new entries, or try to find entries that didn't "count" before, i.e. they were missing a substantial portion of their content, and hence the 5x.

" I don't believe it's worth trying to close that by changing the rules. " Sorry, but "unspoken rules" aren't actually rules. So, there isn't really anything there to bring into this. However, certain people want to expand the limits of what was stated before beyond what is actually part of the system. If the community actually agrees (which is obvious that they don't, otherwise, the dozens of admin who pay attention to the DYK would have bothered saying this is how they interpret DYK) then I, and most likely others, will just use new content, wait until the DYK is over, and then add in the others in order to jump through these pointless hoops, which only causes additional problems to the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the Christopher Smart poems and the diffs showing the DYK approval please?

""That's because we look at material new to the encyclopedia:" No, we look for new entries" So we disagree about the intended focus of DYK. I've stated why I prefer my interpretation - any other regulars care to comment on which (if either) they agree with?

"Sorry, but "unspoken rules" aren't actually rules." I beg to differ. There are no policies or guidelines directly covering the purpose of DYK: the list of rules on the DYK page is merely an attempt to keep a record of what consensus and precedent are. Ideally they should reflect it, but the 'rules' that actually count are what DYK editors do on a daily basis. There are plenty of examples of the written rules being out of agreement with actual practice, and when noticed the former were always the ones to be corrected.

You say it's "obvious that [the community don't agree with my interpretation of the rules], otherwise, the dozens of admin who pay attention to the DYK would have bothered saying this is how they interpret DYK" Really? Besides the two of us, three people have joined this debate. I'm pretty certain that at least two of them broadly agree with my interpretation, and none of them seem to have expressed support for yours (not that that means I'm right!). I don't see why the silence of other editors beyond us five implies that they agree with you and not with me. It's not like one of us is proposing a change and therefore has the burden of persuasion to overcome: we both claim to be upholding the status quo, so I don't see that we can assume silence implies agreement with either of us. (As an aside, whether participants in the debate are admins or not is irrelevant).

In the interests of clearing up what could become a very lengthy and repetitive debate, would any other of the DYK regulars like to weigh in on one side or the other? That only seems appropriate as our disagreement is about DYK consensus. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Could you link to the Christopher Smart poems and the diffs showing" No. Sorry. I am not about to wade through over 200 pages looking for diffs for you. "So we disagree about the intended focus of DYK. I've stated why I prefer my interpretation" And your interpretation isn't held by anything found on DYK, or how DYK gets discussed. I don't really know how you formed your interpretation. Hell, we allow lists which are only a compilation of already used information. And the fact that people said paraphrasing is acceptable dismisses any claim to originality.

"I beg to differ." Then you are wrong again. The only rules are the ones stated. Having a "see also" does not make it a rule. Furthermore, they aren't guidelines, nor standards. Nor is there community consensus. You want to push your view, go to Village Pump.

"Really? Besides the two of us, three people have joined this debate." Which is proof that the community isn't here nor cares. There are many admin who are paying attention to other threads here, and many who are ignoring it completely.

"In the interests of clearing up what could become a very lengthy and repetitive debate" There is no debate. If you want your view to be turned into standard practice, you have to take it up to Village Pump. Otherwise, there is no binding to anything said. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"I am not about to wade through over 200 pages looking for diffs for you." That's fair enough. But without that evidence of a precedent for accepting splits I'll have to go from what I've seen, which as I've said is the opposite.

"we allow lists which are only a compilation of already used information" Which is why lists aren't allowed on DYK unless they also have a large prose section. If the prose section is copied directly from another article then (if I'm right) it would fall under this rule, so the two are not independent situations and I don't think we can use one to argue for the other.

"You want to push your view, go to Village Pump" I don't understand. We're discussing a point of DYK policy, so surely the DYK talk page is the relevant place? Why do you think the VP's more appropriate?

"The only rules are the ones stated." I really do think this is a misunderstanding of what WP:DYK is. It's a description of how we do DYK. It's only binding to the extent that it reflects consensus, which is binding. If the two disagree then the 'rules' are wrong. Since (I maintain) consensus is against allowing split articles, split articles are not allowed regardless of what WP:DYK says. That's really the crux of my position, and it seems likely that we won't make any progress while we disagree on that. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"lists aren't allowed on DYK unless they also have a large prose section." I'm sorry, but this isn't true. I think this is just more example of where my experience with DYK is completely different than your experience with DYK.

"We're discussing a point of DYK policy" There is no such thing as "DYK policy". There are "rules" which are stated at the top. However, "unspoken rules" do not exist on Wikipedia. If you want to push forth DYK guidelines, then go to Village Pump and try to do so. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, but this [lists need prose] isn't true" Well, this is backed up in the written rules: "Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)". I've never seen a list with no prose accepted, but I've seen plenty rejected.

"There is no such thing as "DYK policy"" True - replace the word 'policy' with 'consensus', or 'practice', or something then. My point stands though: the place to discuss how to run DYK is here, not the Village Pump, unless we wanted to drastically change its nature and needed wider community input - which I don't.

""unspoken rules" do not exist on Wikipedia" Either you're making a semantic point (it's not a 'rule' until it's written down - in which case fine, let's say 'consensus' or 'precedent' instead of rule) or you're saying that consensus and precedent don't become binding until they're written down somewhere like WP:DYK#Rules - in which case we have a fundamental disagreement about how Wikipedia works. Which is the case? Or have I misunderstood? Olaf Davis | Talk 18:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"backed up in the written rules" Um, the rules say minimum of characters. However, as I pointed out, you could easily copy and paste information from the individual pages listed, thus, it is not the "new prose" that you claimed it would be.

"the place to discuss how to run DYK is here" The community has ruled on ANI before that DYK needs to be discussed out in the open to deal with these issues. DYK talk is never the place to discuss changes that affect the main page.

"that consensus and precedent don't become binding" There is no such thing as a consensus or precedent if it is not written down. Otherwise, these are unilateral actions that don't reflect the community's understanding. Furthermore, if what you say above about DYK needing to be discussed here and Village Pump is how you feel consensus is built, then I would point out that this cannot be determined as an appropriate form of consensus, and that this is extremely troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) As Olaf has asked other regulars to weigh in, I'll do so. It's a bit hard to wade through the above and determine what issues are still being discussed. I think we can agree that previously our guidance for "splits" was not as clear as it could have been. Going forward, I'd support that DYK articles should be substantially new material. As for DYK guidelines, they should be discussed here at the DYK project, not at the Village Pump. As for lists, Olaf is correct that they are supposed to have prose, and this has been our custom. I'd actually like to see some way we could make an exception for high-quality lists, which don't necessarily need 1500 characters of preamble. But Olaf is correct about the current process. --JayHenry (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1,500 characters is not "substantial prose" nor would it require anything but a small importing of information of pages linked by the list, thus, there is no new information required. So, I think your view is short sighted. Also, Village Pump is the only appropriate place to discuss things that affect the main page in such a way, and DYK has always had problems by not bringing such issues to the main community. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the appropriate place to discuss the DYK project is now and always has been, in fact, the talk page of the DYK project. The guidelines have always been discussed here because this is the page watched by the editors who implement the guidelines. If we were talking about fundamentally changing the purpose of DYK, then that would perhaps be a subject for VP. If we're just seeking clarification on best practice, that is obviously the purpose of this page. --JayHenry (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK is not an elite group. It is not a group. It is an aspect of the community and part of the community. ALL community wide decisions should go through the proper channels. This includes Village Pump for adding new rules and structures. Your comments have already been criticized on ANI when other people have stated them. This is a talk page about how to word things on the Wikipedia page. This is not the page to make large decisions about what will go on the main page. If you don't want to be inclusive with the community, then I don't think I can talk to you any further about this topic, because your ideas show a lack of insight into what is WP:CONSENSUS. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a simple way to resolve this Village Pump thing. Just post a very succinct notice at the Village Pump notifying others about a discussion going on here on this page, with a link back to the relevant subsection (or perhaps in a new subsection to get a fresh start). This is a common practice and I have used it on a few pages in the past on issues unrelated to DYK and it has worked pretty well. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course DYK is not an elite group. I never suggested anything of the sort. What could possibly be elite about a widely advertised page, located at the standard talk page for its project, which has no membership criteria? You can read Talk:Main Page for yourself, where an enormous box with multiple attention signs, directs readers to discuss the Did you know project at this page. WT:DYK is where the nitty-gritty of DYK is discussed, WT:ITN is where the nitty-gritty of ITN is discussed, WT:FA for FA, etc. Similarly, the first place to discuss the Hippopotamus article is Talk:hippopotamus. This has nothing to do with elite groups or anything else. This is simply the purpose of talk pages. Because the editors interested in the relevant process, article, task, are paying attention. There's nothing elite, when the only requirement is the ability to click "watch this page". I have no idea what you're referencing at ANI, or what you think I said there. Insight into consensus? I simply have no idea what you're talking about or perhaps what it is you think I'm talking about. --JayHenry (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking about something that directly affects the content on the main page is more than just what a simple talk page is for. The question was to accept Art's changes as something that has weight in regards to the DYK selection process. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. --JayHenry (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You can think what you want, but that does not reflect standard practices on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I will conclude by pointing you to the very first sentence of WP:DYK: "Wikipedia:Did you know (DYK) is the project page for coordinating the content of the "Did you know" section on the Main Page." I think that's about as unambiguous as can be. Your opinions have been heard in this thread. I advise you to disengage at this point. --JayHenry (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinating content does not mean changing the DYK process. As, your "advise" is inappropriate to talk page guidelines. I find your unwillingness to respect standard Wikipedia procedures and consensus building disturbing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest that perhaps things are getting a bit too heated in this discussion at the moment - everyone might benefit from taking a step back to reevaluate and clear your thoughts, and taking a break for a while from posting anything else. Just a suggestion, take it or leave it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Cirt, I'm sorry if my comments seem heated. Could you perhaps offer some guidance on whether or not it is appropriate to discuss the DYK criteria at WT:DYK? I seem to recall this happening on several hundred occasions. You've been around for awhile. Do you recall this as well? --JayHenry (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I do recall it happening before, and as I said above, my perspective lies with the current consensus and rules, which I think are close to your viewpoint as well. However I am taking my own advice and taking a step back to see what others in the community think, I suggest you and Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) do the same, if for the only reason to try to calm things down a bit. Cirt (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK rules

Here are the possible ways to resolve this (i.e. possible specifics to choose from):

1) Reused content cannot make up more than 20% of the text for a new page to be considered "new".

2) Reused content does not count to the total of an article's text for determining if the content meets the 1,500 character minimum.

3) Reused content does not count to the total of an article's text and the 1,500 character minimum is raised to ____ characters in order to discourage multiple smaller pages instead of an article on one topic in order to raise a user's DYK totals.

Add more if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I came to this discussion from the Village Pump. I've been working on large articles lately and splitting sections into new articles per WP:Summary. I have not nominated most of these for DYK because I believe that option number 1 (reused content must still be expanded by 5x) should apply. The point of DYK, in my opinion, is to highlight new information - existing information under a new title does not seem to hold the same prestige. Just to be absolutely clear - my only concern is in areas where whole chunks of texts are being moved from one article to another because of WP:SUMMARY. Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but DYK reviewers can't be expected to go into motive, so rules need to apply regardless of that! Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And as I made clear before - if option one is taken, I will be creating articles without making them complete, thus, they will lack a lot of vital information merely because it is duplicated elsewhere. So, a shoddy main page article instead of a complete article. All so that the community can see that there is a new article and can add things (like categories, projects, etc) which take too much time for just one person to figure out. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just write the article and not submit it for DYK, and let other articles which haven't been split and therefore don't suffer from that problem take the slot? We have no shortage of submissions so there's no need to use ones which you think are shoddy. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, perhaps you missed the fact that "splits" mean absolutely nothing, and the issue is 20% of reused text. This includes all sub topics. This means sub sections of a field, books related to an author, etc. I actually incorporate information for all aspects of a page when submitting. If you want to say that my submissions are shoddy, then there is really no talking to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say your submissions are shoddy at all: I'm sorry if it came across that way. You said "I will be creating articles without making them complete... So, a shoddy main page article instead of a complete article." I just meant that if a given article would have to be made 'shoddy' to get onto the main page with DYK, the obvious solution is to not DYK it: obviously a better article takes precedence over getting it on the main page. Since most new articles easily meet the 'less than 20% reused' criteria without degrading their quality, we can fill DYK with those. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The only other option is for me not to submit, therefore, I'd have no DYK, and it comes off as if you think that my current DYK are not worth going on the main page. Have you seen the subjects? I include well detailed background sections. This, by definition, has to go over the same territory. Thats what a background section does. Instead of having a well written and complete article on an important novel or poem, you would rather have a biography on "bobby sue" from the midwest who barely meets 2000 words and hasn't done anything notable besides be in the way of someone who wants to rack up their DYK scores. I don't want metals. I don't want DYK. I made it clear that I am in it only to promote the subject area. DYK is an important part of that. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I've made no judgment about any of your articles or their topics. My only point is that if we choose option 1 above, and if you think that a certain article you've written would have to be left in a shoddy state to get it into DYK, then getting it into DYK is probably not worth it. Why promote an article at the expense of its quality when we can promote an article which doesn't require bastardising to get into DYK? Of course people doing bad articles to rack up their DYK scores is regrettable, but I don't see why accepting option 1 would make that any worse. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why tie my hands and make it so that I can't put forth DYK? Do you not like well written DYK pages that are fully developed with pictures and the rest? The 5k minimum or other increases clearly keep something from just being a redo of another page. If I reuse just 4k worth of text for an 18k article, I don't meet your standards. And lets make it plain - "reusing" text is both copying and pasting and paraphrasing. Its not new text when you paraphrase another page and reuse sources. In literature, I have to do that a lot in order to develop a page, especially for background, themes, and the rest. Look at [London] for example. The background section is a condensed and to the point biography with context. Its essential to the page. And yeah, it probably went over 20% of the page when you removed the refs, poem quotes, pictures, and lead. However, such a page deserves to be DYK, and such a page would be rather confusing to others without a background section. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, I think this should help keep the discussion grounded. Two things: first, I make the whole background section to be just under 22% of the total prose, which I think clearly lies within WP:IAR range of 20%: articles with that much reused regularly get accepted even for straight-forward expansions of existing pages. Secondly, comparing that section with the relevant bits of Samuel Johnson I think it's different enough that we needn't count it as reused text at all. The 20% thing is designed to catch direct copy-pasting, or copy-pasting with a few token edits. Obviously there's a grey area somewhere between 'copy-and paste with token adjustments' and 'complete rewrite', but I feel that this article lies on the safe side of that. I agree with you wholeheartedly that keeping this article out of DYK for that reason would be silly, but still maintain that a page with 25% copied directly (or with a few small tweaks) from somewhere else should not be eligible for DYK. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you can understand why this troubles me a lot. I think that a combination could work for larger pages - if the page is above 30k, no more than 40% maybe. Thats 18k worth of new text. For 25k, allow 35%, 20k allow 30%, 15k allow 25% and 10k allow 20%. That is, if this is a new page. London would be just between 10k and 15k, so the 22% would be fine. I just don't like the idea of having to trim a few details out. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly see your motivation for a sliding scale like that, but I really think it adds more complexity to the DYK rules than it's worth: people get confused all the time as it is. I know getting articles on DYK is nice in terms of getting them to a wider audience, but the vast majority of new pages don't get featured here: if it would require trimming a few details out then not putting it on the main page is not the end of the world. I'm going to be losing regular internet access soon so I may not appear much more in this debate. Olaf Davis | Talk 07:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of option 1, for reasons I believe I made clear above. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

5x expansion rule would apply to all articles created out of existing material. I don't think it matters if the material was previously deleted or in a previous article or scattered across several articles, the intention of DYK is to create material new to Wikipedia mainspace. I also feel it's the responsibility of the nominator to reveal if any material in the nominated article came from Wikipedia mainspace. SilkTork *^YES! 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And when that material is secondary to the article? And reused pictures? Tables? And the rest? Come on, you act like it necessitates some sort of stealing, or that its not a new and notable topic, which would go against Wikipedia rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot?

I've been on a severely reduced wiki-diet the last few weeks so I apologize if my thoughts on this come across as out of the loop. After reading the mass of prose above, my head is left spinning over the back and forth. The purpose of DYK is to highlight new content-be it new articles or freshly expanded articles. It's not to highlight the best and finest or the most obscure and interesting. While I can sense a changing culture, the purpose of DYK (at this point) is not even to encourage article improvement. It is simply to encourage editors to make new content. I see some semantics and hair splitting over what exactly constitutes "new content" (using the same sources, paraphrasing, etc) but we must not forget that things like our 1500 chars and 5x rules are really just arbitrary numbers plucked out the air. There is no magical quality about those numbers that make a 1501 char article better than a 1499 char article or a 6x expanded article better than 4.9x expand article, etc. Another point to remember is that very little information is truly new or original. In addition to new information, new articles about aquatic life, astronomy, hurricanes, the American Civil War and wine regions respectively might "reuse" the old content of "water being wet", "stars eventually burn out", "hurricanes can cause damage", "South Carolina ceded from the Union" and that "Pinot noir can be a finicky grape to grow", etc. They may even use the same reliable sources used in other articles. I suppose my point is that we should look at the whole of the situation and essentially the whole of the article. Entire paragraphs cut & pasted from other articles are pretty easy to pick out and they certainly don't feel like new content and should thusly be rejected. But articles on a new subject, with material presented in a new manner, old facts mixed with new, the overall effect for the reader can be new knowledge and new content--even if the percentages and numbers don't add up to our arbitrary benchmark. We have WP:IAR in place and we even have the discretion to decline hooks if a consensus of editors believe that an article (like perhaps this Samuel Johnson split) doesn't feel new enough, in lieu of other articles that pass the criteria. Nothing about that goes against Wikipedia guidelines and it certainly doesn't run contrary to the spirit and purpose of DYK. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced and/or copyvio --> Sourced = okay?

I just basically rewrote an entire article from scratch with WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources - the previous version was entirely dependent upon IMDB and some questioned whether or not the whole thing was copyvio from there as well. Since there was prior material at the article, but essentially none of it really should have been there anyway, is this viable for a DYK candidate? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of prior consensus is that we don't allow articles like this since making lots of judgements on how much should have been where would get cumbersome if we opened the floodgates. Sorry. (Feel free to correct me if you remember differently, as ever). Olaf Davis | Talk 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you are correct. Ironically, if I had instead tagged the article for speedy deletion as copyvio and waited for it to get deleted and then created an entirely new version (which is essentially what we have now) it would have been eligible for DYK, but because I did not, it isn't. No matter, it was fun to work on it and find all the sources. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see "are rewrites allowed" 4 or so sections up. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you first removed the problematic parts from the article, leaving only a basic skeleton (since the topic is indeed notable), wait until the next day or the day thereafter, and then expand from the short version (not reusing any of the removed material)? Oceanh (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC).

Unfortunately, both Oceanh and Cirt's point about deletion and wanting a few days are legitimate ways to "game the system". While Olaf is right in that the judgment call could be problematic, I do think we should revisit the silliness of this system. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case the article was in AFD anyways and so I was improving it with a timeframe in mind as opposed to a speedy deletion by copyvio scenario, but I usually try to improve articles anyways as opposed to doing something silly like I had described above. It was just a way of pointing out an existing loophole. :P -- Cirt (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right but I think the existence of the loophole points out the silliness more of situation rather than the loophole itself. The point of DYK is to feature new content and a deleted copyvio article completely replaced with a new, sourced, non-copy vio article is, indeed, new content. The only difference between doing a complete rewrite or waiting till the article is deleted is the existence of an article history. In both cases we still have new content. Similarly an article that has the bad content clean up and removed a few days before a complete rewrite is no different than a rewrite created in a sand box and then transfer over to an existing article. Both situation replace the same bad content with new content. The sticking point is, as Olaf noted, the judgment call aspect. But right now all we're doing is replacing the "judgement call" with waiting a few days between removing bad content and adding new content or till after an article has been deleted. It seems like there is a better solution that still uphold the spirit and purpose of DYK to encourage new content. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, most certainly. Cirt (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK Stats

We now have completed page view stats for the most viewed DYKs for the months of June, July and August at User:Cbl62/sandbox3. User:BorgQueen has also started to compile the stats for May. I think these stats help encourage contributors to come up with more appealing, eye-catching hooks and thus advance the purpose of DYK in drawing viewers to new articles. If others agree that this is useful, I'm willing to work on keeping the status current, but to encourage others to help, and to draw more attention to particularly successful DYK articles, it would be helpful to have the stats relocated to some official space rather than my user sandbox space. Not sure if this is feasible or desirable, but I thought I'd raise the issue here and see what others think.Cbl62 (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Recently I did a search on Wikipedia for Apetito and discovered that an article had been speedy deleted. I felt that as Apetito are the main suppliers of Meals on Wheels for the elderly in the UK and are used by every local authority social service team that other people like myself might look to Wikipedia for a neutral article. I asked an admin to userify the deleted article onto a subpage for me as I wanted to start the article again, and it would be useful to see the deleted material: User_talk:OwenX#Apetito. I then worked on the article on my userspace until September 3 when I created a new Apetito page on the mainspace and did a simple copy and paste. OwenX and I had a chat and decided to merge the page histories in order to preserve details of other users contributions. I nominated the article for a DYK, but it has been turned down because people are unable to track the article's history, and it appears that the article was in the mainspace in August, when it was still in userspace. Because of the difficulties present in dealing with deleted articles that have been userified, then returned to mainspace and had the histories merged, it might be appropriate to look at some guidance for how DYK can deal with the situation. Possibilities are:

1. Disallowing recreated articles because of the dificulties in tracing their histories.
2. Suggesting that recreated articles are submitted for DYK before histories are merged.
3. Allowing recreated articles with merged histories, but disallowing recreated articles that have been worked on in userspace.
4. Allowing recreated articles with merged histories that have been worked on in userspace, but asking assessors to be aware to look at the deletion log so that the date when the article was returned to mainspace can be checked so that an assessor will be loking at the size of the article at the time it was removed from mainspace compared to when it was returned.

My feeling is that option 4 would be the most appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 11:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Option 4 sounds the most sensible to me, too. It doesn't take much extra work for the reviewer if they're warned in advance, and it's certainly in keeping with the purpose of DYK to allow them. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done this with a few DYK articles. I felt it was fair to allow the rewrite to be featured on DYK because it was truly a new article. The topics had been non-notable but became notable, namely musicians who later had a charted hit single. Option 4 makes the most sense to me. Anyone should be able to see a rough guess when the article was deleted from the speedy deletion in the article's history and determine the date when it was recreated in the following edit after the time gap. Royalbroil 13:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing on translated articles

A pending WP:FAC has revealed a misunderstanding of sourcing policies. Editors have translated articles from foreign language wikis, and have used and relied upon the sources provided on those other wikis, without checking those sources (especially print sources) themselves. This violates WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT:

Cite the place where you found the material
It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a Web page that is attributed to a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your source is really the Web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the Web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

An editor who cites a source is affirming that she or he has checked that source. It is incorrect to cite to a source which the editor has not personally checked, on the basis of a citation from an unstated intermediate source, even if that intermediate source is a reliable one. Where the intermediate source is unreliable (such as another wiki that anyone can edit) the principle applies even more strongly. Sources copied from another wiki should not be cited unless the editor has personally read those sources and therefore can vouch for what they say.

This misunderstanding may have affected DYK nominations. It would not violate good faith to ask editors of translated articles who cite to offline sources on which a hook is based, whether they have personally checked those sources. The misunderstanding of policy shown in the FAC which brought this to light was in good faith, yet it was incorrect. Kablammo (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Next credits

Hey there. I'll be here for the next update, so when the time comes, I can help do the credits. Regards, RyRy (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I just updated but have to go to bed now... Can someone please do the credits? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm here. I'll do them in a moment. -- RyRy (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Credits  Done. Refer to my contributions to verify. Thanks for updating DYK, BorgQueen! -- RyRy (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why Baby Why

Is Why Baby Why an acceptable candidate for DYK? It was created only yesterday with just two templates and no content whatsoever, but User:Wasted Time R and I expanded it past the 1500 character limit. Would that still make it count as a new/expanded article? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes that would do just nicely. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as the hook chosen is interesting enough, then yes, it will probably be accepted for the update. -- RyRy (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I just flipped it and started loading up the next batch. can someone finish up adding a few? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done, will leave it up to the admins if they want to add more for Main Page balance. Cirt (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Next update credits

Hey there. The next update is scheduled to be updated now. If the credits need doing, I'll be happy to do them. I will most likely be around to do them if needed. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please do the credits.. thanks you! --BorgQueen (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do, and your welcome. Again, thank you for updating! -- RyRy (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers, RyRy (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

OK, have refreshed and refilled next update. Can someone update in a few hours? I reckon we have exhausted all potential hooks from September 5 and 6. Do they get archived anywhere or just dropped off the end? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you just remove them. I don't think we have an archival system for hooks not accepted for T:DYK. And BorgQueen got the update done. -- RyRy (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. May be busy for a few days. Not sure. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Credits

I just updated but can someone please do the credits? I'm tired... --BorgQueen (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'll do these. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Done now. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Credits again

Hi all, I did the switch but have to hop off keybaord IRL for several hours. If someone can do the creds and upload another batch that would be fantastic. I think I will be able to refresh the next lot though (good time for me). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Next flip

OK, can someone be ready to flip next time (as I will be fast asleep)...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Sorry, I started uplaoding next hooks but really have to scoot for a couple of hours. Can someone load up some more and possibly flip? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

heads up

I flipped the last a little early, and have done credits and stuck a few hooks in. I have to do some other stuff so if someone can finish hooks and flip in a few hours that would be great. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi, have to run - I did the adminny bit and refreshed but have to hop off. Can someone do credits and clear and start adding more hooks? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

came back to flip. I can do creds in a few hours but if someone else can do them that'd be great. done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I can't flip the next set, so can someone do so on or near the 6 hour mark? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Someone's on it. I'll do the credits. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)