Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Einführung	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}}

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

Proposals for handling GibraltarpediA nominations were discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options

Gibraltar, again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jimbo said last night that in his view, there ought to be a five-year moratorium on Gibraltar DYKs on the main page. Is it time to revisit the decision to keep running Gibraltar hooks at a frequency of up to one a day? AndreasKolbe JN466 14:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Jimbo speaks for himself at the moment and his views have no bearing on the runnings of DYK. But since you feel so strongly about, go ahead and call for a community-wide RFC. Yazan (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A five year moratorium on a subject at DYK is just a flat-out terrible idea. At the end of the day, the hooks are all connected to articles of a standard we should be celebrating; if every town had this depth of coverage we'd be over the moon. I'd be against any further limiting of the hooks being run, and frankly this notion that there's something inherently wrong with running solid material should be allowed to die down and go away so we can focus those same efforts on actually doing some constructive editing and not prohibiting that of others. GRAPPLE X 14:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think 5 years is a bit excessive. I think we should just keep a limit of 1 a day until the whole Gibraltarpedia thing goes away. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that there's been some legitimate issues with GibraltarpediA etal. I'm not defending the idea of incentives to get an article on the front page. I'm concerned about the precedent being set at DYK. Each nomination/article needs to be taken on its own merit. Anything else is profiling, and some good editors get passed just because they happened to pick the wrong topic of the moment. Today the wrong topic of the moment is Gibraltar. Tomorrow? Next month? Next year? — Maile (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Competitions involving DYK should be discontinued. They leave Wikipedia wide open to abuse. AndreasKolbe JN466 15:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean like the WikiCup? I'm afraid some people will always be competitive. (We have all sorts of clean-up drives that can be used to illustrate the point.) I believe your objection is to externally sponsored competitions? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I mean anything centred on a particular topic. By all means, have competitions, but don't flood the main page with related DYKs all about one topic, given the potential for abuse. AndreasKolbe JN466 16:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose No, there has been more than enough discussion of this and it's now overdone. So far this week there seem to have been just two Gibraltar related DYKs. Currently, a stronger DYK theme seems to be frogs as lately we've had the following:

1. bird-voiced treefrog;
2. pine woods treefrog;
3. desert rain frog;
4. horned marsupial frog;
5. Mazumbai warty frog;
6. Krefft's warty frog;
7. Bombay night frog;
8. humming frog;
9. colostethus palmatus;
10. colostethus agilis;
11. common rocket frog;
12. colostethus stepheni;
13. Jog night frog

Is this plague of frogs a problem? I'm not seeing it. These are all reasonable topics and there's not so many of them that a casual reader would notice or care. Agitating about this seems mainly to be a campaign to drive away productive editors and so is not acceptable behaviour. Warden (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The frogs are not reporting in the press that they are operating a low-cost marketing campaign to promote their habitat as a tourist product through Wikipedia. You may feel this difference does not matter, but I disagree with you. AndreasKolbe JN466 17:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Then the articles being nominated need more inspection as to avoid advertising. That's really simple and a basic requirement of all articles, regardless of whether they feature at DYK or not. Something that anyone can address. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand what product placement is. Product placement means simply that you see the product, or hear it mentioned (in this case, the tourist product being marketed is Gibraltar). The typical example is a drinks can seen in a movie scene. If Pepsi pays, it will be a Pepsi can. If Coca Cola pay, it will be a Coke can. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

it is worth noting that WikiFur engages in product placement on Wikipedia. their logo is seen on 135 Wikipedia pages. product placement is nothing new on Wikipedia. 66.87.71.13 (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Whipping post

I see that we have another article up right now — Main Guard. This seems quite respectable and a good ornament for the encyclopedia. The only issue I find with it is that the hook might have made more of the following fact:- 'on the Parade, was a "whipping post, where almost every day soldiers are brought to feel the scourge."' It sounds just like this page, where DYK editors are regularly brought to be flogged... Warden (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC format

Let's do this as an RfC, then. I propose two options:

1. I support a ban on Gibraltar DYKs (please indicate length, and any limitations to be observed after expiry)
2. I support Gibraltar DYKs continuing (please indicate a maximum rate, like 1 a day, 1 a week, etc.)

Do those options sound okay? AndreasKolbe JN466 15:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I was coming here to start an RFC; you beat me to it. I had in mind the single question, Should there be a moratorium? (indicating suggested length) but your suggestion would do as well. It needs to be simple to avoid getting sidetracked like the previous discussions. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We could offer the following as background reading:

• Recent press coverage is summarised in Gibraltarpedia#Controversies
• Discussion on Jimbo's talk
• The recent threads about Gibraltar hooks here on this page (and in recent archives of this page) AndreasKolbe JN466 16:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There's already been a DYK project discussion. You evidently feel that's insufficient, but it should at least be linked to, and not merely at secondhand through all the discussions here that linked to it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/GibraltarPediA_Options subpage? If so, we might have to include two versions: the current one, and this one. AndreasKolbe JN466 16:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Impose a temporary moratorium on Gibraltar DYK's (specify for how long).
• Impose common sense in allowing COI's to impact Wikipedia content, including on the main page and in DYK's, such as Gibraltarisms.

Something like that? Apteva (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Are you kidding with this? Common sense to me is to stop encouraging the promotional behavior that has served to discredit this project. This is not a question of how we treat COI in general, this is a question about Gibraltar, which is an exceptional case that should not be used for any precedent. Gigs (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's format this properly then: --AndreasKolbe JN466 16:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar hooks RfC

Should Wikipedia continue to run DYK hooks on the main page, and if so, at what rate? Or should there be a complete moratorium on them, and if so, of what length?

Background reading

• Discussions on Jimbo's talk page: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltar.2C_again, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltar_hooks_RfC
• Recent press coverage is summarised in Gibraltarpedia#Controversy
• Previous DYK project discussion on how to handle the Gibraltar hooks: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/GibraltarPediA_Options (prior discussion)
• Recent threads about Gibraltar hooks here on this page (and in recent archives of this page)
• The contest that is prompting many of the submissions

Ongoing media coverage

• "Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales Breaks Silence On Resurgence Of Promotional Scandal", The Daily Dot, 25 October 2012
• "Wales: Let's ban Gibraltar-crazy Wikipedians for 5 years – Too bad you're not the boss, Jimbo", The Register, 26 October 2012
• "Las manipulaciones mediáticas: construirse una audiencia a toda costa o el shock del público web", Forum LIbertas, 29 October 2012
• "Wikipedia founder wades into Gibraltar row", The Olive Press, 2 November 2012
• "Gibraltar-related Wikipedia post ban suggested", Euro Weekly News, 5 November 2012

Comments on scope

This is the geographical scope of Gibraltarpedia

Note that some proponents of this moratorium also wish to indefinitely ban DYK hooks about the topics relating to the areas of Morocco and Spain that are within about 70 km of Gibraltar (a total area of about 2,000 square kilometres (770 sq mi) in addition to Gibraltar's 6.2 square kilometres (2.4 sq mi)), as depicted in the map below, whether or not they have any connection with Gibraltar.[1]

Comment: the paragraph above, added by Prioryman, should not be allowed to confuse the issue, because (a) nobody is talking about "indefinitely" banning anything, that is just hype, and (b) despite Andreas' comment which is linked, the RfC as written says "Gibraltar hooks" and that is what people are voting on. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Kolbe clearly says below "no Gibraltar- or Gibraltarpedia-related nominations" and has explicitly said that he intends the ban to cover southern Spain and northern Morocco as well.[[2]] Kolbe also gives no timeframe for his proposed restrictions - they're indefinite. Prioryman (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

JohnCD is correct, and you are lying. I am advocating a one-year ban, not an indefinite ban. Note that this is considerably more moderate than Jimbo's suggestion of a five-year-ban. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(1) Prioryman, are you a member of the WMUK board??? (2) Who the f framed that RfC below? Again, walk back from possible results and think about whether they'll be actionable. Why frame it so that everyone splats ink all over the place? That's a gift to those who want it to fail. Well done. You provide specific solutions and ask for a yes or no for each. Pffff. Tony (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth do you think I'm a board member? Do you see me listed at [3]? Prioryman (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I support a ban on Gibraltar DYKs (please indicate length, and any limitations to be observed after expiry)

1. Support moratorium until December 26 as I've said previously, I support suspending the acceptance of applications for Gibraltar DYKs until the contest is over, after which they could be resubmitted without meeting the normal time sensitive requirements of DYK. I do not believe we should be accepting applications and holding them during the moratorium. Gigs (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
2. One-year ban, which means no Gibraltar- or Gibraltarpedia-related nominations are accepted for the main page for one year after the end of this RfC. Thereafter limit Gibraltarpedia topics to one main page DYK a month. No further Gibraltarpedia hooks on the main page while this RfC is ongoing. AndreasKolbe JN466 16:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Support ban don't add any hooks in relation to Gibraltar to the main page until the issue is at full resolution, at the very least. Obviously if this is resolved within a month, the extra four years and eleven months Jimbo suggested are excessive, but until the controversy surrounding it dissipates completely, adding hooks could be very bad. After the issue is moot and we start introducing them again, make it once a week as a limit thereafter. A potential of 52 Gibraltar-related hooks a year is enough given the controversy. Once a day for a potential 365 a year is absurd for any topic. There are so many topics on Wikipedia non-Gibraltar related, find some of them and add them as a hook. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Support one-year moratorium, then max one/week. In order not to discourage contributors, the competition could continue, with the organizers assessing articles according to DYK criteria and awarding points, prizes, trip to Gib etc; but they don't appear on the main page. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
5. For one year, with apologies to the various innocent Gibraltar authors caught in the crossfire. This will give time for Jimbo's independent review to put WMUK out of business and hopefully allow a charity to rise from its ashes. It will also serve as an important caution to any other groups interested in buying product placement on the main page: The consultants you're negotiating with can't sell what they don't WP:OWN. Kilopi (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
6. Support until December 26 as well as a form of a compromise position. Kansan (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
7. Support one year ban Clearly communicates the consequences of attempting to buy placement on Wikipedia, deterring future attempts. DYK is not so important that committed editors cannot do without it for a year. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC) I was contacted to ask whether I supported a ban on non-Gibraltar southern Spain/north Morocco, and I would not support that ban. I can't imagine that the tourist board of Gibraltar in any way benefits from those articles, and readers would be extremely unlikely to associate them with Gibraltarpedia, so any wider ban would not serve its deterrent purpose. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   Why not just review DYKs and comment accordingly? The same rules should apply throughout, right? If it's POV or advert, then mark it as such, and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   Each individual article or hook may be fine, but you can still get a promotional effect by an organised campaign to push articles and DYKs on a particular theme. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   I must say like you Jen or anybody voting support I resent the thought of paid editing and that we are being used for somebody else's gain. However, I look at it simply as none of these articles actually contain serious POV, and are largely historical in nature, are we better off with articles like Moorish Gibraltar or not? Would you rather that such articles were added to wikipedia or not? I'd rather have them than not, every article is another piece in the jigsaw. And if it is a tourist promotion using DYK is an exceedingly poor way of promoting it, given million editors visiting the main page a day and 1500 tops visiting the DYKs. If in the long term it does generate interest in Gibraltar through the articles existing it shouldn't matter anyway as its a win win situation. Commercial evils or not, projects like Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia are producing results and generating editorial interests, for the right or wrong reasons. I look at this neutrally at face value and I say that the importance of DYK is being grossly exaggerated and that the articles, especially given the vigorous reviewing are not harmful to us as a resource, quite the opposite. However, I must say that we are in danger of having a little too excessive coverage.... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

   One of the bad effects of such touristic Glam projects is that they attract an excessive number of already established editors who for some reason switch their attention from other topics to (in this case) Gibraltar topics (completely or partially). Considering that these projects aren't even for the most undercovered or poorly covered areas (Africa, Asia, ...) but for English speaking, Western cities, they only result in strengthening the systemic bias Wikipedia already has; something which, if not actually corrected, at least shouldn't be supported by Wikimedia or any chapters or other affiliated organisations. Opposing DYKs created in the wake of such Glam projects is one way of reducing the impact of the project and of sending a message that many editors do not support such projects in any way. Perhaps, perhaps, this will make people think twice before proceeding with further Wikitourist cities or regions. Fram (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

   Quite. And note that the Chepstow property developer who sponsored the "Excellence in Marketing" business award that Monmouthpedia won hopes that Chepstowpedia will be the next project; and that WMUK approved such a plan. AndreasKolbe JN466 15:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

   That is another way to look at it, yes, third world countries are unlikely to start such projects. I would hope though that such project might attract new editors to the project. Me, I'd like to see localised projects in every country of the world geared towards producing content..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

8. Support a ban on Gibraltarpedia DYKs until the end of the promotion, and a ban on similar marketing driven projects. We need to deter product placement on the front page - this project is not for sale. This needs decisive action to put a stop to it as it is utterly unacceptable. Secretlondon (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
9. Support one year banI am not sure what part of "It isn't Wikipedia's job to support a commercial endeavour" people in favour of continuing Gib mentions on DYK don't understand. It is a marketing campaign, ladies and gentleman, and the fact that only one volunteer will be "paid" with a trip to Gib is not relevant when User:Victuallers and Co are being paid/have been paid to ensure the presence of Gib on the main page. And look how well they have succeeded, with our unpaid, apparently unwitting, help! Bielle (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   So prevent advertising from being present on any article in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   Main page placement, even of neutral articles, is advertising. That is precisely why this project was created. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

10. Support one year ban per the commercial endeavour argument. Hestiaea (talk)

    Question all these people trying to "ban" these articles, how does it fit into the current DYK framework? How can you object to verifiably referenced articles appearing on the main page? If you think there's a POV/advertising issue, presumably you'd all object to the DYK on that basis? If there's an POV/advertising issue, presumably you'd all annotate the offending articles with suitable maintenance tags? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    The advertising is the mere appearance of the the name of Gibraltar or any of its constituent attractions on the main page and in multiple articles throughout WP, which is what the Tourist Board and/or related ministries have paid User:Victuallers to effect. As someone said n another discussion of this matter, it's called product placement, and even just a mention of the name or a link to it is enough to qualify as advertising. Bielle (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC) And, before anyone else jumps all over this, there are no doubt quite legitimate articles, neither bloated nor insufficiently referenced, coming out of the marketing plan. What the tourist board should not be able to buy is placement on the main page of WP; that is what is happening with DYK at the moment Bielle (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    But that argument is completely bogus. The Government of Gibraltar has employed Victuallers to provide consultancy and training. He's not writing articles, nor is he nominating anything for the Main Page. The tourist board not only does not have the ability to "buy placement", it's not made any attempt to do so, directly or indirectly. I've nominated various articles for the Main Page, and I've done so purely on the basis of their being good-quality articles, with points of interest, and with interesting hooks suggested by myself. Nobody's asked me or prompted me to do so. Your argument is essentially one of assumed bad faith. Prioryman (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    So who paid for your trip to Gibraltar? Don't you feel we are entitled to know? Carrite (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    No, you're not entitled to know, my private life is my own business. You have no basis to suppose that anyone other than me paid for my trip, which I'd planned months before I'd even heard of Gibraltarpedia. (Note that I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar over five years ago.) Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Let's look at the facts: Victuallers used to take an active part in getting Gibraltarpedia DYK articles on the front page, and did it so insistently that he attracted criticism from Panyd and others. He has now dropped all involvement with the DYK process for Gibraltarpedia articles. What you are doing now is very similar to what he used to do before the matter became a scandal, and you too are doing it so energetically that it has attracted criticism, even from people on your own side. [4][5][6] You started energetically advocating for DYK hooks to return to the main page as soon as you came back from Gibraltar, where you, Roger and John had hoped to meet and, I presume, did meet. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

11. Support ban - One year minimum. Without calling into question the specific motives of any of the individual article writers, there is clearly a unwholesome promotional aspect at the root of this onslaught of DYK articles — and it is damaging the reputation of the project. Placement of this sort of systematic machinegunning of mainpage links has been highly valued (in cash terms) by at least one PR professional. There is inadequate supervision of the DYK approval process and the de facto Gibraltar spamming of the mainpage needs to stop at once. Carrite (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
12. Support ban for one year minimum. Regardless of the fact that there is no paid editing going on and regardless that many people have participated in Gibraltarpedia in good faith, the effect has been spamming of DYK. TheOverflow (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
13. Support ban. First choice is one year. Second choice is until December 26 or the end of the contest (such as if they decided to extend the deadline), whichever comes last. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Question if articles fail to meet our inclusion criteria, i.e. fail to meet our policies, ostensibly WP:V, WP:N, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, then they shouldn't be included on the main page. Worse, they should be removed from Wikipedia. This whole claim of "unwholesomeness" etc seems entirely pointless, if individual articles fail to meet the requirements, then they shouldn't be featured. If they meet the criteria and you don't like the criteria, deal with it and comment on the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

      Maybe one of the criteria should be "not generated because of a known, paid publicity push to get said content on the main page" or "not detrimental to Wikipedia's image because they evidence the success of paid marketing campaigns to influence Wikipedia's main page content" or "not providing evidence to future marketers that they too can game Wikipedia's rules to get exposure for their products". Because that's what I'm objecting to. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

14. Weak support for ban on Gibraltarpedia-related articles until the contest ends. I'm a bit surprised to find myself in this column, because I tend to be one of the people around here more willing to work with COI/paid editors, but I think Gibraltarpedia presents a significantly larger amount of potential damage than the occasional PR employee who wants to edit an article. There are a couple of elements at play here, all partially outweighing one another, which is why I'm calling my vote a "weak" support.

    First, we have the issue of what is basically product placement. Gibraltar is paying (if not with prizes, with the opportunity for prizes) well-meaning people to put stuff about their "product" on the front page of Wikipedia. That's bad, and it is more bad, at least to my mind, than someone just wanting people to write or edit an article they're COI on. It's the difference between a movie scene shot in a grocery store, where you might catch a glimpse of a can of Coke, and a scene where a character holds the can up to the camera, takes a big swig, and says, "Ahhh, COKE!" Product placement of this sort has no place on Wikipedia, full-stop.

    Second, we have the issue of non-disclosure. This compounds the product placement issue, because while internet users are somewhat used to overlooking "sponsored" content, non-disclosure of the "sponsoredness" of the content takes away their choice of whether to allow someone to profit off their eyeballs. There is no separation on the main page to indicate "these are volunteer-created random articles" vs "these are articles created by volunteers trying to win a prize worth cash money by promoting a topic", and that's even worse than basic product placement.

    At the same time, however, we have the fact that I believe that no one involved in this disaster expected it to be disastrous, controversial, or potentially damaging. I think all parties thought it was a good thing for all sides - Wikipedia gets content that meets our standards, Gibraltar gets publicity, users get to have fun. No one is disputing that the authors of the articles, especially, were doing something they thought benefited Wikipedia, not laughing behind their hands at secretly screwing us. I suspect that even the organizers, though they were obviously profiting from this association, didn't think they were doing it in an unethical manner. No one's really done anything like this before (that we know of?), and the first people off the starting block would be the ones who discover the massive hole in the middle of the track. We can't hold it entirely against people for trying something new, and for that reason I oppose a punitive "sit in the time-out chair and think about what you've done wrong" approach that bans these hooks for a random amount of time to make an example of Gibraltar/Victuallers.

    On the other other hand, however, I'm flat-out unwilling to be welcoming to future campaigns that pay (or bribe, or subsidize, or reward) Wikipedians to purposely load our main page with for-profit articles. As I said above, we don't do product placement, and product placement by any other name is still product placement. If people want to write articles about Gibraltar out of the goodness of their hearts and put them up for DYK, they can. But as long as they're producing articles as part of a product placement contest, they're going to have to live with choosing either the main page or potential profit. So let's start that with Gibraltarpedia. If you want to participate in the GBP contest, whether because it's fun or because you're hoping to win, cool. Have fun and be productive, and be sure to follow our policies! But while you're participating in a contest like this, articles you produce for that contest shouldn't eligible for DYK or other mainpage placement. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

15. Support a ban until at least the contest is over, per Fluffernutter. I have given my view on Gibraltarpedia in the MfD. That Gibraltarpedia is happily trotting along in spite of the massively scandalous publicity that this has drawn and the many concerns by good faith editors is ridiculous. Unless the community is willing to sit down and have a proper debate about COI, paid editing and outreach, drastic measures like this will have to be taken. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
16. Support SOME kind of moratorium. Not 5 years (way too many people are taking Jimmy literally here, he was obviously trying to make a point - the situation that has evolved IS indeed bad), but at the minimum until the promotion ends plus one month. Usually when a scandal erupts people STOP doing what it was that caused the scandal, not do it even more. And you can weasel it any way you want, but Gibraltar related DYKs on the front page are paid for promotion, end of story. Volunteer Marek  00:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
17. Support a ban, per arguments above; one year sounds about right. bridies (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
18. Support a limit of two per month under the current, sick, DYK arrangements. In fact, two per month for any topic, to be policed by admins and subject to community scrutiny. Tony (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
19. Support ban for a year at least. Per above arguments. Corruption. Bad publicity. Bad for volunteer paradigm. Slippery slope ("Did you know... that in Dear Leader Kim Jong-il's only golf game, he scored 11 holes-in-one over 18 holes?") Herostratus (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
20. Support one-year ban, broadly construed. Gibralter has had its place in the sun. AutomaticStrikeout 03:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
21. Per Fluffernutter and Volunteer Marek. May be a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, but no point leaving it open. AIRcorn (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    There are other horses. Recall that Roger "picked Gibraltar... as his next project after being flooded with invitations from places around the world", and if he gets away with this there will be others ready to take up the idea. An important reason for stopping this now is (switching metaphors) to nip in the bud the idea that advertisers can achieve product placement on the main page by paying consultants to run projects like this one. JohnCD (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

22. Support ban (until the end of the GLAM project promoting Gibraltar and its surroundings). Would support a similar ban for any other touristicgeographically inspired GLAM project like Monmouthpedia, Chepstowpedia, or the thankfully dormant Wikipedia:Mexico-US cross border project, which proudly states "The goal of this project is to promote Mexican culture and identity[...]", supported by User:FloNight, whose user page states that the editor is "helping the Wikimedia Foundation design the new Fund Dissemination Committee that will be responsible for distributing most non-core money. I would love to hear your ideas about the way that WMF community members can best participate in the process of evaluating funding requests." My "idea" is: no support, encouragement, exposure, or money for any promotional project. Fram (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Ban Until competition is ended, limit to one per week thereafter. Ideally with the extra review measures still in place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
24. Support ban until at least the end of the competition (26th December) and ideally at least three months after that to 1st April 2012. After that, a limit of one DYK article per month covering Gibraltar for a period of 12 months, and then review the situation. We don't want to discourage content creation, and most of this content has been rather good. But I am aghast at Wikipedia's approach of dropping the Gibraltar articles briefly (while everyone was watching) and then starting up again with articles when the heat died down a little. This is clearly poor practice, and there should be some modest punitive element put in place. Shritwod (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
25. Support ban this COI isn't good for Wikipedia. Think 3 months is pretty reasonable (this is a very small part of the world and not having an DYK article on it for 3 months isn't outrageous) but could accept something shorter (Dec 26th is reasonable) or longer (a year seems too long, but acceptable if needed). Maybe 1/week after that? Hobit (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
26. Support ban This whole thing is a disgrace. There shouldn't be any more of these articles on the Main Page for at least one year. After that, there should be a limit of one Gibraltar DYK a month for another year. After that, review the situation. --Vrave98 (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    Why is Moorish Gibraltar a disgrace? Why would it be a disgrace to put that historical, well-written article on the front page? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

27. Support two-month moratorium (from the last hook) and no more than one every two months thereafter for two years. (You could look at that as no moratorium at all, just a "slowing down", but then I wasn't sure what category to put this in.) There should also be a more comprehensive review and discussion of whether there is "DYK abuse" outside of this one area, and discussion of possible solutions. Neutron (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
28. Support ban for one year. There is no amount of talk of it all being a clean process that will make it appear to be clean. The insiders say it's all a fun game? An outsider sees a polluted pool. You have a broken process - take a year of referencing what you can't do to think about what you should do. Shenme (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
29. Support ban for one year. This product placement contest for the main page is a disgrace. --Atlasowa (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
30. Support ban for at least one year. Full ACK to User:Atlasowa.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
31. Support ban 1 year sounds good. Among other things this topic has undue weight in DYK (and elsewhere) and should get a rest for a while. (I also want to get rid of DYK altogether but that's another topic). I'm disappointed that nobody expanded the stub about the dramatic masterpiece The Guns of Abalone, which is set partly on Gibraltar. But if you do it, please don't file a DYK. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
32. Support ban until at least the report of the Independent Review of Wikimedia UK is published. The number of Gibraltar DYKs has been more than appropriate for an entire year. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

    What on earth does the review have to do with it? Gibraltarpedia isn't a WMUK project as far as I know and WMUK themselves have said that the only support they've provided has been to run off about £20 worth of photocopied guides to editing Wikipedia for distribution to Gibraltarians. There's no connection at all between WMUK and Gibraltar DYKs. Prioryman (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

    "The review will establish a full account of the recent events related to QRpedia, Monmouthpedia, Gibraltarpedia and related conflicts of interest." Whether or not WMUK and its trustees, current and former, have acted improperly, is a matter for the review to determine. I think English Wikipedia should not ignore the fact that WMF forced this unprecedented review on WMUK because of the controversy surrounding "Gibraltarpedia". The review will have access to the private records of WMUK, which means they are best placed to resolve the controversy and allow everyone to get back to business as usual. I am sorry that you feel otherwise. Up to you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get it though, I'm afraid. This discussion is about whether Gibraltar-related DYKs should appear on the Main Page. How is that connected to how the project has been organised, which is what I gather the review will be looking at (among other things)? Nobody in the WMUK management chain is involved in writing Gibraltar-related articles or sending them to DYK and WMUK certainly aren't pulling the strings behind the scenes. If the review determines that there was a COI involved in the way Victuallers set up Gibraltarpedia, what is the relevance of that here given that he's not involved with DYKs in any way? Your comments imply that you see the future of these DYKs as dependent on the outcome of the review. Would that be a fair conclusion? Prioryman (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

    Sorry but your 'conclusion' is way off base. Intentionally so, I presume, given your constant aggressive behaviour regarding this project.

    My opinion is that the front page should not have Gibraltar articles on it while Gibraltarpedia is under review. I am happy to presume innocence of everyone involved until the review is published, and I have no doubts at all that everyone involved was trying to act in the best interest of the Wikimedia movement. However a DYK moratorium is a simple and effective way to reduce the profile of this project while it is under review, and avoids the possibility that Wikipedia will end up receiving additional bad press due to Gibraltarpedia. I think Roger has made a very smart step by removing 'front page' from the competition, but continuing to apply the DYK criteria.

    If we do nothing, Wikipedia would look very silly by allowing excessive amounts of Gibraltarpedia-related content onto the front page for months after the WMF forced WMUK to undergo a review, if (for e.g.) the review conclusion is that (e.g. worst case) Gibraltarpedia was a for-profit spun out of a non-profit, with the non-profit referring/deferring potential clients to the for-profit preferentially while the for-profit has a member on the board of the non-profit.

    The review will not cover Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and our policies and guidelines wouldnt be based on the review, but there is a need for Wikipedia to grow from this experience. I personally think 17 a month for Gibraltar is too much, but it would be OK if it was once off. However people like yourself are advocating that we keep putting excessive amounts of Gibraltarpedia content on the front page, which is poking the bear. There are backlogs and injecting lots of Gibraltar DYKs doesnt help especially when the Gibraltarpedia people are cross nominating each others DYKs thereby avoiding QPQ reviews. I hear a lot of DYK people saying there are other similar bursts of DYKs about narrow subjects, and I would like to see more analysis of that. I would like to see some analysis, reflection and improvement before we unleash Gibraltarpedia onto the front page. If you want my support, how about helping by doing some of that analysis. If the DYKers are right, you should be able to construct datasets like Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA/DYKs showing that Gibraltarpedia is not unusual and dont improperly imbalance the overall front page balancing act. Show me the statistics.. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

    • I notice there's yet another gosh darn Frog article in DYK! μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I endorse John Vandenberg's comment. Tony (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
      • We've also just now had Tibúrcio Spannocchi, who is in Category:People associated with Gibraltar, and Gibraltar Peak on the main page at the same time. Of course, the Gibraltar Peak described in Laura Hale's article is in Australia (cough), and it's got nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
        • What's the "cough" mean? Is that your next proposal to be attempted by underhand tactics - a ban on DYKs relating to Australia? You may be doing OK so far with targeting a slice of Africa, but I'll doubt you'll manage a ban on the whole of Africa, or even Australia, no matter what tactics you stoop to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
33. One year - the damage to Wikipedia is already great and we have to react to this promotion affair. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 2:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
34. Support ban until promotion is over and also a ban on similar marketing driven projects.The project and in particular main page is not for sale. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
35. Support: I agree with Eingangskontrolle. A 1 year ban would be a good thing as it appears that even limiting the amount of Gibraltar DYKs is still fuelling the media fire and causing more damage than they're worth. I was originally in favour of the current system but after reading that article above, it would be best to ban outright for a year as it is harming Wikipedia by the way it is protrayed and certain users are at risk of slurs and speculations as a result. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

    It's worth pointing out that what you call "the media fire" is being deliberately generated by Jayen466, who has been giving hostile briefings to the press, including passing on Jimbo's private communications. Jimbo is not at all happy about this. See [7]. Prioryman (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

    I see. Well if the coverage is coming from a user deliberately leaking information to the press, that is indded changing the ball game. It does bear thinking about but I think the problem is that while it's still in the public mind, it's worth starving the main part of oxygen by stopping it making the main page. Prioryman, the reason I said what I said was because that Register article mentioned you by name and was clearly trying to make assumptions of who you are and I was concerned. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

    What do you mean by leaking? Everything that happens on this site is public. How do you think all the positive articles about Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia got into the press? People wrote press releases about what was happening, and sent them to the media. I wrote a blog post, and it ended up quoted by two journalists. AndreasKolbe JN466 03:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

    I was referring to the bit where Prioryman said that Jimbo's private messages were passed on to the press. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

    The background is that there was a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options in which a proposed moratorium was unanimously opposed and a regime was agreed to handle Gibraltar-related DYKs, including giving them two reviews to scrutinise them for COI/promotion, restricting them to no more than one daily and putting them in a special holding area. This was put into effect. Kolbe disagreed with this outcome and mounted an off-wiki campaign, including giving Jimbo's private correspondence to journalists with a past history of criticising Wikipedia. He started this discussion, deliberately generated bad publicity, then used the bad publicity that he had generated to support his case in this discussion. There was no ongoing media coverage about this until Kolbe deliberately went out and generated it in order to influence this discussion. It all comes across as very manipulative and underhand. Prioryman (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

    Prioryman, his name is Andreas. Do you have proof of these allegations you're bandying about? (Even if you did, your protestations would be a diversion of the main issue that concerns most of us.) May I say that you're becoming well known as aggressive, on this page and others. Could you tone it down, please? Tony (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

    I wrote a blog post for Wikipediocracy and made journalists who had previously covered the story aware of it, and of the fact that Gibraltar main page appearances had resumed. Two of them were interested enough to cover it. There is nothing underhand about this: it's no different from sending out press releases about how wonderful Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia are.

    Jimbo sent me an e-mail with the text and subject line quoted on his talk page. I hadn't been in touch with Jimbo per e-mail for months, and because of its odd tone shared the mail privately with Wikipediocracy trustees. One of them, who is a professional journalist, thought the mail was quite extraordinary, and asked me for my permission to check with Jimbo that he had actually written it. After some deliberation, I gave him that permission. No other journalists had sight of that mail until Jimbo posted it himself. AndreasKolbe JN466 14:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

36. Support one-year ban: drastic problems demand drastic solutions, and this is a drastic problem. Wikipedia's system is being gamed, and only a strong response will show that such behaviour is not acceptable. Robofish (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
37. Support per Fluffernutter's explanation of the situation. One year should do it, and give us time to rethink the entire concept of associated special-purpose associations. We cannot prevent them, but the question is whether we should sponsor them or actively assist them. Having been involved to some extent in several others, I think it is time to return to the concept that enWP is one encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
38. Support a minimum one-year ban. We're being made to look like fools. Enough. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
39. 'Support ban till 31 December 2013 for Gribaltar DYK. After that, limit Gibraltar-related DYK to max one per week. Per the commercial endeavour argument. The Banner _talk 01:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I support Gibraltar DYKs continuing (please indicate a maximum rate, like 1 a day, 1 a week, etc.)

1. Gibraltar is fine as a DYK topic. I support a ban upon the Wikipediocracy editors who seem to be making a meal of this in order to discredit Wikipedia in general. Warden (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message. Not everyone concerned about this is from Wikipediocracy, I would have started this RFC if Andreas hadn't got here first. What will discredit Wikipedia is the appearance that if you pay the right "consultants" you can achieve product placement on the main page. JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   I concur with JohnCD. I am no great fan of said website, but the concerns about Gibraltarpedia are legitimate and ones which plenty of good faith editors who are not affiliated with Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy like me share. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

   I concur with JohnCD and Tom Morris. Further, I find grossly uncivil these continual slurs against people who rightly, and on-policy, object to the ongoing deliberate injection of undue emphasis into Wikipedia's main page. I was invited to those watchdog fora, but I declined, solely to remain free of accusations of such membership by the likes of Warden and Prioryman. GLAM is ok, but the Gibraltar ongoing promo stinks, because it stems from the rotten profit-making intention to use and offer Wikipedia as an advertising medium. As I voted below, the maximum stench I could support is one GDYK per week, and only on low-readership shifts. --Lexein (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

   The editors there seem to have an agenda and are openly discussing canvassing tactics for this RfC: "And it appears they are winning. I would suggest getting some of the anti-paid-editing cranks to show up and vote." Warden (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

2. When a topic is over-represented over a long period, but the content produced is of sufficient quality, the solution is to find an appropriate balance, not to ban it for five years. That said, I have no opinion at all on what an appropriate balance should be. One a day, week, fortnight or month would all be fine with me. What I cannot accept is otherwise acceptable content being banned from the Main Page on a long term basis, purely because it was over-represented in the past. And as far as I'm concerned that is the only issue, because the WMF's inability to stop the press from having fun at its expense should have no impact on our editorial decisions. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 17:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Maximum of one per queue. Putting more than two topics of the same issue into one queue is overkill. Putting one per queue would allow the backlog of Gibraltar DYKs to be depleted more quickly ending this entire dispute. Outside of the limitation of one per queue, there should be absolutely no discrimination of DYKs on the basis of topic. The only concern should be whether or not they meet the requirement. Ryan Vesey 17:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   I think WereSpielChequers has a good suggestion below on the limit of the number of DYKs any single editor can get from the same topic in one year. This would promote more diversity in DYK. Note that I would only support this limit if it affected all topics, not just Gibraltar. Ryan Vesey 18:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

4. I'm new to this debate, but to call for a five-year ban on articles which are being expanded and nominated in line with the bizarre requirements of DYK seems incredible to me. We need to have variety, but, as noted above, if suddenly there's a surge of nominations about frogs, or a surge of nominations about Paralympians, or similar, we only have ourselves to blame for the DYK criteria. I would bet my house that Jimbo wouldn't have suggested a five-year ban on Paralympian DYKs.... To shift the goalposts (or, more accurately, for Jimbo to "suggest" we shift the goalposts right by five years) is entirely unfair and unjustified. We'd be better off modifying the "five-times expansion" rule or "five-day creation" rule so that DYKs can be nominated more easily (and with more variety). Maybe Jimbo was tired when he wrote about a five-year ban, but I always thought he wanted the internet to "not suck", his suggestion, simply, "sucks". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
5. The problem is not with the occasional editor or newbie who responds to all this fuss with a submission or two, or worse happens by coincidence to write about a related subject. The problem with this and other projects is with the people who write a string of related articles as if they are going for some sort of prize. I propose limiting all editors to half a dozen related DYKs within 12 months weeks of each other. For some Gibraltarpedia editors (and others) that would mean no more Gibraltar related (or whatever their pet subject is) DYKs for several weeks 12 months, but crucially the proverbial newbie on the Clapham WiFi could do a fivefold expansion of Zanclean flood or more realistically Camarinal Sill and submit it to DYK without anyone complaining about yet another Gibraltarpedia article. Write several more and they'd be politely told what the maximum rate was before they reached it and have time to write about something completely different. By contrast a limit on the whole topic would be bureaucratic creep that could catch out people with no involvement in the QR codes and place pedia saga. ϢereSpielChequers 17:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   Imagine that your proposal be enacted; would that mean I couldn't write seven DYKs about historic-designated houses in the USA in a year? How is that a problem? Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

   As a corollary to what Nyttend is saying, what about core articles? I know Casliber has been steadily expanding and improving articles on the southern constellations...these are on the vital articles list and he's done at least half a dozen in the past few months. One, Corona Australis, was recently promoted to FA, and Triangulum Australe is currently at FAC. Why should we keep his seventh (tenth, whatever number) DYK-eligible southern constellation off the main page? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

   You and Nyttend have a fair point. DYK can survive similar topics more frequently than one a month. I've amended my suggestion to 6 in 12 weeks, or one a fortnight. Does that meet your concern, and do you accept my concern that too much of any one topic is not good for DYK? ϢereSpielChequers 18:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

6. Gibraltar-related hooks to continue to be passed with the special rules agreed upon in the prior DYK discussion, crucially: no nominations or articles by Victuallers, placement of the nominations in a special section and requirement of a second review with special attention given to sourcing and promotionality. I would prefer there to be no specific limit on their frequency (i.e., the normal one or two per set maximum except for previously discussed special occasions) but find the unofficial one a day guideline an acceptable sensible concession to those who disagree for whatever reason. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
7. No Ban, one per queue, which should be the same with all subjects. We don't have second class editors, articles, or topics at wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
8. Provided the articles are WP:NPOV and meet Wikipedia standards there is simply no reason to ban an entire topic from DYK for any reason. Queues should always have some diversity and it is common sense to limit any subject to only one slot per queue. The current plan for dealing with Gibraltar hooks is working just fine. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
9. No ban Gibraltar related nominations are already following the guidelines that have been imposed on regular DYK nominations and the special rules placed on Gibraltar related nominations. They are appearing less then a number of other topic fields, such as the frogs noted above.If i were to start writing articles about fossil taxa described from Gibraltar why should I be penalized, I have no affiliation with the Gibraltarpedia thing at all.--Kevmin §
10. My reaction to this, which I'm sure many editors will share, is "For God's sake, not this again". There is no ongoing media controversy about this issue. The only reason why we're discussing it yet again is because of the campaign being run by Jayen466 on and off-wiki. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this and other pages. Every previous discussion has ended with large majorities against any ban or moratorium and it's quite obvious that Jayen466 is simply not willing to accept any outcome that he disagrees with. This is textbook disruptive behaviour; frankly we would be better having an RfC about him rather than this non-issue. There is only a small number of Gibraltar-related articles waiting to be reviewed and those that have been passed are currently trickling onto the Main Page at the rate of - at the most - a couple a week. We have had a grand total of two in the last week, Rock Hotel and Trafalgar Cemetery. We're not even close to breaching the unofficial one a day guideline previously agreed and no reviewer at any point has found any COI or promotional problems with any article, even after specifically being instructed to look for them. There is simply no good reason to ban an entire topic area from DYK, which has never happened before - and bear in mind that Jayen466 wants to ban not only articles about Gibraltar but also those about Spain and Morocco from DYK. Prioryman (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Let's just note that I have said that articles falling within the geographical scope of the Gibraltarpedia competition should be banned. That includes a very small part of Spain and Morocco (roughly what Gibraltar tourists can go and visit on a day trip). AndreasKolbe JN466 18:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, and under that rubric you would ban my recent DYK submissions that are not even about Gibraltar, such as a ruined Roman town, a remote Spanish beach and a dead Spanish painter. The Main Page isn't exactly being flooded with such articles and there's no conceivable COI or promotional issue with them. Bottom line, your agenda is first and foremost about attacking and undermining Gibraltarpedia because you disapprove of it. You're entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to perpetrate this disruptive and abusive campaign. Prioryman (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Gibraltarpedia is a project designed to "market Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia". This is how tourism marketing works: you tell people about all the interesting things at and around your promoted destination. AndreasKolbe JN466 19:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Well, that completely exposes your agenda, doesn't it. I'm working on an improved version of Baelo Claudia which I'll be nominating for DYK in due course. It has nothing to do with Gibraltar and it's not even near Gibraltar (it's a good 40km away). There's no flood of articles about Roman colonies, no possible topic drift and (there will be) no issues with quality or NPOV. But you would still ban it from DYK for no other reason than that you speculate that it might be useful to the Gibraltarian tourist industry. Put simply, you're on a witch hunt. Prioryman (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    JN466, you may have said it somewhere, but it's nowhere in the RfC text. We're voting on the RfC text as it stands: it just says "Gibraltar" in its header (and makes no other mention of what's being affected), so it you want to add something new, you'll need to start a new RfC. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    I think this RfC is deceptive if we are not absolutely clear about what is proposed to be banned, so I've added that to the top. Prioryman (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    You cannot say "whether or not they have any connection with Gibraltar.[8]" when this is the area that the Gibraltar government has paid to have promoted as a tourist product in Wikipedia, and the editors are Gibraltarpedia participants. Moreover, you are ascribing the same view to everybody who supports a ban. I doubt that is accurate. Opinions will vary among supporters of a ban, and you should not presume to speak for them. AndreasKolbe JN466 20:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Let's be blunt, it is a lie to say that "the Gibraltar government has paid to have the area promoted as a tourist product in Wikipedia." The Gibraltar government paid John Cummings and Roger Bamkin (Victuallers) for consultancy, to train Gibraltarians to edit Wikipedia and add QR codes to buildings in Gibraltar [8]. For God's sake, Andreas, show some respect to your fellow editors and tell them the truth. Prioryman (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    As Andreas appears to be the most outspoken on the "tourist promotion" thing I'll comment. Andreas, if there is is dreadful promotion thing only, why is it almost every article created is historical and completely unrelated to anything which is likely to lure the biggest amount of tourists? The average tourist wouldn't care about Moorish Gibraltar, lighthouses, back roads or one of its bastions, much less DYK would be first port of call for booking a holiday. Why is it Tourism in Gibraltar has not bene touched, the vast majority of the commercial enterprises on Gibraltar like shops, hotels and restaurants and local tourist tours have yet to be started/expanded? If you actually read every article being produced none of them are even remotely promotional in that way. The biggest message I get is that there are a considerable number of cultural people involved in Gibraltar who genuinely want to see Gibraltar's coverage historically and culturally to improve and make Gibraltar seem super interesting. like the directorof the botanical gardens wants to see articles on plants etc. If that indirectly brings in more tourists it shouldn't really matter to us because the articles themselves do not read like adverts or tourist guides and are easily within guidelines. I think this is more a front against paid editing and resentment above everything, if we are being "used" it is more so to our own gain as a resource.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

    Please view [9], which explains the business model (main page placement is mentioned at 12:21). Read Gibraltarpedia and Monmouthpedia, which mentions that the project won a marketing award and had an advertising value of 2.12 million (that is the value of the press coverage, not the WP main page). Also see [10]. Please read up on product placement: some forms of advertising simply exist in reminding you of the existence of something. The Gibraltar Government's stated aim for the project is "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia." Also see Fluffernutter's excellent explanation in the section above (#14). AndreasKolbe JN466 18:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

    Sorry, excuse my ignorance of all this in-fighting, but if an article is unduly weighted then WP:UNDUE applies, if it's full of nonsense claims then WP:V applies, as does WP:N. I assume all DYKs are subject to those basic checks, so what is the issue here? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    The issue is that Jayen466 and his chums want to create an additional criterion which is, in effect, that if they consider an article to be of relevance to tourism in Gibraltar then it must not be allowed to go through DYK. This would apply to articles about Spain and Morocco as well. It has nothing to do with the integrity of articles and everything to do with kicking the Gibraltar Tourist Board in the balls. Prioryman (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Ok, so this 5-year-ban thing is a complete farce, right? If articles are generally accepted by the community (i.e. they meet WP:N via WP:V and don't fall foul of WP:POV and WP:ADVERT) then they're cool, regardless of whether they mention Gibraltar or otherwise? So what's the issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    You say it is a lie, but Roger Bamkin "picked Gibraltar... as his next project after being flooded with invitations from places around the world". WMUK says: Roger and John are being paid as consultants by the Government of Gibraltar to help deliver this project. The Gibraltar Government's stated aim for the project is "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia." Can you seriously maintain that if Roger had picked Mexico or Scotland instead of Gibraltar for his next client there would now be so many Gibraltar articles in DYK? The Gibraltar government has bought product placement. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    No, they haven't. The Gibraltar government has no say whatsoever about what gets nominated for DYK. That has either been a matter of editors self-nominating their own articles, or me spotting good-quality articles and nominating them and providing interesting hooks for them. That's happening entirely without the Gibraltar government's involvement. Prioryman (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Would we be here arguing about Gibraltar hooks if Roger had done a deal with Mexico instead of Gibraltar? JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    I'm sure someone would be arguing about something, as that seems to be the normal state of affairs on Wikipedia. ;-) Prioryman (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    You have avoided my question, but the answer to it is "No", and that is the reason for saying that the Gibraltar government are getting product placement on the main page as a result of their deal with Roger. JohnCD (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Today, we have had on the main page the article José Cruz Herrera, with a nice little paragraph on the "Museo Cruz Herrera", which is located right on the border to Gibraltar, in walking distance from the Gibraltar airport. This is the sort of thing that you would find a prospectus on in the lobby of a Gibraltar hotel. This is well within the scope of a tourist brochure for Gibraltar, and if we are counting Gibraltar hooks for October, hooks like these should be included. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    I could watch Millennium on teevee in Gibraltar, should we have counted the hook for "The Time Is Now"? You seem to be reaching just to prove a point; information on a Spanish painter from Spain is not promoting something it doesn't even mention. GRAPPLE X 00:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    This is a perfect example of the kind of bad faith that Kolbe is projecting. The article is not about Gibraltar; the only connection that the subject of the article had with the place was that his grandparents worked there. The museum seems to be pretty obscure - I didn't see it publicised anywhere in tourist literature or guidebooks in Gibraltar when I visited, so it is flatly false to claim that it is the "sort of thing that you would find a prospectus on in the lobby of a Gibraltar hotel". Kolbe doesn't tell us how he knows this, not surprisingly. 90% of the article is about the painter, not the museum. Any sensible article about an artist is going to tell the reader where his work can be viewed. In short, this is Kolbe's usual frothy mixture of false claims and ignorant bad-faith assumptions. Prioryman (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    It prominently mentions (and cites the website of) a museum that is less than a mile away from Gibraltar. You know, when you want to attract tourists, you tell them about the attractions in your city, and its immediate neighbourhood. That's just normal, and that's why the Gibraltar tourist ministry wants Gibraltarpedia to cover Gibraltar's immediate environs too. It all adds to Gibraltar's attractiveness as a tourist destination. So, nothing wrong with the articles, but we do not need to advertise Gibraltar's attractions on our main page. Are you seriously trying to tell us that your writing this article had nothing at all to do with Gibraltarpedia and the fact that there is an "obscure museum" devoted to the artist within a stone's throw of Gibraltar airport, or that you were unaware of this fact? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    90% of the article is about the man, not the museum. The museum is only cited "prominently" because it happens to be a useful reference on the life of the man, which is exactly what you would expect. I get the feeling you would still be whining if the article said nothing whatsoever about the museum. It's frankly crazy that you've elevated 66 words in a 650-word article into some kind of unacceptable promotion. You have lost any sense of proportion. As for where I got the idea for the article from, I looked for Spanish Wikipedia articles via Google Maps, started translating the equivalent article from the Spanish Wikipedia, realised it was a copyvio (now deleted) and wrote a fresh article instead. I'd never heard of the museum before I saw it on the map (and I visited La Lineá, too). Prioryman (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    So you, who are prominently involved in getting Gibraltarpedia articles onto the main page, went into Google Maps. You did not find an article mentioning a museum in Siberia, South India, Indonesia, Australia, South Africa, Kenya, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Germany or Lithuania. You found an article mentioning a museum less than a mile from Gibraltar in Google Maps. And this was a coincidence? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    Is it so hard to believe that the Spanish Wikipedia would have an article worth translating on a Spanish artist? GRAPPLE X 00:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    Why should I write about those countries when I'd just come back from Spain and Gibraltar with my hands full of photos and notes? I looked for Spanish articles to translate; there are lots of articles on the Spanish Wikipedia about the Algeciras area. es:José Cruz Herrera (now deleted) was written way back in 2006, six years before Gibraltarpedia was created. It couldn't possibly be considered "promotional" by any sensible person because it already existed and wasn't promoting anything other than the life of an important Spanish artist. Similarly I wrote articles about Carteia (already covered at es:Carteia) and Cala Arenas (es:Cala Arenas). The fact that you're complaining about me translating and developing existing articles which aren't even about Gibraltar shows that, as Grapple X rightly says, you're engaged in a ridiculous reach. Prioryman (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    Algeciras is next door to Gibraltar, and part of the area this paid tourist marketing project is designed to promote. AndreasKolbe JN466 01:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    That still doesn't change the fact that nothing mentioned in that hook remotely related to Gibraltar or its tourism board, nor does it cast any shadow on the article's genesis, so it's still a stupid reach to be attempting to make. GRAPPLE X 01:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    The information which was present on the main page specifically states Casablanca, nowhere else; a reader who makes the leap from "painter in Morocco", "museum is in place A", "place A is near place B", "visit place B" is already going to be predisposed to visit the area anyway. This is simply a ridiculous reach. GRAPPLE X 00:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

11. No ban per se (what would the situation be if some major event happened in Gibraltar, or new archaeological discoveries were made, requiring new articles to be written?) but the immediate abandonment of the Gibraltarpedia "competition"; a moratorium on new submissions until the WMUK review has reported and action on it decided; a total ban on any similar future competitions in which prizes are based on main page appearances; and (while I'm at it) a ban on all self-nominations and on any experienced editors (number of edits to be decided) being allowed to have their new articles nominated. The whole purpose and operation of DYK needs to be examined, just as much as the Gibraltarpedia project needs to be examined. The DYK process, and initiatives like Gibraltarpedia (and Monmouthpedia, to which I contributed), do virtually nothing either to encourage new editors into WP or to improve article coverage in any meaningful way - they are simply games played by established editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
12. Support Gibraltar DYKs continuing. A maximum of one hook every 24 hours seems about right, but I expect it would be less than that. I think the other current restrictions should continue until the Gibraltarpedia contest has ended. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
13. Support continuation 1 every 24 hours is fine. We should not be banning them but encouraging others to start their own projects and increase the contribution of content to wikipedia. Articles are vigorously checked for "promotional material" and are largely historical anyway. No comment on Jimbo being more interested in politics and correctness than he is in content... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    comment only GHMyrtle is right. DYK encourages new editors. That's what it does. You have enthusiastic editors and you want to stop them? Is this because of a newspaper article from a town which had one active wikipedian when he started this new project? The newspaper didn't understand - we are now talking to Gibraltar's media about releasing its archives. It would be nice to think that that editors can get paid for putting hooks on the front page and getting a thousand clicks. But I don't know anyone who'd pay - and its not what we are engaged to help with (ie I am a consultant for Gibraltar}. (Laura Hale has a nice analysis which demos this). The competition is for fun. Look at its edit history. It never had a major prize. The major prize was suggested by another project lead. Above you will see that I suggest that we remove the value of points for getting a DYK in the competition. Its the projects editors who like doing DYK. This project is creating new editors and new Wikipedia supporters and teachers teaching wikipedia in their lessons. Its creating enthusiastic editors creating quality articles. The last competition we ran like this was won by a Hungarian and before that a Russian. Neither of them created DYKs on the English Wikipedia. I think that the Wikitown idea is important as it changes the real world, but please don't beat up the DYK project and please put the enthusiasm of these editors first. Victuallers (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Maybe you should contact Monmouth, apparently they value their relationship with Wikipedia at £2.12million worth of advertising. I'm sure some of that could trickle down from the board members to the editors who are actually doing the advertising. Gigs (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    If this is a comment only and not a vote then please refactor your comment so that it doesn't increment the count. Also please make a declaration of your financial involvement in Gibraltarpedia so that people know that you are not making a disinterested comment.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

14. I don't think an outright ban is an appropriate response going forward, and would be unjust to those uninvolved in the past issues. Monty₈₄₅ 20:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
15. I support Gibraltar hooks, and hooks of any topic whatsoever, to continue unmolested through the process. I do, however, support a gag order on editors who avoid content creation/improvement themselves deriding the hard work of others without adding anything themselves. GRAPPLE X 20:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
16. I support them continuing and please let this be the last RfC on this subject. It's already been decided that they should get more scrutiny than other topics to avoid any COI or promotional issues (even though there was little to none to begin with because the main editor creating articles is completely unaffiliated with Gibraltar). Run them 1 a day, as it has been more or less decided and let this be the end of it. Silverseren^C 21:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
17. One per week - that's still 52 per year. If two slip through per week, then no GDYK the next week. The more promotional a non-GLAM project is, the firmer the brakes should be applied. As for time-sensitive DYK, better plan far in advance. Not our problem. --Lexein (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
18. No ban. Throttling, if any, of repetitive subjects should be generic, not topic-specific. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Do you have a COI to declare? Carrite (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Do you? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    @Rambling Man. Nope, I don't. I've never taken a cent to be junketed in Gibraltar. I take shit from the jihadists at Wikipediocracy because I'm a committed Wikipedian. I am not a PR professional. I have never falsely played the Right To Vanish card, only to reappear. I have never operated a sock puppet. I have never registered any account except this one, which is linked to my real name, real address, and real email. I am not a member of Wikimedia UK or any other Wikimedia chapter with close connections to the Gibraltar "contest," so-called. I'm done, now you go. Carrite (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    He's a Wikipediocracy member. Prioryman (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    If by "member," you mean that I have registered and post on a message board, yes, you are very right. Now who paid for your trip to Gibraltar? Carrite (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    I've already answered that question - answered you IIRC - elsewhere. Your continued rhetorical asking if it is unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

    This is getting awfully close to "When did you stop beating your wife?" territory. —howcheng {chat} 17:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

    Andy, it's polite and ethical to point out in a discussion any COI that has relevance to the discussion. Do you have a financial relationship with WM:UK or any entity involved with Gibraltarpedia? Just leaving innuendos standing, without clarifying, looks bad for you, and leaves me wondering. I'm not Carrite. And I'm probably not the only one here who doesn't know the answer to that reasonable question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

19. Grapple said it perfectly. Manxruler (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose banning any topic. If you have too many Gibralter articles the solution is simple - choose something else to put on the front page. There is no need for a ban and it is somehow counter to the principles of Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 23:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    Comment: Some figures for context: since the start of October we have had 8 DYK articles about Gibraltar on the Main Page. In the last week there have been 2 Main Page DYK articles, and 4 nominations. There have been about 450 DYK articles on the Main Page since October 1st. This means that Gibraltar-related articles have constituted 1.77% of all DYK articles in October to date. The average frequency with which they have appeared on the Main Page has been one article every 3.125 days, which is over three times slower than the informally agreed one-per-day frequency. This compares to a single editor, User:Sasata, contributing no less than 58 articles about mushrooms in the same period, running on the Main Page at frequencies of up to 12 articles per day. I don't see anyone complaining about the frequency with which mushrooms appear on the Main Page. Prioryman (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    I just want to add here that the mushroom articles often have very nice pictures, and for some reason mushroom hooks are quite popular. We may have started getting tired of reviewing them and queuing them so there weren't too many, but the readers did not get tired of reading about them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    There couldn't have been any Gibraltarpedia articles between the 1st and the 12th, because the previous moratorium was still in place, lasting until 12 October. We then had one Gibraltar hook on the 12th, one on the 13th, two on the 15th, two on the 17th, one on the 19th, one on the 21st, and one on the 26th (on an artist whose biography prominently mentions and cites his museum, which is a stone's throw from Gibraltar airport). So we had at least 9 Gibraltarpedia articles within the space of 15 days. Just saying. And I may well have missed one or two additional Gibraltarpedia articles that don't have the word "Gibraltar" in the hook. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    The article about the Spanish artist who was born in Spanien and worked in Marokko was not about Gibraltar. This would be obvious to anyone who's not seeing Gibraltarians under every bed. As I said, there have been eight articles about Gibraltar since October 1st - not remotely a flood or "spamming". Prioryman (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    Has anyone given any thought that these people kicking up all the fuss about Gibraltar on DYK the last couple of months have given little old Gibraltar more global press than their tourist board could have dreamed possible. If all the nominations had passed with little fuss, who would have noticed but a handful? Now...just look at the press. Couldn't have worked out better for Gibraltar if those complainers were actually in sheep's clothing. Or in this case, would it be sheep in wolf's clothing? — Maile (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    A Spanish artist whose museum is a stone's throw from Gibraltar airport. How many articles about Spanish artists who do not have a museum next door to Gibraltar have you written lately? Again, nothing against your article creations. But why the bloody-minded insistence that all these Gibraltar-related articles must appear on the Wikipedia main page? Is it because that is what the business presentation promised? AndreasKolbe JN466 01:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    Still ignoring that the article was translated from one written in 2006, 6 years before any presentation? GRAPPLE X 01:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    I saw the Spanish article before it was deleted. The English one was not a translation of it. And frankly, so what if es:WP had a copyright-violating article on this painter 6 years ago? The question is why we had an English article written a week ago, by someone with a major involvement in Gibraltarpedia, on our main page. Quite simply, the artist's museum mentioned in the article falls within the set of tourist attractions Gibraltarpedia is designed to promote in Wikipedia. That's just a fact. AndreasKolbe JN466 01:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    And as I've already stated, it's just a fact that the hook in no way endorsed or even mentioned Gibraltar or the area containing the museum. GRAPPLE X 01:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    Of course it mentioned where the museum was; in La Línea de la Concepción, which according to Wikipedia "has close economic and social links" with Gibraltar. You can put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and repeat a syllable of your choice, but the fact is that this is exactly the type of tourist promotion Gibraltar paid for. The gimmick is that Gibraltar will have a tourist business advantage because visitors to Gibraltar will be able to find information in Wikipedia, while visitors elsewhere will not. And fair enough. But these articles do not also have to run on the main page, on top of that. Yet they have been energetically pushed there, first by Roger, and now by Prioryman. AndreasKolbe JN466 16:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

21. Oppose banning any topic. And Ditto to what Grapple said. — Maile (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose banning any topic. I am all in favour of more diversity, but there are already procedures in place. Otherwise, editors can write more articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose ban: Limiting is fine, but a ban is too reactionary and full of self-censorship — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
24. Oppose ban The articles are interesting and tend to be well-written. A limit of a couple of week would be fine, though, same with frogs and corals. I agree with Gigs' point about the wait until the contest has run its course as a possible action. Contests, including Wikipedia's own contests, tend to degrade the quality of DYKs and up the number of closely-paraphrased and outright copyrighted material. I have not seen this with the Gibraltar articles, copyright problems, but I have only read about half-a-dozen. If they are banned during the course of the contest, maybe we should also ban Wikipedia DYKs during the course of Wikipedia contests. This is not meant sarcastically, just to point out that contests create problems in DYK. -Fjozk (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
25. Oppose any sort of moratorium based on topics. There's already a strict mechanism to ensure that the Gibraltar DYKs are of sufficient quality. Banning them would set a very ugly precedent at the project. Yazan (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
26. 'No ban the only thing we should ban is uninteresting or misleading hooks. Rich Farmbrough, 04:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC).
    
27. No ban for a topic. For one thing, this will affect innocent people not related to Gibraltarpedia. For another thing, how are we going to define "Gibraltar-related"? Imagine that I write a biography of some random Bolivian person who happened to live in Gibraltar for a few years. Will this be banned? Note that this is hypothetical; I very rarely write biographies, and Bolivia is far from my interests. Moreover, these articles were improving Wikipedia through expanding old articles and creating new ones, and this is precisely the point of this section of the Main Page. Expanding our content is good as long as it's neutral and legal (e.g. no expansions through copyvios), and I don't remember hearing any evidence (or any allegations, for that matter) that these articles' text violated NPOV or that we had a substantial copyvio problem with them. If we must have some sort of restrictions, make the restriction as minimal as possible. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    Nobody is talking about banning articles, or preventing the expansion of coverage, only about DYK hooks on the main page. The only effect of any moratorium on your hypothetical article would be to prevent a hook like "...that the Bolivian painter X.Y. lived in Gibraltar for a time in the 1920s." Nor is it suggested that the articles themselves are copyvio or promotional: there are established ways to deal with that. The concern is that there is a widespread (and unfortunately correct) impression that Gibraltar are achieving product placement on the main page because they have paid consultants to run this project. A moratorium would say to others with the same idea that Wikipedia is not so easily used. JohnCD (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

28. 'No ban' I don't see any reason why we should be specifically targeting Gib; 5 year ban is simply outrageous, but understandable as a knee-jerk response. I believe there should be uniform rules that cover the monthly number of submissions by topic (perhaps by project as they are constituted today) and limit the annual and lifetime contribution by each principal contributor. If anything, there should be a lower allowance for Anglo Saxon topics and established editors. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 05:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
29. I don't see the problem. If the articles are up to scratch, fine. DYKs on similar topics should be spread out, but that would be true of any topic, not just Gibraltar. I would suggest a limit of 1 every 48 hours, but oppose any ban or other sanctions. Modest Genius ^talk 12:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
30. There's little doubt that even when this poll (since when was RfC a poll, by the way) fails to ban Gibraltar-based DYK noms, every one will be jumped on by the dissenting bloc anyway. That should be enough to prevent inappropriate DYKs. The less said about the alternatives the better. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
31. No ban No good cause shown. This seems to be the latest front in the war over paid editing. The articles and hooks meet Wikipedia standards, including NPOV, and that's an end to it as far as I'm concerned.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
32. No ban A ban would be a terrible idea. A restriction? Perhaps, but I'd support one of those broadly, across the board - I think mixing up what people see in DYK leads to more interest. A ban (except maybe a small one, though I'm not even convinced of that) would send the wrong message entirely - as long as the articles and hooks are NPOV I don't think there's any problem. Certainly not a massively overriding one. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
33. Oppose any ban or restriction. Any article that qualifies under the normal DYK rules should be eligible to appear on the Main Page in the DYK section. Personally, I don't care if editors are being paid or not, or if there is an off-wiki campaign to increase the visibility of some topic. The end result is that we have more quality content, which is ostensibly the goal of this project, is it not? —howcheng {chat} 15:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    An article doesn't magically – poof! – disappear if it is not featured on the main page, and the Gibraltarpedia competition seems to be incentive enough for the actual article writers. Main page promotion has always only been driven by a couple of individuals. AndreasKolbe JN466 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    Exactly what are you inferring about the volunteers who take it upon themselves to promote the articles? There are no restrictions on who can do that. Please clarify your point. If you have individuals in mind, please name them so they can reply to your statement.— Maile (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    I am saying that the activities of both of them have attracted opprobrium. In Roger's case, it started with Panyd's thread, which then migrated to Jimbo's talk page, and in Prioryman's case, I have posted links to comments like these complaining about pressurising and canvassing before: [11][12][13]. Both editors were perceived as being pushy in getting Gibraltarpedia hooks onto the main page – even by people who have no objection to the product placement – which somewhat belies the repeated assertions that Gibraltarpedia is not about DYKs. AndreasKolbe JN466 19:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    Each article should be judged on its own merits. No more, no less. Like Vegas, what happens off-wiki stays off-wiki. —howcheng {chat} 23:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

34. It would be seen as clear discrimination to prevent the odd DYK. Articles are created by locals with best interests. 1 DYK a day seems fair and no more than 5 a week even fairer. The correlation between the mass creation of articles all at once and a few extra DYKs is something that should be realistically expected. I can't remember seeing a DYK about Gibraltar in the 7 years I have been using Wikipedia, maybe it was time for a change. Tonyevans gi (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
35. Oppose any ban or restriction. If we ban Gibraltar, what's next? Certainly there are other topics that Andreas Kolbe does not like. How long will it take for him to seek a ban on LGBT topics or articles on sexuality, for example? If there is something wrong with Gibraltarpedia, then it should be resolved between WMF and WMUK. We should not punish good faith users who are working on this topic.--В и к и T 18:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    I agree wholeheartedly. This is the start of some kind of selective censorship. My example, the recent surge of Paralympic athlete DYKs following the Paralympics in London, would presumably be another victim of this crusade which is entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

36. Support continuation with no restriction whatsoever - I see this as an outrageous attack upon editing freedom in an attempt to impose vaguely defined ethical values upon Wikipedia that are nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. This is a brilliant initiative leading to excellent quality content and I applaud any entrepreneurial aspect. If you want Gibralter DYKs to be a small proportion of DYKs, then start your own damn initative to create other DYK-worthy articles. Egg Centric 19:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
37. Oppose any ban or restriction of Gibraltar DYKs. What's next? 10-article Paralympic DYKs being banned? If they meet the DYK criteria, they should be put though. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
38. Oppose ban, and so oppose any restrictions. People are making Gibraltar/Olympics/Historic building/US-centric DYK-worthy articles and getting them on the front page. You don't like it ? You feel some other topic is under-represented ? Create or expand some articles on that topic and nominate them. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
39. Oppose ban: It is unclear to me which DYK guideline the submissions are violating. Special rules should not be set up unless systematic problems have been proven, and no such analysis has been to suggest any systematic problems. Would be fine with maximum of one per day, up to one per prep area if there are a lot. Fine with 2 reviews but would prefer this done with other QPQ rule change which specifies no nominations of others work without a QPQ. --LauraHale (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
40. Support - no more than 2-3 Gibraltar-based DYK per day. Since I oppose an outright moratorium but do want to see a variety in geographical distribution of DYK as well as a broad range of topics, I would rather this one location does not dominate the DYK listings.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
41. Oppose ban. The DYK rules already suggest a topic balance for any given update. Banning a particular topic would be a dangerous slippery slope to go down. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
42. No ban - How many times am I going to have to say this? The same guys push the same stuff every few weeks, I'm not talking about Gibraltar articles, I'm talking about this debate. Do we carry on having the same discussion until it goes your way? Is that how consensus works? The Gibraltar articles, such as Trafalgar Cemetery and Nun's Well, Gibraltar deserve to be featured at DYK because they are DYK quality - compare them to anything non-Gibraltar run. If they were drowning out other articles, then this would be an issue, but they're not. Also, one a day is nothing - on 18 October, we had 3 sealife hooks by one editor in one update. On 17 October, we had three hooks for Millennium (TV series). Above, an editor highlights a plague of frogs. When I edit Wikipedia, I release those edits under a Creative Commons license, I do not care if others are making money off my work. I do not care what people's motives for editing are, what I care about is the content, and the stuff here is good. - hahnchen 22:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    Hahnchen, those sets should never have had three sealife hooks or three Millennium hooks: that's a failure in the set assembly process. One sealife and/or one Millenium per set would be the usual maximum: as the instructions note, there is supposed to be variety within every set. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

    I don't disagree, 3 in one update should not happen. My point is that the level of Gibraltar DYK appearances, even at 1 a day, is not a "ridiculous number" as others have suggested. - hahnchen 19:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

43. Strongly oppose a ban. Sure, the amount of Gibraltar DYKs should be monitored to a certain extent, but banning's not the answer. Though the contest-like atmosphere has been slightly problematic, it definitely does not justify placing a moratorium on these articles. In the end, there are other things to work on than debating such topics as this, which include working to better and increase awareness of our encyclopedic articles. dci | TALK 05:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
44. Oppose ban As far as I have seen, Gibraltarpedia is doing exactly what all wikiprojects attempt to do: increase and improve the coverage of articles related to their topic. Any "Wikiproject X" will want to have as many written articles, DYKs, good articles, A-Class articles and featured articles as possible. And, as long as they follow all the applicable policies on articles and nomination processes, the encyclopedia is benefited by that. Which is the wrong thing in the coverage of Gibraltar, after all? Is this proposal to punish a wikiproject for being successful? The only rule I would support is to avoid two or more DYK on Gibraltar at the same queue, but I think that there is already a rule for that Cambalachero (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
45. Oppose ban per LauraHale above. Albacore (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
46. Oppose ban, but support some sort of restriction/throttling. One/day or one/set sounds fine. Banning a particular topic sets a dangerous precedent for banning any topic. The marketing aspect of this is interesting, but imposing a throttle (which we've done before, I think, though less formally) should deal with the "free marketing" while keeping DYK open to those who write new content for Wikipedia. Shubinator (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
47. Techncially, I guess I don't specifically support including Gibraltar hooks on the front page. However, I don't support singling out one particular topic and saying that it can't be added. If the worry is that the articles were developed by a competition, then ban competition entries from the front page (noting that this would also have killed many other recent DYKs, such as some of the Australian paralympics articles). If the concern is with COIs, then we will need to address that as an issue. Or if the concern is with too many articles on one topic, then we will need to look at how to stagger that when it occurs, as it does fairly frequently. The topic of Gibraltar isn't the problem, so I feel that we should be focused on the underlying problem rather than a particular instance of it. - Bilby (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
48. Support 1 per week as I think we should not try and restrict editors who may just be legitimately interested in contributing to articles and actually being able to reap some benefit from it, even if it is just swag. That limit should dull any promotional effect and will allow each entry to be subject to some scrutiny. We can keep that limit for four months. At that point there will hopefully not be many potential DYK sujects left on the topic and the incentive for creating them will have also passed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
49. Oppose ban per Shubinator: "Banning a particular topic sets a dangerous precedent for banning any topic". The push for a Gibraltar-specific ban, rather than a general rule on contest entries/COI/etc., seems more driven by public image concerns than encyclopedia-building concerns. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
50. Oppose: a ban is probably excessive. There should still be a door open for these DYKs, when the circumstances are actually appropriate. Perhaps limit it to something like two per week instead. Everyking (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
51. Oppose a ban, they should be treated like other DYKs in the longer run, and if there is still controversy the previous outcome can continue. 1 per day is probably about right, showing in daylight hours for the locality. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
52. Oppose - baby, bath water. KTC (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
53. Oppose ban - we should have some reasonable limit on all topics, not just Gibraltar. And if we ban the Gibraltar topics from DYK, then it will lok like we banned it because we found out about the contest, making future contests more likely to be off-wiki and harder for us to find. I think we're better off putting up with the devil we know than worry about the devil we won't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
54. Oppose ban per Shubinator. Tomas e (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
55. Oppose ban - A total ban in my opinion would be a knee jerk reaction driven by concerns of public image. It would be unfair on the overwhelming majority of legitimate contributors to this area to say that there contributions couldn't be on the main page due to an incident in which they have no connection. However, I would support throttling to something like one a week, and in fact I think there should be some kind of throttling for all topic areas. CT Cooper · talk 20:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
56. Oppose I wasn't familiar with this issue, but punishing the creation of content on Wikipedia is absolutely abhorrent to me. If policies such as WP:COI are being violated, deal with such incidents as they arrive. Suppressing information is awfully out of character for this project. I agree with Od Mishehu above; neutral restrictions on topic frequency are fine, but singling out topics is not. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
57. Oppose ban Why discriminate against Gibraltar? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

    Because they paid for the Gibraltarpedia project??? AndreasKolbe JN466 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

58. Oppose ban: Gibraltar DYKs should be limited to no more than one appearance at DYK for every newly created or newly expanded Gibraltar article with at least 1500 characters. The way to deal with deep COI problems is to deal with the individuals involved, rather than throwing out bathing babies. I oppose rate limits on any topic, but other than that I strongly agree with Od Mishehu. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
59. Oppose ban; I'm sorry to even see this vote being taken. Let someone brush up the DYK manual so others can add stuff to the queues! Jane (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
60. Oppose ban (I never support a ban, any ban, even if it's the season), - see my talk for an old thought on many hooks to one topic (it was Ghana then), header: "Flowers!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
61. Oppose ban. If people are getting content written that's in line with our five pillars, that's a good thing. So long as initiatives like Monmouth, or Gibraltar, or any number of GLAM related projects are producing content that is fair and neutral, then good. And if article pushes in a particular area at a particular time are reflected at DYK, then that's how it goes. This month it may be Gibraltar, next month it may be some myriad of obscure mushrooms. Whatever. DYK co-ordinators can throttle them and space them if they want, because fundamentally we don't want DYK to become boring. But so long as there are interesting hooks, let's celebrate content creation. Jheald (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
62. Oppose ban but support throttling of serial topic submissions (or nominations by the same person) to 1 per week. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
63. I'm happy to see Gibraltar-related DYKs appear at whatever rate they're produced and approved. I find these articles to be interesting and well constructed, and as DYK has traditionally reflected only the rate of new article creation adding any conditions on this (beyond adherence to the DYK criteria) would be a mistake. I'd note that while the relatively small number of regular editors look at the main page each day, few of our vast number of readers do so. Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
64. Oppose a ban or any restriction. Just make sure that (as it should be anyway) there is a balance of topics in each bunch. The pace of Gibraltar-related submissions seems to have slowed considerably making this whole thing rather moot, and the articles are certainly as interesting to our readers, if not more so, than some of the serial submissions on other topics. For the brief time that an article sits in the Main Page DYK section, the traffic does jump, but so what? It soon returns to normal. My recent article on an obscure (to English readers) German author jumped to about 1400 views when it was on the Main Page and then returned to its usual 5 or less day. I've found this to be pretty consistent with all 50 DYKs I've written since 2007. Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

    Submissions have not slowed at all. So far this month, we had Gibraltarpedia hooks on the main page on Nov. 2 (Princess Royal's Battery), 4 (Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club), 5 (Giovan Giacomo Paleari Fratino, who is in Category:People associated with Gibraltar), 6 (Fuerte de Isla Verde), and 8 (Charles V Wall). That's 5 in 8 days, and if that rate is kept up, November will be the month with the most Gibraltarpedia hooks ever. Andreas JN466 06:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

65. I don't see the need for a ban or any censure in reaction to the COI issues, per Jheald, Nyttend, and others. Gibraltar is close to a country, would we do this, with say, Lithuania? (Or frogs or Minnesota?) —innotata 15:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
66. Oppose ban. Gibraltar DYKs should be allowed at a rate of one per day, just like any other subject. Abyssal (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Why has this RfC on a DYK ban not been closed yet?

Am I missing something? μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Like all the other ban nonsense that's put forward (apparently) through a secret discussion by "Wikipediocracy trustees" (these guys get Jimbo's private emails forwarded to them for discussion, we don't get a say - they know best as to how Wikipedia should be run, hence the website title, Wikipediocracy), it will either stay open until it's passed as supported, or until it's replaced by a new plan to get the same end achieved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The default duration of an RfC is 30 days. Andreas JN466 06:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Leaving this discussion open serves as an effective means of delaying the start of the next screaming hissy fit calling for a ban of any action that is not fully supported by a group outside of the Wikipedia project. --Allen3 ^talk 11:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Occupy Harvard

I'd like to point out two issues with the lead hook in Prep 1: The photo is of rather poor quality, and it's not used in the target article (maybe for that reason?). My understanding is that a photo must be included in an article to be eligible at DYK. Schwede66 17:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no photo requirement for DYK. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Pictures and videos accompanying the DYK hook should be already in the article" is what it says in the rules. I wasn't aware that it says 'should' and not 'must'. Either way, it's a poor photo. Schwede66 17:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Image

J2 "suitable, attractive, and interesting"

J3 "already in the article"

Excuse me, but there seem to be the above rules. — Maile (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I misread that it was saying, irregardless of a hook photo, that a photo must be in an article for DYK (which is still not true), but it is true that a hook photo does need to be used in the article. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

So, it needs to be pulled as the lead hook. — Maile (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The second hook in the set was nominated with an image suggestion. While not perfect, the second nom's image is somewhat better and the two hooks and associated image have been swapped. --Allen3 ^talk 20:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I make a plug for using a different Occupy Harvard image? The one provided was from a series, to which File:Thayer gate - funnel.png, which is in the article, also belongs. There are many other attention grabbing images in the article, including this logo. Both of these images look good at 100px. I think it would be really cool to feature Occupy Harvard, since it's the anniversary and also a totally fascinating event in world history. Thanks, groupuscule, article creator and nominator (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Added File:OccupyHarvardCloseup.png, which is a closeup from an image currently in the article, looks nice and iconic at 100px. (Interested parties who click the image on the front page could be linked through to the high-res full version.) groupuscule (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

By now it's of course an issue to sort out for an admin. But I concur that it's a worthy article. Impressive piece of work. Schwede66 04:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :-) . So, should I try to attract administrative attention? It's not the biggest deal ever and I'm definitely not trying to hate on the Ellen Southard, but I'm still feelin' like I'm feelin'. (See discussion of 'endorphins', below...) groupuscule (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And there I was about to put a plug in for Ellen, when the whole slot was reset and everyone was sent home. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers for older nominations, please

First, we have a special request: Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice needs to be reviewed in the next 24 hours, so it can run on November 11, Remembrance Day. As a Gibraltar hook, it needs two review approvals, and has only had one so far. Done. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to commend to your attention the three remaining pre-October reviews, which are badly overdue some attention, two of which are multis. They're included among the over two dozen of our older nominations that need reviewing. Some only need a hook reviewed, some are regular reviews, some are multi-article hooks. Please pitch in and do what you can. Newer nominations also need attention. Many thanks.

• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Loring Air Force Base, alert crew, mole hole, christmas tree (aviation), Loring Air Force Base Alert Area, elephant walk (aviation), Minimum Interval Takeoff (a seven-article hook; some still need reviewing) Reviewed by Cwmhiraeth
• September 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Latin Grammy Award for Best Short Form Music Video (a multi-article hook; some need re-reviewing)
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Write-only memory (engineering) Reviewed by Aymatth2.
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Neşet Ertaş‎
• October 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Canon EOS-1D C
• October 8: Template:Did you know nominations/The Haunting (1963 film) Reviewed by Cwmhiraeth
• October 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Carrapateira, Faro --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• October 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Isis Pogson
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/The Delta (film)
• October 21: Template:Did you know nominations/109 Washington Street
• October 21: Template:Did you know nominations/B4 (classification)
• October 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Madeleine Taylor (basketball) done --Mentoz86 (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• October 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Women's football in Africa
• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Beatrice Kerr
• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Der Geist hilft unser Schwachheit auf, BWV 226
• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Languages of Armenia
• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics
• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc.
• October 22: Template:Did you know nominations/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Shoaib Akhtar Done by The C of E
• October 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Ramberg
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/World Courts of Women
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Amina Mama (a triple hook)
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Oluf Høst Museum reviewed by violet/riga _^[talk]
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Jenő Zsigmondy
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Carol Lee Flinders
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Daylight (Maroon 5 song)
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Zenbook - second opinion requested violet/riga _^[talk]
• October 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Jaffe reaction
• October 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Disposition Matrix
• October 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Falls

Also, here are seven more of the oldest Gilbraltar-related hooks that need review; all are in the special holding area, where it's hard to find them. Gibraltar hooks need two careful reviews; some of these already have their first. You can also look there for many other more recent hooks needing review. Thank you.

• October 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Tower Road
• October 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar 2
• October 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Upper Rock Nature Reserve
• October 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Casemates Gates
• October 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Princess Caroline's Battery
• October 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Moorish Gibraltar
• October 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Luis Bravo de Acuña

Please be sure to strike out entries once you've reviewed them. Thanks again for helping out. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

5 days?

How etched in stone is the 5-day rule? I could have swore it was 10 days, but that just may be senility setting in... and I had a great hook for two timely Supreme Court articles that I had put a LOT of time into. One reviewer said "awesome article, good job!". If anyone wants to see the hook that I created before I realized I was too late, you can find it here. Grollτech (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you put this nomination out there for review. 5-DAY timeline, Not exactly You're probably thinking 10 days, because there was a recent discussion about that same issue. But nothing is etched in stone. It all depends on the reviewer you get. The 5-day rule can be overlooked. And if you get one of those reviewers who wants to be hard-nosed about it, just appeal it directly on the nomination template. One person's opinion is not the next person's opinion. And IMO, the really well-written good articles don't usually get tossed on the 5-day rule, because DYK needs the really good stuff. You might want to take care of those sections that are labeled "needs expansion". — Maile (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And, BTW, if you look at the section above this, it will give you an idea of how long this could possibly sit before being reviewed. Has nothig to do with you - there's just a running backlog these days. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I was about to give up without asking, and I never would have found that! Grollτech (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Double linking?

• ... that openness correlates with liking jazz and that extraversion correlates with liking pop?

Both bolded phrases link to the same article; I wonder if double-linking is allowed. --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The same article shouldn't be bold-linked twice; a second bold link should indicate a second article. Looks like the reviewer and the promoters missed this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a rule against this? --George Ho (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a rule about over linking in an article, where a link should only appear once in the lead and once in the body. I think it should be obvious that hooks shouldn't allow over linking, and certainly not wih the bold. Yazan (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Zenbook - second opinion

Could somebody else please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Zenbook. I'm concerned that any hook used would come across too much like an advert. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The way to avoid this is to create a hook about the product that does not compare it to other products in a promotional, competitive manner. For example, a good hook would talk about the origin of the name and its zen design or some other conceptual design component discussed in the article. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Experimenting a photo-less queue?`

In the News... right now does not have a photo. I wonder if a photo is no longer required for one time. --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

But... Why? Yazan (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Mainly out of curiosity. I'm not sure if we'll be running out of photos or any other files, but I don't think shortage is the main reason, even if it is the reason. --George Ho (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ITN commonly has difficulties finding freely licensed images to pair with blurbs about current events. This is not a problem for DYK. While there have been instances where there was a limited selection of nominations with usable images, I have never seen a situation where DYK had no usable images. If such a situation were to occur then there is no technical reason why we could not run a set without an image (it might require a manual update if the bot complains, but it could be done). --Allen3 ^talk 12:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Nadj currently on Main Page

Wikipedia:Did you know says that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals ... should be avoided" (emphasis in original). In my opinion, the Alexander Nadj hook currently on the main page is another one that does not meet this requirement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem here. (But I'm also the expander and nominator, so I might be a little biased) Nadj played 13 minutes of a game, when he came on as a substitute and the next game Andreas Fjeldstad were playing instead. From my point of view, a hook with "focus unduly on negative aspect" would not include the 13 minutes where Nadj was on top of his career. Yes the hook is "hooky", so the hook might be worse then the article is, but I think the hook is within the requirements. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

1-21 Cornwall Terrace in Queue 1

1-21 Cornwall Terrace is currently in Queue 1, but seems to have a number of MOS and other issues. To begin with the title, surely it should adopt an endash rather than a hyphen? Beyond that, it links to the City of West Minister in the lead, which I assume should be the City of Westminster? Wikilinking heated swimming pool seems either very inclusionist, or just bad linking. The lead also includes a quote which is not attributed in the text, and is in italics, in contravention of WP:ITALIC and MOS:QUOTE. The Architecture section includes a number of peacock terms, saying "very pleasing to the eyes". It is also extremely hard to read, bordering on non-sensical in other places: "The ground floor or the basement of "scholastic regularity", and which projects beyond the face of the upper stories and over which the other decorative floors are built, is plain, simple and well proportioned." All in all, I don't think this article is ready to appear on the front page. Harrias ^talk 18:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I "fixed" a couple of those redlinks. However, I find that the article is poorly written and not well-supported by its sources, and the hook (which is taken from the lead section of the article) is not worded well. I'm pulling the hook from the queue to allow time for repairs. --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a poor translation, and given that none of the cited sources are in another language, that makes me suspicious of copyvio from an uncited source. Kevin McE (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI: The nom is at Template:Did you know nominations/1-21 Cornwall Terrace. --Orlady (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If the manual of style errors were the only issue this would not be of any importance for DYK. ndash use is so minor that 99 of readers will not notice, and correct spelling is not required for DYK. However the peacock terms are a problem for DYK. Any one is free to fix these problems of course. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Article in Prep 3 currently in AfD

International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 is currently in Prep 3 and up at AfD. I don't know if the AfD will close before it's set to be promoted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Should not be a problem. The AfD is currently dominated by keeps, so article deletion or an extension of the discsussion is highly unlikely. The set is tentatively scheduled to appear 16 hours after the AfD completes its normally scheduled time to be open. I will make sure the AfD is closed or, if an unexpected change occurs within the AfD, a replacement hook is swapped in before the set loads. --Allen3 ^talk 22:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that the article was approved even knowing that an AfD was ongoing. Rule D5: "Articles nominated for deletion will not be used unless they have survived the deletion process." Until the AfD is completed, approval should be withheld, and that hook therefore does not belong in prep. It's easy enough to promote it again later should it be properly approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Problematic hook

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

"... that 28 U.S. states have asked the Supreme Court to allow police dogs (pictured) to sniff at the front door of any house – without a search warrant or even probable cause – even if the dog is wrong four out of five times?" This is not even close to encyclopedic tone. It is closer to a tabloid sensationalist title. If you take the time to read the referenced article, you will learn that this statistic is based on Australian data about dogs sniffing people, not houses, and that, from the police point of view, the dog is at least 80% correct because the person admitted to prior contact with drugs and explains why traces are detected.Astator (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it troubling that this wording was approved. As you noted, it a presented a statistic outside the appropriate context, thereby implying that it reflected an acknowledgement on the part of the 28 U.S. states (i.e. that they approached the Supreme Court with a request to permit the sniffing "even if the dog is wrong four out of five times"). And yes, the tone seemed rather non-neutral. (The two uses of the word "even" conveyed that the request is extreme and unreasonable.)

I've done my best to address these issues via rewording. I'm going to notify the parties involved in the discussion. —David Levy 03:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: After moving this discussion from the error report page to the DYK talk page, I posted pointers on the talk pages of the nominator and the four other users who edited the nomination page. —David Levy 03:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hold up!

• It doesn't matter that the statistic is from Australia! dogs (and their handlers) behave the same whether they are in Australia or in the United States. It's not like they behave "upside-down" in Australia!
• Florida v. Jardines is about houses. Florida v. Harris is about the dog's reliability, regardless of whether they are sniffing houses, vehicles, people, or what-have-you.
• That Australian study (and those statistics) were brought up in many of the briefs that were filed before the Supreme Court, and was even discussed during Oral Argument! So why can't we mention it here?
• That study is but one of the numerous studies mentioned in the briefs. It is established fact that : (a) detection-dogs false-alert more often than they correctly alert; and (b) individual dogs vary tremendously in their accuracy. Much of that is due to handler's influence, or cueing, and law enforcement will always claim "residual odors" before they admit that they prompted the dog, or that the dog smelled a dog biscuit.

If I may be blunt, "despite assertions of unreliability?" is pathetically weak. Why can't it say:

• "despite assertions that the dog is wrong four out of five times?"
• "despite assertions that dog sniffs are wrong more often than they are right?"

Either of those would be true statements. Grollτech (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As Astator noted (and you acknowledged in your above reply), these assertions are contested (in part because definitions of "false alerts" vary). Going into that degree of detail – without mentioning the counterarguments – is non-neutral. And given your above criticism of those with opposing views, this doesn't appear to be accidental. —David Levy 04:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand and acknowledge the implication of a non-neutral tone (the word "even", etc). I like the phrase "despite assertions", and I wish I had thought of it.

My objection is over the rest of the hook, which is so watered down as to be boring. What is wrong with the two alternatives I proposed?

"Empirical evidence from the United States confirms the Australian studies' findings. In 2011, for example, the Chicago Tribune studied police use of narcotics-detection dogs during traffic stops. ... The records covered stops from 2007 to 2009 conducted by several suburban police departments near Chicago. The analysis revealed that drugs or paraphernalia were found after only 44% of alerts. The accuracy rate varied significantly by police department; for the department with the most alerts, the accuracy rate was only 32%. The rate was even lower when the dog alerted to a car with a Hispanic driver; across all departments, only 27% of such alerts led to the discovery of illegal drugs. For one police department, the accuracy of alerts to Hispanic drivers was a mere 8%—or a false-alert rate of 92%."

— Brief of amici curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the ACLU, et al., citing Hinkel & Mahr, Drug Dogs Often Wrong, Chicago Tribune, Jan. 26, 2011 p.C1

Grollτech (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2012 UTC}}

With respect to my "criticism of those with opposing views", I apologize that I reacted strongly, and have redacted the statements to which I think you are referring. I still feel that the change to the second article's hook was an over-correction that unfairly 'gutted' the hook. What upset me even more was that "If you take the time to read the referenced article, you will learn that this statistic is based on Australian data about dogs sniffing people, not houses" was part of the justification for making the hook blasé enough that one would not want to read the article. A reasonable compromise was proposed and ignored, which doesn't matter now, it's a done deal. Boy, I'm "0 for 2" on DYK being a fulfilling experience – I think I'll stop while I'm behind. Grollτech (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the hook has been "gutted", I think it reads well and gets its point across. The articles are interesting and informative and a worthwhile contribution to DYK, so I hope you will continue to contribute here. Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the remarks that you redacted (or to incivility at all, actually). I was referring to your comment that "law enforcement will always claim 'residual odors' before they admit that they prompted the dog, or that the dog smelled a dog biscuit."

You inquired as to "what [was] wrong with the two alternatives [you] proposed". As I explained above, they were slanted (much like the hook's original wording).

The description "assertions of unreliability" conveyed that the dogs' reliability is disputed (and encouraged readers to visit the article for details). Presenting specific claims regarding the extent of an alleged problem (while omitting prominent arguments to the contrary) doesn't reflect a neutral point of view.

Like Gatoclass, I hope that you don't become discouraged and stop contributing here. Setting aside personal bias can be challenging (particularly when writing in the format employed at DYK, which greatly limits the amount of information conveyed). Sometimes, an outside view is needed. —David Levy 11:08/11:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Flaws and etc

David Levy posted about this on my Talk Page because I had commented on the 5-day qualification and the QPQ guideline. I did not review or promote the nomination, nor did I have anything to do with the article or the hook. However, I think this is a classic example of why it is so hard to attract and retain quality on DYK. Editors who are qualified by background, knowledge, and talent to write the better articles, will not find an incentive in donating their skills for free, only to be subjected to this baptism of fire that happens on DYK. I mean, if you've got the kind of talent - and are willing to put in the time to produce something like the above articles - wouldn't you have enough ego to dust off your heels and move to greener pastures?

I'm not arguing the pros and cons of the above issue, because it is beyond my expertise to do so. However, it should be noted that the editor who first posted the complaint about this has a TOTAL of 159 edits since January 2005. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that editor doesn't have a lot of experience in the DYK process. Of course, the complaint could have come from someone who has never edited at Wikipedia at all. And it would have been better if the above discussion took place on the nomination template before it went to the main page. But the woulda-coulda-shoulda didn't happen. I'm just saying what happened here does not seem like a likely road to keeping editors who can produce quality.

While acknowledging that DYK does have some gifted frequent contributors, the last several months have not been encouraging to enlarging the talent pool. And given the intense drama that's been happening at DYK including the failed witch hunt aimed at banning one lone editor for their errors, I'm surprised anybody wants to contribute to DYK at all. — Maile (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

David Levy posted about this on my Talk Page because I had commented on the 5-day qualification and the QPQ guideline. I did not review or promote the nomination, nor did I have anything to do with the article or the hook.

As indicated above, I notified everyone who edited the nomination page. No implication of blame is intended.

However, I think this is a classic example of why it is so hard to attract and retain quality on DYK. Editors who are qualified by background, knowledge, and talent to write the better articles, will not find an incentive in donating their skills for free, only to be subjected to this baptism of fire that happens on DYK.

"Baptism of fire"? That's how you describe constructive criticism and relatively minor rewording for neutrality?

I'm not arguing the pros and cons of the above issue, because it is beyond my expertise to do so. However, it should be noted that the editor who first posted the complaint about this has a TOTAL of 159 edits since January 2005. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that editor doesn't have a lot of experience in the DYK process.

A reader, who edits occasionally, noticed an issue on the main page and reported it at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (the correct page). And...?

Of course, the complaint could have come from someone who has never edited at Wikipedia at all.

Indeed. Are you suggesting that this is a problem?

And it would have been better if the above discussion took place on the nomination template before it went to the main page.

Agreed. It's my hope that this discussion will increase the likelihood of that occurring in the future.

But the woulda-coulda-shoulda didn't happen. I'm just saying what happened here does not seem like a likely road to keeping editors who can produce quality.

What are you suggesting should have occurred when the issue was reported? You seem to be implying that we should discount/disregard input from persons not directly involved in the DYK process (because by taking it seriously, we stand to alienate DYK's contributors). Perhaps that isn't what you meant, in which case I apologize and welcome your clarification. —David Levy 17:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

David, please chill out. I was not going after you personally, but the DYK process that needs fixing, or boosting up, or something. It was NOT about you personally. And I'm sorry if my wording caused you to take it that way. I only mentioned you posted on my talk page, in regards to why I was even commenting about this - not that you were blaming me or anyone else.

By classic example, I meant the process, not you. With that in mind, stepping into the author's shoes for a moment, this being such a new contributor...well, the author spoke for himself about the DYK process.

My comment that the complaint could have come from anyone, just meant that who made the complaint was, in the long run, irrelevant. Wikipedia is open to all - which is what I meant that it could have come from someone who had never edited at Wikipedia at all. It could have.

The "woulda-coulda-shoulda" is mostly about how it woulda-coulda-shoulda been better had this happened on the nomination template first, and the timing of all this had been a little different.

Seriously, David, I'm not blaming you. Really, I have no feelings about you in the process, except you're the one who reacted quickly - as you should have. So, please, please don't take this as a criticism of you personally. Actually, I don't remember having seen your name before, so I have no feelings about you whatsoever.

There's a problem at DYK, I think, about attracting and keeping good contributors and good reviewers. Also, there are a number of long-time Wikipedia contributors who have recently decided to leave WP. As for DYK, I will only mention Dr. Blofeld who is now gone from WP.

This was not a positive experience for this author. It's not that there wasn't a valid criticism of the hook - or that it was right or wrong to challenge it. It's the way it happened with this particular nomination that made it a deterrent for this author in particular. It made it to the front page so quickly that it didn't get all this ironed out on the template. Nobody's fault. But I see this author is ready to throw in the towel on DYK already.

And a lot of other stuff has happened - that's had nothing to do with you. All the drama that's happened since summer began, for one. Some of it has been really out of hand and non-productive. Again, I'm sorry if you felt this was about you, but it wasn't. But DYK wants to attract and keep talent, it needs something. Maybe you have ideas. — Maile (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't take your comments personally. That you were referring to the process was clear.

You noted that the issues with the hook should have been addressed during the nomination discussion. Again, I agree.

Your remarks about what actually occurred appeared to imply that we're driving away valuable contributors by allowing outsiders to influence content. If that isn't what you meant, I'm glad. —David Levy 03:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct - that wasn't what I meant. So, we're ok on this, I hope. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears that we're largely in agreement (and I doubt that anyone disagrees that it would have been better to address the hook's issues before it appeared on the main page). —David Levy 17:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Grolltech feels discouraged, but I don't see how his/her experience has been particularly bad. The hook was approved and placed on the main page as the illustrated DYK item. When problems were noticed, it was modified slightly (not removed or altered fundamentally). Grolltech preferred different wording (which was unsuitable, for the reasons discussed above) and obviously would have objected regardless of when the change occurred. So I don't see how intervention during the nomination stage would have made a difference on that front. —David Levy 03:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's a matter of perspective. When this happens on the nomination page, it's a learning process. Sometimes that's instructive, and sometimes it's locking horns - every case is different. If something makes it all the way to the Main page, you get a lift that it made it. And then...there's issues that take that lift down a little, no matter how well-meant that is. It's just better if it gets ironed out before the Main page. And, perhaps, for editors who have been here a while, it's still not a thrill to have this happen on the Main page, but the seasoned DYK editors are semi-used to seeing it happen now and then. And they hopefully keep going. It's more like a blast of cold air if it's a new editor who thought they'd had clear sailing. And maybe they don't want to try again. That's all. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You asked whether I have any ideas on how to improve the process (and hopefully reduce the likelihood of similar situations arising). I should note that my experience with the DYK process is very limited, so I can't claim to be an expert in this area. But from what I've seen, the hooks simply aren't always sufficiently vetted. Promoters follow a checklist focused primarily on DYK's update requirements, with some evidently paying little attention to other elements.

Last night, I noticed an error report that unfortunately wasn't acted on in time. A DYK item contained an accidental link to an irrelevant article (Avatar instead of Avatar (computing)). I've asked the promoter (who also promoted the hook discussed above) whether non-bold links are routinely checked. If they aren't, they certainly should be. —David Levy 17:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. One of the known issues is that because reviewing is a learned process, the newbies do the best they can. Or they green check an article as a Go just to get a QPQ. Or a seasoned reviewer misses something. I'll admit to reviewing and missing things that (thankfully) get caught by someone else. And sometimes it doesn't get caught. Or, I've missed something that wasn't on the DYK checklist, but still should have been caught. We had one incident a few weeks/months ago, where a hook never got reviewed and for whatever reason went to the main page. No one caught it even then. It was noticed when it was in archive. I think DYK would love to have a process where this could be tightened up. But exactly how that could be executed, I don't know. — Maile (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This article can be found in Prep 3 but should not be found on the Main Page

Brookesia betschi (Blanc's Leaf Chameleon), currently in Prep 3, has been achingly padded to 1530 prose characters. For example: "is endemic to Madagascar ... can be found in northern Madagascar ... was found in 1974 ... can also be found in Tsaratanana ... can also be found in Manongarivo ... can be found in two national parks ... can be found over an area ..." This bloated stub should not appear on the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've gone and varied it up. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some of the bloat, without removing any facts. It's now 1230 characters. We should not be promoting stubs which have been inflated just to achieve the minimum prose requirement. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the hook from the prep area for the time being, as at 1230 characters it isn't eligible, and added new material would need reviewing. There have been similar problems with bloat noted on some other articles currently under review, including Template:Did you know nominations/Beth Rodford and Template:Did you know nominations/Alejandro Gómez (swimmer). Given the sheer volume of recent DYK submissions, I would be interested to see whether Cwmhiraeth, who has submitted a great many fauna articles, thought that the dozen articles on Furcifer chameleons created and submitted on November 11 were good exemplars. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Cwmhiraeth, but based on this and this, I'd say that all of these submissions should be checked for bloat. Additionally, the taxonomy is incorrect in some articles (e.g., parentheses around the author names are not there arbitrarily, they have a specific meaning and should not be removed), and some incorrect conclusions are drawn from the limited sources. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You're the other name I would have mentioned, given your extensive experience with taxonomy in the dozens of fungi articles you submitted over the past months. Thank you so much for checking two that had been given a green light. Any suggestions on who else might be sufficiently knowledgeable to do the remaining checking? While you've examined two premature approvals, another three of the article nominations from that day have also been approved, and it's only a matter of time before they find their way into prep areas. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

After belatedly seeing this, I have looked at this nomination and removed bloat from one of the two articles which is now too short. I will look at some more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'll stop doing species articles for a considerable amount of time until I can make them without the bloat. I'd been looking at some other species articles and had noticed that they were often worded in this way. This discussion has lead to this. :/ Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

November 23rd (24th UTC) date request

I have just nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Glenn Robinson III as a date request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I have removed the {{underconstruction}} tag from this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK is overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's now overdue. Prep 2 is full, and ready to be checked and moved to Queue 4. There are two more prep areas filled after that, and a third that needs two final hooks. Any admin with DYK experience is urged to see what they can do. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've filled 3. Back to Derrida and Lacan now. *sigh* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think someone may need to do something more, since Queue 4 is just sitting there. Unfortunately, I have no idea what that is. Unless the bot wakes up automatically (say, every half hour), and does something on its own ... but somehow I doubt we're that lucky... BlueMoonset (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• ... and no sooner do I write the above but the bot wakes up and takes care of it, even while I was typing. Thanks, Crisco, for getting us up and running again. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• You're very welcome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Shortage of queues and hooks?

We are down to one full queue and one incomplete prep area. The rest are empty. If reducing hooks or queues is not the answer, then what else shall we do? Review more articles? --George Ho (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

George, we have 45 approved hooks (you can see here). I'm filling a prep now. Cheers. Yazan (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Now we have one queue and 2 preps ready so we're fine for a day. If no one comes along to fill other preps by the morning, I can do that. The point is, we still have 38 "approved" hooks (obviously, some of them will have issues with the reviews, but still, a good proportion of these are genuinely ready), which is not bad. Yazan (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We are missing Dr. Blofeld and PumpkinSky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why new articles?

I've never been involved with any of this, so reading the rules came as something of a surprise. Why new articles only? It's not like we have any shortage of facts.

If you answer my question, please also consider adding the explanation to the rules, to save other people having to come in here and ask.

Thanks, — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC).

If only the opening paragraph of the rules said something like " The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review. This publicity rewards editors for their contributions." Oh, wait a minute... Kevin McE (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk about not reading the question. Jeez Louise. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That is the whole raison d'etre of DYK: pat on the back for creators of new articles. Rather than insulting the answer, and the answerer, consider the meaning of the words. Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

TFA and DYK

Does anyone object to an article running in TFA before it runs in DYK? Frank's Cock (currently nominated for April Fools' Day) was just promoted to FA and I'd like to try and run it as TFA on World Aids Day on 1 December. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no issue with it. It'd be interesting to see an article of such calibre in the DYK box; has a featured article run as a hook before? GRAPPLE X 23:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Dunno. I've never seen one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think this should be done. The convention has always been that if it's previously had a bold link anywhere on the Main Page, then it's not eligible for DYK. And in this case, it would only be four months between TFA and DYK. This April Fools' nomination, submitted in August, is already subject to the usual extended time exception, and I don't think we should make an additional exception. If you've got a little patience, I would recommend letting it run for the April Fools' DYK and then getting it featured on World AIDS Day 2013. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• The rules, as currently written, only state ITN:

"Articles that have been featured on the main page's In the news section are ineligible. If an article is linked to at ITN but not the featured ITN article, it is still eligible for DYK."

They do not say anything about POTD, OTD, or TFA. I personally think that if an article was at 2000 characters when it was shown on POTD then subsequently expanded for a DYK, for example, that should be a viable nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had checked the rules before I wrote that, which is why I used "convention" rather than "rule". But I'm sure that the no previous Main Page bold links "rule" has been cited here on WT:DYK. I think the reason that only ITN is cited in the official rule is because that's the most likely place where it was reasonably anticipated that a new or newly expanded article, as required by DYK except for April Fools' Day, would potentially appear. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• If there are no precedents, how can there be a convention? Do you have any precedents of an article which had been OTD, POTD, or TFA being refused or accepted? This may (not going to say is) be a first in that regard. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the rule may have been intended to address reasonable anticipations at the time of writing it. To me, the spirit of the rule is very clear – DYK is for highlighting content which is new to Main Page readers. (The rules can't specify every possibility. Note that if you go solely by the rules on WP:DYK which you linked to for the rule, previous DYKs would not be ineligible; for that you have to go to the supplementary rules.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I accept the fact that there's consensus to run jokey DYK hooks on April Fools' Day, but why are we planning one related to such a serious topic? TFA or not, this seems astonishingly distasteful. —David Levy 02:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of April Fools' Day articles are fairly serious. Last April I had ? (about religious tolerance) and Maria Ulfah Santoso (a women's rights activist) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Both were GAs at the time, coincidentally. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's bad enough. Now we're making light of a film about someone dying of AIDS? Is no subject off-limits from the April foolery? —David Levy 02:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I would hope the Holocaust. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's where you draw the line?

Most of my paternal grandparents' relatives died in the Holocaust, but HIV has claimed about three times as many victims. To me, spinning jokes from a critically acclaimed film about a person dying of AIDS seems comparable to doing so with The Diary of a Young Girl. This is Wikipedia, not Family Guy. —David Levy 03:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this much more seriously than the director did. From the article: "Never has Frank's Cock seemed so large". Double entendres, anyone? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

We're operating an encyclopedia, not marketing a film. —David Levy 03:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"I accept the fact that there's consensus to run jokey DYK hooks on April Fools' Day, but ... [w]e're operating an encyclopedia, not marketing a film." This seems rather contradictory. You could make the same point about the two lesbian ships in 200(6?) or indeed almost any AF DYK hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not fond of jokey DYK hooks in general. But I'm in the minority, which I accept.

However, there's longstanding consensus against dragging subjects such as disease and death into the April foolery or juxtaposing them with silly nonsense. (That's why we stopped including ITN.) We compromise our usual main page standards for the day, but we don't go this far (which isn't encyclopedic oder funny). —David Levy 03:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The tradition of April Fools is to trick the unwary, not to throw double entendres around with all the subtlety of a hailstorm. We are not running a joke site for 14 year old boys. Pathetic and puerile (the DYK nom, not the film or the article). Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Since there seems to be a lot of opposition against this as an April Fools' DYK, would anyone mind running a serious hook for World AIDS Day? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• If it isn't also running as the featured article that day, I don't see why not. If the hook hadn't been sequestered for April 1, it would have run already; now that April 1 is deemed inappropriate, I think it makes sense to hold it for two weeks until December 1 and run it then, which gives plenty of time for a serious hook to be proposed and approved. However, I don't think the same article should be featured in two different places on the main page on the same day. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think you should look to run it before it appears as TFA (December 1). The idea is to highlight new content to WP audience who wouldn't have had a chance to see it before. Having been featured prominently on the main page as a TFA, I would think, disqualifies it for DYK. Yazan (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is an exception which I've always thought should exist. If a nomination was saved in good faith for April Fools' Day, but it is later determined that it can't be used there (or a better use becomes apparent), then, subject to reasonable circumstances, it should be allowed as a regular hook. This is still assuming that it hasn't previously appeared and won't simultaneously appear elsewhere as a bold link on the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, I wouldn't go simultaneously. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sure, run it. But this just proves why the current DYK social-welfare system is badly broken. Why can't we get rid of these baby rules for DYK? Tony (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pardon? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Moved to the main T:TDYK. The new hooks need reviews here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with "moon rock" hook (Q4)

There is currently a multi-hook about moon rocks in Q4. However, there is a significant amount of content overlap between the articles involved: at least four of them (Nicaragua, Colorado, Hawaii and New York) don't have enough original content to meet the 1500-character minimum. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)