Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 87

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Another Gibraltar article

There is a nomination related to Gibraltar in Template:Did you know nominations/Political development in modern Gibraltar. I pointed some copyright concerns, but as I'm aware of the controversy about that region, and as it is an article about politics, it would be better if one or two other editors, more famliar with Gibraltar than me, check the neutrality.

I also noticed that the nominator has retired from wikipedia. What should we do if he doesn't follow the nomination? Cambalachero (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been working on the History of Gibraltar, so I'm happy to take this on. I'll have a look at the article and see what issues need to be fixed. I suggest putting this nomination on hold for a few days while I do so. Prioryman (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This is now becoming pointy, blatant product placement. It is very unwise during the WMF–WMUK governance review, even thought that review specifically excludes WP activity. Just what are you trying to prove, Prioryman? Tony (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Tony, have you ever travelled to Gibraltar? If not, what is your point? --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Tony, please stop the uninformed accusations of bad faith. If you had bothered to check the editing history of History of Gibraltar, you would have seen that I wrote it in June 2010 - two years before Gibraltarpedia. I didn't get round to finishing the article. This new Political development in modern Gibraltar article covers exactly the period I need to do on History of Gibraltar, so I'm perfectly placed to help with assessing it. There's no agenda here beyond helping out with a stalled review and getting my own article finished at last (which I intend to get up to featured status in time for the next Gibraltar Day). Prioryman (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

By my reckoning, we have had at least 13 Gibraltarpedia hooks on the main page since October 12, plus two hooks for articles on Australian landscape features named after Gibraltar:

1. Gibraltar Creek (29 Oct)
2. Cala Arenas (29 Oct)
3. Tibúrcio Spannocchi (28 Oct; Spannocchi is in Category:People associated with Gibraltar)
4. Gibraltar Peak (Canberra) (28 Oct)
5. José Cruz Herrera (26 Oct, mentions his museum, which is less than a mile from Gibraltar airport)
6. Main Guard (26 Oct),
7. The Rock Hotel (24 Oct),
8. Trafalgar Cemetery (21 Oct),
9. North Front Cemetery (19 Oct),
10. Flat Bastion Magazine (17 Oct)
11. Rosia Water Tanks (17 Oct)
12. Rosia Bay (15 Oct)
13. Nun's Well (15 Oct)
14. synagogues of Gibraltar (13 Oct)
15. Gibraltar F.C. (12 Oct)

This makes this the month with the second-highest number of Gibraltarpedia hooks – even though the first 11 days of the month were still under the voluntary ban. (For comparison, we had (at least) 7 in July, 17 in August, and 12 in September). What is most bizarre is that there have been arguments of repression and censorship voiced with respect to any main page ban of this paid PR project. Does this mean that Mercedes or Unilever too could start a project like this, with a competition rewarding the creation of new articles to improve the density of our coverage on their products and their underlying technology, and that they would be able to rely on the community's support in getting all their new articles on the main page? I guess it does. Brave new world, Wikipedia! AndreasKolbe JN466 13:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

To take up Andreas's point, it's actually not the Gibraltar aspect per se that I find pointy, but the continued failure of the DYK forum to introduce a system of topic balance. I share Andreas's concern that DYK is vulnerable to product placement (perhaps it was a little unfair of me to brand the Gibraltar campaign as that—and you know that I support the QR initiative and Roger B's work there. But since it's impossible to police paid editing on WP, the next best thing we can do is to insulate our very public conduits from attempts to ramrod huge numbers of DYKs through in a short period. I call on DYK editors to organise the election of a small committee of respected colleagues to ensure that the flow of topics onto the main page through this forum avoids thematic excess. Would that be possible? Tony (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This is based on a fundamentally false premise. Look at the list Kolbe presents. Items 1-5 are not even about Gibraltar - they are about Spanish or Italian people or places in Spain or Australia. The hooks for 2, 3 and 5 didn't even mention Gibraltar, which isn't surprising since the articles weren't about that place. Items 6-15 were all held up due to the previous temporary moratorium. They have only appeared relatively closely together because there was an effort to clear the backlog in accordance with the consensus in the previous options discussion. Since the backlog was finally cleared with Main Guard on 26 October there has not been 'one single article about Gibraltar on the Main Page. There are 3 more completed nominations (King's Chapel, Gibraltar, Princess Royal's Battery and Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club waiting to go but that hardly constitutes a flood. Prioryman (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

True you can't regulate paid editing but you can limit the exposure that the fruits of their labour receives and that is what the current limits are supposed to do without punishing volunteers. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

None of the people writing and nominating these articles is being paid to edit, so there's no "fruits" to be restricted Prioryman (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, if this were a paid tourism campaign for Salisbury, and we had an article on Stonehenge on the main page, would you honestly say that this had nothing to do with the Salisbury project, just because Stonehenge is outside Salisbury's city borders? Or if it were an article on an architect who had done important work in Salisbury? Or a painter who has a museum devoted to him that is one mile from Salisbury? "The hook for Stonehenge did not even mention Salisbury!" Well, maybe, but Stonehenge is one reason people travel to the area, and the English-speaking hotels where they stay are in Salisbury. (Not to say that English isn't spoken in the area around Salisbury, of course, but that is not so in the case of Gibraltar ...) Of course there is also a Uriah Heep album called Salisbury, which one could add to the main page, and so on ... Are you familiar with the expression, Pull the other one? AndreasKolbe JN466 15:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Come on, that's a very silly comparison and you know it. Stonehenge is world-famous, a World Heritage Site that attracts daytrippers from as far away as London. The Herrera museum isn't even listed in any of the local tourist guides. I visited La Lineá and I didn't even find out about the museum until I got home. If you look on Google Books there isn't a single mention of it in English or Spanish. Your argument supposes that the museum is some kind of regional tourist attraction. I've seen no evidence that it's anything than a small, obscure municipal museum of local artworks of the kind that you find in many towns. There's no reason at all to suppose that it has any kind of impact on Gibraltar tourism, and a 66-word mention in a 650-word article that appeared on the Main Page for 8 hours with a hook that didn't even mention Gibraltar is not exactly prominent advertising. Prioryman (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Promoting tourism is the whole point of Gibraltarpedia. That is what it is about, according to those who paid for it. The whole idea of Gibraltarpedia is to have comprehensive coverage of everything Gibraltar and its neighbourhood have to offer that might interest a tourist. All sorts of cultural attractions, major and minor, are included in that, just like a similar project for Salisbury would include both Salisbury Cathedral and any minor museum in or near Salisbury that tourists might conceivably be interested in. I mean, seriously: we have it from the horse's mouth, from Gibraltar government spokesmen: this is a project designed to market Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia. To wit: The project named Gibraltarpedia which the organisers of Wikipedia have taken up with great interest after having had a series of meetings with the Ministry and were taken to the historical sites of which Gibraltar has plenty to offer,’ they immediately saw the potential of Gibraltar coming to be the first Wikipedia city in the world’ However our foresight is slightly more ambitious, says Costa, because we want to bridge Africa and Gibraltar. We will have millions of people onto the Gibraltarpedia once the product has spiralled. The site will consist of Gibraltar’s history, its origin, its fauna, its people and its heritage narrated in different languages. ‘So one of the great decisions the Tourist Board has is effectively marketing but done at the lowest possible cost, and this is exactly what this achieves in a very revolutionised way.’ They're hoping to get those millions by covering everything that might be of interest to someone. Your little museum is part of that. I don't see what you don't get about that, given how abundantly clear the government of Gibraltar has made what they want to accomplish with this project. And it is not the purpose of the Wikipedia main page to be seen to aid a paid tourism marketing project like that. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, Herrera was duly added to the tally of Gibraltarpedia DYKs ... nice table, complete with viewing figures to demonstrate the SEO effect. AndreasKolbe JN466 20:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nofollow. I'm also yet to see evidence that even panda and penguin are up to taking human pageviews into account.©Geni 07:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A DYK Committee that keeps an eye on topic balance would be a good idea. AndreasKolbe JN466 15:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In effect that's what we have now. Anyone (except the creator or nominator) can move a hook into a prep once it's been passed, and there's a group of experienced editors who keep an eye on balance and move hooks between preps accordingly. Take a look at the Queue area (linked at the top of this page); it shows an impressive range of topics, as usual. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought people were yelling above that too many Gibraltar hooks have appeared in a single day? -Fjozk (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought they were objecting that there had been too many in a given month, but in any case there have been several responses pointing out that the actual numbers remain low. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"[A DYK Committee that keeps an eye on topic balance is in effect ] what we have now". Um ... who does this? Where is the evidence of their operation? Tony (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote, and feel free to view the history of the various prep sections on that queue page. You could also try your hand at assembling a wide-ranging prep set from the nominations that have been passed at Template talk:Did you know. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the DYK nominations page we currently seem to have around 30 Gibraltar-related nominations at present, including a few more Australian landscape features named after Gibraltar ... AndreasKolbe JN466 17:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I count 19 in the Gib holding area awaiting reviews, plus three that have been reviewed and are ready to go. As for the Australian landscape features, I think we're seeing the Streisand Effect at work - that's what happens if you piss people off... Prioryman (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

fyi

• Feedback on how DYK looks and is structured. This is just a procedural fyi. Wifione ^Message 15:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Statements rather than questions have been proposed before and it was quickly agreed that they don't work. Regarding omitting the word "that" preceding all the hooks, I myself have proposed this change before but it didn't achieve consensus. I wouldn't mind revisiting the latter proposal sometime, but there are more important things to deal with at DYK ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

GA in DYK

Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) has closed the proposal in favor of adding GAs to DYK, and changed the rules accordingly, which, I guess, makes it effective immediately. I think a sort of mini-discussion on how to go about it is in order.

• DYKCheck needs to be updated to take into account whether the article has been passed to GA within the last 5 days. (I'll leave it to Shubinator to answer whether it's easy or not to implement quickly).
• Do we have a limit per queue for GA articles?
• I think it should be obvious that articles that have already been featured at DYK are ineligible (along with the rest of the DYK criteria concerning sourcing and hook fact).
• Do we need to create a special area for GA articles, or will they be nominated within the normal process?

Any other issues we'll have to work out? Yazan (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have two proposed limits that may affect GA's eligibility. I have previously proposed it here.

1. Must be promoted into Good Article for the VERY first time (in other words, should not have been a former Good Article in the past. For example, Lucille Ball.)
2. Must not have been a former Featured Article in the past.

Below are subsections created. --George Ho (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

With regards to these comments, DYKCheck can be updated at any time. There was no question in the RFC about a queue limit for GA's so I'd say that there shouldn't be one until a further discussion is held and a different consensus reached. With regards to nomination I would presume they'd be nominated along with the existing articles. I don't think any of this should be difficult. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It was closed as "no consensus"

This is a bit confusing, given all the discussions on different pages. However, Talk:Main_Page#GA_Main_Page_slot_proposal is the one Eraserhead closed on November 3, 2012. That one is "No Consensus". So, even though the one above was also closed by Eraserhead as in favor of consensus, the original poll was "No concensus". We are not agreed if two different discussions on the same issue close with two different results.. — Maile (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't have a discussion in two places at once and expect to get a coherent result. That discussion was started later, and therefore has to be treated as invalid if we are supposed to go anywhere at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)May I also point out that they are different proposals. The one on this page proposed having being a recently promoted GA as one of the DYK options, whilst the other one suggested GA should have it's own slot.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I know they were different proposals, but it is pretty obvious that people who commented in both might change their minds depending on the implementation of the first proposal. Therefore running both discussions at the same time seems to be a waste of everyone's time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, no more inadequately drafted polls - discussion is required first
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Be promoted into a GA for the first time Support. --George Ho (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Oppose: I think the criteria should be that it hasn't been featured at the main page before (as a DYK, a GA/DYK, or a TFA). Yazan (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Actually, I don't support GA becoming counted as "new". In fact, it gives overshadows "quantity" a bad reputation as a main factor of DYK. Neither quality nor quantity should overcome another, nevertheless. --George Ho (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Actually, never mind that. Great (not good or decent, but GREAT) mixture of quantity and quality should not have belonged to DYK in the first place. In fact, GAs are too great to be part of DYKs. However, there are no other options left for GAs to be like Today's Featured List or Today's Featured Article. --George Ho (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Be not a former Featured Article Support. --George Ho (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Oppose: per the reason given above. Yazan (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Hold on, not so fast. I've been working on proposals for a new RFC which I'll post shortly. The recent one was so flawed that it's effectively meaningless and the discussion was so confused that it's hard to say what exactly people were voting for. Prioryman (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree in regarding this as a contentious close. Since very grave doubts were raised about the procedure and how to interpret people's opinions, many have no doubt been waiting for the promised multi-step process. The results were already interpretable as no consensus leaning toward featuring GAs somewhere on the Main Page, and the effect of the raising of the criticisms was to cause people to hold off on further comments - particularly those not in favor. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be in favor of a new, better-structured, RfC. But it should be put in motion quickly, because there's just been way too much drama on DYK these past weeks, and to let this GA closure linger like this is a sure recipe for even more elevated levels of drama. Yazan (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, there were two different discussions with two different results. Eraserhead1 has already changed the rules on Wikipedia:Did you know. But I think if there was ever a discussion that required a formal RFC, with notification going on everybody's watch list, this would be it. AGF with Eraserhead1, it was a premature to change the DYK rules page. — Maile (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that several of us are saying this, I've reverted the change to the rules and dropped a note to Eraserhead1 to let them know. Not sure where we go from here, procedurally, but we evidently have substantial feeling that the rules change was premature. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That attempt to change the rules was premature in the extreme. Even if one were to accept that the poll results are reliable, which is certainly in dispute, there would need to be a considerable discussion on precisely how to implement such a change, and that discussion hasn't even begun.

Regarding the suggestion to have another poll as soon as possible, I would rather hold off on another poll for a few weeks, if only to avoid testing the community's patience. I think it also important to ensure that adequate discussion on the wording of any proposed RFC takes place first. Gatoclass (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

But what happens in the meantime? Surely we can't just ignore the close? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Yngvadottir question. Just look at the DYK talk page, the project is in a very volatile place at the moment, and leaving a closure like this in limbo will only feed the fire and the trolls. Yazan (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not proposing "ignoring" the close. I am simply suggesting that we don't rush back to polling again the minute the previous one has closed - that is only likely to antagonize the participants. At the very least, we need to work on the wording for a new RFC to make sure we get that right - but ideally, I would like to see at least a week or two go by before initiating a new poll. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a cooling off period and time to properly formulate an RfC that includes real tangible details about how exactly this would be worked out. As anyone can see looking at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Finding_a_workable_plan, there was very little concrete details hammered out. With the Nov-Dec "Holiday-lull" coming upon us and decreased activity across the board, I think that planning for a January RfC would not only give us an adequate cooling off period but plenty of time to actually think the important details through. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

But do we in the meantime accept this closure? Or what? If we do, DYK has just changed radically. If we don't, there is probably a process that should be followed for calling for a re-examination of the discussion. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A January RFC would be the best to allow things to cool off after the ill thought out proposal. Meanwhile, we should leave the status quo as it is with no GAs until the January RFC comes to consensus otherwise we will be swamped as there are a number of GAs coming through at the moment so give time to clear their huge backlog. I think we should not accept the closure as it will do too much in such a short period of time and so would be ill thought out to open the floodgates right away. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the huge GAN backlog. Even with the holiday-lull there is still over 450 articles waiting at GAN and this would be a horrible time to let those articles flood in and overwhelm DYK during the holidays--especially since we have NO PLAN for dealing with those. Plus it looks the GA project is currently having a RfC dealing with their Backlog and it wouldn't make sense to put them through 2 RfCs at once. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Personally I think that GA should get their own house in order first before they start bashing down the door of DYK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You guys do realise that I didn't actually read the discussion on Talk:Main Page? It was closed as a point of principle as the discussion was invalid given the discussion here about the same topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not what that proposal in Main Page was about. The proposal was a stand-alone GA portion that may resemble either Today's Featured Article or Today's Featured Photo. It's not becoming part of DYK most likely. --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(As above) I know they were different proposals, but it is pretty obvious that people who commented in both might change their minds depending on the implementation of the first proposal. Therefore running both discussions at the same time seems to be a waste of everyone's time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes but the cart was obviously put before the horse with this proposal (Should GA be included in DYK?) because the issue of the Talk:Main Page proposal (Should GA have its own slot?) and the even larger meta issue (Should GA even have a place on the main page?) were not addressed first. This is why the haphazard RfC above was so jumbled since you had people voting on several different things at once. The "GA at DYK" proposal should have been the last idea put up for discussion after consensus was determined for the first two instead of working backwards from here. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesus christ, how much WP:BUREAUCRACY do we really need? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that bureaucracies are often jumbled mazes that ideas get lost in--which is pretty much what the RfC above was. :P The folks that have reservations about your close are concern because we want the opposite of a bureaucracy--we want clarity and consensus. The RfC above fell victim to the issues that the WP:!VOTE page cautions against with straw polls, particularly moving the goalposts. Because this RfC wasn't fully thought out or properly organized it essentially set up multiple goal posts scattered across the field with everyone kicking towards something different. There were the people discussing how to improve DYK and the impact this would have on the process. There were the people discussing how to improve the GA process and encourage more people to participate there. There were the people who just wanted GA to have a spot on the main page, etc, etc. Which goal post did we get consensus for? The one to the left, right or 60 yards up the road? Again, no one is asking you to close it the other way. We're just asking for a chance to run a real RfC that has a purpose, structure, a clear end point and single goal post so we all know what everyone is kicking at. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you know what a bureaucracy is. Bureaucracies usually just add far more steps than necessary to achieve a result. Which is exactly what you want to do.

You want to hold another 3 RFC's to get us into the same position we've already reached. If you refuse to listen to my explanations as to why we are in an OK position now that seems to be very much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Bring the GA people into this discussion

There has been Discussion at GA about this when the talk started over here. I agree with the idea of this being a formal RFC, putting the notice of same on Watchlists. But if there is going to be discussion about anything involving GA, then those people need to be brought into this. It would be misguided to decide anything without the input of the very entities (DYK and GA) this directly affects. — Maile (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much discussion going on there. The bottom line is, the proposals on the table will have a major impact on this project but probably scarcely impact the running of GAN at all, so this is where the discussion should take place. I would also prefer that, at least in the initial stages, this discussion be confined to the people who usually participate here as these are the people who understand best how this project is run and how any proposal is likely to affect it. The debate can be opened to the wider community soon enough. Gatoclass (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the discussion should happen here at DYK. We've hopped pages enough on this discussion and others. I don't know who is active at GA - for all I know, it might be the same people who are active here. I'm just saying that it would, at least eventually, necessitate mutual participation in the dialogue. Your point of limiting the confines of who and where is well illustrated by a different subject matter being discussed above by a lot of people who don't seem to have been contributors of DYK in recent memory. — Maile (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Except that that will be taken as cabalism by some (as the discussion about what to do about Gibraltar articles going forward has been), and goes to the heart of the original reasoning, which was that DYK needed improving by making this change. Also, how would one practically limit participation? DYK is a completely open project and many people participate in it intermittently. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we limit participation so much as I am inclined to avoid broadening it unnecessarily at this point, since it is only likely to prolong the discussion. I'd rather we had a concrete proposal or set of proposals that we could put to GAN first, that's all. Gatoclass (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for new GA on the Main Page RfC

As highlighted above by Agne and others, there is considerable confusion about the question that was asked at the start of this RFC and it is not at all clear what people have actually voted for. There have also been significant methological problems, with notifications not done properly and a lack of alternative options for editors to consider.

I'm proposing to rerun the RFC in a structured fashion, with a range of options and with the prior agreement and input of interested editors. This will aim to achieve the following:

• Present a broadly agreed set of options for discussion;
• Follow a structured format with active clerking to keep the RFC streamlined;
• Achieve a clear resolution within a set timeframe.

For my own part, I am a regular contributor to both GA and DYK, averaging about 1 GA every 3-4 weeks and several DYKs a week. I do not propose to involve myself in clerking the RFC but am happy to help set it up. To that end, I have produced a draft of the RFC in my own user pages. I have purposefully deviated a bit from the usual RFC format to ask editors to present their arguments for and against at the top of the page, so that the voting and discussion can be informed by that. This avoids the confusion apparent in the current RfC, which is a jumble of supports, opposes and arguments.

I have also split the RFC into three pages. The first page asks for a straight yes/no to the question of whether GA should appear on the Main Page. Those who support the question will then be taken to a followup page asking them whether GAs should be combined with an existing slot, rotated with an existing slot or given their own slot. Those who support combining or rotating will be taken to a third page, asking them which of five existing slots (TFA, DYK, ITN, OTD, TFP) should be under consideration.

By asking these specific questions, we will be able to identify the following:

1. whether there is majority support for GA appearing on the Main Page;
2. whether editors prefer to combine or rotate GAs with an existing slot, or whether they would like to see a new slot for GAs;
3. which specific slot editors would like to combine or rotate GAs with.

Editors will also have the opportunity to present arguments for and against each proposition, which should lead to a much better informed discussion.

As it gets more difficult to identify clear majorities or consensuses if you increase the number of options, I'm toying with the idea of asking people to state a first, second or third preference for the various options. That would have the advantage of helping to find compromise options - there may be options that people are not wholly in favour of, but are not opposed to either. It would allow for a more nuanced picture of opinion than limiting them to only favouring one option.

I've put up a draft of the new proposed RfC at User:Prioryman/GA RFC for feedback. Once the terms of the RfC are agreed, I propose to take the following steps:

1. Contact all contributors to the previous discussion on this page and invite them to the new RFC.
2. Notify Talk:Main Page and the talk pages of GAN, TFA, DYK, ITN, OTD, TFP and the Village Pump, and add a watchlist notification.
3. Clerk the RFC pages fairly vigorously to ensure that it runs smoothly, for example by moving threaded discussions to the right place so that the pages don't become a jumble.
4. Keep the RFC open for 30 days and ask a neutral admin (a bureaucrat?) to close it.

It would probably be best to run the RfC at the start of January - I anticipate it will take a bit of discussion to agree its terms, scopes and mechanisms, and it wouldn't be a good idea to have it running over the holiday period. Prioryman (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Prioryman, I am impressed. You think well on your feet. I like it. — Maile (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the draft RFC yet but the sequence of steps you outline sounds appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this sounds excellent; except that I would strongly advocate allowing for ranking of options in responses to questions 2 and 3, complex though it would be. I also agree in principle with waiting until after New Year's. However, the fact remains, this existing closure exists. Unless we repudiate it or contest it in some way, it has the effect of pre-empting the future discussion. Ignoring it for two months will not make it go away. So what do we do about that closure ruling? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Simple, repudiate it. It was misleading and people weren't exactly sure what they were voting for whether it was altering DYK or giving GA a place on the main page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, WP:GAN would have to cooperate on any plans on this. Inasmuch as there's no indication that GA wishes to cooperate, agreeing to the above closure, which contradicts the closure on the Main Page talk, could turn this into another Gibraltar . — Maile (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we should really read what Eraserhead1 wrote in the closure. "Consensus in favour I find the arguments in favour of the proposal more compelling". There was no count of the Support and Oppose. That closing ruling is one person's opinion of whether or not one side argued their case better than the other side. And that's all it is - one person's opinion. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NOTVOTE? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

To be bluntly honest, I think this is not a good idea at this time. The previous one had no changes, and WP:GAN itself as a project has made no reforms in order to make appearing on the main page more feasible. At the same time, as someone wise once said, you cannot force two WikiProjects to merge against their will. This proposal appears to be similar to an earlier proposal to merge them against each other. It remains unclear to me how this is not just that. I'd hold off on the RfC until WP:GAN makes internal project changes to make appearing on the page more doable and that as a project, they essentially want to have their governance transferred to DYK. --LauraHale (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:GAN has no need to make reforms, and the idea of transferring its governance to DYK is quite simply ridiculous. Show me even one recent DYK that even gets close to meeting the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've already shown you one - Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines - which appeared on the front page on 28 July, was promoted to GA on 4 August and A class on 5 October. It easily met the GA and A criterea, because I wrote it as an FA. Regrettably, it cannot be submitted to FAC because of the one-at-a-time rule. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why the fuck do we want to have another RFC about a topic which we have just had an RFC on? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe because it didn't come out with the "right" answer? Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry, but most of the misconceptions here seem to be about some ridiculous idea to merge the DYK and GA wikiprojects. My proposal was nothing of the sort - simply to allow GA articles to be featured as a DYK, as an alternative to having been 5x expanded. Also there seems to be a COI here with someone who !voted against the proposal reverting the closure.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't confused. It would also be good if you guys actually read my closure on Talk:Main page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What I carried away from that was the pointlessness of any proposal that discusses the mechanism of a proposal without consensus on any clear purpose for that proposal. TFA showcases and encourages the creation high quality articles. DYK showcases and encourages the creation of new articles. What would be the rationale for putting GAs on the front page? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

From the points in support the proposal seem to be to highlight more good content on the front page than just TFA - especially given the projects large number of existing articles they were arguing that that seems like a better balance and a better way to highlight good content than just covering new articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Highlight poor quality articles apparently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The proposal closure is still in place - see above. I reverted the premature change to DYK rules. I see a number of people raising objections to the closure based on issues that had already been raised with the RfC itself. Do they count as principled objections?

@Malleus: most recent I have seen: Altes Stadthaus, Bonn. DYK, GA. (No endorsement of the article's quality on my part implied.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll take a look at that, on the basis that the exception proves the rule. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That article's better than some other DYKs, but it's written unidiomatically, obviously by a non-native English speaker, and the lead is too short. Thus it ought to have failed GA criteria 1a and 1b. And as it contains almost nothing about the architecture of the interior it probably fails criterion 3a as well. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the objections are, because no-one has told me. I'd like to see the objections clearly stated and backed up by policy and/or guidelines as per WP:POLICY if possible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Refocusing discussion on a new RfC

We seem to have got a bit away from my original comments about a new RfC. Could people please take a look at the draft that I've posted in my userspace at User:Prioryman/GA RFC and let me have some feedback? Prioryman (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this is very well thought out. You do, however, present something I had not thought of - that a GA slot could be rotated with another existing slot. I point this out, because you have given three possibilities - Share a slot; Rotate a slot; and Give GA its own slot. I know that as a responder to this, I would have to choose. But I must admit you have presented something that makes me torn equally between two of those choices. I really like what you've done. Do you plan to have a Watchlist notice about this one? — Maile (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If you'll forgive me for copying and pasting from above, I propose to do the following notifications:

1. Contact all contributors to the previous RfC on this page and invite them to the new RFC.
2. Notify Talk:Main Page and the talk pages of GAN, TFA, DYK, ITN, OTD, TFP and the Village Pump, and add a watchlist notification.

I should add that I envisage hanging the RfC off Talk:Main Page, as it would be essentially a Main Page issue rather than a DYK-specific issue. All the discussion so far has been taking place here, which to be honest is the wrong place if we're looking at something that could affect the entire Main Page. Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of options, thanks for pointing out that I've suggested the following three:

• Share a slot
• Rotate a slot
• Give GA its own slot

I'd be very interested to know if anyone can suggest any other options. Prioryman (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to get the first RFC reviewed and/or implemented before you can start another RFC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't. Whatever happens to the first RfC, it will be superseded by this one. Prioryman (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If the first RFC close is upheld why exactly do we want to hold another RFC immediately? At that point your issues with the first RFC will have been found to have been baseless. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting the point that people have been putting to you repeatedly. The first RfC is fundamentally flawed. The new RfC is intended to "do it right". This isn't about finding concerns to be "baseless", and quite honestly I think you would be copping a lot less flak here if you had acknowledged that people have legitimate concerns, rather than just dismissing them out of hand. Prioryman (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It asked a specific question and might even get consensus, so it is not really that flawed. As to the potentially new RFC; what will happen if there is consensus to include GA's on the main page, but not consensus for either of the options presented? Will the one with majority support be implemented or will we have another RFC? AIRcorn (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The first question, of whether GAs should appear on the Main Page, lends itself to a straight yes or no answer. I think there is likely to be a majority in favour of that question, if the first RfC is anything to go by. To help ensure that a consensus can be found for the various options (assuming there is a majority in favour of the first question), I'm looking at asking editors to state a first, second and third preference. That way, we can identify the ideas that have the most support. Prioryman (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems a waste to disregard these RFCs if it does get overturned to no consensus. For example we know that more editors want to mix it into DYK than have it in its own section, so asking that question again just seems redundant. I think it would be better to come up with an individual detailed proposal that is acceptable to (not necessarily liked by) both the DYK and GA projects. We had 150 plus editors comment on this RFC and we should take that into account. I think it could be possible, with an open mind, to address many of the opposes concerns with a new similar proposal. AIRcorn (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Prioryman, I know you and a number of others think the first RFC is fundamentally flawed, but I think your arguments against my closure are baseless and I don't think that the first RFC is fundamentally flawed. Clearly one of us is wrong, which is why having a review is the right way forward.

If the RFC is found to be fundamentally flawed by the review then the review will close the RFC as no consensus - while I haven't taken comments outside the RFC when it is live into account (as you could easily add any relevant comments to the RFC section itself) clearly the review has to take your comments on WP:AN into account at the very least. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"and quite honestly I think you would be copping a lot less flak here if you had acknowledged that people have legitimate concerns, rather than just dismissing them out of hand" - fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Reg Dean DYK? re-submission

I submitted this DYK? nomination before--Template:Did you know nominations/Reg Dean and I was told that some stuff needed to be fixed in it. However, I was lazy in re-checking this DYK? nomination page and this DYK? nomination got closed and rejected before I had a chance to fix it. I was waiting until Reg Dean's 110th birthday in order to fix and improve his article, since some new info about him came out today, on his 110th birthday. Is there any way that this DYK? nomination can be reopened and that the 5x expansion rule can be modified in my case? One of the main reasons that this DYK? nomination got closed in the first place is because it was assumed that I looked at it and ignored the suggestions to fix and improve it, whereas I was too lazy and busy to even look at Reg Dean DYK? nomination page for several weeks. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

By my count, the last version of the article, before expansion started on November 3, had 1934 characters. To meet a 5x expansion (it has been rejected almost a whole month ago, so it'll have to be treated as a new nomination, I'm afraid) it needs to be 1934 * 5 = 9670 characters. It now stands at 8225 characters, which means you need to add roughly 1500 chars of prose within the next 3-4 days. Ofcourse it needs to be checked for other criteria when it's nominated. I hope that helps. Yazan (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I added some more stuff to this article. What is the character count right now? Futurist110 (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

10205 characters. Size-wise it should be eligible as a 5x expansion. You should nominate it and wait for a full review with regards to the rest of the criteria! Good job. :) Yazan (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

How exactly do I re-nominate it right now? Also, could you please calculate it again? I might have added some more stuff in the last several minutes. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm mobile t the moment so can't run DYKCheck, but it should be okay. You can re-nominate normally. The name on the nomination template doesn't matter as it's only a technicality. I would mention (and link to) the old nomination in the comment section though. Just for background. Don't forget to transclude the nom page in the main dyk nomination page. Good luck. Yazan (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• To renominate the article, go to Template talk:Did you know#How to post a new nomination and use the name "Reg Dean 2" in the box that begins the nomination process (There is nothing magical about the new template name, it simply must be different from the one used for the previous nomination). Once you have the form for the new nomination template then everything should work the same as the first time you nominated the article. --Allen3 ^talk 10:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Title and wording of section

I hate to have to bring this up in the midst of all the other heated discussion going on here, but I'd like to point out that the title and wording of the DYN section is somewhat awkward because the items are worded as though they were introduced by the words "Did you know", however the words immediately above the list of items is "From Wikipedia's newest content:". In a brief discussion at Talk:Main Page (now archived), it was suggested that the two things be switched: title the section "From Wikipedia's newest content" (which has the other benefit of making it look more like "From today's featured article") and make the first line of the section "Did you know...". Can we have an RfC on this? - dcljr (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think this is exactly the right time to discuss this at the present moment. We're in the middle of a big discussion that could have a large impact on the English Wikipedia and it's not really a good time to be bogged down with minor details until the main decision is made. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change of DYK Rules on Plot sections in reviews

Hello,

as per consensus I added a new rule regarding the plots, 3d. Plots are now (in)officially ignored if counting the size. Also have a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Poor Folk. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted above in the original section, this is not only premature but a misreading of the general commentary there. This needs far more participation for consensus to be called, and preferably by someone other than the proposer who wishes the rule to change right away for a specific DYK to qualify. I'm happy to put my rejection on hold while this is thrashed out, but 3d will be reverted until this can properly be settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto - what BlueMoonset says. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Consensus is not "three votes" - if it's a real RFC, it gets some time cor community involvement, like 15 or 30 days. IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Really not my fault. You can vote here. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it got overshadowed by another topic up there. Let's change this section wording and see if that helps. And then we can refer people to Plot exception discussion and voting. — Maile (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. How about listing as a real RFC under, say, WP:RFC? It affects, oh, the front page. --Lexein (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to put that in motion and get it set up? As you can see by the Gibraltar never-ending squabble, none of it has actually made its way to a real RFC. I actually tried to encourage that RFC idea when that first started and...well...the history speaks for itself. I have no experience myself at setting up an RFC. If you know how and want to set it up, it's probably a good idea. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The effect on the front page would be minor in the overall scheme of things. There would be something extremely ironic if this were the one proposal—given all the controversies and support/oppose lists of late—that actually had a formal RFC instead of an informal one. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It would also be ironic if this was the only proposal of late that didn't have more than one poll on more than one page. Or if it was the only one that didn't end with people not liking the results, so they start a new one to do it all again, until they get the results they want.— Maile (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Plot exception

Hello,

I propose to introduce a plot exception as the plot is a retelling and is generally not encyclopedic. It is often unsourced and may be larger than the other sections. Thus I find counting the plot section as a prose is not fair. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 08:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have to exclude plot, as if it is sourced, it is all good, and if not then it fails DYK anyway. My idea is to keep the rules simpler if possible, as lengthy rules make life hard for new reviewers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Erm, double check WP:DYKSG D2: Plots don't have to be sourced with a footnote. It's the same at FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think Tomcat is talking about exempting the plot section from the prose count when calculating expansions, not the existing exemption from citation requirements. As discussed a little while ago on this page here, they're two different things. Sadly, there are many articles that while poor and improvement of them is much needed and very welcome, they are long enough that the improver can't meet the five-times expansion standard. As it says in the rules, unfortunately we can't get into evaluating other kinds of improvements to existing articles; DYK is basically for new content. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• If we are exempting the plot from sufficient citation and sourcing, then I don't see why we shouldn't exempt it from character count for DYK purposes. I would support such a proposal (if it also meant that prose section in new articles also doesn't count). Yazan (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. I don't count plots in prose size anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As the rules now stand, you should be counting it. Prose is prose, and a plot section requires prose. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur. --Lexein (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Support. The plot section can easily be bloated just to reach the 5x requirement, which does not make for a good article. Also, there are some articles that are nothing but stubs with a bloated plot and no other sections. This exemption could encourage expansion of those articles. --Tea with toast (話) 04:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No, plots are 500-700 words per MOS:Film. Anything >700 words is likely bloated, so I would reject DYK for plot bloat based on that, but not before. --Lexein (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. For same reasons sated by Tea with toast. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

3 supports -> adding plot exception.. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• As I see this has gone live with a fairly insignificant amount of feedback, perhaps it would be best to actually indicate that this is meant to add a new rule in the section title? Perhaps start a new section? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. This needs more discussion if you're planning to close this, and as the person who proposed it, you're the last person who should. This appeared and fell off the radar in 36 hours: to call this a consensus is not valid. If you look at the comments, Graeme Bartlett and Yngvadottir both seem to have objections, and Yazan might have supported a more restrictive version. If you want this to proceed, however, I'll formally chime in:

• Oppose: plots are perfectly valid prose text, and should be counted in existing articles that have them for DYK expansion purposes. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: I certainly do agree with BlueMoonset that there needs to be more discussion and voting on this. It's ridiculous to change DYK rules with just three people voting either direction. Admins to ought weigh in on changing any DYK rules. There needs to be dialogue and voting by the more long-standing DYK participants, especially those who are frequent contributors. A big question comes to my mind: Wouldn't Shubinator have to reprogram the DYK Check to accommodate skipping the plot in the count? At the very least, we need an opinion from Shubinator on that technicality. If DYK Check is used, how do you tell it to skip parts of an article? Too confusing to have a reviewer use the DYK Check for the article, then some other method to figure out the plot section, and subtract that from the DYK Check count. Even more confusing would be the scenario of having DYK Check dis-allowed for articles with a Plot - and expect anybody but the experienced reviewers to even know about that. This subject needs way, way more discussion. — Maile (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7 had also put in a request for a change to DYKcheck when he declared consensus and added 3d; I asked Shubinator to hold off until a consensus had been reached. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

My personal experience with asking Shubinator to do something (I don't remember what I requested), is that Shubinator would post on this talk page about it. Let's hope Shubinator continues that way. — Maile (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

From a technical perspective, it shouldn't be too difficult to find the "Plot" section (if it exists), calculate that section's prose count, and subtract it off from the total. However, nominators could easily fool the script by tweaking the section name (like "Plot summary"), or just not putting it in a separate section. Shubinator (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Plot already has one exemption - from the referencing requirement - and there is no compelling reason to give it a further one. There are enough one- and two-line articles and missing articles to provide topics for those who want their work to be Did You Know eligible, and work on those is more useful to the encyclopedia - or other alternatives are to choose a work where there has been enough discussion that the article can still be expanded fivefold even though the plot counts toward the prose length, or to go for GA instead. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The problem with low quality articles containing large blocks of unsourced or poorly soured text is not confined to just subjects with plots. Why should we grant articles about fictional topics any more indulgences than they already receive? Subjects dealing with the music, art, history, politics, religion, science, and technology are as important to the encyclopedia as books, films, and other forms of story telling. Combine this fairness concern with the technical and logistical problems listed above and there is no reason to make this change. --Allen3 ^talk 19:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The whole in-universe vs. out-of-universe thing is a high-level style issue to consider, as many others. It is right to require it from developed articles, but a bit excessive with new ones. We may, however, reformulate the proposal, and reject DYK candidates that contain only a plot section. Besides, I don't know the others, but I check prose size with a script that filters lists; if the rules change that script should be modified accordingly. Cambalachero (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe plot-only articles should be approved for DYK under the current rules, as that would seem to violate rule D7 of WP:DYKSG. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Plot-only articles are literally "stub-class", which are already excluded from DYK. Aren't they? --Lexein (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Plots, integrated into the prose or not, are parts of "Start"-class film, book, TV show and play articles. A "Start"-class, "C"-class, or "B"-class article, per the guidelines for whatever WikiProject(s) it is part of, should be the minimum for DYK. For film, "Stub"-class means missing production, release, reception/recognition, or plot sections, and should not be promoted by DYK for public display. Plots are required for such articles, so DYK should not disregard that requirement, or fail to count expansion, up to the limits imposed by that project. Example: MOS:Film, specifically WP:Filmplot imposes a maximum of 700 words for plot sections, preferring shorter ones. Articles which bloat plot beyond that can be summarily rejected for DYK as not meeting their WikiProject specifications. No extra rule is required within DYK for this. --Lexein (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok very odd to suddenly see opposes (what happened with the prior one?) I still feel that the plot should definitely no be counted in some cases as it can be as big as possible. For example I can write an article such as There Lived Kozyavin, which mainly consists of plot. How about: Plot is not counted if someone starts an expansion of the whole article, but a large plot summary was already available. This means that it is almost impossible to see the article on the mainpage.--Tomcat (7) 10:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The "prior one", in your own words, is at the top of this section. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Rock, Porongurups

I have just pulled Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Rock, Porongurups from Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4, since the hook was not correct. The hook claimed that "King Alfred's Castle" is a climbing trail on Gibraltar Rock, Porongurups, but the source [1] makes it clear on page 24 of the 27 that while the other two in the hook are climbing trails, King Alfred's Castle is "an area of enormous boulders on the ridge just west of Gibraltar Rock". There is a climbing trail to the Castle (which is close by but not even a part of Gibraltar Rock) called The Trans-African Aeroplane Canal.

Having noticed the liberty LauraHale takes with her sources and the lack of quality of many of her edits, I have looked at other nominations she made, and found serious problems with Template:Did you know nominations/Women's tennis in South Africa, Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Bickerton, and Template:Did you know nominations/Women's sport in New South Wales. I hope that the many DYKs (and GAs) she has made don't have the same rate of problems. Please check DYK in general and these ones in particular more thoroughly, to avoid having incorrect information in hooks or very low quality articles like Women's tennis in South Africa linked from the main page. Fram (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Fram, I was the reviewer and should have caught that. I didn't. Apparently, neither did the promoter who is an editor with even more years and edits than I have. This a good example of why we need more than one or two sets of eyes on these nominations. Thank you for the catch. However, I would say that LauraHale has been valuable to Wikipedia in general, and DYK in particular, on many levels. When we had all those unreviewed hooks during the summer Olympics, LauraHale was one of those people DYK could count on to help out with the backlog - and similar situations since then. Does she make mistakes? Don't we all? That's why we have all these sets of eyes checking these things. We've had at least one incident where a hook made it to the main page without ever being reviewed - or even being pulled. And that one had nothing to do with LauraHale. Maybe we should be checking all the nominations a little more closely. But I think it's not encouraging to potential editors to know that after a mistake is made, someone is going to dig for specific flaws they're otherwise made and announce it here on the talk page. Not encouraging at all. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

All the flaws I "dug out" are from articles "currently up for DYK", not some remote errors. I have since denied Template:Did you know nominations/Samantha Norwood as well, and another user has raised serious concerns about the quality of Template:Did you know nominations/Stephanie Hickey as well. It may not be encouraging to have your flaws shown like this, but it is a serious problem when one of the most prolific DYK contributors adds problematic article after problematic article. At User talk:LauraHale#Carol Cooke people are discussing another recent instance where she misread a source. Look at e.g. Katya Crema, one of her latest articles to make it to DYK: the hook was "that Katya Crema was one of two Australian women to compete at the Olympic debut for women's Ski cross?", which is in itself correct. But the article sources this to two different sources, one of which doesn't support this at all, since it was published before she even was qualified[2]. Now, this is not as bad as the ones I have listed here, being at least correctly sourced to one source, but it gives an indication of how widespread the problems are with her DYK nominated articles. Fram (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ironic really, as LauraHale is one of those who argues most vehemently for the quality of DYK reviews over GA reviews. Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of that quality, As a person who has cleaned up hundreds of her articles mostly related to the Paralympics (including the Carol Cooke example mentioned above), I think she should be banned from creating any more content altogether. Just recently, she wrote "At 1.65 metres (5 ft 5 in) tall and weighing 60 kilograms (130 lb), she only speaks English". Anyone who believes that is in any way encyclopedic should not be allowed to judge other editors' new articles. The above article is the subject of a pending DYK nomination. Another recent unencyclopedic and awkwardly worded gem: "In July 2012, she was involved in a three-automobile accident that left her uninjured but carless". And she clearly did not sufficiently learn from the borderline defamation from over a year ago that I warned her about. Graham87 08:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I find "uninjured but carless" to be a rather endearing turn of phrase, even though I'd have to butcher it if copy-editing it. I'd also support suggestions that it's not encyclopedic, but most of those who edit biographies of living persons sadly seem not to share that approach. A big problem? Ban-worthy? No. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Taking a random look at her articles that were promoted to DYK, I came across Gibraltar Peak (Canberra), promoted late October with the hook "that rubbish has been illegally dumped on Gibraltar Peak near Canberra?". Sadly, both the source and the article don't contain this fact; in reality, rubbish was dumped illegally near Gibraltar Peak, not on it. The same article claims that "Two types of ichnofossils can be found on Gibraltar Peak", but the source given is talking about Gibraltar Peak on Antarctica, near Explorers Range and Sledgers Glacier. Fram (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Today, Peter Williams (alpine skier) was promoted to DYK. The article claims "at birth, doctors predicted a short life expectancy of only a few days for him.", but his own website, used in the article, states "was given 3 weeks to live at birth." Why not repeat the "3 weeks" instead of using "a few days". Worse is the end of the article: the lead gives two events he competed in at the 2010 Winter Paralympics. The last paragraph states "he only participated in three events: the Super-G, the slalom and the giant slalom.", and then gives the results; "He finished twentieth in the men's sitting giant slalom." and "He finished twenty-second in the giant slalom". So that's only two results, not three, both claiming to be for the same event, not for two different ones. These are rather basic errors, even if one of the two "giant slaloms" is a typo for "slalom", you are still left with the back-and-forth of him competing in either two or three disciplines. Fram (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed that, using his IPC profile. I'm not wishing to excuse it, but I think some of her bungles like this are due to her trying too hard to avoid the wording of the original source. I'd suspect this would be in part due to the claims made by a user in this arbitration case. Graham87 12:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Banning Laura Hale from DYK?

Moved to WP:AN § Banning Laura Hale from DYK.3F

Nobody Ent 17:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I have closed the discussion there as "no topic ban", but suggested that LauraHale might want to read and reflect upon the comments made (particularly by those who opposed a topic ban but could see problems with her articles); I also anticipated that DYK reviewers would in the meantime be extra-careful when looking at any nominated article of hers, in light of the issues raised. Bencherlite^Talk 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

IAR on Poor Folk

Hello,

please vote whether a WP:IAR should be performed at Template:Did you know nominations/Poor Folk. I think it is simply not fair if you count the plot, a creation of random people. Also this page should be probably split because of its extreme size. Sometimes my questions are ignored because of this issue. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe people aren't ignoring you, as much as they probably feel they already expressed their opinions Above. Which they did.

• Oct 24 - You introduced the subject of plot exception, because of this very nomination.
• November 1 - After two editors agreed, with your vote making it Three, you altered the rules page and asked Shubinator to program the DYK Check to ignore the plot
• November 1 - Bluemoonset reversed what you did, but agreed on the nom template to stall Rejection during discussion on this page.
• The voting continued, and, so far, everyone except the initial "three" have opposed

If I understand what you are asking - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is yet another vote, this time for a one-time IAR for the above-listed nomination. Since IAR is normally up to the reviewer and promoter, and not a matter of voting on, maybe that's why nobody is posting here. And, BTW, I give you an "A" for effort, for believing in your nomination and the stamina to keep trying at this. Maybe somebody will read this and offer a solution for you. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It may seem harsh, but those have been the rules here for a while. As it says in WP:DYKSG:

• A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it was up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.

Whatever was there from the previous article, be it plot or anything else, was the creation of random people. Existing articles are by definition. You did a good job expanding the article, but the result fell short of DYK requirements, which happens to people's submissions on a regular basis. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup scoring

There's currently some discussion about scoring of DYKs for the next WikiCup at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring that may be of interest. Agolib 22:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol enema hook currently on main page

Alcohol enema is currently on the main page. I have raised whether this hook and/or article are appropriate at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alcohol enema. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

GA change closure

OK, what the hell is going on here? Why has my closure been unilaterally reverted? What's the objection? Why do we need to have (yet another) RFC on the same thing that I have just closed?

There should be no issue with a coherent challenge, but if there isn't one then reverting closures is just disruptive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The primary problem is that a quick scan of the names involved in the RFC shows a dichotomy between those supporting and those opposing. Among the individuals who perform the work needed to keep the DYK process functioning (i.e. the people who are being asked to implement the proposed change) there was overwhelming opposition to the proposal. Support for the proposal was dominated by individuals with little to no day-to-day involvement with the DYK processes. You now find yourself in the position of trying to convince a group of experienced volunteers that they were wrong about the problems they highlighted in their reasons for opposition and that they should begin performing a poorly defined task for a bunch of !voters. --Allen3 ^talk 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

None of that seems to be relevant to the RFC closure in any way. Frankly all it seems to be is a bunch of editors being disruptive because they didn't get the closure they wanted - and that sounds like a behavioural issue to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So what is your planned solution? The core of the opposition is coming from people who do not have to take any sort of disruptive actions. They can instead effectively prevent implementation by simply refusing to assist. Are you looking to block users because they stop volunteering or switch their focus to other parts of Wikipedia? Not even the Foundation has the authority to compel volunteers to perform tasks with which they disagree, but that is exactly the position you find yourself in as a result of your close decision. Your other option is to find a new set of volunteers willing and able to take over the work of keeping DYK running. --Allen3 ^talk 22:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is a coherent per policy challenge I would expect them to respect the closure. Ultimately if no-one is prepared to volunteer then the section will be removed from the main page, but frankly that is a problem for another time.

I think it is appalling that you are attempting to blackmail the closer into closing the discussion the way you want it closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• The issues with the RfC above have been expounded on for the last couple weeks which is why, as this talk page history has shown, discussion moved away from the proposal to other places.
  

Logistics - The actual details and mechanism of how this plan was going to work was not worked out and extensive discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Finding_a_workable_plan showed that a "workable" plan was still far off.

Cart before the horses - Finding out if there was consensus, first, for GA to even have a presence on the main page and whether or not it should have its own spot (which Talk:Main_Page#GA_Main_Page_slot_proposal was aiming to determine the later) would have made this proposal moot since if GA had its own GA spot why would it need to be in DYK? The fact that we were hop-scotching over bigger questions that needed to answered first led to this proposal going all over the place with...

Jumbled responses - since, as it was noted, people were !voting on the different proposals all at once. You had a group of people voting on the impact of this proposal on the DYK project while other people were just voting for a place for GAs to have on the main page and not even mentioning DYK at all.

Consensus was building towards doing the RfC the right way - since there were so many issues with the first RfC, consensus was to address those problematic issues by doing a proper RfC that was actually structured to come out with a clear sense of consensus for a single proposal.

While no one doubts your good faith attempt at trying to determine consensus, there were too many significant issues brought up (in several places) that already had this RfC underwater. But the idea of including GA on DYK is not dead, and no one is asking you to "close it the other way". We just need to do this the right way and address the numerous issues that the previous RfC did not. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I think this is all just excuses to get away from the consensus from the first RFC. You just allow GA's to be nominated in as large or as few numbers as there are in with all the other DYK articles. It isn't rocket science.

With regards to the rest of the talk page, well I didn't read it - if the RFC was found to be flawed in the view of some editors then you should have added a comment to the RFC section explaining your reasoning - ultimately anything else is very poor communication and something that you cannot reasonably expect to be taken into account by either the closing admin, or the other RFC participants. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Or when we noticed the glaring faults and problem with the RfC, we could followed the WP:SOFIXIT guideline and put together a proper RfC to give this discussion the structure and focus it deserved? Though you've admitted that you haven't read this page, as you can see this was exactly what we were doing. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

None of these supposed glaring flaws were mentioned in the RFC itself. If there are problems with the RFC it has to be discussed in that section to make sure that everyone can easily see it.

Besides holding an RFC with lots of options sounds less likely to achieve a sensible result than a simple one like the one that was held here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right "If there are problems with the RFC it has to be discussed in that section to make sure that everyone can easily see it." but, as it has been noted, this RfC wasn't well structured and that pretty much goes along with the point. Again, no one doubts your good faith and it is excusable that you missed all the issues and concern brought about how poorly structured this RfC was. But I hope that now that you see the litany of issues with how this RfC was handled (and the case in point example of communication that you've spotted) that you see why it would be best to actually get a real RfC going. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I would have been quite happy to support an option that (for example) listed GAs and FAs together as part of a "Wikipedia's Best Content" slot. But I was never given the choice. The RfC was always premised on the basis that GAs should be wedged into DYK, and only into DYK. Why only into DYK and not any of the other Main Page sections where GAs might be a better fit? The obvious answer is that this has been driven by short-term politics: the RfC was plainly triggered by the controversy over Gibraltar, and there is an undercurrent (often explicitly stated) of hostility towards DYK in many of the comments supporting the original proposal. Animosity and politics are no basis for redesigning something as important as the Main Page. I don't think adding GAs to the Main Page is a bad idea, personally, but it needs to be done with care and consensus, not by rushing into a poorly thought out scheme with no thought given to possible alternatives or how it could work. That's the point behind my proposal for a fresh RfC. And unlike the last one, it would be one that has been consulted on and agreed on beforehand, so that everyone (pro or anti) is happy with the questions, the format and ultimately the outcome. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, I don't know who mentioned this, or on which page, but someone in all of this said something I agree with - that FA on the Main Page could give up part of its space to squeeze in a slot to GA. But, then, that takes the discussion off another direction. And in all the arguments on however many pages it was, there's extremes in opinion of quality of both DYK and GA. Some people who like GA think DYK isn't in the same quality league as GA. And there's those at DYK who think it's GA that has lesser quality. There have been just so many issues going on about this. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please AGF on my part? Being (or at least feeling) a relative newcomer, I did not do this for political reasons. The Gibratarpedia thing all happened afterwards anyway, so maybe some of the votes were influenced, but certainly not the proposal itself. And I'm sorry for not formatting it as a "proper RFC" but I've never done anything like it before and so did not add every single possible option, just the one I saw the most support for.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You do deserve a lot of AGF Gilderien. Unfortunately, as Prioryman noted, there are a lot of politics involved with the Main Page and DYK in general. I don't think anyone truly faults you for the issues with this RfC and your attempts at trying to find a worthwhile idea for DYK and GA are admirable. But to avoid further politics and pratfalls, we do need to move away from complaining about the process to a WP:SOFIXIT approach that deals with the issues with that the previous RfC uncovered. I hope you would support this plan and contribute to Prioryman's RfC draft so we can come to a solid and clear consensus that would benefit all sides. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing your good faith, Gilderien, it's just unfortunate that the timing of your proposal happened to become so entwined with the Gibraltarpedia controversy (which started in September before you started the RfC in October). It's just one of those things. I do think the RfC could have been better thought out but please take that as constructive criticism, not an attack. It's hard to get these things right. I've been around these parts for a long time and I certainly wouldn't claim to be able to get it right first go either. That's why I've asked for feedback on my proposals before I make any attempt to get a new RfC off the ground. Prioryman (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok I didn't realise that. I'll see how this all plays out but I am always up for helping to improve this sort of thing on WP in the best way I see forward, which will probably include helping draft details of proposals/RFCs/etc.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no point running another RFC if this one has reached a result. As proposed it is easy enough to impliment, just change the rules and Bobs your unkle. Worst case scenario problems arise and we can discuss changing, tweaking or removing it then. AIRcorn (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well quite, which is why I cannot see any real issue with just proceeding, and merely see a bunch of filibustering and WP:BUREAUCRACY creating.

I find communication hard - that's why I make quite so many posts as I edit what I say, but if you don't communicate well then no-one else can be expected to understand you.

If there are issues, you have to bring them up in the RFC, and you have do so with less than a million words to make each point (which is also bad) so that people can reply to them properly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please AGF. Nobody is filibustering. It's simply a matter of recognising and responding to the fact that the RfC was fundamentally flawed. Redesigning the Main Page isn't something to be done casually or haphazardly. It needs the whole community's involvement and consent, it needs to be approached carefully and systematically, it needs all the available options to be put to the community for consideration, and it needs to result in an outcome that is unambiguous. Unfortunately none of those things happened in this case. The solution isn't to cast blame, but to think about what could have been done better and design a fresh RfC that doesn't have the same flaws and has a better chance of producing a meaningful outcome. That's the purpose of my proposal above. Let's skip the recriminations and get on with doing this right. Prioryman (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

All RFCs are flawed in some way, thats why most end in no consensus. Why go through all this again when we have a result. AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Several points:

• I don't really see how adding some GA's to DYK possibly counts as "redesigning" the main page. It is a relatively small change. And I certainly don't think 120 contributors to the discussion is a small number.
• With regards to you comment about the outcome, if you wish to ask for the closing decision to be reviewed, go ahead - I have no issue with getting a triumvirate to review the closure and I will abide by their re-closure - if you can find a triumvirate that is willing to review it.
• If the outcome being "unambiguous" means that you want a larger and larger majority, well that isn't how consensus works, that isn't how we can move the project forward, and that is definitely filibustering the result.
• With regards to "putting all the options" to the community, well that just sounds like an excuse to avoid doing anything at all - it isn't likely to produce a practical solution as that becomes harder the more options there are on the table. If people disliked this option so much that that was worth doing and that was made clear in the RFC, then this discussion wouldn't have achieved consensus, and/or you can ask for a review and they will overturn my closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@Aircorn, the reason many RFC's get closed as no consensus has a lot to do with the fact that every time you close anything any other way that is remotely controversial then one or two people make frivolous complaints about the closure. This intimidates most closers into just closing everything that isn't totally clear as no-consensus, or just ignoring those topics which are controversial, which means we can't move the project forward. Even those closers who aren't prepared to just close everything as no-consensus have to waste substantial amounts of time dealing with these frivolous complaints which is disruptive to the project as a whole. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly does count as redesigning, as it's a fundamental change to a long-standing Main Page slot. As for the outcome, it's a dead letter. Nobody is going to implement the change with this amount of dispute about it. You can close it however you like, but don't expect anyone to take much notice of it. I certainly don't mean "unambiguous" in the way that you do - it's not about getting a larger majority, it's about reaching an outcome that is clear. As Agne has pointed out, there's a lot of confusion about what people were actually voting for. It's apparent that many were simply voting to have GAs on the Main Page. And finally, putting all the options to the community means what it says. The RfC considered only one option. There are many more possibilities - combining GAs with TFA, rotating a GA slot with something else, adding a new GA slot, splitting an existing slot and so on. Why were none of these proposed? That was the single biggest flaw in the RfC. I had my own preferred options, for instance, but I wasn't given any option other than an up and down vote on running GAs and DYKs together. Why were we not given any chance to vote on any other options? That's hardly a "frivolous complaint", it's a fundamental issue. But that's history now. Let's look to the future and design a better RFC. You're as welcome as anyone else to contribute to putting it together. Prioryman (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you really feel like you haven't had all the possible options covered you must find real world elections very unpleasant. I presume you're out on the streets complaining about every democratic election.

With regards to describing the outcome as a dead letter that comes across as straight disruption and blackmail - if such behaviour transparently occurs with nominated GA's I will handle such comments as a behavioural issue to be escalated appropriately if necessary taking those users to RFC/U and if it comes to it to the arbitration committee.

I'll give you guys 48 hours to work out if you want a review of the closure, at which point presuming there is no review requested I will implement the policy change, and any reversion, or refusal to accept consensus will be taken as a behavioural issue to be escalated appropriately. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider yourself warned Eraserhead1, you seem to be the one with the behavioural issue, and you may well be blocked if you are going to cause trouble over this. The closure should have been a no consensus. At this point it is still too early to implement anything as there is not consensus on how things should take place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, let's have this reviewed! The closer admits to not having read the discussion and is requiring people to have disrupted the RfC. How do we get this closure revisited/invalidated/reclosed as no consensus? How does one register a protest that will not be taken as "frivolous"? Several of us have been waiting to register our opinions in a more basic replacement RfC; and the folks who bothered to express their opinions at the Main Page RfC deserve hearing, too. In the meantime DYK is hanging between two sets of rules and objectives. What does it take to file an official call for this to be revisited? --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Graeme and Eraserhead1, please stop trying to threaten each other - there should be no place here for threats. I'll put in a request for a review. Everyone else, please discuss this calmly and let's get on with agreeing the terms of a new RfC. I had hoped that we would have had more time to do so but it seems that we won't get it. Given that, I propose to start the new RfC in 10 days' time - 15 November - to run through until 15 December, thereby avoiding the holiday season. Let's work out the details in the meantime. Prioryman (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have struck out my threats, I was annoyed at the threat just above my comment. A review sounds like the way to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Sort out this one first. Challenge Eraserhead1s close, don't just ignore it. He has offered a way to, why not take him up on it. Bartlett your warning is ridiculous. AIRcorn (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly simple. How can the closer be able to class consensus if he hasn't even read the discussion? I don't know anyone who would close something he hasn't read. That alone should invalidate the closure with a fresh RFC with clearer options scheduled for January to give time for GA to clear their huge backlog to avoid flooding DYK which is what would happen if we take the current closure as law. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I did read the discussion in the RFC section, expecting me to read the whole of a 100,000 word talk page is ridiculous, and if that has to be counted it makes it far too easy to filibuster an RFC to no consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly would expect it. If you're going to close an RFC, one would expect that the person closing would have read every point made in that RFC before closing it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately I did read every point made in the RFC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Also the figure of 5 new GA articles per day is too low as the GA bot log for article assessment seems to indicate. It seems it is more like 5 on a slow day and 15 on a good one, so more like 10 on average. Which for a five day allowance if all of them were submitted (probably not the case, but worst case scenario) would be between 25 and 75 submission/ 5 day period or given the current DYK backlog of about 2-3 weeks would be around 75-250 GA articles in the mix for review. Now, GA articles by their nature are complete and often long, which does not tempt DYK reviewers to review them (I foresee most of them sitting on the nom page for > 2 weeks), so the numbers are going to add up and it's not going to help the members of DYK with the current backlog. We could say that GAs don't need a DYK review, but that could be considered unfair and there would be a higher proportion of GAs to regular DYKs (I'm sure some would love this, but it's still not fair). Plus if something was lacking in a GA review, it would not have a chance of being caught with another review. So it may look relatively simple to just include GAs but we really have to look down the road as to how this is going to affect the DYK and GA projects long-term. Not to mention, isn't it lying to say "newest content" if we include GAs. That would be a serious change to a core DYK policy. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 18:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What about GAs being nominated through TFA? That would be permissible under the new policy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So the GAs would appear in DYK without being vetted and/or input by the members of DYK? Why not just put them in the TFA slot, it would be much easier than transferring over from TFA to DYK queue (how and who would do this?). Another reason for a Rfc. Also, in closing the proposal, I think the dissenting opinions of the DYK regulars were dismissed too readily. They're the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath of this decision long after the non-DYK participant voters have left. My 2cents worth. A more viable option for GAs that would give them the prominence they are not going to get if they are lumped into DYK would be to cede the DYK slot for one day a week and have a GA slot with articles picked by GA participants using their own policies and judgment instead of thrusting it all on DYK. Pick the best GAs to be featured TFA-style and have done with it. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 21:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this comes back to one of the central flaws of the RfC - it called for a particular outcome without paying any attention to how that outcome would be achieved. It's like voting on a proposition to go to Alpha Centauri - great idea if you don't take into account the cost and the 10,000 year journey time and ... Prioryman (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious that they would go through the usual DYK process... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To expand here, if you guys make an effort, and adding GA's to DYK through the standard process doesn't work, then hold another simple RFC about either changing the way they are nominated or one to remove them from DYK - if you don't get all worked up about the closure, and you get someone to actually close it properly as per WP:CONSENSUS then changing it back and/or improving on it should be relatively straightforward given you will have a strong case backed up by evidence that just putting GA's through the standard DYK process doesn't work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• If you have to argue about consensus, then you don't have one. Eraserhead1's closes are obviously improper because he has failed to read the discussions and RfCs are supposed to be reasoned discussions, not majority votes. These closes should be reverted. Warden (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If my closure is "obviously improper" then get a triumvirate to review it and overturn it.
  • If you do want to challenge my closure, go to WP:AN and ask for a triumvirate to review the closure, once that is done then depending on the result of the review you can then organise another RFC.
  • With regards to arguing about it making it "no consensus" - clearly you've never been involved in any controversial area of the project before. People always argue about consensus to at least some extent. And frankly without a formal review process in general there isn't any other way for people who disagree with a decision to voice their frustrations. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• As I said earlier, you could close RfCs any way you like but don't expect anything to be implemented if you don't have the consent of the people you need to implement the outcome. Which you plainly don't.
• A related point: you don't actually have the authority to force the implementation of the outcome of this RfC. As Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article editors do not own WikiProjects states, "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project" (my emphasis). If there isn't a consensus among the DYK WikiProject's members for changing the scope of DYK, then they can't be forced to change it. An RfC is purely of advisory value given that exclusive right.

The way to resolve this, as I've said before, is to run a properly organised RfC that achieves a genuine consensus, especially among the most important stakeholders, the editors who would actually have to implement the outcome. It isn't helpful to dismiss genuine concerns about a lack of options or failures to involve key stakeholders (for instance, did anyone even notify the GA WikiProject that this RfC was going on?). There is no good reason why running a better designed RfC should be controversial - it may well come to the same conclusion. But we don't know what people would have thought of other alternatives, because they were never asked. That's what makes a fresh RfC necessary. Prioryman (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Consensus != Unanimous agreement.
  • With regards to that WikiProject council statement, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with RFC closures - and it certainly doesn't override WP:CONSENSUS, a policy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's very obviously no consensus, hence the furore. Secretlondon (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is so obviously "no consensus" then actually go and ask for the review. The only reason not to ask for a review is because it isn't obviously "no consensus". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:CLOSE states, "Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement. The closing editor/administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closing editor/administrator must read the arguments presented.". Eraserhead1 has not read the arguments and there appears to be no agreement. The closes are invalid. Warden (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I did read the RFC section, which is the section I was asked to close. With regards to agreement, again consensus != unanimous agreement. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you were asked to close this RfC? By who? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The close was apparently performed in response to a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Allen3 ^talk 00:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've posted a review request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Disputed closure of RfC on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The link changed to here: AN#Disputed_closure_of_RfC_on_Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know , — Maile (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concerns certain editors have about allowing GAs into DYK, but frankly, I don't feel that the arguments hold much weight. IMHO, the arguments sound like a bunch of disgruntedly people complaining because they didn't get their way. The votes of more than 100 people show strong support (61%) for including GAs in DYK. The proposal on the main page, also with a very large number of votes, showed only 45% support for giving GAs their own separate space on the main page. I don't see that having yet another poll about this matter (because that's what the proposed rfc would be) is going to change that. Let the votes stand and get over it. --Tea with toast (話) 06:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The bunch of people "that didn't get their way" are mostly members from this project who will have to deal with this issue once you have left. Their concerns were ignored as their arguments "didn't hold much weight" even though they know more than most of the non-participant voters how this change would work. Also I've seen WP:consensus flung around, but on reading that I see nothing that governs changing the rules of a WIkiproject to include or force the interests of another outside group to a project. I'd rather not implement a poorly thought out proposal even if it can be changed later (it's a lot harder that way because it becomes a status quo). The government in my area needed money to pay for a road so imposed a toll only until cost of said road was paid for, I'm still paying for that road 15 years later. Start with something grounded first then we can call the issue a "dead horse". The 5 GA/day estimate is also inaccurate, a major part of Eraserhead's decision in closing the discussion. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 11:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Good article statistics. Average new GAs for October = 5.77 (179/31), September = 5.1 (153/30), August = 5.06 (157/31). 3 month average = 5.31. --Tea with toast (話) 05:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't just cherry pick stats. Reminds me of an article I read that said if you discount China then the Green Revolution had very little impact. The yearly average (for last year) is a little over 8. It fluctuates a lot because of drives. On top of that not every one is going to be nominated, but we also don't know how many new editors will nominate articles specifically to get on the main page. AIRcorn (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's also a bit of a dubious stat method. Net change in GA numbers doesn't take into account any GA demotions, and there's an average of about 1 a day that are promoted to FA and thus lose GA status. It's important to know what's being counted and how. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers still needed for older nominations

Since it's hard to find the last list of older unreviewed nominations on this very crowded talk page, here's a new one.

I'd like to commend to your attention the five pre-October reviews, which are badly overdue some attention. 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/2016: Obama's America Reviewed by Gatoclass.
• 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)
• 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 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Santo Tomas - reviewed by Prioryman (talk)
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Write-only memory (engineering)
• September 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Neşet Ertaş‎
• October 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Negativity Bias - reviewed by Prioryman (talk)
• October 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Erich Barke - reviewed by Prioryman (talk)
• October 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (double hook) - reviewed by Prioryman (talk)
• October 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Canon EOS-1D C
• October 8: Template:Did you know nominations/The Haunting (1963 film)
• October 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Mikael Jonsson - reviewed by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• October 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Haus Cumberland - reviewed by Prioryman (talk)
• October 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Cranmer Court - reviewed by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• October 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Toyota 92C-V - reviewed by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• October 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Masters of Money
• October 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Carrapateira, Faro
• October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Gregory Orologas (a double hook)
• October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.
• October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Salem Senators Reviewed by Muboshgu.
• October 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. Reviewed by Daniel Case.
• October 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Isis Pogson
• October 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Izena Island Reviewed by Cwmhiraeth.
• October 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Mary Grosvenor (double hook w/Anne Grosvenor, Duchess of Westminster) Reviewed by Allen3.
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Ellen Southard Reviewed by Cwmhiraeth.
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Kafr Takharim
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Dawda Leigh - reviewed by Prioryman (talk)
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Almindingen, Dueodde, Dueodde Lighthouse, Hammeren, Jons Kapel, Paradisbakkerne, Rytterknægten Reviewed by Cwmhiraeth
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Pentax X-5 Reviewed by Harrias.
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Augustyn Łukosz - reviewed by Poeticbent talk
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Martha Bruce, Countess of Elgin and Kincardine - reviewed by Prioryman (talk)
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/List of female Fellows of the Royal Society --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• October 20: Template:Did you know nominations/The Delta (film)

Here also are the eight 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.

• October 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Tower Road
• October 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice
• 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 remember to strike out entries once you've reviewed them. Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Special request: Could a copyeditor please try to fix the article and hook for September 27's Template:Did you know nominations/Neşet Ertaş? The first attempt was not successful, and as it stands the article, about a Turkish folksinger (and with entirely Turkish language sources), is not ready for the main page. Many thanks to whoever attempts this. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks, Yngvadottir! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Special request 2: Could Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice please be completed before November 11, so that it can run on Remembrance Day? It's already had one review so it only needs one more. Prioryman (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve DYK/GA mess: tabbed template

I realize I am probably just adding more noise and fragmentation to the discussion, but I was thinking on the concerns about GA "hijacking" DYK, and concerns about a lack of space for new features on the main page. What if we modified {{Did you know}} to add tabs at the top for both DYKs and GAs? Leave DYK as the default on page load (perhaps modifiable in user preferences), but if one clicks on the GA tab, the page reloads with GAs in place of DYK entries (in whatever format the GA project prefers)? It is something I have long felt would benefit the ITN template (tabs for news, sports, entertainment, politics, etc.) and could work here too. Resolute 16:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you do some kind of mock up to give people here a visual of what you propose? My first reaction is that what you are proposing would be part of the mechanics of how the system would work. That would come after whether or not there is consensus of even including GA. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to have a visual of what you are proposing. — Maile (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see what your proposal would look like - it sounds like an interesting option for the forthcoming RfC. Prioryman (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit that my coding ability for these complex templates is limited, but I'll try to produce at least some sort of image mockup. Resolute 20:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise! Me too. I don't bother with coding, I just do an image and hope that someone else can turn it into code... Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that was easy. WP:CANADA already uses a tab header bar that I was able to easily convert into a mockup. See User:Resolute/ProposalDYK for a rudimentary look at what I am talking about. For the GA example, I just did a TFA-style entry, but it could be done like DYK, or as a simple list of recent promotions, any which way people desire. The number of tabs can also be changed. For instance, a couple editors have been floating the idea of main page space for WP:TAFI, which could become a third tab. Resolute 23:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea. Looks good. It could be an option under what Prioryman is working on. — Maile (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this proposal is ridiculous. A section entitled "Did you know" has no mandate for promoting only new articles as opposed to interesting articles. Until that truth is faced DYK will continue to be the embarrassment it's been for years now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, your user preferences could be set to default to the GA tab, thus saving you the trouble of viewing this embarrassment.  ;) Resolute 00:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, if you don't have anything useful to say, don't say it. Prioryman (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with his criticism. Certainly there are those who pretty much want DYK dismantled entirely, and any proposal that fails to take steps in that direction will not be met with support. MF's comments is representative of this view. However, I would add that we're mostly talking about giving GA's one slot in the DYK system. Under this format, we can do much more, giving GAs as much or as little prominence as we desire, within the confines of the template's quarter of the page. Resolute 00:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

But sadly Prioryman's exhortation above is precisely the reason why neither this nor any other proposal for change will gain any traction; criticism of DYK is forbidden. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. What we don't need in this discussion is people coming in and posting non-sequitur rants about how awful DYK is. Do you seriously think that is going to help anyone? If you can't be constructive, please don't bother participating. Prioryman (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, again, you're being aggressive, which ramps up the temperature. I agree with what Malleus is saying: DYK might have been OK for a while back the dark ages when WP was pretty amateurish. But WP has been going through a process of professionalisation, and has achieved high standing in the world. The main page now needs to avoid links to amateurish or clearly incomplete and raw articles—simple as that. And as someone pointed out above, we don't need to stimulate article creation, but article improvement. DYK seems hell-bent on parading article creation. Bad message. At this point, we need to develop ideas for how it can be reformed out of this sole focus on vast throughput of inadequately reviewed stubs, or terminate it. Frankly, I'd prefer to parade more featured content (lists, topics, articles, pics), but ultimately my preference would be for less crowding on the main page. Tony (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Tony, we know perfectly well what your view is, because you've said before at length. It's off-topic for this particular discussion. We are trying to discuss Resolute's suggestions. It's very unhelpful for the "burn DYK to the ground" brigade to turn up with the usual complaints about DYK. Frankly we've heard it all before. Please discuss Resolute's proposal and stop trying to hijack the discussion to rehash your old complaints. Prioryman (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You have a strange blind spot. Nobody is trying to "burn DYK to the ground", simply attempting to realign it to the needs of readers and the encyclopedia as a whole as we are now. Not where we were back in the dark ages, when article creation was the order of the day. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll add this. What I perceive here is an unspoken recognition that writing a GA, to say nothing of an FA, is considerably more difficult than writing a DYK, as anyone who's tried it probably knows. And many of those who revel in racking up loads of DYKs (for what reason?) probably realise that they couldn't write at the level necessary for GA or FA, hence the reluctance we see every time proposals for DYK reform come up. GA faced up to and dealt with its shortcomings some years ago, time for DYK to do the same. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I find creating a GA far easier, because it's mostly a matter of just tweaking existing content a bit. Writing a DYK is much more demanding because one is creating entirely new content from scratch. Gatoclass (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think you're talking crap. Any reasonably intelligent person could create a DYK in just an hour or two, but it wouldn't be anywhere near meeting the GA criteria. Writing a new article is piss easy; improving an existing article is a great deal more difficult. Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I know which discipline I find more difficult better than you do Malleus. Getting an article up to GA standard can often be as small a matter as finding a few additional sources and making a few MOS tweaks, it's not necessarily difficult at all. Yes, it's possible to whip up a DYK with minimal effort, but the same can be said of GAN. Gatoclass (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I also happen to think that's tosh. You're not comparing like with like. Creating an article to DYK standards can be done if you have an hour or two to spare. OTOH, even if you have all the sources to hand, creating an article capable of meeting GA standards takes the best part of a day or more, plus several hours' tweaking. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 05:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Writing a GA is typically far more work than knocking off a DYK. Andreas JN466 07:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, if you are creating a GA from scratch, of course it's a bigger job. My point is that if you are just adding some extra info and giving some MOS tweaks to an existing article, that can actually be easier than creating a new article - or at least, no more difficult. Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've honestly never come across an article that just needed "a few things adding" to be of GA standard. The difference between an article as found "in the wild" and GA is usually substantial, and in my experience most GA noms are preceded by significant improvement work. YMMV; perhaps GA standards have dropped, too. It's been a while since I've written or reviewed one. Andreas JN466 16:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The standards haven't really changed. The problem is that different editors interpret the standards differently. Most are good, but there are occasionally editors that rubber stamp articles, make up there own criteria or just struggle to understand or apply the current criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• "many of those who revel in racking up loads of DYKs (for what reason?) probably realise that they couldn't write at the level necessary for GA or FA" - Hmm... I beg to differ. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Having written many of both, I will also disagree. The thrust of my proposal, Malleus, is that both are worthy of recognition. I've said it before, but I support the inclusion of GAs as DYKs, but frankly, in that scenario, only as GAs being subservient to the DYK process. This idea allows GAs to take on whatever format works best - be it a "TGA" like I did above, or a series of interesting facts about recent/any GAs, or even just a bot-updated list of recently promoted articles. I think having flexibility is good. Resolute 04:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much flexibility here, only the stupid idea that GA must become subservient to DYK. Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Zealots are never capable of seeing beyond their own narrow views on right and wrong. It should also be obvious that you'll not come close to achieving consensus on removing DYK. Your choices are to continue to whine ineffectively about this reality, accept the status quo, or to look at ways to improve the "plight" of GAs. And certainly if it is decided to include GAs in DYK, I'll support that, if said GA is reviewed same as any other DYK submission. What I aim here, however, is to actually give GAs equal time. More than one hook per set/day. The flexibility to showcase itself as it sees fit. You don't have to like or support my idea, but I don't think you are helping your own cause with the repetitive complaints about how much you hate DYK and think everything it produces sucks, even in threads that have nothing to do with DYK quality. Resolute 04:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Try looking in a mirror. Malleus Fatuorum 05:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, don't you realise DYKs are as likely to be improved articles as new ones? Quite a few of mine have been fivefold expansions, in some cases of stubs I discovered through AfD, in at least one case of a two-line stub. (I also find it takes me a lot longer than a couple of hours to get an article ready for DYK review, but we all work differently and a lot of people are more efficient than me. However, note that there was a motion here just recently to have the period of eligibility doubled to 10 days, because some people do find 5 days insufficient, especially for expansions.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If 5x expansions are improved articles, then why is there so much resistance to including GAs, which are also improved articles. One of the main oppose reasons was that DYK is just for new articles, when that is obviously not completely true. AIRcorn (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I realise that there's a theoretical possibility of an article that's been five times expanded to become a DYK, but how often does that happen? I repeat, writing a DYK is piss easy. Especially if you do what so many do, copy and paste, or like LauraHale misrepresent the sources. Malleus Fatuorum 04:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I just did a count of my own userpage list, which shows 29 of my 118 as improved rather than new. Marrakech was an expansion, and led to Dr. Blofeld's request that the time allowed be doubled. There's a thread just above this about resubmitting a DYK as an expansion. They aren't distinguished from new articles in the current nomination template - my recollection is that it was dropped as too complicated to code or introducing too many lines, but in the previous nomination format, they were distinguished. Someone should probably do a count of the articles in the current queues and prep sets, but my guess is that most sets include at least one expansion. As I've said before à propos of various issues including the proposal to double the time to 10 days, there are a vast number of horrid little stubs begging for expansion. Here's an example as it was before I expanded it, found an interesting fact, so took it to DYK. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. Just a few days ago I checked my DYK submissions for the WikiCup as part of a discussion there. Of 65 promoted DYKs in my three years as part of that competition, 53 of them were 5x expansions. One of them was promoted to GA this morning. And given my major areas of editing, that 4:1 ratio of 5x:new isn't likely to change. At any rate, I congratulate you on a successful filibuster of this thread, Malleus. You've made the discussion all about you, yet again. Resolute 15:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you consider the wisdom of keeping your unsubstantiated personal remarks to yourself Resolute. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Having sent a few articles through all three processes in my time, while I agree with the overall assessment of DYK quality vis-a-vis GA and FA, I'm reluctant to endorse the general spirit of Tony's proposal (to shift mainpage emphasis largely towards featured content). Our featured content does represent a very high level of quality, and good writing by its creators. However, IMO, there's also a built-in systematic bias towards people with a lot of time to invest in learning our house style and the rules of the process itself. Arrogating most or all of the main page spots for featured content will certainly make it more polished, but it's also going to generate a great deal of resentment against the Featured etc. regulars, which in turn will heighten the siege mentality that was so apparent during the Raul directorship contretemps. I recognize the irony here–the siege mentality is just as evident here at DYK–but the general trend towards making it Yet Another Form of extensively reviewed and revised content doesn't strike me as really helpful. This whole thing has gotten me thinking about the principles behind DYK; I'll start a new section downpage, because I'm interested to see what other people here do and don't agree with. Choess (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Principles of DYK

The discussion above, the prospect of yet another RFC, and so on has gotten me thinking about the principles behind DYK. I freely admit that I haven't been very involved in DYK of late, in part because the increasing complexity of the review processes has become a serious deterrent. In general, I think DYK should be an opportunity both to spread mildly interesting facts to readers and to attract help and collaborators to sound articles in need of further development. It should be a much more light-weight process, and it badly needs trimming to get back to that ideal. Some of the principles below are probably generally agreeable; others, controversial. This isn't meant as a formal poll or RFC, but I'd be interested to see how people feel about them. Weigh in, if you please. Choess (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK should not be an entitlement

The onus should be on the nominator of a DYK to complete it in a timely fashion and be sure it complies with the requirements of the process. The current system, where articles can keep bouncing back and forth between nominator and reviewer and hang in limbo for days, is not very good. Both getting a DYK and not getting a DYK should not be a big deal. Just because an article was nominated at DYK does not mean it's entitled to lengthy feedback until its problems are fixed; this is a job for Peer review.

But the current structure encourages a small coterie of editors who get their endorphin rush from main-page exposure with, frankly, minimal input. Then in most cases the article is left to languish. It becomes an addiction, which is why people become serial nominators, despite the original raison d'etre for DYK, which was to encourage newbies to edit. Only yesterday I noticed someone updating their DYK trophy cabinet from "353" to "372". The addiction is manifest in a sense of entitlement, which is aggressively defended on this page. Tony (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that the current proposal comes from attention starved GA editors who are so desperate to get a piece of recognition so want to invade DYK and they don't seem to care if it's at the cost of marginalising new editor's contributions or even driving them away. Yes, there may be a few people who are like that that you describe at DYK, but the majority of contributors are not. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually very few of the regular GA reviewers (found at User:GA bot/Stats) actually commented on the proposal. You might want to watch the generalisations, escpecially while complaining about generalisations. AIRcorn (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a trophy cabinet for FA writers, of course, at WP:WBFAN, but that has a bot to update it. Bencherlite^Talk 08:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not something I'd encourage, but producers of featured-content are held to professional standards. This is amateurland. Tony (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

producers of featured-content are held to professional standards - LOL. Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

With the frequency that certain well known "producers of featured-content" keep being dragged back in front of ARBCOM, one must wonder as to which profession(s) Tony refers. --Allen3 ^talk 22:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, one of the biggest trophy baggers contributes frequent copyright violations that include bad science. I would think if you take most of what you have written from the sources via copy and paste, you could at least paste accurately. The editor has admitted he does not understand evolutionary biology, yet he continues to add hundreds of unchecked biology articles that vomit incorrect information onto the main page then all over the web via wiki mirrors. For an editor comfortable in the en.Wikipedia social networking demographic and trophy hunting, DYK is a grand and friendly place. For readers who want science facts, it's a mine field. I've complained about this editor, as have others; his bad science has been repeatedly pointed out, but that comfortable demographic that allows him to fit in with the in crowd means he will continue to gather trophies and those who complain about the bad science will be harangued for being IP editors, being new, not correcting his hundreds or articles themselves, anything to draw attention away from the problems with DYK. -Fjozk (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As a relative newbie (but longtime lurker & occasional contributor) who has recently become a wikiholic and serial nominator, I can confirm the existence of a front-page endorphin rush. I would agree that having a DYK denied shouldn't be a big deal. (I've described the process elsewhere as comparable to bureaucratic rationalization, with all the standard side effects.) But I would also suggest that we learn to use the endorphin rush to improve the encyclopedia in ways we desire! For example, the creation of new articles seems to come at the expense of improving old articles about very important topics (such as the largest trade union federation in the United States). People will inevitably have desires and emotions relative to the amazing and wonderful project that is Wikipedia. So we should design our system to harness those feelings (one element of which is 'endorphins') to create improvements. Maybe there are ways to do that by rewarding expansions that fall somewhere in between the current DYK requirements and "good article status". groupuscule (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK should not be an article improvement process

The criteria for DYK (a reasonable length, verifiable, NPOV, compliant with BLP if applicable, not a copyright violation nor close paraphrasing) are essentially what we should expect of any competent editor. Editors whose contributions fall short of these criteria should be politely directed to other venues to hone their skills. Assment should be closer to a simple yes/no than to a lengthy dialogue with multiple revisions.

DYK should require accuracy, not polish

DYK review should not be an occasion to demand lengthy revisions of prose style, formatting, completeness, etc. Passers-by who see opportunities for improvement should obviously be welcome to do so, but it should not be a bar against DYK eligibility. DYK should be a useful outlet for writers who bring new knowledge to the encyclopedia and can write in a neutral and verifiable manner, even if they can't yet comply with all our internal demands for shrubbery.

I always thought the goal of DYK was to grab readers' attention to newish/expanded articles where there's a good chance for additional input/improvement from those readers that are interested - not just to drive page views. In this sense, we want to make sure that there's no major problems with the article and that we aren't lying or distorting from the hook, but definitely anything outside that, hopefully these readers-wannabe-editors can contribute. --MASEM (t) 08:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to find that out? If this is indeed a goal it would be good to know how many newish editors, or even editors in general, are editing DYK articles while it is displayed. AIRcorn (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You can check edit histories on the day they are featured. For those DYKs that I've put up, I usually see 2-3 editors that I've not seen edit said page do some simple fixes or add some helpful details. Yes, I'm not getting that 5000 views that is considered a success of DYK but any gain of article improvement is a good thing, period. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm MASEM's observation: submitting for DYK and appearance on the front page both bring new readers & editors to articles. This is a major reason I like submitting to DYK. It's the poor [person]'s peer review and sometimes it can bring new attention to topics that have literally not been edited for years. groupuscule (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK should be interesting to readers

DYK nominators should try to seek interesting hooks. If an article doesn't afford one, forbear to nominate it. This is something of a break from how it's been done in the past, but if we take "DYK should not be an entitlement" seriously, perhaps we should consider setting some sort of DYK committee or TFA-style process to try to select the most interesting hooks from a given pool. Yes, it means the people writing hooks of the "...that Shlabotnik, Lithuania has two bicycle factories?" variety will probably never get main page time again. So?

I think it may be a bit early for this. We still don't know what is going to happen to DYK. I'm not participating in the meantime, and I daresay there are many who have stopped reading here. There was a thread on this page a few weeks ago where we were asked to say why we valued DYK; I said my piece there. But I do think it should be pointed out that a lot of the complexity/rules is the result of the demand for high standards that came to a head in 2011; DYK was required to make sure articles and hooks were adequately vetted, and as a result is less relaxed than it had been. The emphasis remains on getting the article to the standard rather than up-or-down acceptance or rejection, but understandably enough, some people are intimidated. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that articles entirely lacking in info that can be worked into a usable hook should probably be overlooked, however, workable hooks can be found for most articles. I think it's worth remembering though, that DYK does not exist just to deliver a series of interesting facts to the main page. DYK's main purpose IMO is to highlight the diversity of content that is being added to the encyclopedia on a daily basis - it's a reminder to readers of wikipedia's energy and dynamism, of the fact that this is not some sort of static entity but a growing body of knowledge to which anyone can contribute. That is what I find so exciting and relevant about DYK - it's a pity that this function is so often overlooked by established users. Gatoclass (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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.[3]

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.[[4]] 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 [5]? 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. [6][7][8] 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 [9]. 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 [10]. 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 [11], 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 [12]. 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 Spain and worked in Morocco 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: [13][14][15]. 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.