Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 91

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93→Archive 95

Added table to top of T:TDYK

I added the "List of DYK hooks by date" table to the top of the T:TDYK page. I canvassed this notion on this page some time ago and since there were no objections, decided per WP:BEBOLD to go ahead with it. IMO it should be useful to both reviewers and updaters to be able to see how many hooks still need reviewing in each section and how many have already been approved.

Having done so, however, it has occurred to me that the table of contents below it is now largely redundant, except that it contains links to the Special occasion holding area which the other table doesn't include. Would it be possible to add the special occasion sections to the other table? If so, we could eliminate the TOC altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It can be done, if there's a stomach for it.—My76Strat (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I was just looking at your table and I do like it.—My76Strat (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems like this was a good move. I agree that it seems excessive to have both this table and a conventional TOC. In addition to the special occasion area, I see one other situation where the old TOC still may have relevance. That one situation involves the display of changes (dates added or deleted) since the last time the bot updated the "hooks by date" table. Normally that's not a big deal, as the bot runs fairly often, but when the bot stops working, it sometimes takes a couple of days to get the table updated again. --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But this makes it much harder for new people to DYK to find out how (or where) to submit. I don't think making it harder for submitters and newcomers is a worthwhile trade for making it a bit easier for reviewers and updaters. Before the change, the ToC was in the first screen you see, along with its "Instructions for nominators" link. It's now a couple of screens down, out of sight, and removing the ToC listing would leave newcomers even more in the dark about what T:TDYK contains. We want to welcome new people, not hide the keys. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that it will make it harder for noobs, but if that is a concern, the table could be moved below the TOC. I'm quite keen on retaining the table on the page, because I am already finding it very useful. Gatoclass (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it would make it any harder as well, and it could be easier even now.—My76Strat (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I do like the table, but understand BlueMoonset's point about page navigation. Is there a way to make it collapsible or place it after the instructions? Froggerlaura ribbit 15:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, you could make it collapsible just by putting it inside a collapsible template, but it would be more elegant to have a collapse button in the table itself. I'm not that keen on the idea of making it collapsible though, because I don't want to have to continually uncollapse it, it's become such a chore to try and negotiate this hugely long page that I want to keep it as simple as possible. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
What about moving the new table below the table of contents and changing the TOClimit to 3? This would essentially mean that the new table would be a more helpful version of the 4th level of the current TOC. Newcomers would still see what the page contains, and a prominent link to the instructions, but reviewers would be aided by a more helpful date-by-date navigation. Moswento talky 15:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
So you lose all the "Articles created on ... " subsections in the TOC? That sounds like a workable solution. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I rearranged the tables according to your suggestion Moswento. That seems like a pretty good compromise to me. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyhow, I am about to go offline now, so won't be able to contribute further to this discussion until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I like that a lot: makes the page more informative, easy (or easier) to find things, and the only thing you lose from the ToC is the special occasion subsections, which isn't ideal but seems a reasonable balance to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I notice that since the table was added, the number of approved nominations has leapt in roughly 24 hours from 26 to 53, which looks encouraging. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

About the nominations page

I was checking the guidelines on T:TDYK because it's been a while since I was last here, and I noticed that the instructions on reviewing noms are listed under "Instructions for nominators". Not really a big deal, but shouldn't it go under the "Instructions for other editors" section? Also, on the individual nomination sub pages, do we fill in the "passed" parameter in the DYKsubpage template when we pass the nomination, or is it something to do with moving hooks to the queues? Sorry if that sounds stupid, but it's better than making a mistake that breaks the whole page and kills the bot :) Chamal T•C 03:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The instructions on reviewing noms are listed under "Instructions for nominators" because nominators are expected, under the quid pro quo system, to review one nomination for each nomination they submit (after getting a pass on the first five). The "Instructions for other editors" section is actually about building prep areas, which is something most nominators don't ever do (and you should never promote a hook to a prep area that you nominated or reviewed). This may not be an ideal name for the section, but it seems to serve.
I'm very glad you asked, because you should definitely not fill in the "passed" parameter, or indeed anything at the top of the DYKsubpage template. There is a comment about ten lines down on the template that clearly states "Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion." It's there for a reason: the discussion is closed and parameters filled in only at the time the article is promoted or finally rejected (and rejection should also not be done by the reviewer). If you have any further questions, please ask, or you can take a look at the WP:DYK (rules) and WP:DYKSG (more rules) pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I think I got it. Chamal T•C 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Symbols

We are currently showing this editing aid on the nominations page:

If you click the link at the right of the symbol, it will be inserted at your cursor's location. For more information on symbols, see the DYK reviewing guide. You may notify the nominator of problems with:  {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}

I was hoping to expand the symbols available and if not substantially opposed would like to change the above to include the expandable section as shown below:

If you click the link at the right of the symbol, it will be inserted at your cursor's location. For more information on symbols, see the DYK reviewing guide. You may notify the nominator of problems with:  {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}


Is it too much?—My76Strat (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm, the coding is very different (many times longer), but the only difference I see in the resulting display is the use of a bolder font for the text. What are you trying to do here? --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Click "Show" to see the additions. I don't understand the purpose either, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
As a simple reply: yes, it looks far too much; like Demiurge1000 says, I don't understand the need for all those additional symbols? Harrias talk 14:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, of course it never needed to be all of them, or any, but thanks all the same.—My76Strat (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Aha, the "show" entry explains it! Now that I see it, it's an impressive display, but I think it's excessive. The symbols we have now are supposed to provide quickly interpretable visual information to supplement the text comments -- particularly for the benefit of volunteers who are skimming the noms page for various reasons. They are also used by the bot(s) to classify the status of a review. The need for quick interpretation means we need to keep this simple. (I, for one, don't want to have to study a long list of symbols in order to try to figure out what somebody's comment was supposed to mean.) If there is a perceived need for a couple more easily recognizable symbols, we can consider adding them to the existing template, but let's not go beyond that. Reviewers should provide their comments in words -- and use pictographs only to communicate a quick summary. --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Adding myself to the substantial opposition. I'd go even further: any additions to the list of symbols should be considered one at a time, and would require significant and cogent explanation of why the existing symbols don't adequately cover the situation. (It could be the explanation of how to use the existing symbols needs tweaking.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
To follow up: yes, I believe these additional symbols are indeed too much, and I'm puzzled as to why My76Strat is using them anyway in subsequent reviews, as witness Template:Did you know nominations/Apikoğlu Brothers. I found this quite confusing. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

a "Treasure"

I'm not sure how best to fix it, but the current "treasure" language in the hook (emphasis added) "that the Lion Pagoda, a Treasure of South Korea, is one of Hwaeomsa's four stone pagodas?" ... seems awk, probably unnecessary, has an odd capitalization, and does not appear in the article itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be covered in the opening phrase of the Significance section: it's Treasure 300, and therefore "a Treasure" seemed apt when I looked at it prior to promoting it. AGF on the offline source, of course. I'm not sure how you'd convey that it's considered special without the capitalized "Treasure", but I think that actually adds to the hook's interest. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure about the wording of the hook, but the article does state does that it was "designated Treasure 300" and is "one of the four stone pagodas of Hwaeomsa" and both are sourced. The hook is currently in Prep area 4, in case anybody wants to check. Chamal T•C 07:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry -- partially my error. My find bar is now case-sensitive for some reason (inadvertent check of the match case box), and missed Treasure in my search for treasure. As to whether it should be initial cap, I can't see the off-line source. On-line info is mixed, see, eg, here--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK hooks need reviewing

Reviews would greatly be appreciated. We currently don't have enough approved hooks to fill the prep areas, with only 14 to fill 24 slots. We have 231 DYK nominations submitted in total, and those undone or incomplete now number 217. I've listed three dozen of the older ones that need reviewing: all are at least two weeks old. Many thanks for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I am struggling. I have (valiantly?) attempted to review the earliest articles. Specifically:

  • Wikipedian in Residence I found the Sarah Stierch article far too flattering for a biography and in the end, decided I could not review it. The article needs very careful treatment as Stierch is a WMF employee. If her history is not as rosy as the article claims, we will look bad showing it on the front-page (IMHO). I did look at Wikipedian in Residence too (e.g. oftentimes is too vague)
  • P. Shilu Ao Good to go
  • Saeed Abedini IMHO article is unbalanced. All sources are western
  • Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2011 This is a highly political article that seems to be well-sourced. The many single-sentence sections and paragraphs, however, make it hard to read. The tone of the whole article seems to be the western perspective on Ukrainian politics using the Tymoshenko trials as its vehicle. I don't think it is balanced but I find it hard to judge this accurately. See also Russian Wikipedia article which is tagged for neutrality too
--Senra (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Image protection

Shouldn't the images in Queues 3, 4 and 5 have Template:Pp-main-page added to their pages? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Images that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons are protected there. --Orlady (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If sources are affiliated with the article subject, does it pass policy for DYK?

I couldn't find a clear answer to this question and have been seeing some cases which made me question the issue. But I finally found a test case for the extreme. The DYK Template:Did you know nominations/Christina Maranci uses three sources (1. the person's university promotion, 2. a chapter she wrote, and 3. a book she wrote). All three sources are directly related to the subject, would this pass policy or not? My interpretation, and please correct, is that these can be used to provide the drywall, but the frame of an article has to come from unaffiliated/secondary sources. Just wondering as I work on improving my reviewing. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Carabinieri has just raised notability issues with this nomination on the template, and reversed its promotion. I believe you are correct in your assessment: that secondary sources are not used, and needed to be. The article is at this minute being revised by its author, so the unaffiliated/secondary sources may be forthcoming. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
As always, thanks to all for helping clarify things. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Promotion error

I just tried to promote an article for the first time and I think I messed up the template on Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Rick_DiBernardo because there are extra tags displaying. I think I got it moved to prep area 4 correctly. Can someone take a look and let me know what I did wrong? Thanks! Allecher (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the comma after subpage needs to go, and then save it.—My76Strat (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I didn't see this before noting the issue, and putting through the promotion myself so it didn't continue to be transcluded on the T:TDYK page. If it doesn't appear like it does now at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Rick_DiBernardo when you preview it (with the box around it, the blue background, and the header), then there's something wrong. You don't need to remove anything when you promote: just substitute the template and add the "yes" to the "passed" parameter. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting it, BlueMoonset! I'll get brave and try another one soon. Allecher (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to DYK nomination instructions

I imagine changing the DYK nomination instructions (even by one sentence) by someone completely uninvolved with the DYK process would be a bit too bold, so I'm proposing it here. I suggest that when the nominator is not the person who created/expanded the article, that we add a requirement to notify the creator/expander of the nomination, so they can comment before it's approved or not. For two reasons. First, because it's courteous. Second, because they would be in the best position to catch factual errors in the proposed hook. I just ran across a case where a factually incorrect hook made it to the main page, and the article's author (who was not told of the nomination before it got to the main page) had to use WP:ERRORS to get the hook changed. Aside from the annoyance of adding more words to the instructions, I can't see a downside to this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be very sensible. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Does this mean we'd have to reject every DYK where a notification was not done? Or, at the very least, put a hold on the submission until the notification was done? Or do we put it in the instructions but not enforce it? I'd like to see some thought go into how this would work in practice before any change is made. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
And furthermore to the above, if the creator is not active for a period of time afterwards (or even retired) then would the nom have be held indefinitely until the creator reappears? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think any of that would be necessary. If no notification had been done, the reviewer could simply ask the nominator to do it (or do it themselves). As long as the notification had been done, the author would have been informed. There'd be no requirement for the author to comment - if they didn't, I imagine we would proceed on a "silence means assent" basis. I think Floquenbeam's point is that the author should have the opportunity to comment, rather than a requirement to actually do so. Prioryman (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly what Prioryman said and I'm 100% in support. Ryan Vesey 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I was once encouraged to transclude the nomination on the creators talk page and the articles talk page. It wouldn't be a misstep to start requiring this. I always do. —My76Strat (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This is just another step in the instruction creep that has, over years, made DYK so incredibly unappealing to participate in. But, I'm certain the proposal will be accepted nonetheless, just as a number of other terrible proposals have been accepted.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Carabinieri that this is a bad idea per WP:CREEP. It also seems like a tacit endorsement of article ownership. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It's hardly ownership though, is it? All this amounts to is saying on someone's talk page something like, Hello, I have nominated <article> to appear in the Did You Know...? section on the Main Page. If you have any views on this nomination, please comment at <nomination page>. There'd be no obligation to respond and no suggestion of ownership. Prioryman (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this is a bad idea — we have too many rules already, and imposing yet another one won't help anything. Much better to add something saying "It is strongly recommended that you notify the creator", because this would get the point across without causing WP:CREEP problems. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Nyttend - adding another rule is not a good idea and I think we should recommend to notify the creator instead - maybe it would be the best thing to create a template that the nominator could substitute into the creator's talkpage, kinda like Template:DYKproblem? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm new-ish and wandered here by accident, so discount if I'm off-base. But doesn't such a template already exist? It seems the DYKNom does the trick (says almost exactly what Prioryman wants it to say). I don't know anything about it (but see Template:DYKNom), but it seems like this could be in the guidelines as a suggestion (Nyttend's idea) and see if that resolves the few cases where this happens. I can't find the mention of this template anywhere on the nominations page (but maybe I'm just missing it), so making it more prominent might solve the rare mistakes, not lead to any rule creep, and help us all be courteous. Hope that helps. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
{{DYKNom}} is an option for sure. I'll update the template's syntax to ensure it call's {{NewDYKnomination}} for its substitution values and verify the documentation is up to date. I also added a parameter to {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} so if it is transcluded on the article's talk page, or the article creator's talk page, it will display under its own level two header, of which the entire header and transclusion will disappear once the nomination is archived. And they are good options, I believe. I also agree that instead of requiring it in the form of an instruction, we ought simply maintain the good options, and encourage their use by electing to demonstrate their use, which as I stated, I currently do, and will continue. If someone "freaks out", being "creeped", or extrapolates my actions as endorsing ownership, it is their error to correct, and not a limiting factor of reasonably prudent measures.—My76Strat (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Without reading all this, for lack of time, what I do is place the link to the nomination on the article's talk page, thus informing anybody - hopefully including the author(s), I often work with more than one - who is interested in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree to encouraging/suggesting something like this as a solution to all nominators, but I have to agree with Carabinieri on making it compulsory. I visited T:TDYK last week after several months, and was surprised to see hooks being put on hold for very minor issues that the reviewers themselves could have fixed without becoming an "involved" contributor (e.g. a spelling mistake). Adding another rule to be strictly enforced means inviting the backlog to become even longer. BTW just to clarify, I'm not trying to say "things were better in the good old days" like a grumpy old man; this is just an honest observation. Chamal T•C 14:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Question of protocol

I have a general question and would like to see the opinion of as many DYK regulars who are willing to answer. If a reviewer notices that a DYK submission only includes positive aspects of the subject, and the same reviewer is well aware of notable controversy, is there any requirement, however construed, that the reviewer ought to ensure that a submission has some semblance of a balanced and proportionate inclusion of both the bad, and the good?—My76Strat (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article itself should be balanced.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If an obvious controversy is missing, and it's been reported in reliable sources, it should be in the article. But if there is no controversy about a subject, forcing some into an article is not good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the neutrality issue that applies anywhere in Wikipedia, we have supplementary rule D7 which says articles should be reasonably complete. Of course "complete" in DYK doesn't have the same meaning it does in a GA review - what DYK would be looking for is obvious gaping holes in the article. So if the article puts a lot of undue weight on either the good or bad and more or less ignores the other side, it should be put on hold until that's fixed I think. But if it's just something that can be fixed with an additional line or two in the article, then why not go ahead and do it? Chamal T•C 14:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I feel similarly and wanted to see if others felt this as reasonable. Thank you.—My76Strat (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Scientology "Hole" article magically knocked off DYK

One minute it was there at the top and the a refresh later magically disappeared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.57.28 (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Each set of DYK hooks is on the Main Page for eight hours. They were changed between your initial viewing and your refresh, sixteen minutes before you left your note. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
That's correct, it appeared at 00:00 UTC and was replaced by the next set of hooks at 08:00. Hope that clears things up for the IP editor. Prioryman (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
But is it really magic?—My76Strat (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Prioryman (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
"In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" Desiderius Erasmus 1536—My76Strat (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to the bots... can anyone prove they're not magic? Prioryman (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Not with the third eye blind.—My76Strat (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Antedon mediterranea

I reviewed Antedon mediterranea a while ago, see it in the archive as appeared on 16 February (piped to "feathered star"), but no notice on the article talk, didn't check the user, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I had caused a div tag to be in the wrong place and it looks like this was one of the consequences. It is fixed but was out of place a few days, the 19th being one. I'll go back and check them all and make sure to correct any that were caught up in my error. Sorry for this.—My76Strat (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Fine, no problem for me, I was just the reviewer ;) - Will the articles and authors get credit then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I'll see to it.—My76Strat (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking at CITIPEG, which is currently in Prep 2, with a view to expanding it before it goes onto the Main Page. Unfortunately it appears that both the hook and the article may be misleading and, worse, possibly legally problematic as the specific issue highlighted in the hook (alleged discrimination) has been the subject of a libel action and a subsequent settlement - neither of which is mentioned in the article.[1][2] The hook looks to me like it is dangerously close to repeating the original alleged libel. I think this needs a pretty thorough review before it reaches the Main Page and the hook will probably have to be changed. Could someone please swap out the CITPEG hook from Prep 2 and replace it with something else while I look into this? Prioryman (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the hook, and will look for a replacement hook next. I was surprised to see that the hook had been promoted by one of the people who approved it, and disappointed to note that before then, once the nomination had received the second approval, it was not placed exclusively in the Gibraltar holding area to await promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide says "When possible, it is also best to avoid selecting the same article that you reviewed", which sounds more like discretionary advice than a hard rule; what is the rationale behind it? It might be worth advising the promoter. As for the holding area, you're right about that - I guess nobody thought of it on this occasion. I'll make sure the next one's placed properly. Prioryman (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The rationale, as it was explained to me (and makes a great deal of sense), is that you have another independent check before the hook is promoted: a new set of eyes might spot something that was missed earlier. (Indeed, many approved hooks, instead of being promoted, instead have their approval overridden by a request for additional work.) I've not yet known it to be impossible to select another article in such a circumstance. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
That does make sense. Thanks for the explanation. Prioryman (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I had to promote numerous articles I had reviewed in September 2011, when the number of reviewers was (unless I'm mistaken) much lower than now... sparked by a series of debates on this very page... which didn't make anyone look good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For those in need...

For those who are looking for a DYK that is likely to get pictured, Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused has a list of featured images which are attached to stubs (as well as other reasons) which may be easy to expand. This includes a lot of birds and insects — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

World War I 100th Anniversary

The 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War is on 28 July 2014, just less than 18 months away. The question is, what should we do for DYK? The obvious thing to do would be to do what we did for the Olympics etc, and some six weeks prior to the date begin to set aside appropriate topics. However, while this would certainly generate some articles, I think that this date warrants some special attention.

What I would like to suggest is that the nomination date is opened up as with Fish day, so from 28 July 2013, editors can begin to nominate WW1 related articles which once approved are moved off to their own page to hold them (rather than clog up the nominations page for a year). I think that the aim should be to fill all sets for a 24 hour period with WW1 related topics (and preferably not just ones on Western military hardware). If we manage to go over the numbers for that then we have several choices which could be considered - either increasing the number of hooks for one day, moving the unused nominations back into the normal pool, keep filling hook sets until we run out, or holding appropriate hooks off for Remembrance Sunday during 2014.

I'm just spitballing here, what does everyone else think? I think we can guarantee that on the 28 July 2014, WW1 will be all over the news, and the other elements on the front page will be themed to the topic, so I'd hate for DYK to look under-represented. Miyagawa (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think at the very least we should aim for having every article in DYK on that day being WW1 related. A Build-up would be good secondary however I think the actual day being filled with related hooks is the main priority. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hiya, I've just popped along from the Milhist talk page. One thought I had reading this proposal is that although war broke out between two countries on 28 July, it took a full week for all the main countries to make their declarations of war. I rather anticipate that (in the UK at least), commemorative news, events and suchlike will be heavily in evidence for the entire week, rather than just the 28 July. Theoretically, if you have too many DYK noms (and I'd anticipate a lot), it might be worth spreading them over that week, rather than pushing them all into a 24 hr period.
As another idea, lots of new articles will start to pop up for particular event anniversaries (specific battles etc...) over the following 4 years. Perhaps it might be worth using a special WW1 nom page for the entire 4 years (or at least a subsection as you have for Gibraltar themed articles)? I should point out though that this is just an idea - aside from the occasional nom and review I have little to do with DYK, so I can't appreciate the logistics of this. Ranger Steve Talk 18:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The only concern I have with that we'd be constantly crossing DYK hooks from the WWI page to the main nomination page in order to make sure they get picked up for the prep areas in time. I imagine that this would be permissible for the first week to keep a separate WWI page going (especially based on the expected volume) and so we could theme hooks throughout that first week based on the different events, but going on longer than that is likely to annoy some folks and lead to mistakes. Plus I think the ongoing hooks can be dealt with as normal (although in four years time we might want to think about something similar for the end of the war too. For the ongoing hooks, specific dates can be specified as normal if required, or moved to a general WW1 subsection (as per Gibraltar) on the nominations page (instead of being hosted on a separate page). Miyagawa (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense - I can see the difficulty in keeping two pages running for such a length of time. Ranger Steve Talk 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so whats the next step? An RFC or is there something we can do on here instead? Miyagawa (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it's really a question of creating something similar to the April Fools page. We could do an RFC but I can't really see too many people objecting to something being held in advance to be used on the centenary of a major historical event. I think just create a page and mention in the lead and/or in the holding area section about it.
Ok cool, I'll get something drawn up in the next couple of days in userspace and shift it over to mainspace once it looks stable. We've got a few months we hit 12 months prior and that should give us the time to iron out any wrinkles. It also means that DYK will be the first section listed on Wikipedia:World War I Centenary, which at the moment is looking a bit bare. Miyagawa (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've drawn together a page to start with at User:Miyagawa/sandbox4, based upon the April Fools page. I would suggest Wikipedia:World War I Centenary/DYK as a potential spot to save it at. Miyagawa (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that's now been implemented. Once we're at a year to go, I'll add a link to the page in a holding area on the normal nomination page. Miyagawa (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. I'll post a note at the Milhist talk page so that they know about it. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 08:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have begun authoring a series of articles about the Air Service, United States Army Aero Squadrons that fought on the Western Front. So far, I have completed articles about the 148th Aero Squadron; 28th Aero Squadron; 17th Aero Squadron and have several more under development. I hope these help :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

New code... what's with making it so complicated?

  • Call me old fashioned, but what's the point of having features like "If you click the link at the right of the symbol, it will be inserted at your cursor's location." I get what it means (terrible grammar though, as my mouse cursor is naturally going to be at the button), but this means we have to scroll down, click, scroll up, and click. Copy/paste is much faster.
Also, there are various changes which seem to have piled up. The new icons look tiny in the edit notice, {{DYKC}} has no notice to what it does but shows up in new nominations, {{*mp}} shows up in front of the "comment" and "reviewed" fields, where it shouldn't be, and this no longer uses Wikicode to mark bold or italics but HTML. Has any of this been discussed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do you say {{*mp}} should not be used in front of review or comment? All that template does is compensate for older versions of Firefox in the off chance someone is using that version. If it is worth including this patch for the hook, why not include it on the others as well? As long as you get a blue bullet for your point being made what is being hurt. I need to updated the documentation for {{DYKC}} when it was added I did indicate that it creates a level 2 header if the template is transcluded on a user talk or article talk page and that otherwise it has no effect in the project space. Wiki mark vs html I didn't know you needed permission to use one over the other. What I do know is that in templates there are times that wiki markup breaks the code and I started favoring html over wiki code when working with templates. Otherwise you have to ensure you use an entourage of additional templates to compensate for the markup errors, like {{!}} and {{'}} for example. Nevertheless, I will go back where I made changes and ensure wiki markup is used. As a matter of fact I'm going to revert all the changes I've made to any DYK pages and you can do whatever you like with it.—My76Strat (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strat, we use {{*mp}} on the main page (hence why there's an MP in the template name). For things which won't show on the mp, the template is essentially redundant. {{DYKC}} may be usable, but does it just create a header or does it also provide a link when the nomination is closed? Don't forget, if nominations are closed then they disappear automatically. Your reasoning for the html sounds a bit more solid, although when the line starts with an indent and is immediately followed by Comment or Reviewed I don't see much chance of the bot breaking something. Sometimes, although we mean well, what we have is a solution in search of a problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    {{DYKC}} is in the <noinclude> portion of the template when it closes so right now it does disappear when the nomination closes. The problem I was having in the past where I transcluded the nomination on talk pages was the header I put the transclusion under remained but the content was gone, and that seemed improvable. I understand your assertions regarding the main page and that the other bullets do not appear on the main page. But the problem that can occur on the main page is as potential on the nomination page if not patched. In fact this is how the nomination page was acting if the comment and the reviewed were not used; before the fix:
Fergie Sutherland
(
)

Created by Finnegas (talk). Self nom at 18:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice how the "Created by" line is sucked into the hook (not cool). And now that no longer happens. Yes there was discussion both here[3] and here.[4] I do see that it would have been better to use {{*}} to avoid the main page confusion and I will make that change.
As far as creating problems trying to fix them, yes I've learned this valuable lesson, It won't happen again.—My76Strat (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright, I noticed this with the Sarah Stierch talk page. {{DYKC}} seems to have been a good idea, nice work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    To briefly follow up on my last comment. I attempted to change {{*mp}} to {{*}} for bullets that would never appear on the main page but it caused the bullet to display even if no comment followed it. {{*mp}} does not render the bullet unless it is followed by a comment. So it seems we will either have to accept the occasions when no comment or reviewed is added, that the credits will bunch into the hook, (see this archived example) or use the {{*mp}} template, which only indicates that it is suitable for the main page, even though it will not be used there. The suitability serves the purpose of improving the appearance of the nomination and that seems like an improvement to me. Nevertheless, as I stated below, I will cease editing the project pages and templates unless there is prior discussion. And I apologize where I did not do this adequately in the past.—My76Strat (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thirdly, the new "TOC" we have, although it looks nice, is a nightmare to click on for those with poor connections or limited bandwidth. It forces the multi-megabyte T:TDYK page to reload, just to go to a section. Any way to avoid this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • IMHO, the issue with the page reloading is the kind of serious unintended consequence that warrants restoration of a standard TOC. No comment yet on the other two items.--Orlady (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, you are not forced to click on it. If you find it too slow because of limited bandwidth, I suggest you use the old TOC to navigate instead. Gatoclass (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea, which is why I'm asking about a workaround. The goal was, after all, to be more user-friendly. As for the old TOC... how can I use that, when we have a TOC limit?
You don't have the same level you had before, but is that such a big deal? What do you need the TOC for anyway? I have never actually used it that much. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • When one is nominating an article (this includes all editors), it's best to go straight to the section where it should be nominated. That's the most important use of the original TOC, I think, as well as reminding us of any special occasions hooks (they get missed easily enough as it is... and this new table doesn't show 'em). If we are trying to make this page easier for nominators and reviewers, a question like "is that a big deal" is not going to help. There are people who stopped nominating because of QPQ, or because of the extensive rule creep over the past year... some even gave up after the nomination template was created, even though I find it much easier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I forgot when I posted the above that the individual day sections are gone. Okay you have a point there, if push comes to shove we can restore the 4-level TOC and just leave the other table below it, but I can't help thinking there ought to be a more elegant solution. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I was thinking, if someone can code it, something that functions like this:
If page=Template talk:Did you know nominations, then link=#Articles created/expanded on (date)
If page =/=Template talk:Did you know nominations, then link=Template talk:Did you know nominations#Articles created/expanded on (date).
Anyone able to express this as code, for a template or bot? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Write the links in the template as [[{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template talk:Did you know||Template talk:Did you know}}#Articles created/expanded on (date)|(date)]]. This will use the absolute pagename only if FULLPAGENAME != Template talk:Did you know. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
What does this do, prevent the page from reloading? That would probably be the best solution, has someone implemented this change yet? Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In the code, "(date)" is just a placeholder for the actual date of each section which would be inserted by the bot. Using magic words (such as {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}) would insert the current date for each line. BTW, none of this is an issue for me, as my browser (Firefox 15.0.1) does not reload when I click on one of the date links; it just skips down to the correct section. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm... this computer's not doing it either. So we could code the bot to use [[{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template talk:Did you know||Template talk:Did you know}}#Articles created/expanded on {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]]? Anyone up to that? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you misread what I wrote. The magic words would not be used; if they were, every line would be the same and every one except the one for the current date would be incorrect. As for the bot programming, Shubinator handles that. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Redundant categories

Another issue... the mess of what we call "categories". I see no difference between Category:DYK/Successful nominations from November 2012 (the new format) and Category:Passed DYK nominations from November 2012 (old one). The undiscussed change result in several hundred nominations having the new style added manually and has split our passed nominations in categories with two different naming styles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Where are these new categories? The example you gave is just a redlink. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Any category that was in use is still in use just as it was. The red linked category you showed does not exist, if it did it would be empty as far as I can tell. Yes, a few that are populating may be redundant, I'll empty them and delete the newer category. I personally dislike Category:Failed DYK nominations, and would prefer Successful and Unsuccessful over Passed and Failed, but that is just me.—My76Strat (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems my76strat has been making a number of changes without discussion. Given the concerns expressed above, I think it would be appropriate for him to start discussing such changes before making them in future. Gatoclass (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree and will comply.—My76Strat (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the redundant categories mentioned. I am prepared to make the corrections to eliminate them but before I do I would like to be sure there is no consensus to discontinue using "passed and failed" in favor of "successful and unsuccessful"? If there was it would be the former categories discontinued. Either way one needs to go.—My76Strat (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I think it's a matter of semantics; its clear to me that it's not universal on Wikipedia. "Successful" and "unsuccessful" are used at RFA and FAC, while GAs use "passed" and "failed". I don't give a rat's which pair we choose, but there should be only one set of categories. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
    I agree. There's no good reason to change things that are working fine. It was my error, so I will work on fixing it. Cheers.—My76Strat (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Image issue in queue 5

The article Shavarsh Krissian is currently in the first slot of Queue 5; however, the image used has no source information, which is a requirement per WP:Image use policy. He died in 1915, so it's reasonably likely that the image is PD; however, it is impossible to determine without source information. Should the hook and image be held up, at least until the image information can be determined, or should the hook just be run without the image? Ryan Vesey 03:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, doing some checking, an image can be found here. No date information is given for the image, but I think Occam's razor tells us that we should presume it is PD. Ryan Vesey 03:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've moved that hook to a prep area, so we have more time to figure this out. I've also notified the editor who created the article and the image.--Carabinieri (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyright should be Ok, but I see no reliable source confirming that this is a photograph of Shavarsh Krissian. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Proudbolsahye has added a source, though it doesn't look too reliable to me.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
We're not supposed to link directly to the image URL as Proudbolsahye did; however, the source I provided above is reliable. Ryan Vesey 05:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove it. Unless we have proof it was published before 1923 (making it PD in the US) or it was PD in its source country before 1996 (and thus PD in the US as well), it may be a copyvio. Commons has the precautionary principle... we should use that here too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Rino Della Negra

I've stopped doing DYK as I disagree with the review-4-review concept, but the Rino Della Negra has plenty of interesting potential and is ripe for expansion for anyone who can speak French, should anyone be interested... GiantSnowman 10:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Main page error -- please read nominations and article before supporting/promoting

Marie Fox's nomination says that "Did you know ... that Marie Fox (pictured), a foundling whose parentage remains a mystery," but the article says she was born "to Victoire Magny of Soissons and an unknown father."

Her parentage is not a mystery, her father is unknown, according to the article. Please edit this inaccuracy off of the main page.

One sentence in the DYK and the supporting sentence in the article says something completely different. How about some standards? -68.99.89.234 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  • See the discussion at WP:ERRORS. I note that it's not as simple as you make it out to be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Standards or the discussion about the name? As the latter was being discussed at main page errors and now belongs on the article talk page, probably you don't mean that. Lack of standards is not usually all that simple, but as these missing standards have been brought up again and again in regards to DYK articles and their hooks, you are probably right that it is not that simple. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      • The issue you are pointing out, about "unknown", is not as clear cut as you would have it appear in your post. If you are concerned about the quality of reviews, perhaps pitch in and check them before they reach the main page? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what you mean by "unknown" is not as clear cut as I would have it in my post. Should I discuss the entire article here rather than just raising the issue about the bad review? Then you can accuse me of posting my complaint in multiple forums. I'll be glad to debate the entire issue here, in addition to the article talk page, where the discussion will actually, hopefully, improve the article, if everyone promises to avoid the "multiple forums" accusations....
        • The hook should have had a better review; the editor who approved/promoted it should have read the paragraph and seen the contradiction between stating her mother's name and that her biological parentage was a mystery. If that is the hook, then maybe the rest of the article should support it, rather than demanding that the reader know all the back issues as the author of the article is now explaining on the talk page rather than providing to the article. It doesn't matter if it is not so clear cut, what matters is that it appears contradictory, as the template says, and as another reader agreed, and as the extensive arguments to make it seem not so seem to be indicating it actually is contradictory.
        • -68.99.89.234 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's entirely correct to describe this as a "contradiction" - the language of the original hook was imprecise but not exactly wrong IMO because if someone's parentage is partly unknown, then broadly speaking it is still "unknown". Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Even the part that was "known" was hotly disputed, making it entirely appropriate to refer to her parentage as unknown or as a mystery. The Earl of Ilchester, a family relative who wrote about Princess Marie, explicitly described her parentage as a mystery. It is all referenced. This appears to be nothing more than a lousy attempt to discredit DYK. Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Then what does he have to say about the mother's name on the birth certificate? And are you saying this should be in quotation marks? Please use them, then. If you have contradictory sources, resolve them in the article, or state in the article why one author is so superior to the other that you consider his word the final one when other authors say something different. You seem to keep saying you have all this secondary information in your head, but that's what the point of writing an article is. Put it in. Quote where quotes belong. Don't make reading the article the myster. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Surely there's no need to go as far as calling this an attempt to discredit DYK? The IP made a valid point and Crisco and Gatoclass have countered it adequately. That said, mistakes happen (if this is a mistake) not only in DYK but even in the featured article of the day. That's why we have the WP:ERRORS page. We don't hang reviewers or nominators in DYK for making mistakes anyway, the hook was reworded by an admin after the report, and the relevant sentences in the article have been changed as well. Let's not keep beating the dead horse. Chamal T•C 12:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
But her parentage is a mystery... right? I mean her father is unknown, so how can her parentage be known??? I think the Original Poster is assuming that "parentage" means "(biological) social class", but IMO this is a secondary use and the usual meaning is "(of or pertaining to) one's parents" -- both of them, I would have to say. Or maybe the Original Poster is saying that it should have been "parentage remains partly a mystery" or maybe "paternal parentage remains a mystery" or something. Is that the problem? Because while we could have done that, it's at least arguably unnecessary and excess verbiage. A puzzle half-solved is still unsolved, and half a mystery is still a mystery. Herostratus (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Her parentage is not a mystery, it's her paternity that is a mystery, the paragraph open strongly about her maternal parentage in a sentence the author is now stating is untrue and unsupporte in all but the mind of the writer. This type of lame "oh, her parentage is a mystery is half true," and let's shoot the readers until they agree already discredits DYK. That and the vertebrate taxonomies. It's not a mystery. The article is badly written. The usual excess of energy to fight someone who points out anything wrong on Wikipedia, and you wonder editor retention keeps falling. Does anyone care about the unsupported and supposedly false sentence in thethe article, or maybe you can gather a larger crew to take me down for pointing that out. Ha, fooled you, it's the editor who wrote the article who says that sentence is wrong and unsupported! --68.99.89.234 (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

But mostly, whatever. Unsupported statements, partial truths, misinformation. Kill the messenger, then assume they don't bother with aritcles before they get on the main page, without wondering why anyone would bother to try to fix a main page error.

The author has no idea what is the truth, or she wants to keep it a secret, not even the truth, just what the sources say.

Whatever already. Insiders: 12 editors leaping on the head of an outsider. Outsiders: 0. Readers: -1. Whatever. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2013 (UT

What exactly is your problem with DYK now? Yes there were disagreements with your view, as there almost always are in a situation like this. What you said was your opinion, not fact. The same goes for the editors who disagree with you, so you shouldn't expect everyone to just back off and say that you're correct. But the issue you raised was acknowledged while it was on the main page and both the hook and article were changed. If you have any further problems with the article, please take them to the article talk page because it's not the job of the DYK project to maintain the factual accuracy of every article that has gone through it at some point. Chamal T•C 02:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think 68* expects us to grovel at his/her superior intellect. Based on the above, the editor should see WP:CONSENSUS: a consensus has been reached here that, although not the best-worded hook, it was not misleading. Seems to have been the gist of the discussion at WP:ERRORS as well. If 68* continues to push this, there's other links I can offer, but it appears clear that consensus is against the editor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was changed long before the pile ons, the accusations, the freaking out that I might be thinking I am an expert, the bad faith assumptions that I must have a personal grudge against the author who admits her statements are unsupported. Now we are going to offer lame Wikipedia boy essays? The usual nonsense designed to do anything but address the issue here. Yes, it was changed on the main page because someone agreed with me that it was a problem, and it was changed in the article for the same reason. Those issues were raised and partially addressed in their locations. The article should have been read better before getting on the main page. That is an issie to discuss here, but here seems to be the place to attack the messenger. Yes, of course Crisco, anyone who disagrees with you must be guilty of displaying superior intellect, way to address an issue rather than an editor. Now, throw some lame wiki essays at.me. Maybe dick would be appropriate here, boomerang, trout. I will just search the archives and link to dozens of recent posts by other editors tired of sloppiness on DYK on the main page. You can then throw dick at all of those editors, also. The hook was bad, editors agreed, it was changed, the author is now confused about what she wrote versus what she thought. -166.137.210.19 (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Queue list on nominations page

I think it's a nice idea to have the queue list on the nominations page, but it wasn't clear to me where to post my nomination. Not finding the usual contents box with the list of dates, I had to scroll down to find the date. Where/how to find the right place to post a nomination would not be clear at all for someone new to DYK. (I didn't even think of clicking on the date in the queue box.) Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume that by "queue list" you're referring to the table that contains the dates and number of hooks just below the conventional TOC. This change was made just a few days ago (see the discussion above, permalink). The page has gone through a lot of changes through the times, each fixing some problems while unfortunately bringing a set of its own and there just doesn't seem to be a solution that works for everybody. Do you have any suggestions to improve it? Chamal T•C 02:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the best solution is to explain what to do in the instructions for new nominations. These appear in two places:
  • In the first paragraph under "Instructions for nominators", add a parenthetical sentence after the first: "Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom. (You can find the date in the pink box above, and click on it to be redirected to the listings for that date.)
  • In part III of "How to post a new nomination": The first sentence should be amended to point to the date in the queue box, such as: "After you have created the nomination page, list it at this page by finding the appropriate date in the pink box above, clicking on the date to be redirected to the listings for that date, and adding {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} under that date at the top of the section (above all the other nominations, but below the section header and hidden comment).
Personally, I think the queue box belongs on the Queue page and not here, as it is more for regular DYK reviewers who want to know which dates are lacking reviews, than for new nominators who just want to post their nomination and maybe look around for something that hasn't yet been reviewed (which they'll most likely find around the date of their own nomination). Yoninah (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
In the context: before I nominate I look for something to review, first in the list of older nominations, then - if I don't find anything there I feel fit to review - I look for keywords of interest, if I still don't find anything, I look from older dates to more recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I do the same thing. I'm talking here about finding the date under which to post a new nomination. Yoninah (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
As said above, you can use the link from the "pink box" or the search function, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
If you click "Current nominations" in the TOC you should also get close, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Minor

I miss a comma in Q3: ... that the Church of St Bartholomew, Yeovilton was declared redundant and then became the Fleet Air Arm's Memorial Church? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting hooks

According to WP:WIADYK, ""hooks" are interesting facts taken from Wikipedia's newest content." However, in my opinion, many of these hooks are not interesting at all. Of today's hooks, three are marginally interesting (Leo Igwe, Rio Grande da Serra, and Trial of Thomas Hogg). The hook for Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary is arguably interesting for Rihanna fans. One hook seems to combine two new articles (Shana Madoff and Eric Swanson). This hook and the hooks for Te Aroha by-election, 1891 and Olav Dalen are not interesting.

I accept that there is a degree of subjectivity when determining what is interesting. Nevertheless, the standard of DYK hooks seems to be rather lower than the other four sections of the main page. The featured article introduction is engagingly written and typically interesting as well as informative. "On this day" describes genuinely interesting historical events. The featured picture is often beautiful or outstanding in some way. And "In the news" is, well, news.

I believe that there are at least two reasons for this difference. Wikipedia is now a fairly mature encyclopedia. All major topics are covered, and most minor topics also have articles. This leaves only topics of low importance as pending for creation. These low importance articles are then brought to DYK. Then article writers are required to create a hook, which is a question shoehorned out of the article's text.

I realise that the purpose of DYK is to encourage editors to create new articles and to increase exposure of these new articles to readers. However I do wonder if readers arriving at the main page genuinely find these hooks interesting and click the link to find out more.

If an interesting hook cannot be written, perhaps an article shouldn't be linked from the main page? Personally, I wouldn't be averse to seeing DYK removed from the main page altogether.

I also realise that the readers here are partisan. I am not a DYK participant. No doubt I shall receive opposition for this statement. However I hope to encourage the DYK crowd to write more engaging hooks if possible. Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the number of interesting topics missing is unlimited. - Interesting hooks: look at DYK on Portal:Germany , now or any day, for example, - or look at the archives, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Gerda Arendt that we are not impacted by a shortage of interesting topics. And we are charged to evaluate the hook to affirm that it is interesting. If we individually fail that charge, such failure should not be long suffered in my opinion. One thing that was recently brought to my attention, is that when a reviewer critiques a hook with a suggestion on possibilities for improvement, that reviewer is subsequently disqualified from finishing the review. I believe this is an asinine rule that contributes adversely to a reviewers charge to ensure an interesting hook. I know it affected me fine.—My76Strat (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
What I do is suggest something that is almost there and have the nominator come up with the final, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is not an asinine rule. My experience is that the person suggesting the new hook can have a blind spot in terms of its suitability or its sourcing, and many problematic hooks proposed by reviewers have been subsequently fixed by new eyes. As the rules note, "A valid DYK nomination will readily be confirmed by a neutral editor." BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Anyone can kick back a proposed hook that is really not at all interesting. Maybe we should all do that more often. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
While I do think that interestingness is subjective, and I disagree with the notion that DYK hooks are generally uninteresting, I think that perhaps many nominators are not all that good at writing "hooky" hooks. That's where I think we might improve, in helping nominators write better hooks. Most articles, I'd wager, do contain some interesting fact, it's just a matter of finding it.
Secondly, I don't see the connection between major topics and interestingness. "Minor" things can be very interesting, and many things relating to major topics aren't. Besides, I've heard again and again that the encyclopaedia is "mature" and that most topics are covered, but I just don't see that. Perhaps this is true for things relating to the US or UK and such, but for the non-English speaking world, certainly not.
Anyway, I think that reviewers should more often try and help out with suggesting better hooks if the hooks nominated are not the most interesting available from the nominated article.
And if nothing else, the Olav Dalen hook taught me what a "clean sheet" means in relation to football. Manxruler (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Only see above, - there's almost no review where I don't suggest an ALT hook, - but not too good, or we need a third party review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I take it that everybody agrees "interesting" is subjective. The how do we decide if a hook is uninteresting? If it is subjective, then surely a single reviewer can't decide that a hook is uninsteresting and reject it? There will need to be three or so separate reviews if we want to get a fair idea, and with the already large backlog, I don't think that's feasible. I'm also inclined to agree with Manxruler's idea that the problem is with finding the interesting facts in an article and writing a catchy hook with them. After all, chances are that a completely boring and normal (and therefore most likely non-notable) subject wouldn't be able to have an article on Wikipedia anyway. Chamal T•C 15:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I generally don't think we have a problem regarding interestingness. Most hooks featured will be interesting to some segment of the visitors to the encyclopaedia. As long as we actually do what we're supposed to when reviewing, and check the hook for a reasonable level of interestingness (and the hook is of course checked again when moved to the prep section, so that's two sets of eyes - two reviews), then we're fine. I'll also add that I click onto DYK articles far more often than I do FAs, OTDs or ITNs, as I find that DYK has much more of an eclectic mix of articles, a diversity which I enjoy. Manxruler (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're an admin and can move Prep 3 to Queue 4, now would be a great time to do so. The bot's going to go looking for a queue to move to the main page in about 50 minutes. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Done (drop me a talkpage message if I screwed it up). Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The way that Gibraltar-related nominations have been handled so far has had mixed success. Although nominations have received enhanced scrutiny through having two reviewers and the release rate has been limited to one a day at maximum, there have been extremely long delays in getting reviews completed. This is because the nominations have been listed solely in a special holding area at the very bottom of Template talk:Did you know. People do not look there for articles to review and it has never before been used to hold unreviewed articles. As a result, articles have gone unreviewed for extended periods and have been delayed by up to three and a half months (the last one to run, earlier this month, was nominated in October 2012). BlueMoonset has often ended up listing them all here on this page just to get them reviewed.

I'm addressing this problem by doing two things:

1. The current restrictions require that nominations "will go into a special holding area from the time they are nominated". They do not require that nominations will solely go into the special holding area. I will therefore be listing any new nominations in the holding area and under the date on which the nomination is submitted. This is consistent with the way that other nominations in special holding areas, such as for April Fool's Day, are treated - listing by date and again in a special holding area. We routinely dual-list other special nominations and there is no benefit in not dual-listing these, nor is dual-listing precluded by the wording of the restrictions.
2. The requirement for two reviews is unusual and a likely cause of confusion. If editors see that a review has already been done, they are likely to skip past a nomination without realising that a second review is needed. To address this, I will be adding red-and-green "traffic light" messages to the nominations to indicate whether a review is required or has been completed. The restrictions do not prescribe any particular format for the reviewing template, so we are free to use any format we like. (In fact, the prior template - see Template:Did you know nominations/Bruce Cooper for an example - was devised by me.)

I've implemented this "live" for a new Gibraltar-related article that Soman (talk · contribs) (who I think is one of our Spanish editors) has submitted - see Template:Did you know nominations/CITIPEG. You can how it looks on the full nominations page at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on February 16. These changes should make it easier to process any future nominations while still respecting the restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

To increase visibility, just move the holding area so that it displays at the top of the nomination page instead of the bottom. Leave them in the holding area only so as not to further confuse editors. Froggerlaura ribbit 03:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Prioryman, I believe that dual-listing the hooks is going against the interpretation and spirit of the restrictions as they have been implemented over the past several months. Hooks on T:TDYK are supposed to be listed in only one place—April Fools is a special case—and I'm not in favor of changing how we handle the placement of Gibraltar-related hooks at the present time, unless the restrictions are lifted. So unless there is consensus to your 1., I think we should retain our previous practice. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's be blunt - it's your interpretation. The restrictions do not at any point require the nominations to be single-listed. If you are saying that the restrictions should be changed to require that the nominations should be single-listed, I will be demanding that you put that to a vote. I am coming at this from a starting point of not making the process unnecessarily difficult for reviewers. You know better than almost anyone else, since you list unreviewed articles each week, that the single-listing of these nominations in an area that has never been used before for that purpose has had a massive impact on the length of time taken in reviewing them. To make that point crystal clear, here is a table showing the time taken to review a random selection of Gibraltar-related DYKs:
Article Nomination Review 1 Review 2 Time to R1 (days) Time to R2 (days)
Template:Did you know nominations/Green's Lodge Battery 06-Nov-12 02-Dec-12 13-Jan-13 26 68
Template:Did you know nominations/Project Vitello 01-Nov-12 06-Nov-12 09-Dec-12 5 38
Template:Did you know nominations/Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid 27-Dec-12 28-Dec-12 18-Jan-13 1 22
Template:Did you know nominations/Soldier Artificer Company 18-Dec-12 31-Dec-12 20-Jan-13 13 33
Template:Did you know nominations/Spur Battery 30-Oct-12 05-Jan-13 13-Jan-13 67 75
Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Tracer, Gibraltar 20-Nov-12 18-Dec-12 29-Dec-12 28 39
Template:Did you know nominations/William Green (general) 05-Nov-12 05-Dec-12 05-Dec-12 30 30
Template:Did you know nominations/Luis Bravo de Acuña 18-Oct-12 22-Nov-12 26-Dec-12 35 69
Average review times (days) 25.625 46.75
And non-Gibraltar DYKs:
Article Nomination Review Time to Review (days)
Template:Did you know nominations/Moulsecoomb Place 22-Dec-12 26-Dec-12 4
Template:Did you know nominations/St Laurence's Church, Church Stretton 19-Dec-12 19-Dec-12 0
Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Gómez "Chicuelo" 17-Dec-12 23-Dec-12 6
Template:Did you know nominations/The Peninsula Beverly Hills 14-Dec-12 18-Dec-12 4
Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Neville, 2nd Baron Latimer 16-Dec-12 19-Dec-12 3
Template:Did you know nominations/Demon Gaze 09-Dec-12 16-Dec-12 7
Template:Did you know nominations/Augustus Barrows 01-Dec-12 15-Dec-12 14
Template:Did you know nominations/Clifton Nicholson 13-Nov-12 02-Dec-12 19
Average review time (days) 7.125
What you can see from above is that the time taken just to get to the first review is massively longer than for DYKs listed normally - in fact, four times longer. The average time to get to the first review is longer than the longest time for the non-Gibraltar articles. The length of time taken to complete the reviews is even worse - 6 times longer than for non-Gibraltar articles, with the longest being a massive 69 days (that's 9 weeks). The fact is that single-listing these articles is actively sabotaging the review process. I carried out an experiment last December when I deliberately single-listed two articles I'd written, Fifth Siege of Gibraltar and Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid, under the dates. They were reviewed within 3 hours and 17 hours respectively. When I moved them to the holding area for the second review, it took a further 31 and 22 days for the reviews to be completed. That is the impact of single-listing in the holding area, and it's unacceptable. It's especially egregious considering that nothing in the restrictions prohibits single-listing. Why should someone have to wait 9 weeks for a completely uncontentious review of a completely uncontentious article to be done? If you have a better solution than dual-listing, let's hear it. Prioryman (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
With all respect Prioryman, this issue should probably be taken up after the current discussion of whether to continue the restrictions on Gibraltar articles has ended. To the detractors, double listing the entries will look like DYK is trying to subvert the current restrictions. Also the long processing time is actually working toward Gibraltar's (your?) advantage because we can say that the nominations have not been rushed through, each having 2-9 weeks of hold time for any objections/possible COI to be brought up. At this time (especially while the process is being reviewed?) the articles are considered contentious. Like I said before, just move the section to the top of the page so it doesn't look like we are trying to hide the Gibraltar articles. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Prioryman, there is no point in sequestering them if they're also going to appear in the main section and be visible for promotion from there. The whole point in sequestering them was to help ensure they would not be promoted by mistake. It is not only my interpretation as it is the one we have all been operating under for many months. As I noted above, if there is a consensus to change our method of operation, I'm perfectly willing to go along with it. But a unilateral change by you to current established practice: no. Froggerlaura, the Gibraltar hooks are supposed to be in the special occasion holding area, which is at the bottom of T:TDYK. If we move it to the top of that section, date-dependent ones are more likely to be missed than they are now. Are you suggesting that we move the entire section to the top of T:TDYK, just below the instructions but before the regular dates? I'm not sure that would work well: I think it would confuse newcomers. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your proposal. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Laura, I disagree profoundly that it is in some way "subversive" of the restrictions. It does not in fact contradict or change anything. Two reviews are still needed, the nominations are still listed in the special holding area, etc. The one and only difference is that the nominations are given the same visibility as any other DYK by dual-listing them, which the restrictions do not prohibit. I also disagree that the restrictions are working towards anyone's advantage. The long hold times are not permitting "objections/possible COI to be brought up" - the hold times are solely because nobody is noticing the nominations! (And there have never been any COI issues brought up with any of these articles in the first place.) The excessive delays do cause harm - it is demoralising for the editors involved, as I know from personal experience, having to wait weeks or months for their nominations to be noticed. I would turn the question around the other way and ask you what possible harm dual-listing could cause. When these restrictions were put in place, nobody contemplated that they would cause huge delays in reviewing articles - that is entirely an accidental and unforeseen consequence. This was simply not intended to happen. We are stuck with using the special holding area for the time being, but we can at least minimise the negative impact that it is causing. As I said above, the restrictions do not require single-listing.
It may not look that way to you, but the timing of this proposal is , you have to admit, suspect given the current discussion. It looks bad, so stop shooting yourself in the foot and let the chips fall where they may. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't admit it, and frankly I am fed up with "appearances" being put ahead of practical concerns. What is this, an encyclopedia or a fashion show? Prioryman (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope it's essentially a high school (or job, civilization they all work on the same principles) and reason unfortunately doesn't factor very often. Froggerlaura ribbit 20:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, if you want to impose single-listing that is a substantial new addition to the restrictions and I will demand a vote on it, which I will strongly oppose. I have raised this issue with you before but the problem has persisted. I repeat my question to you above: what is your solution to this problem? Do you consider it acceptable for uncontentious articles to go 69 days before being approved? If not, what are you going to do about it? Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The restriction was that they should go in a holding area to avoid early promotion. I suggest moving the Gibraltar section out of the special date section as none of them will be airing on any one date and that section is for approved hooks only anyway (probably part of the problem since no one looks down there to review hooks). If the Gibraltar section was moved to the top or bottom of the current or older nomination areas, they might receive more attention. With the instructions accompanying the holding area, I think reviewers would be able to figure it out and more eyes would look at the articles before they are approved. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The original rationale for the holding area was mentioned by Graham Bartlett, who commented: "We only need a special holding area if there is a build up of approved DYKs faster than appearance." That hasn't happened at any point, as far as I know. Note that the summary of the restrictions states that the use of the holding area met with "Consensus, but qualified by an editor as being required only if incoming rate is high enough." Does that give us leeway to discontinue the use of the holding area, given that there have been only been 2 new nominations in the whole of 2013 so far? And what does "early promotion" mean? There is a restriction of one article appearing per day so would it even matter if, say, 5 were approved on the same day? If you have a queue of 5 in the holding area, they're still not going to appear on the Main Page faster than the 1 per day limit. Prioryman (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
What the original restriction as passed says is: "All DYK Gibraltar-related nominations will go into a special holding area from the time they are nominated". It doesn't say that they are allowed to remain in the regular area while they also go into the holding area, it says they go. As in get moved there. That has been the interpretation for four months, and I think it would be an odd reinterpretation that allows both "go" and "stay". There is no leeway to discontinue a holding area, nor, in my view, to allow hooks be in two places at once as Prioryman is arguing for (or even discard the holding area entirely, as above). Froggerlaura does have a point that the holding area doesn't have to be the special occasion holding area—I think that one was chosen because it already existed and was on the actual T:TDYK page, but a holding area it must be until or unless the restrictions are lifted or modified. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The point I am making is that the restriction does not say they must only go in the special holding area. The only reason "that has been the interpretation" is because that has been your interpretation, which nobody has seen fit to challenge until now. I will repeat my question to you until you answer it (this is the third time now): what is your solution to this problem? Do you consider it acceptable for uncontentious articles to go 69 days before being approved? If not, what are you going to do about it? Please answer this question. Prioryman (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Are the nominations going to burst into flames if they go over 70 days? I've had noms sit for around 4 weeks (really boring ones anyway) before review and I don't feel slighted. 69 days is not the norm for these articles. Why does speed to the mainpage matter? DYK is not supposed to be a contest. Froggerlaura ribbit 20:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
People who submit articles to DYK have a reasonable expectation, I think, that their nominations are going to be dealt with in a reasonable time. Look at the figures I gave above. The average wait for a non-Gibraltar review to be completed in my sample was 7 days. The average for a Gibraltar-related review is 46 days. That's 6 weeks, just as an average! Okay, so you've have occasionally noms "sit for around 4 weeks". Have you ever had, or ever come across, a situation where every DYK you submit on a particular topic is going to sit around for half as long again? This kind of delay was never intended to happen. We did not design the restrictions to deliberately obstruct reviewers. The undisputed fact is that reviewers are being obstructed. Your idea of moving the holding area is interesting, but it does not get around the fundamental problem that reviewers do not look in holding areas for articles to review. We know that for a fact - we can see it in the review data I posted. The only way around that is to follow the way that reviews are normally done, and list them by date as well. In fact, we can see that this approach is working - Soman's dual-listed article has just received its first review after less than a day, as compared to the average of 25 days to the first review that I demonstrated in my dataset above. At the very least we should operate this as a trial to see if it cuts down on the delays. Prioryman (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Prioryman, I can't believe that anyone would think that a 69-day wait for DYK approval is a good thing. I think it's highly unfortunate fallout from the Gibraltar restrictions that were put in place in the hopes of preventing something worse, like a moratorium of many months, if not years. There may be ways to streamline the reviewing process, and I'm open to considering them. As you noted, inclusion in my lists of old nominations needing review was not as successful as hoped, though I believe it did help somewhat.
However, this comes in the context of the latest attempt to remove or redefine the restrictions failing, so I'm a bit skeptical of yet another redefinition attempt, this time of "All DYK Gibraltar-related nominations will go into a special holding area from the time they are nominated." You're claiming that it doesn't specifically say that they can't be in two places at once, which therefore means they can be in the holding area and the nomination area. But this ignores the fact that voters on the restrictions would have known how the actual nominating process works, and would have understood it to be:
  1. User creates a Gibraltar-related nomination template in the usual way
  2. User adds nomination transclusion under its proper date in the T:TDYK nomination area per instructions.
  3. The nomination transclusion then goes to the special holding area.
It doesn't say "will be duplicated into" or "will be copied into" or even "will also go", it says "will go". In short, it will no longer be among the other nominees in the usual area, but gone—moved—into the special holding area.
That's how it's been done since the temporary moratorium on Gibraltar-related hooks was lifted last fall in favor of the just-passed restrictions that remain in force today. If moving rather than duplicating was wrong, the day the nominations were all moved into the holding area we have now was the time to say so, yet no one did. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you recognise that there's a real problem. However, I'm afraid you're missing the fact that nobody knew in advance what the effect of using the holding area for unprocessed nominations would be, because that had never been done before in the entire history of DYK. If someone had said, "this will cause delays of months in reviewing nominations", I have no doubt that the holding area idea would have been dropped. Nobody involved in the restrictions discussion had any intention of deliberately making it difficult for articles to be reviewed. It became apparent within only a few weeks that single-listing was causing massive delays. I brought this up on your user talk page here in October 2012, only about a month after the restrictions were imposed, and I pointed out back then that the restrictions didn't require single-listing. I realise I'm repeating myself, but I will point out again that "will go" does not say "will only go". There is no requirement of exclusivity whatsoever in the restrictions and adding a such a requirement is in fact a "redefinition", as you put it. We are now nearly six months into the restrictions and the problem has only got worse. I've repeatedly asked you what your solution is and I've not yet seen any answer to that question.
Let's turn this around a bit. The only practical issue that anyone has raised with dual-listing is Froggerlaura's concern that articles might be promoted "early", i.e. without completing the two reviews. I addressed that with the second change that I described - adding "traffic lights" to the review template. You can see at a glance (here it is again) that currently one review has been done but one more is required. The requirement for two reviews is stated in bold above. There is no possibility that anyone is going to look at this and think that it's ready for promotion. Dual-listing thus doesn't cause any harm, as the traffic lights will prevent anyone from promoting an article prematurely. It has the positive benefit of ensuring that the articles are visible and can get reviewed in a normal timescale. It also respects the restrictions by continuing to list the articles in the holding area. It actually benefits the goal of the restrictions, as Carabinieri says below, by ensuring that the articles get proper scrutiny, which single-listing hinders. It does not in any way compromise the restrictions. Arguing for single-listing is, in effect, an argument that reviewers should be hindered, which benefits absolutely nobody. Prioryman (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm waiting for a groundswell of disapproval for my interpretation that "go" was clearly intended for a move rather than a duplication—or of approval for yours that "will go" also means "will be duplicated"—and I'm not seeing it. I frankly think yours stretches logic to the breaking point, and did when you made the statement back on my talk page (enough so that I forgot about it until you reminded me just now). To my mind there is a requirement—"go" is most commonly from point A to point B—and that's what I'm sticking with until people other than you tell me that they thought it meant duplication was clearly implied. I see what you've done with the current nom, but arguing that a restriction is bad and shouldn't be followed (although you're actually arguing that the restriction doesn't really say what it says in addition to pointing out its problems and consequences) is an argument I just don't buy. Carabinieri (who is the reviewer of that current nom, possibly because he saw the discussion here) makes the sensible and pragmatic point, but, you know, there are lots of things about the rules of Wikipedia that I find far from sensible or pragmatic but I do them because those are the rules and restrictions Wikipedia operates under. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not arguing that "a restriction is bad and shouldn't be followed". Please do not misrepresent me. I have said consistently in this discussion that the restriction is being followed. Articles are still being listed in the special holding area, which is exactly what the restrictions require. Once again, they do not require they they must only be listed in the special holding area, and I will not accept you adding a requirement of exclusivity without a vote. I have asked you, I think four times now, what your solution is to this problem and you have yet to answer me. Let me ask you again for a fifth time: what is your solution to this problem? Ignoring it won't make it go away. I'm glad you acknowledge that the delays are a bad thing but I'm not seeing any attempt from you to resolve them while keeping within the bounds of the restrictions, which is the point of my changes. I'd be very happy to see you propose a solution, so let's hear what you suggest. Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I have consistently said in this discussion that I believe your interpretation of the restriction's wording is not reasonable. I am stating that the original wording, if interpreted by a reasonable person knowing how DYK typically works, means that it is a move rather than a duplication, and has since the original consensus was reached. Until we establish this point one way or the other, I am not interested in continuing this discussion, since my answers on any solution, of necessity, would start from the restriction as its been done since the moratorium was lifted, and you're unwilling to accept that as a starting point. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman, you can't make unilateral change to accepted practice that has been used for months, and then demand that other editors who dispute this need to achieve consensus first. Anyone is fully within their rights to revert that move, and in that case it is you who needs to achieve consensus for new procedure. Not everything is always specifically spelled out, because we aren't fucking lawyers here. WP:EDITCONCENSUS fully applies.--Staberinde (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't me who is being unilateral here. I am simply pointing out that the restrictions do not prohibit dual-listing. If you or someone else believes that they should, put it to a vote. We are certainly not going to add extra restrictions without consensus. Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that Gibraltar DYKs are being delayed is not something that can be changed by more rules. What we are observing is the collective opinion of the DYK volunteers. They are voting with their actions, and their actions show that the Gibraltar project fouled itself. I disagree with the idea that a double entry for Gibraltar DYK entries would be in the spirit of the restrictions. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No DYK volunteer has ever said in a review that "the Gibraltar project fouled itself", whatever that means. People are clearly willing to do the reviews. Nobody has ever said, to the best of my knowledge, that they don't want to review these articles. If you look at the reviews, they have been pretty complimentary about the quality of the articles. There have, in fact, been very few quality complaints and I don't think any of the articles have proved controversial once they got onto the Main Page. You disagree that double-listing would be "be in the spirit of the restrictions" but as I have repeatedly pointed out, the letter of the restrictions does not prohibit it. We are not getting into "emanations and penumbras" here. Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Whatever one may think about Prioryman's other actions during this spat, listing Gibraltar-related hooks under the relevant date seems fairly sensible and pragmatic. I, for one, would probably have missed any nomination in the holding area and not reviewed it. The spirit of the restrictions, as I understand it, is that Gibraltar-related hooks need to be looked at particularly carefully before they appear. Hiding the nominations in a special holding area actually hinders this. The way Prioryman listed the "pilot" nomination under the relevant date makes the special circumstances of this nomination pretty clear and there's no chance it will be accidentally promoted without being given the scrutiny it requires.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Old DYK hooks need reviewing

We have made good progress over the past week, taking us down below the 200 mark in total nominations for the first time in weeks, but more reviews would be helpful and appreciated as 190 is still a major backlog, and only 19 of those are approved, while there are 27 open slots between the queues and prep areas. All those listed below are at least two weeks old. Many thanks for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review, in which case don't strike them), even if the review was not an approval. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Smile mask syndrome

Hello everyone. I just noticed that Template:Did you know nominations/Smile mask syndrome has been promoted, but I have a couple of worries about the article. First is that only a small part of it is about the syndrome proposed by Makoto Natsume - the majority is about false smiles in general and about smile training in Japanese companies, and I am concerned that this might fall under WP:COATRACK. Second is that if the more general material is taken out, then there won't be enough material to prove the notability of the topic, or to write an article that exceeds the minimum DYK length. I had a look for sources about the syndrome as proposed by Natsume, but couldn't find anything in English or Japanese, apart from a short definition on the subject, and Natsume's 2006 book on the subject. The DYK is in prep area 4 at the moment, but I think it should probably be put on hold until these issues are sorted out. I'm not sure what happens in this kind of case, though, so any advice would be welcome. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 05:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What it looks to me is that you are questioning the article's notability. In such a case, I'd suggest AfD, with the nom of course on hold. I agree that there is not much written about the subject in English, but I think the topic is notable. I cannot judge whether there's more in Japanese sources, you mention a book, I'd be curious if it was reviewed and cited? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Nomination removed from prep area and put on hold, with a pointer to this discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, BlueMoonset. And yes, Piotrus, you're probably right - this discussion would probably be best held at AfD. I'll go and nominate the article now, and I'll try and respond to your other questions there. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back. I think that the NYT ref, the Times ref (or at least this one which looks like pretty much the same thing from the same author), and the definition at Goo (search engine) are probably enough that the article would be kept at AfD. I have some other thoughts as well, but I'll put them on the nomination page rather than here, as that seems a more appropriate venue. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing notifications for DYK appearance

I had a DYK appear on the main page about 4-5 days ago, but I never received a talk page message about it. The bot removed the hooks from this version of queue 5, and looking at its history around that time, I see that it sent out notifications for the top five hooks, but missed mine and the last one. —Torchiest talkedits 06:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. But it appears you found out about it anyway, so no harm was done.--Carabinieri (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Settebello photo

An article I created, Settebello (train), has been moved to Prep 4 without any photo – i.e., not in the top spot – and I am hoping that someone might reconsider this choice and move it to another prep area, with the photo included. The Settebello was one of the most distinctive-looking trains of the last century (and ran in mainline service, between major cities, for 31 years), and a good photo is available, showing clearly the front-end observation compartment that is mentioned in the hook. (See the nomination.) Personally, I feel that the photo and hook are both sufficiently interesting for the top spot, and I find than photo more interesting that any of the others currently in prep areas. I wonder whether the promoter realized that that's the observation lounge at the very front of the train? (a train capable of 200 km/h). As creator of the article (but not of the nomination, or the photo), it would not be appropriate for me to move it to another prep area myself, but I hope someone else will do so. In about 25 DYKs, this is the first time I have ever made such a request when the photo was not included, but I feel the case for this request is strong. SJ Morg (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A lot of nominations include photos so only a fraction of them can be used. I decided not to use that one because at the resolution of DYK images it is hard to even recognize that that is a train at a first glance. There are lots of other images that work much better.--Carabinieri (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's an alternative photo that might be seen as more appealing for DYK (much closer up), or I could create a cropped version of the other photo, but I do realize that with only one illustrated hook per set, very few hooks will receive a photo. That's why I've always accepted the disappointment without any action when this has occurred in the past. If no one else decides to act on this, I'll let it go, but at this point I'm still hoping. SJ Morg (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Error on the nominations page

I've just noticed on the DYK nominations page that all the links to date subsections are gone from the menu at the top. Can someone fix this as it currently makes it harder to locate noms in earlier dates. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You can click on the links on the "List of DYK Hooks by Date" table to go to the desired date. -- KTC (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Backlog influx solved? More errors lately?

Right now the backlog is below 200 nominations. Lately, we are seeing more errors reported here and AFDs on featured hooks, so maybe we could reduce number of hooks per set from seven to six. Therefore, we could increase more time to scrutinize every hook and approved nomination before it becomes part of main page. --George Ho (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

While I would support this, I think we also need to consider that the next round of the WikiCup starts today so there might be another large influx in the coming days same as there was on 1 January. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That mean I'll wait until November comes (or hopefully, July or September). --George Ho (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The logic behind this proposal escapes me. The backlog is still quite high by historical standards, though it has come down from extremely high, and I see no compelling reason to change our frequency until the nomination total is lower. There's also no evidence that more time would result in more scrutiny on individual reviews. George, if you would indeed wait until November or even July before posting on this subject again, I would be very grateful. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Qualifying

Hi! I was wondering whether an article that has been expanded 2.5x times or so and most of the content has been rewritten, would this satisfy the DYK criteria for expansion/new article? Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 11:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

  • 2.5x only applies if it is a biography of a living person (BLP) without adequate sourcing. If it is on another topic it has to be 5x expanded regardless of it being extensively rewritten unless a large portion of the article was a copyright violation. If that is the case, the text that is not copyvio is used to calculate the pre-expansion characters. Froggerlaura ribbit 15:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere that wikicode doesn't count either does it? Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 09:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Technically, only the prose of an article counts, excluding references, tables, lists, block quotes, headings etc. You can find more detailed rules on the length here, but the easiest way is to use a tool like User:Dr pda/prosesize.js which will give you a pretty accurate count. Chamal T•C 14:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Prep 2

Excuse me, but is the last hook in the list really "quirky"? (It probably won't be understandable to anyone but a math major.) Yoninah (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not, I have moved it but now we need a quirky for the set. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Quirky added. Gatoclass (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Prep 1

The fifth hook is grammatically incorrect:

  • It sounds like the men's team was playing "in" the ladies team. Also, the connection between the two parts of the hook is not supported by a citation in the article. There are also a few bald URLs in the footnotes. Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

O.D. Anosike

Can anyone explain what is going on here? When you click on "Review or comment" it does not take you to the nom page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

For some reason the nom template had an extra space after the O. (O. D.) and the link was directing to a non-existent page using O.D. I moved the review so that the link directs to the page. Froggerlaura ribbit 00:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll look out for that next time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, there seems to be a page-move war about the name, so heads up with that. Froggerlaura ribbit 01:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Froggerlaura, please don't move review pages in future. Edit the DYKmake template and the DYKnompage templates on the review page, sure, but as it says on T:TDYK in the How to move a nomination subpage to a new name section: "Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page." Since it's been done, though, I'll finish the cleanup. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, someone else renamed it on the main nom page and I couldn't figure out what happened. The comment link was redirecting to a non-existent page. It was already fixed by the time of your reply. Froggerlaura ribbit 04:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Old DYK hooks continue to need reviewing

We continue to maintain a backlog of nominations needing review: 189 total nominations at the moment, of which only 25 are approved for promotion. All those listed below are at least two weeks old. Many thanks for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review, in which case don't strike them), even if the review was not an approval. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Treasures of Ancient Rome

I didn't realize that Treasures of Ancient Rome is currently featured as part of DYK. While I'm reading it, the only non-primary source is Telegraph; the rest speaks just mere recap of the documentary. How and why did this article pass when it does not =currently suffice reception and/or production? --George Ho (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Because it meets the DYK criteria, which are very specific & not demanding as regards overall article quality. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sameh Fahmi

I've edited Template:Did you know nominations/Sameh Fahmi (just after it went to Queue 5) from "that Sameh Fahmi, Egypt's former oil minister, has been sentenced to fifteen years in prison for exporting natural gas to Israel" to "that Sameh Fahmi, Egypt's former oil minister, has been sentenced to fifteen years in prison for exporting natural gas to Israel at lower prices than market rates?". If we have a hook on why a BLP is convicted to prison, we should get it right; the original hok gave the impression that it was somehow illegal for Egypt to sell natural gas to Israel; but the conviction was because it involved fraud and for "harming the interests of the country and wasting public funds"[5]. The hookmay now be technically too long, I haven't checked and frankly don't really care: getting it right is more important insuch a case than having the correct hook length. Fram (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good catch, thank you. Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That makes it sound like the he actually did sell sell the gas at lower than market prices, which he himself and many others deny. In reality, his conviction is part of an anti-Israeli witch hunt.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a personal opinion, it certainly isn't reflected in the article itself and a scan of the sources doesn't indicate anything of that nature either. Gatoclass (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Calling his conviction a witch hunt may be a personal opinion (whatever that means), but whether or not Fahmi acted unethically is controversial. Saying he actually was corrupt, like the hook that ended up running did, is just as much of a personal opinion. The article itself does not say he actually did sell gas at below-market prices, just that this was alleged. Such a significant change of a hook should really be discussed on the nomination page.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Users are not permitted to use Wikipedia to express their personal opinions, content has to be verifiable per WP:V, and AFAICT none of the article's sources describe the charges as "controversial". With regard to your other comments, the hook just says he has been sentenced on specific charges, it makes no claims regarding the veracity of those charges, so I don't see a problem there. Gatoclass (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
He was convicted and sentenced for that charge, and that is fact regardless of whether the judiciary process was flawed or not. The hook didn't say whether he was a criminal or not, or whether the sentence was correct or wrong. Making that observation is not up to us, so I think the hook was very neutral. Chamal T•C 06:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • A prep area is finally complete and ready to be promoted. We have far more bios approved than we have other types of articles, which makes assembling sets difficult. Some concentrated DYK reviewing right now of non-bio articles would be very much appreciated. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Set has been promoted and associated image is protected. The bot should begin work the next time it checks the status of the queues (the bot performs a check every 10 minutes). --Allen3 talk 00:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, the bot was working perfectly. Because the update that started this thread was late—it was promoted at 00:40—the following update was scheduled for 08:25, and then one after that at 16:10, moving in 15 minute increments toward the usual schedule. We are back on schedule for the next update, which will occur at 00:00. The queue page lists the times of the next update, if you're ever wondering whether we're truly late or just catching up. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Please check if it was done correctly. Chamal T•C 17:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops, looks like the image is not protected. Could an admin please take care of it, as my connection is crap at the moment and won't let me to upload it here. Chamal T•C 17:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Linking image!

Currently the DYK image is linked to the image description page (that means when you click on the image, it takes you to the image description page). And that's how the image gets a good number of views too. I suggest to-

  • Either make it a criteria that summary and details of the image should be well-written
  • Or link the image to the article!

Example: A recent DYK image File:Roekiah in Gagak Item.JPG description says that is the image of "Indonesian actors Rd Mochtar and Roekiah". But, where are two actors in the image? I can see only one actor! And the worst part is Crisco was the editor and I was the reviewer there! He He! Whoops, sorry, I'll check not only copyright and license, but also the image details more carefully from now.
But, this is not the only one, I can show you a bunch of such images, see this image File:Sealyham terrier 078.jpg, the description is written in some other language and I can understand nothing there. This image File:Maison obus.jpg description page has formatting errors, File:Henry Bell Gilkeson.png image description seems to be copyvio as it was directly copied from the Wikipedia article's lead without giving any attribution!
Ideas and opinions please! Best,-Tito Dutta (contact) 18:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • There are other preps: if another is moved within six hours, we won't have to have a bot reminder for the next queue. ;-) Thanks to Allen3 for noticing and doing the promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Tweak to nomination instructions

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Support. The change has therefore been implemented. Thanks are due to User:Mandarax for advice on how to do it. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

When a DYK nomination is opened for review, the instructions at the top include the policy requirement:

This is to propose changing to:

This is consistent with Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria, which says "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources, violate WP:BLP, or have problems with the close paraphrasing or copyright violations of images and/or text." By pointing to the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing essay, the revised instructions will encourage reviewers to check the applicable concepts, which in some cases (e.g. moral rights) go beyond basic compliance with U.S. copyright laws.

Support? Oppose? Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Support that reviewers perform spot-checks and furthermore that reviewers follow up when/if problems uncovered. Case in point discussion here, for this nomination. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Truthkeeper uncovered a problem that has to do with that article's history. I feel unable to perform more thorough checking (spot-checks showed no problem), also I would not have seen the paraphrasing as too close, therefore asked for a second reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The question is not about the behavior of reviewers. Should the instructions be modified as proposed? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems uncontroversial to me too, but I may be missing something and there is no urgency. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Duplicate interwikis

While I am making wikidata of WP:Recent additions(d:Q6984118), I knew that there are several duplicate interwikis compared to WP:Did you know. Please delete duplicate interwikis from 'Recent additions' and move rest of them into wikidata. Thanks! --kwan-in (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

ps. there are some inappropriate interwiki links, so check wikidata first before you move rest of them. --kwan-in (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done I've checked all the duplicates with WP:Did you know, so I'll delete interwikis from WP:Recent additions. --kwan-in (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Other editors moving to prep

I've boldly added the word other at Wikipedia:Did you know#How a DYK suggestion makes its way to the main page item two, here:

"If the suggested hook and the article(s) meet the requirements, any other editor may add the hook to one of the DYK template preparation areas,"

This is to prevent a nominating editor, or the on-behalf editor, from moving noms to prep areas, which seems self-serving and a bypass of review-by-others-at-each-step. I didn't see a prior discussion of this in the archives. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. Miyagawa (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I oppose this change per WP:CREEP as it will potentially cause inconvenience to updaters. I think as long as a reviewer has no demonstrable COI in completing the review, he or she can be trusted with the promotion as well as the approval. I very much doubt that most updaters check an article's bona fides before promotion in any case, at least, not thoroughly, so IMO it's not much of a check and balance. Gatoclass (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I support the move as a good way to reduce the backlog. Sometimes it is the simple things that make all the difference. I was just wondering, does "other" mean any reviewer not nominating or does it mean anyone uninvolved in the discussions altogether? Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 22:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

How is "any uninvolved editor ..."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sanjak of Kruševac

Can someone have a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Sanjak of Kruševac. It's became disturbed when it was pulled from the queue, and I don't know how to pass it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it. For future reference, what I had to do was go back to the last version before it was promoted, copy all of the subsequent discussion into that version of the template, and save it. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Harrias talk 22:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Paleontology in the USA

Nobody seemed willing to work out the totals. I've saved everyone the trouble and from the 54 article hook worked out the total views (17,052) and vph (2151.5 (rounded to 2152)). Hope this was okay. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 01:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Calling all reviewers: DYK needs you

We desperately need people to review for DYK: only 8 of 172 nominations are approved at the moment, and we have 49 slots to fill. Please look on T:TDYK, find something that looks interesting, and start reviewing.

Alternatively, you can pick one of our older nominations to review: each of these is only a click away. The list is usually for hooks at least two weeks old, though I've gone an extra day because there were fewer than a dozen newly eligible hooks otherwise. Many thanks for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review, in which case don't strike them), even if the review was not an approval. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Image size

Is there consensus to allow odd-sized images occasionally? The one currently in prep 3 (next in queue) is 200x100px and is not suitable at 100x100. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I pulled it from the prep area to make way for Ma Mati Manush, a time-critical hook. When I passed the article, I should have posted a query here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
No comment on the article, but I think it's a dangerous precedent to set. Non-100x100 images have the potential to disrupt the main-page layout in unexpected ways, especially on small-screen devices. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I re-sized the image. It's not completely useless at 100x100 IMO, but it definitely shouldn't be 200x100 for the reason you give. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK reviewers needed for aging classic nominations

We still need people to review for DYK: only 13 of 146 nominations are approved at the moment, and we have 48 slots to fill. Hooks listed are at least 12 days old, four here are real classics, at over a month old, and two are at least two months old. Please try to clear out the oldest ones if you can. Many thanks for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review, in which case don't strike them), even if the review was not an approval. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Reducing DYK hooks to 6 per set

I've just been WP:BOLD and reduced the one filled prep set (the only prep or queue filled) to 6 hooks from 7, so we'll only be using up 18 hooks a day rather than 21. The total nominated hooks is 148, the approved hooks available to promote is but 17, and things have been getting tighter for a while now. We will have a block of hooks available for Easter and April Fools Day (March 31 and April 1 respectively), but that's over two weeks away.

I gather that 148 is not a small backlog by historical markers, but the reviewing has slowed lately, so we're not generating enough hooks for promotion to sustain the current rate for the main page. If that changes, or if there is a spike in submissions (which means more people doing QPQ reviews and more hooks getting approved), we can look at this again.

If people disagree with this, or think we should reduce the rate further, this is the place to discuss what to do. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Poor hook

In Prep 1 there is currently a hook that reads:
This hook is bad because there is no inline reference stating that this is the most prominent fauna species in the park and the last 6 words are vague and inaccurate - what does "the 13 such species" mean? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed this, and I must admit that I did not did a proper job. There is a citation that claims that its the most prominent fauna species, though it's at the end of the paragraph instead of right behind the fact, which is required per DYK rules. I agree that the last 6 words are vague and inaccurate, but did not catch it while reviewing it. I guess we could pull it from the prep, and find another hook. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Searching on Google I find very few hits for the alternative name of "babakoto". An alternative, referenced hook could read: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
That hooks is ok, but should we contact the authors before changing the hook? Mentoz86 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I've changed the hook to your suggestion. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
That's good. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Hanratty in Prep area 1

Hello. Can someone here possibly pull the hook out of prep area 1? I am terribly sorry about this but I just found a reliable source, Professor Wayne Carlson, who says that fact came from the MCS website (Hanratty's company). The University of California, Irvine may very well have copied it from there. Thank you. P.S. An ALT hook is possible (because his hobby is gold prospecting). I could work on an ALT tomorrow. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. The nomination's promotion has been reversed; you can work on a new hook at your leisure. Thanks for letting us know. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Whew, thank you, BlueMoonset. It's probably the right idea but still we need a better source. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Shanu Lahiri

I just came across this article in Prep 2. I'm surprised this nomination passed considering the terrible grammar throughout the article. The reviewer did catch a few examples of close paraphrasing, but many more were embedded in the article. I just spent time cleaning everything up, but I wanted to suggest that reviews done by novice DYK reviewers are somehow tagged for double-checking by more experienced reviewers. Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing your own hook in Prep areas

I've been having a disagreement with User:Dr.K., who created the Helen Vlachos article that was promoted to Prep 3 earlier today (and is now in Queue 5), and twice edited that hook in the prep area to add material to it after its promotion. The hook had been approved in Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Vlachos as "... that in October 1967, Helen Vlachos was placed under house arrest for calling Brigadier Stylianos Pattakos, one of the Greek junta principals, a clown?

The first time it was to add "Greek journalist" before the name "Helen Vlachos". This left two instances of "Greek" in the hook, and one was soon excised by User:Mentoz86, who came back a few minutes later to reorder and shorten the hook, removing material about Pattakos being a principal member of the junta. Shortly thereafter, Dr.K. returned, and added the junta membership back and also a new fact, that Pattakos was then "Minister of the Interior".

I noticed the new addition (but hadn't noticed the earlier edits), and was surprised to see a nominator editing his or her own hook, and more so that this was a new fact not mentioned in any of the reviews. My understanding was that people should not edit their own hooks once they've been promoted, but post a request here at WT:DYK if changes need to be made, or if they have problems with what other editors have changed. So, after checking the article and the sources to be sure that Pattakos had indeed been Minister of the Interior at the time, and removing some hook overlinking, I dropped a note on Dr.K.'s talk page suggesting that in future, rather than directly editing hooks, change requests be made here on the DYK talk page. That post was summarily deleted as "heavy-handed", though Dr.K. subsequently started a thread on my talk page, User talk:BlueMoonset#Your message on my talk, the content of which indicates to me that this advice has been discounted.

If it is okay for people to feel free to make edits to their promoted hooks, including significant edits with factual additions or changes, I'd like to know. I think it's a conflict of interest and a bad idea, not least because it potentially bypasses two DYK review stages: the original approval, and the promotion to prep. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to BlueMoonset's assertion that I discounted their advice, I actually tried to make them understand that this case was not a matter of COI but a straightforward addition of two well-cited descriptors, not pertaining to the main point of the hook: "Greek journalist" for Vlachos and "Minister of the Interior" for Pattakos, after the descriptor "one of the junta principals" was removed by another user, in effect demoting Pattakos to just a Brigadier and thus altering the hook substantially. In any case, when I altered the hook, I knew that many editors and sysops were observing. I was not coming in by stealth to peddle some dubious information. I was confident if someone did not agree with my edit they would undo it and perhaps leave me a polite note on my talk. I didn't expect a message on my talk admonishing me for my actions and expresing surprise. In my view this is not what wiki collaboration is about and certainly it does not correspond to my idea of a friendly DYK environment. By the way, I don't think that improving a hook, especially after it has been damaged, with a well-cited descriptor and in full view of the DYK community, is COI. That charge is completely unwarranted, bureaucratic and unnecessary. Please see below my explanation in the collapsed section which covers our discussion at their talkpage:
Relevant discussion from BlueMoonset's talkpage
== Your message on my talk ==

Hi BlueMoonset. You came to my talkpage advising me about conflict-of interest because I edited the DYK hook of my article at Prep 3. I think that, in this instance, that advice was misplaced and I would like to explain to you the circumstances behind this. The first time I edited Prep 3 was to add Greek journalist in front of Vlachos' name. Nothing controversial about that. But then Mentoz86 changed the hook of the Vlachos DYK because he didn't like it. But he removed a crucial descriptor for Pattakos as "one of the Junta principals". That forced me to add his undisputed title as "Minister of the interior of the junta" which is also undisputed and uncontroversial because at the lead of the article and in the main body there is this fully-cited passage:

In October 1967, her description of one of the junta principals Brigadier Stylianos Pattakos then Minister of the Interior of the junta, as a clown, led to her house arrest...

As you see it covers everything in the hook as it exists now. So I hope you can see that I simply added uncontroversial descriptors to the hook and that my second addition was in response to Mentoz86's removing a chunk of the approved hook which described Pattakos as a "principal of the junta". Finally, I know full well that changing DYK hooks after they have been approved is not recommended, but I hope you can see that I did it this time because there was nothing controversial about my edits and that my hand was forced after Mentoz86 deleted a large chunk of the approved hook. So I did not need the COI lecture after all. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought my post was indeed AGF: that you had not known about that particular guideline, so I thought was giving you a discreet hint. Instead, you saw it as a "heavy-handed accusation", and deleted it forthwith, instead of posting the above there in response. We don't seem to be doing too well on mutual AGF at this point, it seems, though I think mine was more innocent than yours. But perhaps I'm biased.
Adding any new facts to your own hook once it has been promoted, directly in a prep area, means that two check points, reviewer and promoter, have been bypassed—even a non-controversial-seeming one like "Greek journalist" should be checked by a reviewer, no matter how easily verified, and the more so with the completely new Minister of the Interior fact. The point is that someone other than you needs to make that determination. Your first edit didn't go well: you added a second instance of the word "Greek" and the duplication attracted the attention of Mentoz68, who not only removed the extra "Greek", but subsequently some other text he felt could be trimmed.
DYK rules make it very clear that you do not control your own hook: DYK editors reserve the right to edit for length and a whole bunch of other reasons, and facts or phrases may disappear in the process. If you feel a hook has been damaged by an edit, the place to go is WT:DYK. It appears that you did need the "COI lecture", and worse, that it has not been understood. Your hand was not forced to make those edits, you chose that unconventional route rather than to take your valid concerns to the DYK talk page. As unwelcome as this advice may be, I urge you to use regular channels in future. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
If you do not understand that adding "Greek journalist" in front of Vlachos's name is uncontroversial I see no point arguing with you. Insisting that "Minister of the Interior" needs to be verified externally does not make it so. If you had read the article you would have seen the reference and the quotation inside the reference verifying exactly that. From our few exchanges I have noticed that you tend to give heavy-handed advice to me and, worse, you keep repeating it. There is nothing to be gained by either of us continuing this exchange. But lest you misunderstand I will repeat one more time that if you had bothered to check the facts and read the article you would have seen that everything was above board. That you chose to jump on the lecture bandwagon does not help you case that you AGFed toward me. And you failed to acknowledge that Mentoz86's removal of "one of the junta principals" from Pattakos' description seriously damaged the information in the approved hook by demoting Pattakos, one of the junta principals, to just a Brigadier and all I did was to try to repair that damage. But it is funny, how one user (Mendoz86) can take crucial information out of the hook and you have nothing to say about it. Yet when I come in to repair the damage you tell me I urge you to use regular channels in future, in your own words. So other users can mutilate hooks at will, meanwhile the original proposer has to go to committee to repair the damage. Hardly seems equitable. I can only remind you about AGF and Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy. And let me remind you how the hook looks in the article:

In October 1967, her description of one of the junta principals, Brigadier Stylianos Pattakos then Minister of the Interior of the junta,[2][9][17][18][19][20] as a clown,[2][5][9][17][18][19][20] led to her house arrest,[2][5][9][18][19][20] for which she later wrote a book under the same title.[2]

Do you still think I had to go to committee to verify it? You can have the last word of course. I am not coming back here because you don't make it easy for me to talk to you by repeating your heavy-handed remarks to me multiple times. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, I can feel another rule coming... I don't see a problem with changes like spelling/grammar fixes or minor rewordings as long as the basic idea of the hook is the same as the approved version. However, there is a problem with adding entirely new information to the hook – as BlueMoonset says, that would mean the hook contains material that may not have been verified. Reviewers focus mainly on the facts mentioned in the hook when approving it; we don't have the time or resources to check every single fact in the article. Besides, the new information in the hook may have been added to the article after the review. In my opinion that's why such a change is problematic. I personally don't see COI being an issue since the nominator would likely have proposed the original hook. If we don't let him change a hook just because he wrote the article, he shouldn't have been allowed to nominate it in the first place. After all, we don't go to a FAC and oppose because the nominator made a change to the article or nom page after they nominated it. The only issue I see is with maintaining the factual accuracy of the hooks we put up on the main page. Similarly, DYK reviewers/promoters or even the approving admins don't have the express right to decide on the final wording of a hook. It would be nice if any such change were notified here, regardless of whether it was done by the nominator or somebody else, because if another editor objects to the changes there would be a chance to resolve it. Then the hook can be held back if necessary while the issue is resolved. While DYK reviewers can change the hook, there's no rule saying that the nominator/creator can't change it either. If there are objections, they should be discussed and changed. That's how Wikipedia works in general, and I see no need for us to deviate from that standard practice. Chamal T•C 03:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Chamal. I fully agree with your well-made points. Thank you also for your comments about COI with which I completely agree, especially if someone modifies the hook in a detrimental way. It would be unfair to suggest that whereas anyone can destroy the hook at prep, the original nominator is not allowed to correct it because of COI. Thank you for putting this idea to rest. This is also my idea of how Wikipedia works. After your explanation that you don't always have the resources to check the modifications, even if minor, I agree that I should have notified the DYK error report with the change and an explanation. Chalk it down to my unfamiliarity with handling problem issues at DYK. By the way, FWIW, this is exactly what I did in the beginning. I actually proposed the change at Errors, but then I realised that Prep 3 was not protected so I undid my report at Errors: (Just discovered it Prep 3 was not protected and added it myself) and then edited Prep 3. Is that the typical behaviour of a guy with COI? Just askin'. But it is rather disturbing nonetheless that others with more familiarity with DYK rules are swift to hand-down warnings to their colleagues. And even worse: Look at the vehemence of these remarks: It appears that you did need the "COI lecture", and worse, that it has not been understood. and As unwelcome as this advice may be, I urge you to use regular channels in future "Regular channels" on wikipedia? Am I hearing well? Is this a collegial, collaborative wiki or a bureaucratic gulag? It's all in the collapsed section. And all because I wanted to call Vlachos, a "Greek journalist", well, a Greek journalist and also to repair the imbalance left by demoting Pattakos from a "principal of the junta" to "Brigadier" because someone got into prep 3 and erased information from the hook. Yet the editor who erased the information got no warning, just me who tried to fix it. It just defies belief. I think someone has to advise this user that good-faith editors who produce content and try to improve the encyclopaedia should not be subjected to such base comments. That is a real problem, thankfully not very prevalent at DYK, which I still find a friendly environment overall with a few exceptions. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think Bluemoonset was absolutely correct. Even if Dr K. was adding relatively non-controversial information, the end result was nowhere near what was promoted. If a less scrupulous editor had changed the hook fact to include a BLP violation, for example, it would have been our collective heads for letting it happen. All editors should avoid making substantial changes—especially adding previously unreviewed information—to hooks in the prep or queue areas, as (despite our best efforts) these are little watched; errors introduced when adding information are unlikely to be found before the hook hits the main page.
Generally the time to figure out a solid hook is when it's at the nomination stage. Afterwards, major changes may invalidate a review and possibly introduce errors to the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This looks to me like a somewhat anomalous situation: a hook is approved, someone adds a slight clarifier, someone else copyedits that and then sees a way to trim the hook, and the first editor then returns to reintroduce what he regards as a pertinent fact, tweaking the hook as he does so in a way that raises somebody else's concerns. I don't think Dr. K's additions were terribly controversial but they did result IMO in a degree of redundancy.

I think it's better if a user doesn't edit his own hooks after they have been approved, but minor changes are probably acceptable just as they would be for any other user. BRD has some relevance here I think. I also think Dr. K overreacted to Bluemoonset's talk page comment, I couldn't see much wrong with it, but regardless, I don't think we need to start adding to the rules over an episode like this. Bluemoonset is correct though that it would be best practice for a user with a COI concerning a hook to bring his concerns to this page rather than try to fix a perceived problem himself, because it's harder to be objective about our own hooks and articles. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gatoclas. I agree that after I added Greek journalist there was a redundancy/slight clash with Greek junta because "Greek" was repeated twice. That could have been mitigated by trimming "Greek" either from the word "journalist" or "junta". But removing "one of the junta principals" from Pattakos description left only "Brigadier" for Pattakos. Which is a severe change for Pattakos' status as there are many "Brigadiers" but only 3 "junta principals. You are also right about BRD. I did not want to edit-war on prep 3 with Mentoz86 so I added an equivalent fact for Pattakos, "Minister of the Interior" which was on par with "one of the junta principals" and also well-cited and easily verifiable. As far as overreacting to BumeMoonset's statement on my talk, I disagree with you. First BlueMoonset comes to my talkpage and among other things they tell me: It really is a conflict of interest to be editing your own article's hook, and shouldn't be done. That is an extremely serious accusation which I find unfair and unwarranted for the reasons I explained above. When I left a polite message on their talk telling them about the circumstances (please see collapsed section above) they actually intensified their reply by saying: It appears that you did need the "COI lecture", and worse, that it has not been understood. and As unwelcome as this advice may be, I urge you to use regular channels in future. That is clearly unacceptable to me. Because it is clearly insulting to tell someone that a. they needed a COI lecture and b. that they did not learn their lesson. It was an extremely rude, condescending and unsubtle remark, especially since COI did not exist, I was simply trying to fix the hook, not peddle some garbage. But I did not use any derogatory personal decriptions against BlueMoonset despite them using them against me. I consider this a civil, fair and valid response to BlueMoonset under the circumstances. I can't say that about their comments to me which I find condescending and heavy-handed. BTW, I already said to Chamal above, I realise that this is indeed an anomalous situation which I did my best to avoid getting into. I also accepted Chamal's explanation that simple facts can sometimes be difficult to verify and told him that going forward I would submit changes to Errors. So I agree with you that the situation was not optimum and in my 38 DYKs I have never done it but only this time, and only because of the circumstances as I explained them above. But my action fell far short of heavy-handed accusations of COI. My only interest was to improve the hook, after it had been mutilated by another user. There is no conflict of interest in that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
With respect, I still think you are overreacting to the term "COI", it's not necessarily an "extremely serious accusation", in this context it simply means that the author of a piece of text is likely to be a less objective judge of its merits. IMO there has just been a bit of mutual misunderstanding here, I suggest the two of you just agree to AGF and put it behind you. Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, COI is a loaded term and BlueMoonset's first message could have been better phrased and explained so I respectfully disagree as to overreacting. But you make a fair clarification regarding a possible alternative meaning to COI regarding DYK and so I accept it in good faith. In the same spirit, I AGF BlueMoonset for their first message, as you suggested. But their follow-up reply was completely unwarranted and I still stand by my evaluation of it. But in the interest of peace and drama minimisation I am putting this incident behind me, also as you suggested. Thank you Gatoclass. All the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sometimes well-intentioned edits by other users create errors in a promoted hook. In those instances, the people who created or nominated the article are the ones most likely to recognize the problem and also may be the best qualified to fix it. However, users generally should not add content to "their own" hooks after they are approved/promoted. --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much Orlady for your opinion. There is no daylight between your opinion and mine on this matter. In other words, I fully agree with you. Also as I mentioned above, I did not know that Prep 3 was not protected because, once my hook gets approved, I trust the DYK prep regulars to process my hook and I don't examine the prep areas in detail. I have no interest in being anywhere near or meddle with my hook post-promotion. In this, only case, there were a few details involved that caused me to want to get involved. And the proverbial devil was among them. :) Given this experience, next time I'll exorcise them by simply going to the church. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK? nomination review rquest

Can someone please review this DYK? nomination of mine--Template:Did you know nominations/Urbanization in the United States? I would be willing to review someone else's DYK? nomination (or even two DYK? nominations) if someone wants me to do this. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Correction needed in Queue 6

Could someone please correct the lead DYK in Queue 6 - Gold Base is not near Riverside County, CA, it is in the county. Prioryman (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Chamal T•C 08:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That was quick, thanks very much. Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/National colours of Canada

I think this nomination was prematurely promoted. I still have an outstanding QPQ to complete, and it occurred to me that perhaps this could be reserved for display on Canada Day (July 1). Can someone un-promote this nomination until I've completed the QPQ? (It's currently in Prep area 3.) Mindmatrix 14:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I pulled it out of the prep area, so you can do the QPQ. I don't think we can hold it for Canada Day, as that's more than 3 months away. The normal rule is 6 weeks at most, except for April Fool's Day. --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I think Canada Day is a bit too far away. Harrias talk 15:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

Shouldn't it be "tons of organic distillery waste were fed?" Rather than the current "tons ... was fed?"--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe "were" is correct, but I'm not a native English speaker so I don't want to make the change myself just yet. Can anybody confirm whether the current version or the correction suggested by Epeefleche is accurate? The hook is currently in Queue 3 if another admin wants to change it. Chamal T•C 04:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I can live with that. Chamal T•C 05:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
That works as well. Though I can't imagine why "were" sounded wrong to Crisco. It is the past tense plural of was. As in "they were late".--Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware were is correct for plural nouns (tons, in this case); it's the issue of having a singular or uncountable noun (even if used as a modifier) next to were which bugs me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

I have reviewed a nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Josh Linkner, where I'm uncertain if the hook is hooky or if it is misleading. The hook states that Linkner "connects the creativity of jazz to creativity in the business world" while the article states that "in the book he connects the creativity from his experience playing guitar with his jazz ensemble Guymon Ensley Quintet and creativity in the business world". Is this an appropiate hook, or should it include that it is in his book? Mentoz86 (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about expansion

I have been slowly working on expanding Second Street Bridge (Allegan, Michigan) in my userspace here. The issue is that Allegan, Michigan also contains information on the bridge, up to 2363 characters worth, that is entirely unreferenced (one paragraph might also be copyvio with [6], unless the website copied Wikipedia). I know that Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#A4 says that no matter how bad the previous content, a 5x expansion is still needed. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that >10,000 characters of article can be written. However, rule A5 mentions expansion form another article only for copied text, so would this be exempt? Guidance please? Chris857 (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Yea, I don't think any wording from the Allegan article will make it to the bridge article (as the tone of most of it isn't really neutral enough). Chris857 (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The last posted list is down to three nominations, which is great work, but there are plenty of DYK hooks that currently need reviewing: 25 of 135 nominations are approved at the moment, and we still have 24 slots to fill. Hooks listed are at least 11 days old, and four are from last month. Please try to clear out the oldest ones if you can. Many thanks for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review, in which case don't strike them), even if the review was not an approval. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

QPQ is a second review

Hi all. I'm reviewing the Steps of Cincinnati nomination. The nominator has done a QPQ, but it is for a nomination which has already had a review completed (see Template:Did you know nominations/Suicide in the United Kingdom). Is this acceptable? The original reviewer of that nomination didn't call for a second review. Mindmatrix 21:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I replied there: I don't think it is acceptable. In the past, I've asked for another review when a person added their own review to a perfectly good completed review and then claimed QPQ credit for it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

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

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

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fart for April's fools - need review

I've had FL Fart in my watchlist for a while, but after recent vandalism I realized that the English meaning of the club's name is something that can be used for April's Fools. I've now expanded the article, and nominated it for DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/FL Fart). I guess I am a little late for April's Fools, so if anyone can review this in time for April's Fools I'd be very happy. Every help to get a nice "fart-hook" is also appreciated. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we not have a separate holding area for April's Fools hooks anymore? AgneCheese/Wine 17:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know - looks like it is already transcluded there. Chris857 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for the link! AgneCheese/Wine 17:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Case change in Queue 1

In the third hook of Queue 1, "pine" should be lower case (but "Pinus", of course, should remain upper case). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Building April Fools sets, and prep set size afterward

Prep 4, the first April Fools prep set (due to be posted at 00:00 UTC on April 1), has just gained its seventh hook. There are 19 more hooks—18 approved and the last getting close to approval—on the April Fools holding page. That's a total of 26 hooks, which means Prep 4 should probably acquire two more hooks, and the two following sets for the day be set up with 9 and 8 respectively when it's possible to assemble them. (Right now, all six queues and four preps are full, which is great.)

We now have 43 approved hooks ready to be slotted in starting on April 2, and another 128 needing approval. I'd like to propose that after April 1 we increase the number of hooks per set from six to seven. That number's going to grow while we're only loading April Fools hooks. The number of nominations being submitted has been quite high for over a week now and our backlog has increased by a few dozen hooks in the past ten days, even while we've been more diligent at filling queues and preps: instead of having several open sets, we have none. We need to use up more hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If another hook is needed to balance out the sets for April 1, I have an article for humorist Dick Wick Hall (yes another suggestive name) already written. Just waiting for a good time to move it into the article namespace. --Allen3 talk 23:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think Blue's proposal is fine. I initially loaded 6 to Prep 4 as I had not counted the total (especially as some are still being discussed), and planned to split the difference after all three Fishy-sets had been filled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly re-jig wording of hook in Queue 5?

The lead hook in Queue 5 reads: "that ... Franz Schubert composed in 1814 his first mass, a missa solemnis in F major, for the centennial celebration of the Lichtental parish church, also known as Schubertkirche (pictured)?" Maybe I'm wrong but that wording feels a little clumsy to me. Would "that ... in 1814 Franz Schubert composed his first mass, a missa solemnis in F major, for the centennial celebration of the Lichtental parish church, also known as Schubertkirche (pictured)?" read a little better? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Sex for Breakfast hook

There's a mismatch between the word "drip" in the article Sex for Breakfast and the word "dip" in the hook (currently Prep 2). — Brianhe (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed this, thanks for highlighting it. Prioryman (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking for a loophole for Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Feynman

Hey there. I'm really bummed out that Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Feynman, which was expanded as part of an edit-a-thon yesterday, doesn't seem to meet the size requirements. I'm wondering if anyone knows of any loopholes that would allow us to approve it anyways. Ms. Feynman's birthday is tomorrow, so if we could figure this out soon, that'd be awesome. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I had noticed the nom and commented there before I saw this. Unlike some articles which start out very large before people try to expand them, this one was a reasonable size for an expansion attempt. As I commented on the nom page, I hope there's enough source material available to sufficiently expand the article, because I think we don't get very many DYKs for female scientists. And, checking further, it looks like this would be the user's first DYK for substantial contributions. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
DYKCheck tool now confirms this is 5X expansion. It looks like that was the only issue, so it would seem good to promote. — Maile (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you know... Elise Andrew founded the "I Fucking Love Science" Facebook page?

Notes on Josiah Gregg

FYI to all who may be concerned: I just now moved a prep set to Queue 3, but only after a lot of heartburn over the lead hook, which had already generated a lot of heartburn in its nomination review. First, I edited the hook to remove a link to Commerce of the Prairies|this Wikiquote page. I'm not aware of any precedent for linking to Wikiquote in DYK; if I'm wrong, please correct me. Next, I switched out the image and revised the hook slightly to accommodate the new image because I ould not find evidence that the portrait of Josiah Gregg (File:Josiah Gregg.jpg), which must be presumed to have been created in the U.S., is actually in the public domain in the U.S.. The Commons page doesn't say where the file comes from, and I couldn't find it in any of the pre-1923 publications cited in the article (I did find it in more recent publications, but without indication of its earlier history). --Orlady (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding external links in the hook, see Other supplementary rules for the hook, point C5. I think this should apply to sister projects too. If there's agreement, we should amend the supplementary rules to explicitly state this. Mindmatrix 22:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I remember that we used a link to Wikisource for a quotation from the Bible in Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
In the hook, I would name Gregg first, then the particular plant, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:DYKSG#E5 (supplementary rules, E5) points out that links to the Wiktionary have not only been allowed in past DYKs, but objections to doing so have not prospered. So Wikimedia sites would seem to be something other than external, at least in some cases. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I should probably add that, given what I've seen of wikiquote (admittedly in certain, limited areas), I would be less sanguine linking to it from a hook on the main page, and think Orlady has made the right call here. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A huge thank you to everyone who worked on this article! I learned a lot about DYK and good articles in the process and I apologize if the link to the wikisource was wrong, again, I learned a lot! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that Commerce of the Prairies could be a good subject for a Wikipedia article. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Gregg died 25 February 1850, so the image would have to be pre 1850. And yes, Orlady, when I get a copy of the book and have read it all, probably will make a great topic for a page! Thank you for the suggestion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I found several versions of Commerce of the Prairies online -- and free, while I was searching (needlessly, as it turns out) for a pre-1923 publication of that photo of Gregg. --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yup, I saw that. But I want a particular edition because of the amount of biographical information in the introduction and annotations. :) Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Polish girls are getting wet and spanked

I removed the "Polish girls are getting wet and spanked today" hook from the main page. Juvenile sexist humor like this doesn't belong on the main page (except maybe on April Fool's). There are plenty of ways this could have been phrased without the sexual double entendres. Kaldari (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Kaldari, today is April Fools day (UTC). You may want to reinsert that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm totally stupid. Yes, it is April Fools in UTC. I should go to bed. Kaldari (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm no prude, but this is pretty low-rent, especially given the concerns which have been raised about Wikipedia not being a female-friendly environment over the last year. There are lots of ways of getting a laugh out of this article without using the kind of language which is used to tout low-grade porn sites. I just re-removed the hook, but then reverted myself as doing so was getting at least horribly close to wheel warring (and may have crossed the line) given that the template is fully protected; apologies for the obvious dumbness this action involved. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Today's "Did you know" section

Was there less attention paid to these DYK items than usual, because the ones I have clicked on have had several glaring errors. Sealo displayed multiple verb tense mistakes, while The Three Musketeers (Studebaker engineers) was so highly repetitive, overly verbose and excessively florid that I simply gave up halfway through my copy edit.--Khajidha (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for copy-editing those pages.
As a general rule, DYK accepts articles that are still rather rough, as long as they meet the criteria of length, sourcing, etc. However, DYK reviewers often do a lot of clean-up on articles before they go to the main page. Maybe the April Fool's collection, which has a separate review page, gets less of that kind of attention than the every-day DYKs do. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Queue 3 is one hook short

One of the hooks was removed earlier from Queue 3, leaving it with six hooks instead of seven. Could an admin please replace it with a hook from one of the prep areas? (There are 28 to chooise from!)

The removed hook was in the fourth slot of seven (between the film and the mass); if the replacement is a bio, it should definitely go in that position to avoid two bios in a row. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hook length

The just-added following hook in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 appears to be 22 characters too long: "that the 1941 theatre strike in Norway was in response to the revocation of work permits for six actors, including Elisabeth Gording and Lillemor von Hanno (pictured), when they refused to perform on Nazi-controlled radio?"--Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Since that's a three-article hook, it gets a little extra latitude on length. However, I think it could be shortened a bit. Here's one idea that takes it down to 204 characters by my count: "... that actors in Norway went on strike in 1941 after work permits for six actors, including Elisabeth Gording and Lillemor von Hanno (pictured), were revoked for refusal to perform on Nazi-controlled radio?" --Orlady (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC) I edited the hook in the prep area to include that shorter version. Others may have additional ideas for making it more concise. --Orlady (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, the image would be more "interesting" for DYK if it was cropped. --Orlady (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the hook to Prep 3 so it doesn't run overnight in Norway. It looks like someone has indeed cropped the photo. Incidentally, hook length for multi-article hooks is discussed here: basically, if you exclude all bolded article links beyond the first article's and the hook comes in at under 200 characters, it's probably okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to all. It looks as though it was shortened without any loss of information, so that is ideal. The shorter the better, for the purposes of impact. At the same time -- good work by Blue, as usual.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The situation has markedly improved since last time: 49 of 194 nominations are approved, and there are only 21 slots available to be filled. Even so, there are many older hooks that need attention—here are links for ones to work on. Thank you for your continuing assistance.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I don't think you get enough credit for all the time and effort you put in here. I really appreciate your housekeeping work at DYK and especially these friendly notices that direct attention to older nominations. :) AgneCheese/Wine 19:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Agne27. I'm glad it helps. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination going nowhere, fast

Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan is easily the oldest nomination at T:TDYK right now and is, currently, subject to several reviews which stated that controversial material should not be on the main page. This is not part of the criteria, naturally; the most recent review has focused on issues with the hook, which should be readily addressable. Question: should we fail nominations because the subject matter is controversial, or should we allow them assuming neutrality is checked and rechecked? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I know that Big Jock Knew (done before noms had individual pages) and Innocence of Muslims were rejected for being too controversial. I think that a case of IAR comes into it along with common sense a bit. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The DYK rules do require that articles comply with WP:NPOV. That appears to me to be the sticking point for this nom. Overall, current version of the article appears to be fairly neutral, but the lead sentence ("Anti-Armenianism (Armenophobia) exists in Azerbaijan on an institutional level and permeates daily social interactions in that country") conveys an impression to the contrary. Also, the hook ("that the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (pictured) called Armenians of the world their main enemy") impresses me as potentially problematic, for the potentially confusing pronoun reference of "their", for the way it disguises the article topic, and for the focus on a living person in a negative context. With a lead sentence that dispassionately summarizes the entire history covered in the article (rather than focusing so dramatically on the current situation) and a different hook, this might have a future, IMO. --Orlady (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • @C of E: Innocence of Muslims was also in the news at the time, ensuring that the article had stability issues. This subject is somewhat different.
@Orlady: I've rewritten the first sentence and given an alt hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_91&oldid=1144429648"