Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 117

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 9 years ago by DYKUpdateBot in topic DYK is almost overdue
Archive 110←Archive 115Archive 116Archive 117Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120

Straw poll

Latest comment: 9 years ago40 comments30 people in discussion

It has been suggested that the purpose of DYK is to encourage content creation. Conversely it has been suggested that the purpose is to showcase content. Of course the two can both be true.

This poll speaks to motivation: do you create content because it's good DYK material, because you want an award, or for some other reason.

I create content to get on DYK!

  • When I expand articles (most of the work I do involves expanding bird/natural history articles beyond their current stub stage), I always try to hit at least the DYK minimum requirements, so they qualify for inclusion. I'm hopeful this might attract attention to the various natural history wikiprojects — particularly the bird wikiproject. In general, I think the main page is (understandably) "people centric", so I do what I can to counterbalance that a little. MeegsC (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I definitely do this. I'm a very inactive Wikipedian nowadays: real life has taken up most of my schedule, but now and then I come back and I'll bulk up an article or write a new one with the intention of getting it to the front page. It's great to see work that I did get featured so folks can read it and I usually like to write about obscure enough topics that I can see where people wouldn't just run into it by chance. It's probably one of the few things that keeps me contributing on a semi-regular basis. Nomader (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It is definitely an incentive to create new articles or improve existing ones. It is one of the few chances to showcase what one has made and hopefully can encourage others to follow suit in creating or helping improve articles. Also helping to bring obscure things to the main page can be fun as well as the game of trying to work out how to word a hook so that more people would want to read it (not to mention the fun of using amusing hooks!). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I create content to get DYK awards!

  1. Definitely. I'm all about the bling, silly vapid creature that I am; I prefer diamonds but here I'll make do with barnstars (Truthfully, I don't produce many articles and couldn't give a fig, but I'm curious: does anybody have the brass to sign in this section and honestly admit their dragon lust for treasure?) Belle (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. I like it when my teacher sticks that picture I drew on our classroom wall, with a big shiny star sticker underneath. It makes me feel so proud! Younger kids don't always colour between the lines so sometimes I help them fix it up. Some kids win their playground spats by pointing at themselves and saying 'I got more stars than you!', but I don't do that. Sometimes though, other kids laugh and use my stars against me when I trip up and gash my knee. That makes me really sad. (Metaphorically speaking, you were all thinking it. Belle now owes me some brass.) Fuebaey (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't create content to get on DYK/get DYK awards, it's a nice extra!

  1. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC).
  2. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Half this, half per Philafrenzy below. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Although this is the case for me, it has modified the way I write. Now it will probably be in a sandbox, until it is up to the DYK standard, and then moved to mainspace. The reason being that it often takes more than the maximum time allowed to get an article into shape. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  6. I'm with Graeme. I have the 1500 b and 5x expansion numbers in mind when I'm creating or expanding articles, and if there's a hook, I nominate. If I can't think of a good hook, I don't bother trying to get it showcased. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  7. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  8. I don't do it on purpose, but the DYK is an added bonus. Don't mind expanding things 3/4x, and not getting a DYK for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  9. While I used to number chase, these days I simply nominate if the article I'm working on meets the criteria rather than specifically working towards the criteria. Miyagawa (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  10. It's nice to get articles that one writes on the main page. Obviously we write articles on subjects that interest us, and we want a lot of eyes on such articles. Page views go up when an article goes on DYK. So yes it is nice to get a DYK citation, but I think that visibility has a lot to do with it, especially for those of us with esoteric interests. Coretheapple (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Other

  1. I use DYK to get an article noticed by the community, the public, and Google. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Recently, I've been using DYK simply to ensure that we get some coverage of Indonesia on the main page. I can't provide the same output I did a couple years ago, but it's nice to have balance in the queues. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. I create content (when I do; which isn't often, I'm more of a wiki-gnome) because I have learned something that interests me and I want to share it with others. DYK is a good way to ensure that someone sees it. Likewise I do new page patrol to learn interesting things, and when I find something there I want to share it with others by nominating it for DYK. Hence my desire to see the newness requirement extended. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Like Philafrenzy, - perhaps we could make that another section? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. On further reflection, the "nice extra" is a part of it, but one my main motivations are twofold. It gets other (usually experienced) editors to look at my articles, and they get their prose improved, typos removed, and dumb citation errors fixed, for obscure topics that wouldn't otherwise get attention, most likely. The other is like it, my obscure topics get read by readers who would otherwise never have the opportunity (more correctly, inclination, sigh) to discover them. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  6. Philafrenzy sums it up well. I enjoy starting new articles, involving others, and try to send DYK the most interesting ones with the snappiest hooks. Well, that's the plan... Edwardx (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  7. I create articles for the pleasure of researching and writing them, and especially for the amusement of incongruous things about which people have said droll things. When I find something particularly offbeat, or inspiring, I like to think at least some others might be amused or inspired if I can distill it in a hook, though Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators I cannot adequately explain. See User:EEng#DYK. EEng (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. Since the topic here is whether DYK encourages content creation: I think that in every instance in which I've created or expanded an article, and nominated it for DYK, I would have done the same thing if there was no DYK. Exception: Dr. Young, which I definitely wrote just because I wanted to see the hook
    that Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators (right) were forcibly withdrawn after officials clamped down on them?
    on the main page. This is my shameful secret.
  8. I create content on obscure topics, I nominate these articles to let people know that fossil stag beetles, mosses, wasps, maples, etc are known and now have articles, as readers would most likely not know otherwise.--Kevmin § 02:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  9. I'm a bit of an oddball. I put forward DYK noms to get extra eyes on an article. For instance, when I GA reviewed The Boat Race 1877, which The Rambling Man wanted to take forward to FA, I suggested a DYK would get more eyes on the article and spot anything I missed, strengthening its case at a future FAC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC) PS: Like EEng, I do look out for the stuff they used to put on the "and finally" section of John Craven's Newsround, such as that report of a pony getting on a bus at Folkestone bus station, but unfortunately the bus station wasn't notable enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  10. I'm just a bit of an oddball. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    I can vouch for the veracity of that statement. Belle (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    But I must admit, I've often just been adding material to some offbeat or unconventional stub, when another editor has decided on a drive-by DYK nom. I'm usually happy to go along for the ride. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  11. I create content because I can't not create content; this is my calling. If an article appears at DYK, I'm hopeful it motivates the person who sees it to edit themselves (i.e. "Gee, if she can do it, maybe I can, too.") In the back of my mind, I think about what my sons have said, "Mom, you can't write all the articles yourself. You have to motivate others." So I'm hopeful that my work at DYK is a motivator. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  12. Difficult to pigeon hole. In some cases, I did it just for the WikiCup. In others, I found a topic interesting and wanted it to be shared. In one case, it was for April Fools. In another, it was an inside joke for another forum that reviewers humoured. Resolute 15:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

More pertinent: dispelling the myth

There also appears to be some urban myth that DYK is for "newbies" or for people who wouldn't be commensurate with MOS or any of our other various standard guidelines and policies. It's currently the "fifth goal" of DYK: "To encourage readers to edit articles that appear on DYK or start their own, thus facilitating the recruitment of new editors." In an admittedly brief straw poll, I counted one queue whose eight nominators had accumulated over 1/3 of a million edits. I just think it's worth establishing that, while "ideally" DYK appeals to new users, the process and those involved with it needs to recognise that the various steps of nomination, review, promotion, waiting, template editing etc is far from something a new editor would do here. I'd like to ask the community if they truly believe the process is correctly geared up for new editors or whether its arcane ways (my opinion) actively dissuade new editors from participating. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that the arcane ways of DYK dissuade new editors from participating; yet I think having their work recognized on the main page would please them and encourage them to continue editing and become more familiar with how Wikipedia works. This is why I'm wanting the change from 7 days to 30 days; to allow people other than the creator of an article to notice its existence and nominate it for DYK. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right, ideally the process does encourage new editors, but can anyone actually prove this is the case any more? Are new editors going anywhere near this process? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. See here. This nomination involves several newbies who came along to an an editathon. I'm not sure they will watch to see "their" article appear as it may be weeks or months before it is approved. Where's the rush? Well these editors would have been pleased to see their article appear whilst their enthusiasm could be remembered. There are other examples of bringing newbies here. And there are experienced editors here who were brought in by seeing their work on the main page. I would like to re-establish "nomination" and not "writing and self nomination" as the key DYK process, because it puts new editors as the focus. Victuallers (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Dedicated "edithathon"s are fine and will always do the newbie thing, I'm talking about the other 51 weeks of the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
When on NPP, I'll occasionally nominate an article by a new(ish) editor if I think the topic is inherently encyclopedic, and is well referenced. I think at least twice it has markedly increased the involvement of productive editors because they were pleased their work was noticed. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
We're always seeing new users on the noms page – those are usually the ones that are summarily rejected for not meeting the requirements, or require so much copyediting that the reviewer is able to take a co-credit. But I agree with Rambling Man that most users are DYK regulars. That's why we see so many hooks on the same subject – Pennsylvania rivers, dinosaurs, coffee growing countries, Heo Young-saeng songs, etc. Once an editor understands the process, it's easy to keep getting new work to the main page. Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I know that I started contributing on a regular basis to Wikipedia because someone nominated a video game article that I had written up for DYK. I didn't even think that my work would qualify, it seemed so complicated and once I got into it, it was like a fun addiction that I couldn't stop. I would love to see a simpler process that would give more editors that fuzzy feeling. Nomader (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, like Nomader I got involved after another editor nominated an article of mine, with the first I knew of it being the credit I got for it on my talk page. That triggered my interest and I became involved. Once I did so, I found the process pretty easy to negotiate, though things were admittedly simpler back then. DYK isn't so complicated when you know the ropes, but certainly, the guideline pages have proliferated and could use an overhaul. Gatoclass (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Back in 2007, long before QPQs came into effect, I used to nominate interesting new articles I came across while patrolling new pages; many of those were created by newbies who had no idea that they qualified for DYK. I got numerous nice messages from amazed new editors who were delighted to have their work appear on the main page. Sadly, I don't have time to do this much any more because I don't have / make the time to do all the QPQs. So, in answer to The Rambling Man's question, I'll bet new users don't use DYK much because they don't know it's there to be used! MeegsC (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I avoided DYK for many years because the process and requirements seemed far too complex to bother. WP:Articles for creation got my attention instead as it had a much simpler process. I notice even now that many do not follow the instructions for transclusion. But we do not count it against the nomination. I have seen occasional new people from the education program attempt a nomination, but they usually need help. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Queue 6

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I did specifically ask for Lake Jean to be a lead hook; I especially liked the picture. I wouldn't ask, but the picture is in this case pretty good and highly relevant. Can it be moved to queue 1 and given the lead slot please? That would give it the added advantage of running during the daytime in Pennsylvania, where most of the people who would be interested in this are probably located. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If anybody is editing queue 6, "Al-Bayan" should be "al-Bayan". Belle (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I fixed it, thanks Belle. Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately Jakec, Lake Jean already went to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 10:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

1630 Crete earthquake

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3, I removed "south of Palaiochora" because several maps agree the Kythira Strait is north, not south, of Palaiochora, Crete. I couldn't read the reference without paying for it. Art LaPella (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Which reference are you having trouble with? I couldn't see that any were behind paywalls. The bigger issue is that source #6 goes to the bibliography of a book, and shows a list of references. I see nothing there that supports the text linked to it. MeegsC (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This reference. I removed it while removing "south of Palaiochora", because the reference was there only to say that the geography was backwards. Art LaPella (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Nabakalebara 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Looking at the hook for Nabakalebara 2015 currently at Prep 5, I am forced to wonder how many times this particular celebration of the Hindu religious festival Nabakalebara will occur this century. Will the celebration scheduled for 2035 also be called Nabakalebara 2015? Shouldn't the hook instead state that Nabakalebara 2015 is the first occurrence of Nabakalebara to take place in the 21st Century? --Allen3 talk 21:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

By the look of it, the word "2015" just needs to be eliminated from the hook. Presumably there isn't going to be more than one occurrence of Nabakalebara 2015. I haven't time to look into it any further right now however. Gatoclass (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the hook looks more messed up than I thought. Somebody will either have to rephrase it so it makes sense, or pull it. Gatoclass (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I've had a stab at rewording it; what do you think? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't checked the sources, but on the face of it that looks okay. Gatoclass (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Next prep/Queue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Request for Sunday:Template:Did you know nominations/Eliza Wigham and features articles started by newbies. It is booked to appear in Mexico on Sunday morning the 19th for Wikimania. Thanks for help Victuallers (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yoninah (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 99 nominations are approved, leaving 212 of 311 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations from April and May.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 10:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Appearing twice?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it possible for an article's hook to appear twice in the DYK area (on the Main Page) e.g. if an article is created and is submitted for DYK and later it appears, and after some time it gets 5x expanded, will it be eligible? Please {{ping}} me when/if answered. -- Frankie talk 12:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@FrB.TG:, according to WP:DYKR Articles that have been featured on the Main Page's In the news section or that have previously appeared as a "qualifying article" in DYK are not eligible. (Articles that have been only linked from ITN or DYK, without being the qualifying article, linked and bolded, are eligible.) — Maile (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66: Many thanks for replying so swiftly. It helped me. -- Frankie talk 23:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Thank you to those who made this hook, Template:Did you know nominations/Eliza Wigham, a reality and having it appear right now on the mainpage as @Victuallers: and I speak at Wikimania on "content gender gap" in 25 minutes. Again, thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't be the only one who thinks that it's silly that Pease's name wasn't in bold. Do you expect readers to know the DYK selection criteria? What would they think? Alakzi (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi, the text identifying the bolded articles as "new or recently improved content" was recently removed on the basis of a rather dubious straw poll. Your observation provides another reason why the explanatory text, or something akin to it, ought to be restored IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Glad to see it gone. It was cluttering up the section. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree it was in the wrong place and poorly expressed. However, it could have been moved to the bottom and trimmed a bit. The current solution is also inadequate, as the above complaint demonstrates. Gatoclass (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
DYK reviewers and promoting admins don't generally have the capacity to consider such circumspect issues. The promoting admin could be asked to offer an opinion, but otherwise, nothing procedurally went wrong here as long as you're following the "by-the-book" rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
That's me, By-the-Book Belle. Belle (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Well yes. A pity we assumed our readers know the difference between a bold and an unbold link to an article on the main page, particularly when most of these "multiple noms" link them all. Still, no real harm done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
If the DYK section omits to mention that this is a selection of new content, then I think it's only a matter of time before we have people asking on what basis we are featuring some pretty unexceptional hooks about obscure waterways in Pennsylvania. Without the explanatory note, the selections are simply not going to make sense to readers - as evidenced by Alakzi's complaint above. Gatoclass (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

wow

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Thanks for butchering my hook for Neepaulakating Creek on the main page right now. If you needed the space, run one less, instead of butchering it. Quite disappointed by this...especially after the work I put into the article, you wait almost a month for this. And to see it gutted, truly heartbreaking. Would you, DYK managers, eviscerate one of your own DYKs like that? ...I don't think so. JackTheVicar (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • As I said on my talk page in response to your accusation, you can ask Gatoclass why he made the change. I have to note, however, that there is no guarantee that a hook will go through the queues without any changes. Many of the hooks I wrote have been changed along the way. Sometimes they are improvements, sometimes not. But there's no point in making a fuss about it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It really is a problem, though, that it's all but impossible to keep track of the progress of a given article from nomination to main page appearance. Large changes by well-meaning copyeditors can introduce errors, and under the current system the first time you get a notification is when the potentially-problematic edited hook is already on the main page. I hadn't paid attention till now, since I only occasionally submit an article, but just realized the hook in the DYK credit template is the proposed one, not the actual posted one! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    • not to mention that the edit by Gatoclass rendered the hook inaccurate in addition to eviscerating it. The stream was named in 2002, approved in 2004. The hook was about a fact of the process in getting the stream name approved. So, Gatoclass, claiming that weak, screws it up to say apparently the stream wasn't named until 2004. You know, dyk has a fact checking process. That fact checking process approved the proposed text. After that point, eviscerating a hook for a column inch and creating an inaccuracy is not a good judgment call over making my hook wait until the next day. Thank you, Gatoclass, you've made me nauseous at the sausage making. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying I agree with the edit. I'm saying that you are being overly dramatic. Making false accusations is one example. As I said on my talk page, "whoever put it in the queue" (me in this case) =/= the person who changed the hook. Next time, please use the page history to find who made the changes rather than accusing someone who was not involved of "eviscerating", "butchering", and "gutting" the proposed hook. If you care so greatly about proposed hooks, feel free to follow developments at DYKQ. It's readily viewable to everyone, so you can see any changes and discuss some you disagree with.
      • Opabinia regalis, the hook which Jack is talking about was posted exactly as he had proposed it. It was changed while the hook was on the main page. The notification that Jack received is exactly what was posted on the main page. The hook was changed afterwards. The bot is working as it should: giving notifications quoting the hook as it first appeared on the main page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Chris, there is a point in making a fuss. If changes are to be made, they shouldn't gut a hook and they should introduce a gross inaccuracy.JackTheVicar (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

JackTheVicar, I am sorry you didn't like the changes to the hook. But as an administrator on this project, I have a responsibility to help ensure that what reaches the main page is of an acceptable standard. While you are now complaining about the changes, we may well have had complaints from other users about the quality of the hook if it had been left as it was. And while in normal circumstances a hook can be pulled from the queue for further discussion, that isn't an option once it's gone to the main page.

With regard to the hook itself, a statement which amounts to "public servant does due diligence on a proposed government action" is neither unusual nor interesting and thus fails the DYK criteria. I trimmed it back to emphasize the unusual fact that a geographical feature in a developed region had somehow gone unnamed until very recently. I would have liked to add that the creek had gone unnamed for fifty years which would have improved it further, but was unable to verify that on the fly. Also, I reject the notion that the change "introduced a gross inaccuracy" as the original hook stated that the name "was adopted in 2004". Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Gatoclass "adopted" was never in the original dyk text, not when I nominated it, not when it was approved, not when it was promoted. You added "adopted" so your claim is arrogantly wrong and baseless. It started as "approved" ended as "approved", until you screwed it up. The creek went unnamed for over 300 years of white settlement of the region so your claim would have been similarly inaccurate. Considering the number of wrong claims youve added through meddling...do you get anything right? Apologies don't mean much unless you change your behavior, I don't see any indication that you see what you did was wrong. JackTheVicar (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Well before you accuse someone of making "arrogantly ... wrong claims" perhaps you should try getting your own facts straight. The phrase "was adopted in 2004" was included in the hook originally posted to the mainpage, indeed that was the version approved on the nomination page. So you are wrong on both counts. And you are correct that I am not apologizing for contributing to quality control at DYK. What I said is that I regret the fact you disliked the change, I am not apologizing for making it. Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ramagiri Fort

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is a template problem with the DYK nomination for Ramagiri Fort. When I try to review it, clicking from the Nominations page, I get a blank page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Something to do with the errant space after the final backslash. Try now? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
That's better. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 9 years ago26 comments5 people in discussion
"that Gay Life was the United Kingdom‍ '​s first LGBT television series".

Was this broadcast in Northern Ireland? Secondly, the main source suggests it was just for homosexuals, and makes no reference at all to bisexual or transgender issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter whether it was broadcast in Northern Ireland or not? As for the reference to LGBT, I interpreted that as the broad category into which the series falls. Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Because the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland. Great Britain does not. The article clearly states that it was geared up for homosexuals, not transexuals etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
If you say a program was broadcast in the United States, does that mean it has to be broadcast in every state for the statement to be correct? I hardly think so. "Great Britain" appears to be a somewhat anachronistic phrase, and I'm not sure it wouldn't include Northern Ireland in any case. And I don't think a series has to cover every aspect of LGBT life in order to be considered an LGBT phenomenon broadly speaking; the term LGBT is one that has increasingly been used in recent times as a substitute for "gay". Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, "Great Britain" is in no way anachronistic. It is a specific identity and is different from the United Kingdom entirely. As has the programme itself which never covered trans-gender issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The Great Britain article says the term "Great Britain" is sometimes used loosely to refer to the whole of the United Kingdom.[28] The term Britain, as opposed to Great Britain, has been used to mean the United Kingdom formally, for example in official government yearbooks between 1975 and 2001.[29] Since 2002, however, the yearbooks have only used the term "United Kingdom".[30]
The LGBT article says the term has become mainstream as a self-designation and has been adopted by the majority of sexuality and gender identity-based community centers and media in the United States and some other English-speaking countries. Gatoclass (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, so at the time of its broadcast it was a programme covering homosexual themes in Great Britain. We shouldn't be replacing history. But I have no more to add here, clearly it's rankled too much already. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
As a gay man, I will say that LGBT is TOTALLY fine in this context, as there is no indication that to use the term, it should always cover all four (or five if you go with LGBTQ). Why the pedantry on this?--Kevmin § 19:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No pedantry, just accuracy. I was hoping we could ensure the DYKs reflected the actuality, not some future-proofed version. It's interesting you mention LGBTQ, so that's the case, why not amend the blurb to LGBTQ? Problem I have with it is simply that, at the time, BTQ wasn't part of what the programme reflected. Nor was it "United Kingdom" television. But as I said before, clearly I'm on a sticky wicket here, no-one dares to complain about the accuracy of these kinds of things so I'll do as the majority does, and just let it slide. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
From the current standpoint, it's the first LGBT series, so I see no issue there. As for the other matter, the first source for the hook clearly says it was the United Kingdom's first such series, so I feel obliged to point out, given your suggestion of laxity on the part of others, that you are the party that overlooked the salient fact in this instance. Gatoclass (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I read that, but it doesn't make it factually accurate. But there you go, we had a gay television series broadcast in Great Britain that had a hook which was twice inaccurate, I trust that pleases some. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
TRM, the fact that you want to quibble about whether a TV series was broadcast in the "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" is an example of why other users become frustrated with your approach. As I've said umpteen times, constructive criticism should always be welcome here, nitpicking doesn't fall into that category. Gatoclass (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Not really, we had an error reported at WP:ERRORS just the other day on this very point. Nitpicking and getting the facts right are entirely separate things, but the latter appears to be secondary to many here. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Schrocat didn't identify the nature of his objection, but it appears to me as if he felt "UK television" was ungrammatical or awkward, which is not the same point at all. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Well that's not true but the point is moot. The hook was maintained, as poor and inaccurate as it was. It's history now, although I note from the every-increasing "Removed" queue for June and July, quality is on the slide once more. Perhaps a bit more nit-picking is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
When the hook is maintained, that is "poor and inaccurate". When it's pulled, then "quality is on the slide". Or maybe some folks are just determined to find fault? Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thing is, with DYK, it's all too easy. Hooks should be accurate and items shouldn't be need to be pulled, they shouldn't be "promoted" in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, certainly it's all too easy to find fault so long as you are willing to parse the difference between "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain", I'll give you that. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, as they're entirely different entitites then yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Not entirely different, I think. And in the given context, not functionally different at all it would appear. Not to mention the supporting source. But at this point I have abandoned hope of an admission of error, let alone an apology, so I think it's time to head for greener pastures. Thank you at least for the frank exchange of views. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful to read the article first before launching into a tirade about the political status within the United Kingdom. The program was first broadcasted on LWT, which meant only Londoners got to view it. There is nothing to suggest that it was broadcast in NI, or Scotland, or Wales. Or Birmingham for that matter. But given that it is sourced in The Independent as such, Gatoclass' US analogy sums this up nicely. As far as I'm aware, the acronym LGBT is a catchall for sexualities that are not considered hetrosexual. The term is possibly anachronistic (according to our article) but, unless there was a bisexual or transsexual TV series prior to 1980 in the UK, it is not inaccurate in this case. Just my thoughts, though consensus seems to show that this actually isn't an issue. Fuebaey (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk about a storm in a teacup! Right, Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland) and the United Kingdom (as before plus Northern Ireland) are different entities, and claiming they are not is POV. As TRM hinted at, this distinction is very important in Northern Ireland, sometimes policitcally (eg: Ian Paisley : "The Antrim coast road is one of the most beautiful in the whole of the United Kingdom"). Unless you have a source that proves Gay Life was syndicated to Ulster Television, we should go with what is verified in the source, which is "British". As for the second point, let me flippantly say that the source doesn't specifically say it caters to fans of bestiality either - LGBT is fine and I don't think there's any evidence that the programme shunned transsexuals or was unfavourable to them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you've decided to chime in just at the point I was quitting this discussion Ritchie, but for the record, the issue is not whether "Great Britain" and the "United Kingdom" are different entities - clearly they are - the issue as I just reiterated to TRM was whether there was any functional difference between the two in the given context. I maintain there was not. More pertinently, however - I don't know what source you were looking at but this one clearly describes the series as the UK's first series for homosexuals. Last time I checked, "UK" was an abbreviation of "United Kingdom". Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you've been informed. Enough said. Move on to something else now, just as most of us have, but realise that supporting inaccurate and misleading hooks at DYK don't do the process any good at all. It's shabby enough without experienced editors like you backing up the poor work done here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you feel that Gay life had to specifically portray aspects of BT(Q) in it for it to be classed as an LGBT program? Thats not how it generally works, and the LGBT community usually embraces programs as being LGBT even if they only cover one aspect. That is why I say your argument is pedantry. Your argument makes a clear implication that BT did not even exist at the time Gay life ran and thus only LG members woulds watch and accept it.--Kevmin § 22:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
So now I'm "shabby" for pointing out that the hook was actually supported by the article source? And you expect me to just "move on" without response after accusing me, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, of "supporting inaccurate and misleading hooks"? That is truly Kafkaesque. I think you've lost the plot entirely here. Somebody please close this thread before it degenerates even further. Gatoclass (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 23:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Main Page draft proposal that will explicitly kill off DYK

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal/draft/Guy Macon - note that not only would nothing appear on the main page but links, but DYK would be instantly killed off by it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Should you have posted this at Talk:Main Page? DYK wouldn't be the only thing affected. Everything would instantly be killed off. What you link is only a draft. There are a lot of stakeholders in this. Doesn't this require an RFC for consensus? — Maile (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 94 nominations are approved, leaving 210 of 304 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the sole remaining one from May and those from the first weeks in June.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Checking and loading...

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Preps are empty. Very late here and I need to sleep. Folks are welcome to check and load....cheers, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin please remove the extraneous "{{DYKnom|Example|Nominator}}" entry at the bottom of the Queue 6 page? It isn't visible when looking at the queue, but it may confuse the bot when distributing credits and cause a problem. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Captions

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

These are appearing on pictures but I missed the discussion and agreement. Can someone post it please Victuallers (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Victuallers, Not sure what you're referring to. But there seem to be separate but related threads at Talk:Main Page. See sections "Image captions", "Captions" and "Captions (2)". — Maile (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there was no discussion here. A notice was posted that it would be happening on July 18, although it actually ended up being postponed for about five days after that. Unfortunately, the change broke the bot's ability to archive sets and to place {{DYKfile}} notices on image talk pages. A few hours before the bot's first update with the new format, I informed Shubinator, who is now working to fix those issues. Thanks to George Ho for manually archiving. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And I see the bot's now been updated to deal with the captions. Thanks, Shubinator! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
What did I do wrong? Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to User:George Ho for helping me there. Another question: Is there anything to control the size of the image? The painting in Queue 5 seems awfully large. Yoninah (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that does look too big. Does anyone know how to reduce it? Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe it's governed by the image width, so this one is taller to preserve the aspect ratio. If you made it narrower (and I don't know if that's possible any longer) then it would become considerably shorter and the detail would be missed. On a main page preview, it looks fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as documented at {{Main page image}}, you can limit the image size by adding a |width= parameter. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The new captions also seem to cause problems on the talk pages of DYK articles in which the DYK fact text is not displayed. It seems to start on 24 July with the article for NASA space-flown Robbins medallions of the Apollo missions. Crispulop (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I've reported the issue to Shubinator. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 10:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 00:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Images in all current nominations have been captioned

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've converted all active nominations with images to the new captioned format. For the caption, I used whatever "rollover text" was already there. In some cases, that may not be ideal as a caption. Nominators, reviewers, and set builders (as well as anybody else) should edit captions as appropriate.

If you'd like, you may add the optional |alt= parameter to the image template. This performs the same function as the old rollover text, so you can preserve the nominator's original rollover text as the alt, while supplying a more appropriate caption.

About five days ago, I changed the code which creates nomination pages to use the new captioned format, so everything should be okay from this point on. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mandarax. Gatoclass (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 03:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead hook captions and "(pictured)"

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The most recent discussions on Talk:Main page seem to indicate that retaining "(pictured)" is a good idea, even with captions giving similar information, and ITN and OTD are both retaining it. I've been restoring it when I see it missing, but others are apparently removing it when it's there. I'm happy to go with the consensus, but I think we should agree on what we should do going forward, keeping in mind what's being said about the main page as a whole. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm with the keep (pictured) camp. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Makes it easier for the reader. ITN, and OTD also have (pictured). Even though we use the image always with the first hook, ITN and OTD do not. Without it, the viewer is not likely to connect the image to the correct hook.— Maile (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am undecided about this issue right now, but leaning to dropping it. There may be circumstances though, where retaining it is helpful, so we may need to retain some flexibility about it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    Another alternative of course is maintaining the (pictured) and dropping the caption. There may be a case for retaining both at ITN and OTD but the case is weaker for DYK given that the image hook is always the top one. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm also currently in favor of keeping "(pictured)"—just because DYK always uses the top hook doesn't mean that people visiting the main page will know this or realize after multiple visits that this is the invariable pattern for the section. I'd like to suggest, given the opinions so far, that we give the information in both places for now; we can always take one or the other away at a later time if consensus ultimately goes that way. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I never saw the need for captions when we had "(pictured)" but if the consensus is to go with captions instead then so be it. I do think that using both "(pictured)" and captions is well over the top and should be avoided. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Question on a second DYK appearance

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I can't seem to find relevant info on this: if an article has appeared as a DYK due to newness, can it also be renominated following a promotion to Good Article status? And if yes, how should the new hook be proposed- entering the article name in nomination creation box just edits the original DYK template: should a new template be created or the previous one edited? --Animalparty! (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

See Rule D1; it wouldn't be eligble for a second DYK if it's already passed the first time. If it had failed an earlier nomination, it could then be nominated a second time. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs)
@Antony-22: Ok, thanks for that. It might bear mention or clarification in a more prominent spot: DYK eligibility criteria specifically excludes articles that have appeared in bold text in In the news or On this day sections, but is silent on DYK. Perhaps DYK should be explicitly added to OTD and ITN in 1e, or a footnote after item 1g to the tune of: Articles designated as Good articles within the past seven days, regardless of whether they were expanded, are also eligible.[1] --Animalparty! (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Unless they have already been featured on Did you know

Display of ship names

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently, there have been a couple of ship articles where the ship's pennant number has been displayed as part of the ships name on the Main Page. Whilst these, and other disambiguators, are needed to disambiguate between ships, they are not needing to be displayed. For example, HMS Victory (1737) should be coded as {{HMS|Victory|1737|6}} which displays as HMS Victory. Mjroots (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Length of Captions

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The equivalent of the captions we have now was to say "pictured" and now we have "McConaughey pictured at the 2014 Goldene Kamera Awards ceremony in Berlin" (This is but one example). I fear that we will have all kinds of detail included. Do we need to have a max limit? Include it in the 200 character count, or just say "minimum". So could the McConaughey example just say "McConaughey"? (I just cut down a caption that informed that it was a Black and white photo). Meanwhile can promoters and approvers keep an eye on this trend and cut back the unnecessary. Victuallers (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. Captions need to be as brief as possible. Also, some of the images are too big, namely the ones that are larger vertically than horizontally, and I'd like to see that problem addressed too. Gatoclass (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears that Template:Main page image has a default size of 120px width instead of our previous standard of 100x100px, which also has the effect of making vertically-oriented images much larger. Was this intentional? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I could do without the captions altogether, but the size is ok. Johnbod (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

QPQ questions

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

If I comment on a DYK nomination, but someone else makes the final decision to approve, do I get any QPQ credit for having contributed to the discussion? Or does QPQ credit only go to the person who closes a nomination?

If I close a DYK nomination by rejecting it — or if I comment on a DYK nomination that is ultimately rejected — does that count for QPQ?

I just submitted my sixth DYK nomination (so, as I understand, I need to review something now, for the first time, in order to satisfy QPQ). I reviewed (to completion) three DYK's in 2012, and I commented on four DYK's (which others completed) in 2011 and 2012. Can I count any of that activity for QPQ credit now? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Commenting won't be enough in your first two examples ("Nice picture" isn't going to cut it); you will need to do the review, but then it would count both for the approval and rejection; sometimes you can't give the final tick for some reason (you proposed an alternative hook yourself; you rewrote the article; your arms fell off); people will soon let you know if your QPQ isn't up to standard. About the 2011/2012 reviews: we have accepted historic QPQs, but they'd probably have to be to modern standards; I don't know how rigorous the QPQs were back in 2012, they were probably like caveman reviews (Thag make article! Ug approve, Thag come hunt mammoth? ). Try reviewing a current nom anyway; it won't hurt. Belle (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I just did a review — for True Detective (season 1) — but I realize now that I shouldn't have given the final approval because I proposed an alternate hook (which the original submitter said was OK, but someone else should really pass judgment on the hook). I'll back out my approval. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Belle, Nvvchar, and others, please have a look at User:Richwales/DYK, where I've catalogued my DYK history. I would propose that my contributions on the DYK's for Leal Garcia v. Texas, Crawley Development Corporation, and Belfast's Big Two are of sufficient quality to pass current standards. If others agree, then I may use one of these as my next QPQ. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 02:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've boldly changed my QPQ for the Keturah DYK nom to use my Belfast's Big Two review (from 2012) instead. Again, I believe this review was of a quality comparable to what is expected today. If people disagree and decide not to accept this for QPQ, I'll wait until someone else approves True Detective (season 1), where I did a full approval but need someone else to pass final judgment because I proposed a change to the original hook. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
In the absence of any further action on the True Detective (season 1) DYK nom, and given the Keturah DYK reviewer's hesitation to consider a 2012 review for QPQ, I used my most recent review (Brad Carter) as QPQ for my Keturah nom. I would still like a definitive statement on whether my Belfast's Big Two nom is or is not acceptable for QPQ despite its age. I believe anyone who looks at this review will conclude that it is equal in quality to current reviews — or, if not, I would be grateful for a fair critique so that I'll know how to improve my reviewing in future. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
There are currently over 200 nominations awaiting review so why don't you just hunker down and do one of those? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I reviewed two DYK nominations just now (Chris McKay and Birmingham Quran manuscript), and I intend to do more. But I still believe, on principle, that my 2012 review should qualify for QPQ use at some future time. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'll bring up this issue again the next time I submit a DYK nomination. It may be moot by then — I currently have six recent DYK noms not yet used for QPQ — but whatever.... — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Richwales, I have always held that reviews made prior to the day of nomination of an article should not count toward QPQ, however, I haven't had much support for this view. Regardless, I think reviews made two or three years ago are too old, how are we supposed to check whether or not you've used the review for QPQ before? Gatoclass (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"How are we supposed to check whether or not you've used the review for QPQ before?" — A fair question, but not a showstopper IMO. You can use the QPQ Checker tool page to look at all my past DYK nominations, and by examining each of these nominations (there are only six of them to date), you can see which (if any) reviews I have claimed for QPQ in the past. I've also catalogued my DYK history at User:Richwales/DYK, and I plan to keep this page up to date as I continue to be involved with DYK. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
And what about people with 100 DYK nominations? Are we supposed to check all of them too? I think realistically there should be some sort of cut-off point. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned about technical issues because this comes about so infrequently that it isn't really an issue; WP:AGF applies. I agree that 2012 is too old to use, mostly because the whole idea behind QPQ is that you put one review in and get one review out to prevent a backlog from accumulating. While we certainly appreciate the reviews you did in 2012, they do not help with the current backlog, and so do not meet the intent behind requiring QPQ. While I can appreciate your desire for a definitive answer, it's impossible to give one. Ultimately, reviewers make the decisions regarding what they accept or decline. Whether to accept a QPQ is up to their discretion in odd cases like this, in the absence of a community consensus one way or the other. ~ RobTalk 08:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

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) 17:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • This will be overdue in a few minutes. I've just completed Prep 5. Just as an FYI, this is my first time promoting hooks to prep. I did review the guide to doing so beforehand and verified that all hooks I promoted were properly sourced, but a quick look at my work wouldn't hurt. ~ RobTalk 19:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
They read ok Rob, and you've checked the sourcing, which are the main things. I'll be off and on all day so will take a look if you prep another set or two too....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Rob, you edited the hook for County Cricket Ground, Hove so that it no longer linked to that article. Here's the nomination and your promotion of it to Prep 5. There's a report at WP:ERRORS, but as I write this, the link is still to a disambiguation page, so if an admin sees this, please fix it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, don't know what happened with that one between what I had in my notepad (which was edited and had the correct link) and what was pasted into the prep. That definitely won't happen again. ~ RobTalk 22:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Admin needed to fix Main Page

The erroneous hook has been on the Main Page for over an hour and a half. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to J Milburn for fixing it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed it myself- I didn't see this message. In future, WP:ERRORS (which is at the top of the MP talk page) would be the place to post- that normally gets a quick response. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I see you're aware of that. It's a shame no one caught it- it may be the time of day... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I've seen simple things like this stick around WP:ERRORS for many hours without ever getting done. I figured that having it here too would increase the chances. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Queue 5

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Could an administrator please add a "the" to the 7th hook: ... that the French corvette Alecton? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Now on the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done albeit a little late. Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 07:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With 84 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 289 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order.

The following are nine nominations that were approved over two weeks ago; one is over three weeks old. Since we're promoting 102 per week, these nine have been waiting quite a bit longer than average. Date given is date of approval.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this hook in Prep 1 as bad as I think it is?

Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

I'm about to go to bed, and I'm too tired to really think very clearly, but the final hook of Prep 1, for Cthulhu Regio, seems absolutely terrible to me. It seems to be stating as fact something from a quote about the fictional being after which a region is named. I think this should be pulled until an appropriate alternate hook can be proposed and properly vetted, but can people who are more alert than I am please take a look and see what you think? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I considered this before promoting it, and here's where I came down on the issue. The hook is speaking to the naming of the feature based on the book. To highlight this fact, it uses a quote from the book in a somewhat poetic fashion, but it makes the sourced assertion of fact that a place named Cthulhu exists on Pluto. The semi-quote of the book is used to create an extremely compelling hook that leaves the reader wanting to learn more, and they can discover why the wording was used by clicking through the link. At the end of the day, that's more-or-less what DYK is all about. Yoninah may wish to chime in with his her thoughts, as he she restored the tick to the hook after reviewing it. ~ RobTalk 11:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Re-reading what you wrote, you may have misunderstood. It juxtaposes the quote ("In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.") with the actual place Cthulhu exists (Pluto). Your comment leads me to think that you may have thought the Cthulhu on Pluto is fiction, which it is not. Correct me if wrong, though. ~ RobTalk 11:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The hook didn't jar with me, perhaps because I am familiar both with the Lovecraft myth and the fact that a chunk of Pluto is named after it. The hook does use a little poetic licence, admittedly, but there is no DYK rule disallowing that. The bottom line is that the original Lovecraft quote appears in the article, so that readers can make the connection (and hopefully see the amusing side). Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of making hooks entertaining, interesting, amusing, and/or clever, as long as they're otherwise okay. This one is not. Here's the hook: "... that in his house on Pluto, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming?" The only fact incidentally implied is that Cthulhu is on Pluto. The hook says that the geographical region is dead and waits dreaming in his house. A hook must present verifiable real-world facts. What this one presents is nonsense.
Rob, yes, you're wrong. I knew exactly what Cthulhu is. I didn't misunderstand anything, and I don't see why anyone would think otherwise. As for this being "what DYK is all about", well, that's what the harshest critics of DYK might contemptuously say about this hook.
This is currently in Queue 1 if anyone wants to prevent the embarrassment of this making it to the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think the hook might be acceptable on 4/1. Any other day, though, it strays too far from the straight truth, even for a quirky spot. I agree it should be pulled or edited. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
No, this wouldn't even be acceptable for April Fools' Day. It's very important that April Fools' Day hooks consist of actual facts; they're merely presented in a misleading or amusing way. This hook is simply nonsense. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Mandarax, this is a terrible hook. "In his house on Pluto, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming"? That's not poetic licence, that's flat-out untrue. There isn't an entity named Cthulhu living on Pluto (at least as far as we know). There's a surface feature informally known as Cthulhu, yes – but the surface feature in question is neither dead, waiting, dreaming, or in a house. Not a single word of this hook has even the slightest grounding in fact. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Admin needed to pull hook from Queue 1

  • While I stand by the hook, it is clear this warrants further discussion. Could an admin please pull this from Queue 1? It's going to the main page in 20 minutes. I'll look for a suitable and non-controversial replacement now. ~ RobTalk 23:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Too late, it went to the mainpage.
Though I understand the objections to the hook, it is fact-based in the sense that Cthulhu (the region) is on Pluto. It is also true that Cthulhu is a literary character that waits dreaming in a house. So 90% of the hook is fact-based, and the hook as a whole is true in a figurative rather than literal sense. Given that it's an eye-catching phrase that serves to educate the readership (which is after all the project's main purpose) simultaneously about two different topics, I still think it's a valid hook. Gatoclass (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Approximately 0% of it is factual. The only thing remotely true is the idea that the region is on Pluto. The hook says that Cthulhu is "in his house on Pluto". Can anyone really say with a straight face that that is a factual, encyclopedic way of saying that a region is on Pluto? The hook is supposedly about the region, but since you brought up the truthfulness of the statements about the character, let's look at that. What the hook says about the character is at least partly false; it's impossible to say whether the other parts about the character are true, because the article does not say one way or the other. The hook states as fact something which the article says is chanted by worshipers. The article does not say that Cthulhu was actually waiting dreaming in his house. Just because worshipers chant something does not make it true. As a matter of fact, according to the article, something which they chant and is in the hook is not true. The article says that Cthulhu is merely hibernating, although the worshipers chant that he is dead. The hook falsely says that Cthulhu is dead. Of course, all of this discussion is ridiculous, because the hook is not and should not be about the character. But even if the hook were about the character, it would still violate DYK rules, because every hook must be based on a real-world fact. A valid, factual hook would have to say something like "Cthulhu is a region on Pluto named after a character whose worshipers chanted ..." As it stands, the hook breaks the rules of DYK and of common sense, and does a great disservice to readers. It's disgraceful to have that garbage on the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way Mandarax, but again, there is no rule that says a hook statement must be literally as opposed to figuratively true, and we have run many similar hooks in the past that use puns, plays on words, figures of speech and so on. As long as the wordplay is good, there is no reason not to run them. I might add that reputable newspapers and other media outlets do this kind of thing with headlines all the time and if it's good enough for them I don't see why we can't do likewise. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
If its any consolation Mandarax, it only got 268 views when it was on the front page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It hasn't been archived yet and we won't know how many hits it got until tomorrow at the earliest, but I'd be willing to bet it will be a lot more than 268. Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In circumstances such as this, it is always better to pull the hook so that the discussion can be continued back at the nomination page. We usually have enough in reserve to replace such hooks if necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If an article has already gone to the main page, that is problematic because it generally means the article will not be promoted again. It's not as if there's been a consensus to pull and I'm reluctant to do so with hooks already on the main page in that circumstance. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Gatoclass, are you really saying that it's okay to have a hook which is blatantly false literally, as long as it's true figuratively? And this is blatantly false, as well as nonsensical. It says that "in his house on Pluto, dead <name of geographic region> waits dreaming". It's false that the geographic region is male, owns and is in a house, is dead, waits, or dreams. Even if it were the case that this would be okay if it was true figuratively, I don't see how it would be considered true figuratively. But it doesn't matter. Every word of the hook except "Cthulhu", "on" and "Pluto" is false. There's still time to pull it and avoid the last hour and a half of embarrassment on the Main Page. Plus, if it's pulled, the bot won't archive it, so it won't be a permanent reminder in the archive that this horrible hook managed to get on the Main Page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Mandarax, of course I am not arguing that "it's okay to have a hook which is blatantly false literally", but I don't believe that is the case here. The literal hook fact is that Cthulhu is on Pluto. It is also a fact that the region on Pluto called Cthulhu was named after the fictional Lovecraftian entity. I simply read the hook as a playful presentation of those two facts. Now, perhaps I made a misjudgement in concluding the presentation was within acceptable bounds, perhaps not, but either way I am not endorsing the notion that hooks can be blatantly false. Gatoclass (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I apologize for interpreting what you said a little too broadly. I wanted to point out that, although I obviously disagree with you about this hook, I have great respect for you. After all, you're a recipient of the Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence! Your work here is very much appreciated. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Mandarax. This has been a difficult discussion for me as well because I very much respect your own contributions, and certainly, you have made me doubt whether my initial decision to give this hook a pass was the right one. I would surely have pulled it for review had it not been for the fact that when I came back to this discussion, it had already been promoted to the main page and been on display for five hours without complaint. Also, since at least two other administrators had already endorsed the hook, I was reluctant to take action on it. I may have to review my own methodology after this, because it's not so easy to balance the rights of the article creator/nominator when there are some complaints but no clear consensus on the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a problem with the process, and not something the main page and its millions of readers should have to tolerate if it's flagged up that a hook is problematic. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Well if you feel so strongly about it TRM, why haven't you pulled the hook yourself? You've had plenty of opportunity to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 10:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Now overdue; admin needed to promote Prep 4 to Queue 4. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 22:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Now overdue; admin needed to promote Prep 5 to Queue 5. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list is over a week old and due to be archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 94 nominations are approved, leaving 212 of 306 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the five below from May and June.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Suitable presentation?

Latest comment: 9 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion

Regarding this, is it really appropriate to display a living person's image alongside a blurb about her character "[having] sex in an outhouse", with the real-life individual's article (not that of the fictional work or character) serving as the bold-linked target? This fact may be "interesting" (as noted by the editor who added it to the article, upon removing the other proposed blurbs from consideration), but its relevance to the actress herself seems questionable.
In the source cited, the detail is mentioned as one of multiple examples of material for which the actress has been "a bit annoyed" to receive attention, particularly outside its artistic context. (Note that the other examples – pertaining to various bikini scenes and a blooper containing "a few seconds" of accidental toplessness – are conspicuous by their absence from our article.)
It appears that we've exaggerated a trivial piece of information's prominence in Jenny Skavlan's career. To me, it seems doubtful that it even warrants inclusion in her article, let alone highlighting on the main page.
Pinging users involved in the nomination or credited with the article's creation:

Extended content

—David Levy 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@David Levy: My participation in this article has been copyediting and formatting. Would you like to suggest an alternate hook for this DYK? GoingBatty (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't claim to be good at this, but I'll try.
...that Norwegian actress Jenny Skavlan (pictured) has been "a bit annoyed" by the media's fixation on her body?
This information would need to be added to the article (following the machine translation's confirmation by a human who reads Norwegian), of course. It strikes me as more biographical in nature than the detail in question is. —David Levy 03:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was OK; I wouldn't have passed it otherwise; the other hooks were dull frankly and though I think "killed by Nazi zombies after having sex in an outhouse" would have drawn more viewers, the Norwegian press is apparently more interested in her being naked than attacked by the undead SS and fail to mention the subsequent zombie attack in any reviews. Maybe the article needs to expand a bit on the early publicity for Dead Snow seemingly being mostly "Jenny has sex in an outhouse". If you replace the hook, please try to avoid the soporific formulations in the nom ("Did you know...actress plays role in film?") Belle (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't information about the film's publicity belong primarily in the film's article (wherein the detail in question appears in the plot summary, not in a context relevant to real-life reactions)? —David Levy 03:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The current hook in prep isn't very good, and arguably a violation of DYK supplementary rule C7, though strictly speaking it isn't a BLP violation. David Levy's suggested alt looks better, if someone wants to add the content to the article and confirm it. Gatoclass (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Update: I checked the article source myself (reference 10) for David's proposed alt hook above, and it looks as if somebody fluent in Norwegian will have to confirm the hook because one of the words doesn't translate in google translate. Gatoclass (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, we can be fairly sure that Jenny Skavlan has been a bit annoyed by something, but without knowing the meaning of "lettkledthet" (which I was unable to track down elsewhere), I'm uncertain that my interpretation (gleaned from the surrounding context) is accurate. If the source of Skavlan's annoyance turns out to be something else (or something more/less specific), perhaps a corrected version of the hook would still work. —David Levy 05:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I have put in a request at Wikiproject Norway for someone to translate the relevant part of the source. Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know why I didn't think of that. —David Levy 05:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I have answered you there, Gatoclass. The noun "lettkledthet" means the state of being lightly (skimpily) clad. Jenny S. isn't the only actress cited in the article. Their union representative agrees that such shots are taken out of the "artistic" context. It's mentioned that photos and clips are used on hard-porno sites. (I wondered if that is what the movie "Help, we are in the film industry" might even be about, but it doesn't look like it after a quick Google search.) --Hordaland (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Hordaland. I wonder, could you provide a full translation of the sentence Hun innrømmer at hun er litt lei av at filmene alltid promoteres med hennes lettkledthet because google translate doesn't do a very good job of it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks very much. Based on the context, my impression was that it meant something along those lines. —David Levy 10:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but what is going on here. Have we all been travelling into a time-warp back to the 1950s? What is wrong or controversial about sex? Are ISIS members in control of Wikipedia? Lol.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    You seem to have misunderstood. The issue isn't that the hook is about a sex act. It's that the information is only tangentially relevant to the article's subject. (Its specific nature, while not inherently problematic, draws attention to this flaw – and makes it appear as though we've gone out of our way to dig up something provocative and likely to cause offense.)
    If the bold-linked target were Dead Snow, a hook about the film's most controversial content would be appropriate. It's analogous to the difference between an item about the film Fuck and an item about a soundtrack album, from which we've opted to mention the one track out of eighteen whose original title contains the word "Fuck". The latter is little more than an excuse to get "fuck" onto the main page. —David Levy 10:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @David Levy: If the problem is displaying the real-life actress' image against a hook that speaks of her character (though the hook does link to the real-life actress, not the character), then I suggest moving it out of the lead slot. I had no problem with the hook per se, after it was approved by the reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    My main concern is the information's tangential relevance to the article's subject (because it's about a fictional character, not the actress who played her). Including an photograph of Skavlan (out of character) exacerbates the problem. —David Levy 10:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think David Levy's hook is better as it addresses her and not the character. Unfortunately that info isn't in the article; she says that she is a little fed up with films using her scantily clad image in promotional activities, not that she's annoyed at the media fixation with her body. Belle (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
How about:
...that Norwegian actress Jenny Skavlan (pictured) has expressed frustration with the use of her scantily clad image to promote the films in which she appears?
(or similar) —David Levy 10:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be Ok if it was in the WP article, though highlighting it in a hook might be implying it is more important to her than it is; she replied to a specific question by basically saying it was tedious but she didn't really care that much; it hasn't been an issue she has been particularly vocal about as far as I can see. Belle (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the information would have to appear in our article, but it certainly shouldn't be inserted purely to justify a DYK hook. Has this topic (Skavlan frequently bearing skin in her films and/or promotional materials) received substantial coverage among reliable sources? —David Levy 18:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Substantial coverage certainly, but mostly from tabloids. [1] [2] [3] [4] I don't suppose you need to speak Norwegian to get the gist of the first few headlines there (Utedo is outhouse; kaster klærne is strip off). The best source for her notoriety for her revealing scenes is the original article you linked: [5]; despite the butchery of Google Translate you can probably make out the first few sentences refer to her fame for stripping off. I've added something to the article using that source; really clunky though; I don't seem to have my copy-writing mojo tonight. Belle (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why make a non-issue an issue? Why this drama with a single word not being translated etc? When there are several good hooks in the original nom. I just thought the hook that was decided on was the best. So choose one and get on with it, instead of the very strange debate about the proposed hook that has been going on for the last nine hours.
No one is forcing you to participate in this discussion. —David Levy 10:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Passing comment, and I have no connection with the hooks or the article. It just seems that any hook saying "X played Y in Z production" is stating the obvious, as in "...did you know Julianne Moore played the title role in Still Alice?" Leaves the reader asking, "Yeah? So?" The only hook offered I see that says anything different is the David Levy hook above about her frustration with regarding how her image is being used to promote the picture. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That's why I said the original hooks weren't very interesting, there is nothing unusual about an actor playing a role in some film or another. David's hooks are an improvement because they say something unique about this particular actress's experiences. I will probably substitute David's last suggested hook tomorrow if nobody has done it since, but first the relevant content has to be added to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been asked to translate Hun innrømmer at hun er litt lei av at filmene alltid promoteres med hennes lettkledthet. She admits that she is a little [tired of / annoyed about] the movies always being promoted using clips of her, scantily clad. (Could be rephrased in more natural English. David Levy's version above is fine.)
To Maile: It is movies/films/pictures-plural, not "is being used to promote the picture".
--Hordaland (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, OK, whatever. Why are you correcting my English in how I posted a comment? I wasn't proposing a hook. I was referring to this "has expressed frustration with the use of her scantily clad image to promote the films in which she appears?" All I said was she was frustrated with how her image is being used. Which is not plural, as I wrote it.— Maile (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the translation Hordaland! My apologies for not making clear exactly what I was asking for a translation of earlier, that will help ensure an accurate paraphrase in English. Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have substituted David Levy's hook, with a slight change to avoid possible overstatement. Belle already added the missing content so I think nothing more needs to be done here. Thank you everybody for your assistance. Gatoclass (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I decided to remove the commentary about Skavlan's reaction from the hook altogether as it tends to overstate the importance of it regardless of wording. Gatoclass (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
On reflection, I have pulled the hook from prep as I think it needs further discussion - I suggest that take place on the nomination page. Gatoclass (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about multiple article noms

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In the case of a nomination with multiple articles, if the articles have similar text between them, do they each need to have 1,500 characters of unique prose? I know that text copied from older articles would require a fivefold expansion to be eligible, but I'm unsure about text copied from an article within the same nomination. In other words, does WP:DYKSG#A5 apply to multiple articles within a single nomination? ~ RobTalk 22:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that the rules is intended to prevent an editor from grabbing 1499 characters from an existing article that was written months/years ago, and then adding one extra sentence to make a "new" article. (That article needs a 5x expansion to be new). Its also obvious that you cannot write 1490 characters about Indonesian caterpillars (say) and then create 6 "new" articles by creating six extra sentences about the red, blue, yellow, larger, spotted and striped varieties. However if you write 1550 characters of new prose and then copy and attribute bits to nearby articles where they add value then that is a very good thing. If you write 1550 characters of new text for another new article and then move 500 characters to a new second article and then add another set of 1500 new characters to the second article then that is two new articles and it can be seen that there is 3050 bits of new text. Well done. I do not believe the rule was intended to prevent editors from copying (and attributing) new text where it adds value, but you can only claim that new text as "new" once. It doesn't matter if the resulting articles are multiple noms or several individual hooks. Victuallers (talk)
If all the text in an article is new, but some of it is duplicated in a second new article, then the duplicated text in the second article simply doesn't count toward the 1,500 character requirement. You don't have to expand the duplicated text in the second article x5 because it too is new content; it just can't be used as new content in two new articles. Hopefully that answers your question. Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Thanks! ~ RobTalk 10:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 14:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple-article nomination splitting into single article hooks

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

How would you suggest handling this nomination? The gist of it is that 16 articles were nominated for a particularly boring hook, but each article has interesting facts in them, so it appears we've decided to run individual hooks. It would be difficult to handle all the reviews in this one nomination, especially given that we certainly can't promote 16 mining hooks to only 6 preps at one time. Should we procedurally renominate these and note that they meet the criteria for newness based on the original nomination? I think that's probably the cleanest way to do it, but I've never encountered this before, so a second opinion would be very helpful. ~ RobTalk 04:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As only one of the articles has currently been checked, I'd say your suggestion is probably the best solution; it will also break up their appearance on DYK a bit and won't stall the nomination over a single problem article; and the nominators will have fun doing twenty or so nominations. Belle (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see much reason to break up the existing discussion, why not just deal with them in situ? If you do it that way, someone might be motivated to review more than one hook at a time. Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I plan to go through and review them all to expedite the process, so that isn't a concern. My main concern is how the promotion will work. We can't chuck 16 mining hooks in prep at once, and it seems awfully messy for prep builders to go through and leave a comment after each hook is promoted. I wouldn't be surprised if that method of promotion ended up with someone forgetting a hook or promoting one twice. ~ RobTalk 11:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought that would still be easier than creating 16 separate nominations, but if you're going to review them, it's up to you how you go about it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough; thanks for the opinion. ~ RobTalk 12:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Prep 1

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

@Gerda Arendt:, @Sealle:, @Ritchie333:

The second hook in Prep 1 doesn't make sense:
Of course it's not by Pushkin, it's by Galzunov. Should I pull the hook, or wait for someone to fix it in prep? Yoninah (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: The music was composed by Glazunoy. The hook refers to the text of it. I was a bit confused at first as well, to be honest, but I thought with the emphasis that I added to "composed by" and "author Alexander Pushkin", it worked well enough. Without the context that you would expect the text to be written by the author it's about, this hook may be less than ideal, though. ~ RobTalk 19:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, to a casual reader, it doesn't make any sense. Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Even after reading it several times, I still don't get what it's trying to say. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe this is Gerda's attempt to be humorous, and I assume good faith that, being a prolific contributor to DYK, she is able to supply another hook, though nothing comes to mind from reading the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
We should pull this, but it should be fast tracked back to Prep 1 if possible because it was in holding for this specific day. ~ RobTalk 20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that Alexander Glazunov composed the Commemorative Cantata for the Centenary of the Birth of Pushkin, which was called "one of his finest" despite the "doggerel poetry" written by Konstantin Romanov?
The source calls Symphony 8 "one of his very finest". This quote doesn't appear in the article and perhaps doesn't apply to the cantata, but the symphony. I'm moving this back to the noms page so we can work it out there. Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The nomination is now ready to move to Prep 1, with the image. It has been requested that the current image be moved to a later prep. Yoninah (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Late to this: I found it quite outrageous (and not funny at all) that a cantata in memory of one of the greatest poets there is would not use that poet's text as a base, - similar to a composer requested by an authority not to use Shakespeare's text for a cantata in memory of Shakespeare, but of the authority. - I get from the discussion that people can't be assumed to know that Pushkin was such a poet. - The current hook fails to say that we hear the voice of one or two critics, but I won't mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the original hook contained a more interesting idea, however, it wasn't very well expressed which is what led to this discussion. It would have been better IMO to fix the original hook rather than substitute a new one, but given the hook was date-sensitive, there wasn't time enough for that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my lack of expression, + absence. The present hook, deviating to a link to K.R. (about whom to better keep silent was my polite approach) and using "purple language" (what is "warmly lyrical ideas" meant to mean? - talking about "wasn't very well expressed") is not approved by me, but should still fulfill the intention to celebrate a neglected composer (others get an FA when their 150th birthday comes), whose composition was listed - highly misleading - as Cantata after Pushkin in his works list. I am happy that I could fix that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, it wasn't me who thought the original hook was not up to scratch - unlike some others, I didn't really have a problem with it. However, the fact that others did have problems indicates that it could have been better expressed, and had I seen the discussion earlier I probably would have advocated a rephrase rather than a new hook, but it's moot now. Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. It's over, and was well received by the audience, no vandalism. - As a language essay, and only if you feel like it, I would be interested in a wording "better expressed". - In the hook shown, "full of warmly lyrical ideas" might have been a bit better than just "warmly lyrical ideas", and I still don't know what it is supposed to mean ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 14:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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) 02:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Now two hours overdue. Admin needed to promote Prep 5 to Queue 5. ~ RobTalk 06:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done Gatoclass (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete QPQs

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

General question: How incomplete does a QPQ have to be before you refuse to take it? Would you ask for a second QPQ if the first did not clearly cover every point of the criteria, or would you let it slide if they didn't discuss , say, neutrality? What if, despite their partially incomplete QPQ, the hook is promoted based off of it?

I'm struggling with this because, on one hand, I'm trying to assume good faith and recognize that they did put in work to look over the article they are attempting to use as QPQ. On the other hand, I feel like if we don't respond to incomplete QPQs, review quality will just keep declining. I'd appreciate some guidance on how other editors who prepare preps handle this. ~ RobTalk 05:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to a QPQ you have in mind? Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The QPQ that triggered me to bring this to talk was Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Lyme Regis, but it is by no means the only time I've seen this. Many reviewers skip over neutrality, images in their entirety, the requirement for an in-line citation on the hook, etc. I'm tempted to say that any review that doesn't hit every single point on the preview screen is not a valid QPQ, because ultimately someone has to go back, usually the prep builders, and double-check/redo that review. It seems that when I build prep sets, I usually bring up issues on 2-4 reviews before managing to find 8 valid hooks. Assuming the issues are simple ones that a thorough review should have detected, which most (but not all) are, I'm left somewhat clueless as to whether I should count those as QPQs when I see the reviews I had to comment on pop up later. ~ RobTalk 07:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you are certainly entitled to request that a QPQ review references every aspect of the criteria. If a review is deficient in some respect I personally will often do the check myself before promotion to save time, but everybody has their own approach. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I do the same when promoting; I'm more worried that if I only do that, and keep accepting those reviews for QPQ, then reviews never get better. ~ RobTalk 18:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm in favour of more accountability for reviewers, so I wouldn't discourage you from requesting full and explicit compliance for QPQ reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
As a former prep builder, there's nothing more discouraging than having to check an article with the (surprisingly common) five word review, "This is good to go!"[variations available]. Just below that are those that link clerking (nom closures), improvements (alt hooks or copyedits) and partial reviews (newness and length checks), which while useful is not what a full QPQ review entails.
It helps to remember that the purpose of a review is to catch quality issues, and that QPQs are enforced to reduce the nomination backlog. That way you can sift through unnecessary bureaucracy. So if say, one doesn't mention every criteria but the article is nonetheless okay, there's little point in sending it back. Conversely, if a nom is passed yet the article clearly doesn't meet the criteria, requesting another QPQ that isn't rubber stamped is not unreasonable. The odd error isn't necessarily indicative of a decline in review quality but if someone is consistently providing poor reviews, try raising the matter with them directly first. Fuebaey (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, is there any interest in adding a supplementary rule (H5?) that states something to the effect of "If an approved nomination is subsequently found to fail one of the eligibility criteria in a significant way, the review that approved it will not be accepted to fulfill the QPQ requirement"? I'd kind of like to standardize this, because now that I'm looking more heavily for it, I'm noticing DYK contributors with 100+ credits (meaning 100+ reviews under their belt) that are reviewing a nomination and missing glaring issues. There's a strong incentive to do reviews like that if we don't routinely decline them. ~ RobTalk 10:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC) (Moved to new section below)

Unsourced hook in Queue 6

Latest comment: 9 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

The following hook is sourced by omission, more-or-less:

"... that the orange tulip ginger is not a citrus fruit, nor a tulip, nor a spice?"

I can understand the sentiments behind accepting it, but these facts don't appear in the article, aren't sourced, and aren't completely obvious. For instance, this plant being used in some culture as a spice cannot be ruled out. I think this should be pulled by an admin from Queue 6, personally. Thoughts? ~ RobTalk 12:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not edible, so using it as a spice is pretty much out; apart from that what is not completely obvious? I think it would be a little silly to pull it on that basis. Belle (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Only the roots are not edible, and that's not even sourced (at least not in-line). ~ RobTalk 13:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, it is in the ginger family, so one could technically make the argument that it is a spice. After glancing at the spice article, I wouldn't make that argument, but it's a legitimate point. The first two parts (citrus fruit and tulip) are quite obvious, so it definitely shouldn't be pulled altogether. Also pinging involved parties (who haven't already commented) @Julia W and Victuallers:. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
We can always pull and discuss. That's what I'd prefer given that it's going to the main page in six hours if we do not hash this out by then. ~ RobTalk 13:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Only the roots are specified in the article as being not edible (to contrast it with ginger); honestly, it is slightly ridiculous to consider pulling it on this basis; the implication of the hook is that the spice it is not is ginger, it is only phrased a bit more elegantly than just repeating the name. Belle (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem I have with it is that the hook statement doesn't appear anywhere in the article. Even if the attributes of the plant preclude it from being any of the things listed in the hook, which seems to be the assumption here, I still think there ought to be a sentence somewhere saying "Despite its name, the plant is neither an (a), (b) or (c), because d e f", because it's an inconvenience to the readership otherwise. Gatoclass (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree per 3(a) of the rules: The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting. I think it's a catchy hook and I have no problem with how it's worded; but there needs to be something in the article from which the hook is derived. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This is all a bit slavishly adherent to the rules for me; I thought the readers might have brains, but since I can't provide a citation for that perhaps they don't. Belle (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I added a sentence to cover the hook. Admittedly it looks a tad redundant - it can be removed once the hook is off the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks more like an actual fact; I'm happy with the changes. Could we possibly change spice in the hook to "ginger spice", since this relates to a specific genus and can be considered sourced by the citation for the genus? It may sound a tad redundant, but I still have difficulty with our assumption here that the flower and stem have never been used as spices. ~ RobTalk 15:41, 12 August 2015 (UTCt

That edit would be pointless (not that the others weren't), as if it was ever used as a spice it would quite possibly be known by some variation of "ginger", as that is in its common name; there is a citation to the IUCN that specifies that its only use is as an occasional ornamental; I think that puts us safe from damnation. Belle (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we are getting obsessed by the rules. If you need a rule then you do not need to reference anything in wikipedia if it is obvious. Antelopes are not wardrobes. Some may want a reference for that but it is true. Now I can see that some of you are thinking well maybe there may be some peculiar way that a plant is a spice even though no uses it as such or maybe it has traces of citric acid in it or maybe it occasionally fruits as a two lipped flower. Lets trust Belle and AGF and lets see if someone who isn't aware of our rules complains with a sensible reason as to why it confused them. We do have an IAR clause and IMO this clearly applies here. Victuallers (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
My point is that it's not at all obvious that a plant isn't a spice, as many are. If it were obvious, I would absolutely agree with you. ~ RobTalk 16:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It is obvious. It's not in List of culinary herbs and spices. Perhaps we should put a tag on the list saying that it is incomplete, because in some remote back garden somewhere a little old lady is using the seeds of her ornamental Costus curvibracteatus in her soups despite the people of the region where it's native never having done so for generations and generations. This could apply to pretty much every plant. Julia\talk 16:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Obvious. If we can find an advert for "Buy some Costus curvibracteatus and make money selling expensive spices" then I will take back my view. But until then IAR AGF GTG Victuallers (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. If any of this plant were used as a spice, that information would surely be included somewhere in the existing references. Gatoclass (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 18:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We're now 2 hours overdue. Admin needed to promote Prep 2 to Queue 2. Many thanks. ~ RobTalk 22:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for review of a hook in time for next Thursday

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have nominated Harmonica Incident, which I recently created, for DYK with the hope that it can run next Thursday on what will be the titular event's 51st anniversary (I thought this year was going to be the 50th; I was a little confused). Since we have a week to go, I am asking if someone can review it so we can have it in the queues by then. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wand waved; the editus conflictus spell blasted ‎Mandarax's changes unfortunately but I think I put them back. Belle (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 41 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 82 nominations are approved, leaving 208 of 290 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one left over from June and those from early July.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 09:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Standardizing how we treat partial QPQs

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'm splitting the below comment off from an old thread I had added it to (with slight copy-editing). ~ RobTalk 12:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any interest in adding a supplementary rule (H5?) that states something to the effect of "If an approved nomination is subsequently found to significantly fail one of the eligibility criteria, the review that approved it will not be accepted to fulfill the QPQ requirement"? By "significant", I'm talking about things like missing a completely uncited hook or an absurdly long hook, such as >225 characters - things that we can reasonably expect no reviewer to miss should they actually look for all the criteria on the preview screen. I'd kind of like to standardize this, because now that I'm looking more heavily for it, I'm noticing DYK contributors with 100+ credits (meaning 100+ reviews under their belt) that are reviewing a nomination and missing glaring issues. There's a strong incentive to do reviews like that if we don't routinely decline them. ~ RobTalk 10:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is this open only to new material and GAs?

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I'm new to DYK, so will someone please explain why this it only for new material or new GAs? RO(talk) 23:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

In a one-sentence nutshell, the purpose of DYK is to highlight new material and recently improved material. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I am only tossing this out as a brainstorming idea and not a full proposal, but given that ITN frequently gets stories - typically from the sciences and history area - that get broad coverage in current events but otherwise do not meet the ITN bar, maybe we can have a DYK for such articles that aren't new, aren't a new GA, but that haven't yet been front page featured for cases like this. For example, there's currently an ITN candidate that is likely to be rejected on the first known capture of a rare bird in Australia, which has been reported by many sources. This would seem like a great DYK but obviously that the pre-existence of the article prevents it from DYK and the fact that the bird was captured is likely not sufficient to improve to GA, yet it could benefit from the same impact that DYK has for other articles (bringing more eyes to help improve it particularly after it is just in the news). There would need to be additional criteria for this off the top of my head, obviously, more just thinking aloud. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Why does DYK need to increase the volume of nominations it receives? My first experiences with DYK were roughly a decade ago, and never in that time period do I remember an instance where there was a lack of nominations. There have been periods where there have been shortages of reviewed nominations, but not nominations waiting for promotion. DYK's age and size requirements serve an important role by providing a simple, quickly calculated, and objective means of filtering the English Wikipedia's roughly 5 million articles down to a semi-manageable flood. Most of us have pet subjects that do not qualify for DYK but that we still wish could receive the additional exposure that comes with a link on the Main page. The simple fact is that the DYK project currently does not need an increase in the long-term volume of nominations it receives and lacks the resources to deal with all extra work that would come with further loosening of the current requirements. --Allen3 talk 00:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Allen3 here. Not only would we develop a large backlog of nominations waiting for promotion to prep by opening up the criteria to all articles with a new fact in them, we'd directly undermine the existing purpose of DYK by letting the newly created or improved content sit in the queue until it is no longer old. If we were ever to run short on nominations, I could understand opening up the criteria on a temporary basis, but with 250+ pending nominations at pretty much any time, I don't see that happening anytime soon. ~ RobTalk 06:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

My main point is that fivefold is inherently unfair. For example, if I expanded five 200-word articles to 1,000 words each I could get 5 DYKs for adding 4,000 words to Wikipedia, but I recently added 6,000 words to a previously 2,000 word article and can claim none. If the material is new, then what matters if it's part of a fivefold expansion or one that added thousands of words? How about fivefold or 1,000 words, whichever is less? RO(talk) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The point of the 5x expansion rule is to allow DYK credits to be gained for expansions of stubs mostly, which is why it has an inherent bias against adding to content that we already have a somewhat long article on. If you're adding 6,000 words to an article, you can get a DYK credit by putting the article through WP:GA. ~ RobTalk 19:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Note to Prep builders

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We've had some errors recently in which the hook in the nomination template was correct, but an error was introduced when an edited version was saved to Prep, and the erroneous hook made it to the Main Page. (An example is the hook for Royal Castle (restaurant chain) which is currently on the Main Page. The WP:ERRORS report hasn't been taken care of yet, so if an admin sees this, please fix it.)

Prep builders, please save the approved hook exactly as it appears in the nomination. Then, you may carefully edit it. This way, the changes you make will be visible, and they can be scrutinized. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for change: DYN format

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I suggest a subtle change to the front page DYN format. See: Example 1. Currently, the bulleted list seems redundant, and looks arguably unaesthetic. I propose that future hooks omit the common "... that". Feedback Please. Fractal618 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That removes the "question" feel of the section. On first glance, I don't get the feel of wanting to click through to learn more about the answer to a question. I get a feel of "Oh, that's nice" and I move on. These are just my personal thoughts/first impressions, of course, but I think the "... that" text is a significant part of the feel of the section that aids in getting people to click through to new content. That's pretty much the purpose of DYK. ~ RobTalk 06:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined to favour removal of the "that", which has always struck me as redundant, however, the three dots are necessary as a connection to the "Did you know ..." phrase above. Gatoclass (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the question format with "that"; it seems less of a complete sentence/question when "that" is omitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to see that I'm not alone on this. At least we can open it up for debate, if 2 out of 4 are not gaining anything from redundant "that"s. I'm not an expert in technical writing, but I do feel that "less is more" in this case. Although my argument against the combination of bullets and "..."s is more visual, both bullets and "..."s (aka. Ellipsis) have defined uses in the English language. http://www.helpforwebbeginners.com/webmasters/bullet-list-grammar.html claims that ellipsis are used to (only) introduce a bulleted list. According to http://www.monash.edu/about/editorialstyle/editing/punctuation The Did you know section could be written without ellipsi at all, just a bullet list with a colon at the end of "Did you know" Fractal618 (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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) 10:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Over five hours overdue. Admin needed to promote Prep 5 to Queue 5. ~ RobTalk 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


P'haps some 'un can also find the time to link DYK main page to DYK archives????41.13.76.18 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It already is, but the link is worded "Recently improved articles" at the bottom of DYK on the main page. — Maile (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Thea Austin

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

This nomination was approved, but had been removed from the nominations page. It should have gone into the preps then, but didn't, because once it had been removed, the day was removed so it never got back into T:TDYK. I get a notification about it every time I archive my talk page. How do we feel about amending this human error now?--Launchballer 13:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

To give more detail: the nomination was promoted to prep over a year ago on July 4, 2014, and the date and transclusions were removed from the nominations page about an hour later since the date had been completed. Unfortunately, when the nomination was removed from prep several hours after that and sent back for more work, it didn't show up on the nominations page, so when it was eventually approved again on July 6, no one could see it. In an odd twist, the DYKmake for the nomination was not removed from prep when the hook was, so when the set was promoted to the main page, Launchballer got a notice that the hook had hit the main page even though it was really still in limbo. So the nomination template remained active, but was no longer visible on the nominations page, and Launchballer thought it had run. Over a year later, it still hasn't been repromoted to prep and has never been seen on the main page, and he gets occasional notifications that he needs to finish step 3 of the nominating process. The question here is whether to finally promote the hook 13 months later (correcting human error), or to reject it as too old. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I would vote to promote it. It seems unfair not to. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I support promoting it. This was caused by an unfortunate human error. It's no-one's fault, but Launchballer certainly did everything he was supposed to in making a timely nomination and following through on requests for fixes. The hook may not support the goal of promoting new content, but the world won't come crashing to a halt if we send a single year-old hook through to correct the error and give Launchballer the DYK credit (for real, this time). ~ RobTalk 17:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Support promoting it. If it was originally nominated during the correct time frame, the nomination should not be penalized because of a flub-up.— Maile (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I also support promoting it for the reasons noted above. I think it would be easiest to promote it directly rather than place it back on the nominations page and wait for a prep set builder, if the consensus is to promote it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to BlueMoonset for researching all the details. I agree that the hook should be promoted. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I vote for it to be promoted too, but Launchballer should only be able to redeem one credit for it for prizes from the shelves; awwwww, no giant teddy bear yet, but you can have a glow-in-the-dark keyring (which will fall to pieces before you get home). Belle (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done Moved to Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it, Yoninah. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-nominating

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I hope I've posted this question in the correct place, if not, please direct me to the correct forum. I wish to re-nominate an article for DYK. Initially I nominated it when the article was new and now I wish to nominate again now it has acheived GA status. I was all set to do this when it occured to me that the original template might be overwritten. Is this a possibility and if so, how can it be avoided?--Ykraps (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is HMS Emerald (1795) then it was on the main page when it was new, so it can't get a second outing. Belle (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Then I have misunderstood, I thought I could nominate it again because it has recently become a good article.--Ykraps (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Presumably one cannot re-nominate articles that have been expanded 5X neither, if they have already featured? Do you not think this ought to be clarified in the rules?--Ykraps (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
(post edit conflict) Technically, the eligability criteria say,

e) Articles that have been featured (bold link) in a blurb on the main page's In the news or On this day sections are ineligible. (Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.)

It doesn't say anything about a prior DYK appearance. For clarity's sake that should probably be changed to:

e) Articles that have previously been featured (bold link) in a blurb anywhere on the main page are ineligible. (Articles linked on the main page not in bold, including the recent deaths section of In the news, are still eligible.)

~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the portion you are referring to. Where it is specific is in WP:DYKR Articles that have been featured on the Main Page's In the news section or that have previously appeared as a "qualifying article" in DYK are not eligible. (Articles that have been only linked from ITN or DYK, without being the qualifying article, linked and bolded, are eligible.) Maybe both places should say exactly the same thing. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree they should say the same thing; the reviewing guide doesn't say anything about OTD; and neither of them say anything about TFA. I think it unlikely but not impossible that a former today's featured article could pop up as a DYK nom (for example, featured when the FA criteria were less strict than they are now, removed at FAR; downgraded to B class or lower, then improved to GA status), but changing the text to say anywhere on the main page would handle that situation as well. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Supplementary rule D1: "Items that have been on DYK before are ineligible" (You have to read every page twice before nominating; there will be a test on Friday; the person that gets the best score will get a nice shiny badge; the person that does worst will have to put the chairs away after all the other DYKers have gone home). Belle (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
You may mock if you wish but even after I was made aware of the ruling, I had to read the page carefully to find it. It ought to be in the first few sentences and in plain speaking. Something like, DYK is only for previously unfeatured articles that have achieved one of the following within the past seven days... All the other rules are set out clearly as bullet points, why does this one have to be hidden away?--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree - where you put it is better. — Maile (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 10:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Doing it Victuallers (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 23:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 16:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 04:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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) 18:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Done now. Now if someone does some more checking and loading I can fill queues a bit later. Bit busy IRL ATM. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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) 11:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Now almost three hours overdue. Admin needed to promote Prep 3 to Queue 3. Thanks. ~ RobTalk 15:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 02:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 19:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 09:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Does this count for QPQ?

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

See Template:Did you know nominations/Heino Falcke. Does the review by Johnbod (the first one) meet the QPQ requirement? It is my stance that it does not, as it does not mention the majority of the DYK criteria and so isn't useful in reducing the backlog, but Johnbod disagrees with me. Third opinions would be appreciated. ~ RobTalk 03:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Good to go" without listing the criteria checked is not adequate, and never has been. It takes a minute or two to type out what was checked, a fraction of the time required to actually do a thorough review. As it notes at T:TDYK#How to review a nomination, Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed. That clearly hasn't been done here. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
This is nonsense frankly. I've done several hundred reviews that have been accepted & have never gone through spelling out the whole list, though I daresay many have been longer than this one. The reviewer's time and energy should be be save for identifying any issues, not typing out a list of the criteria. If you want this a templated list should be in place at the review page. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
DYK has issues with consistency on QPQ. ThaddeusB came up with a Template:DYK checklist a year ago. It's a good template, but like so much at DYK, nothing happened. It really should be a part of the nomination template toolbox, so I just added it.— Maile (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Good work on adding the checklist to the toolbox Maile66, I was going to suggest doing the same a couple of weeks ago but didn't get around to it. Apart from that, I agree with BlueMoonset that QPQ reviews should explicitly reference all aspects of a review, because it's easy for even experienced reviewers to sometimes forget to check one aspect of a nomination or another, while acceptance of "Good to go" type reviews just encourages sloppiness and lack of accountability. Gatoclass (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
When I do a review, I list what I checked as a courtesy to the promoter. Document what we did, because the next person is not a mind reader. But there has been a hit-and-miss history at DYK on that, putting a promoter at a disadvantage. And because we had nothing in place but a mountain of rules scattered across several pages, the burden of acceptance of any review as a QPQ falls on individual shoulders. Maybe the template will help. — Maile (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Noah's wine

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

How did this get through with an eleven word lead? This article fails one of the basic rules of article construction. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing. Of these, 28 are left over from last time—reviewing of old hooks was slow last week—and 9 are from the just-split 16-article Mining industries of Africa nomination. As of the most recent update, 90 nominations are approved, leaving 215 of 305 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones left over from June and early July.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Prep fill needed

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Somebody needs to fill a prep, the update is already two three hours overdue. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

We still need someone to fill a prep as they are all empty with the next update due in about six hours. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Queue 1

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Prep 1 was promoted to Queue 1 without a hook in the fifth slot. Yoninah (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I added an eighth hook so the set is full now, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Omitted DYK credits

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Vensatry posted to my talk page, wondering why a nomination credit hadn't come through last week. I checked, and it appears that an editor new to prep-making had promoted hooks to prep, but only transferred the first of the DYKmake/DYKnom templates listed for each hook in each of the first two prep sets assembled. (The third prep seems to have included all the templates that should have been transferred.)

Can someone who knows how please run the following DYKmake and DYKnom templates so people get their proper credits? I'll list the prep involved, when the hooks were promoted to prep, the prep promoted to queue, and when the set hit the main page.

Originally added to Prep 6 on August 15, 17:13 to 17:36; moved to Queue 6 on August 16, 00:57; promoted to main page that day at 12:47

Originally added to Prep 1 on August 16, 01:56 to 04:51; moved to Queue 1 at 10:41 that same day; promoted to main page on August 17 at 00:32

Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't be credited here, since I only made minor edits to the article in question. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I also don't need a credit; I only made a couple of very minor edits. Julia\talk 02:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I've pulled the "Russian criminal tattoo" credits for Mike Peel and Julia W per the requests above, and also the one for Atropine, whose contribution was deleting one word and capitalizing another. I'll let Halibutt decide whether a credit is appropriate. The rest of the credits should be fine to make. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I'm fine, I only did some wikification, c/e and corrected some Russian transliteration, I didn't *write* the article. //Halibutt 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Halibutt; I've removed you as well. The remaining three credits still need to be given; please strike them through when done. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 09:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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) 22:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Done now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way we could not use the DYK section for marketing, please?

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia has had a high-profile scandal about tourism marketing in the DYK section before. I think it would be nice if the blatant shilling of Özdere as a tourist hotspot could be removed. And maybe have a rule against doing so in the future? Thanks. --Ashenai (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the hook. It is an extraordinary assumption of bad faith to claim that the editor who created/expanded that article did so only to promote tourism. I've interacted with that particular editor before, and I doubt that to be the case. ~ RobTalk 16:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for assuming bad faith. But I don't think any paraphrase of "Did you know <place> is a really popular tourist destination?" is appropriate for the section. I'm perfectly willing to believe it wasn't deliberate marketing, but I maintain that the hook itself is indistinguishable from such. I feel it shows Wikipedia in a bad light.
(For future reference, the DYK hook we are talking about reads "... that the population of the small Turkish town of Özdere can reach nearly 100,000 in the summer due to its popularity with tourists?")
--Ashenai (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is the hook in any way inaccurate? Is it neutrally sourced and verifiable? If so it meets WP guidelines and is appropriate for use as a hook.--Kevmin § 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, all of the hooks added by Roger Bamkin (see my link about the scandal, above) were accurate, neutrally sourced, and verifiable. Wikipedia still ended up suffering through a major scandal because of it, and Bamkin resigned from his post as a result. This would appear to show that your three criteria are not, in themselves, sufficient. --Ashenai (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The scandal was related to paid edits, which have not occurred here. ~ RobTalk 18:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 05:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is a hook focusing on an athlete's injury negative?

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I recently had a hook pulled from prep (in good faith, to be clear) because the prep builder thought a hook discussing an athlete's injury was negative. If that were the case, this would greatly affect sports-related hooks. I've had multiple hooks run with almost exclusively injury-related information in the past, so this is particularly relevant to the articles I write and nominate. Do injury-related hooks for athletes qualify as "focus[ing] unduly on negative aspects of living individuals", something that should be avoided as per the DYK criteria? ~ RobTalk 12:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The specific nomination is here, but I'm looking for a general consensus on injury hooks, not something specific to that single nomination. Pinging The Almightey Drill, Keilana, Victuallers who have all been involved on that nomination. ~ RobTalk 12:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. In this case the person involved's CV was a long list of injuries, some congenital. I don't want to discuss the specific case however as I don't think that's the point here. IMO if I was writing a positive view of someone then I would put the injuries in the title - ie its about the focus. IMO "after Alfred Doe broke his foot he still won Wimbledon" is fine - but "Jim Doe has never completed a match due to either his tendons or bones breaking" isnt. I think you can mention injuries but if the focus is the injury/ies then I think this is unduly negative. Victuallers (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
This has never occurred to me as an issue previously, but now that you mention it, I'm inclined to agree with Victuallers, though I don't think it would matter much for retired sportspeople. However, I might as well take the opportunity to say that I think there have been too many sports injury-related hooks lately. The occasional unusual injury-related hook is fine, but a continuous series of them looks inappropriate to me. Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I've run three over the past two months. This would be the fourth. Not sure if others have run as well, but I don't recall any others. Two of those three ran this past week very close together after reviews took a long time to come through on them, so that may have given the appearance of a bunch clumped together. ~ RobTalk 14:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
That might be the case Rob - I think I saw all four of those recent hooks. All the same, I think it's important for the sake of variety to keep looking for different angles. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The approved hook, which does mention the injury, has just been promoted to Prep 1, but I'm wondering why it says "played". Based on the information in the article, he's an active player (the lede says "is"); at least, he was still playing as of July 16, 2015, which is only a few weeks ago. I believe "plays professional Canadian football" is more accurate, and frankly more upbeat. Rob, Victuallers, Gatoclass, I'm going to make the change; let me know if you have strong objections. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: No objections from me. I have a tendency to word everything on Wikipedia in the past tense since the project will theoretically exist forever, but since the hook only appears on the main page for less than a day, that's not an issue at DYK. ~ RobTalk 16:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Special date request

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis has been promoted to prep 1; does that mean that it's not being held for September 19, or did the promoter just not notice the date request? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, it wasn't exactly a request; you just said "it might be nice" if it was held over. Do you want it held over to run on the 19th, or not? Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I think it would be good to hold it for the 19th. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I returned it to the nomination page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Varanasi

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The hook needs to be changed for the above nomination (currently at Queue 6) as it's partially wrong: "... that the Kashi Vishwanath Temple (pictured), on the Ganges, destroyed and rebuilt several times throughout its existence, is one of the 12 Jyotirlingas Shiva temples in Varanasi?" to " ... that the Kashi Vishwanath Temple (pictured), on the Ganges, destroyed and rebuilt several times throughout its existence, is one of the 12 Jyotirlingas Shiva temples in India?" I had pointed out this error at the nomination, but forgot to strike the original hook. Thanks! —Vensatry (ping) 15:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your suggested alt wouldn't work because it fails to mention the nominated article. I have changed the hook to this:
Ah, missed that! Thanks, looks good now. —Vensatry (ping) 16:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hay-ulp

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

My DYK Check link (that gets created from Shrubinator's script in my vector.js) in the side bar has disappeared. Has anybody else lost theirs or is it just lil ol' me? Belle (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's come back now; it must have just required me to post here like a helpless bimbo to make it work; thanks mediawiki, love you. Belle (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed it doesn't work in the draft space. Could that have been the issue? ~ RobTalk 12:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't even know there was such a namespace until you mentioned it; I noticed that I lost some of my preferences too, so it was probably just the software picking on me; I don't care, I still say it smells. Belle (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A redesign of the Main Page is underway to give it a modern look. Feedback is welcome. Please stop by and let us know what you think about the placement of the various features ("Today's featured article", "In the news", "Did you know", etc.) The Transhumanist 17:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I encourage every editor interested in DYK to look at the redesign, as it places the DYK section significantly lower on the page than it currently appears. ~ RobTalk 18:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that the DYK section be placed directly below TFA if this proposal gets through. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Screwed up placement -- should I move it?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I nominated an article that received GA yesterday, but I just realized I put it under today's date. Should I move it? valereee (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter at the end of the day, but you can move it if you'd like. It would probably be reviewed faster if you move it, as it will appear higher up on the page. ~ RobTalk 13:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Rob! valereee (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing. Of these, 21 are left over from last time. As of the most recent update, 99 nominations are approved, leaving 206 of 305 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those left over from June and early July.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Uganda mining hook

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Does this hook read as misleading to anyone else?

In reality, the article only states that the revenues increased by 48% between 1995 and 1997. The hook reads as if this is the value for the entire 90s, when the value is likely higher and certainly different than 48%. I believe this should be pulled from Prep 6 (or possibly altered in prep), but I want other opinions on this before doing that. Pinging Keilana and Thibbs, who were involved in the nomination. ~ RobTalk 15:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's misleading, but I've gone ahead and changed it to "...that between 1995 and 1997" for greater accuracy. Keilana (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough, I didn't want to make that sort of content change myself without discussion. ~ RobTalk 16:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
That sounds good to me as well. Thanks, both of you. -Thibbs (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussions about (partially) replacing DYK with "Selected Good Articles"

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There have been recent discussions started about replacing DYK with a "Selected Good Articles" section, either entirely or on certain days/on a rotating basis. As that obviously affects DYK quite a bit, I encourage interested editors to take a look and participate in the discussions that stared on the GAN talk page and have continued at the talk page for an attempt to redesign the main page. ~ RobTalk 00:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since the 20th anniversary of the murder of Michael Nigg is coming up in a week, I would like to know if someone can review the nomination in time for it to run on the Main Page on September 8. (This is, somewhat thankfully for me, the last true-crime-anniversary DYK I expect to create and nominate until late October). Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and reviewed it for you. There are a few awkward and confusing sentences in the article that need to be revised. Other than that it's good to go. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion needed, please

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Uninvolved person needed to comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum. — Maile (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Prose count...

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone who's smarter than me check to see if I've hit the 5x on Numerical Electromagnetics Code? The prose counter in DYK Check ignores the PRE text, and I think I'm well over the limit if that's included. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the pre text to be prose. I think it's similar to a list, table, etc. which we do not count as prose. You need 19,380 characters of prose to hit 5x, and DYK Check puts you at 15,505. Alternatively, you could look into WP:GA. ~ RobTalk 18:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Queue tweaks

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An article in Queue 4 was just moved. Flail Space Model should be changed to flail space model. The credits should be: 

* {{DYKmake|Flail space model|Jarvis4340|subpage=Flail Space Model}}
* {{DYKnom|Flail space model|APerson}}

(I'm also not a big fan of the redundancy "the flail space model models", so that could be tweaked if desired.)

This hits the Main Page in about half an hour. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing. Of these, 21 are left over from last time. As of the most recent update, 120 nominations are approved, leaving 199 of 319 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those left over from July.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Error in queue 5

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

... that "Devil Pray" is about Madonna's experience of taking drugs such as Ecstasy (pictured)?

I think ecstasy should not be capitalized sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The hook was fixed, but the caption still has the word capitalized and it should also be lowercased there. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality of QPQ reviews

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A dispute came up in this nomination about whether the nominator's QPQ review (which you can see here) was of acceptable quality. While the reviewer was correct to argue that the review was too brief, the criteria listed under point 5 of WP:WIADYK did not in fact include any quality requirements for QPQs, instead stating simply: "For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)—​this is called quid pro quo or QPQ." I've passed the nomination as the rules did not address QPQ review quality at the time.

To avoid this situation arising again, I have therefore WP:BOLDly added a further line here to state: "The review must address the first four criteria listed above" (i.e. newness, length, hook being cited and within policy). This does not actually change any requirements for reviewers, as they are supposed to cover all of these things anyway. It hopefully makes it clearer to reviewers what their obligations are, and in doing so should help to improve the quality of reviews. Prioryman (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This should be applied to that nomination, in my opinion. The following text has been on the nominations page for a long time: "Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed", and the practice has been to require an actual usable QPQ that reduces the backlog as long as I've been here. ~ RobTalk 12:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support both - There's been some conflict between how reviewers sign off on a review, and a QPQ rejected because someone else doesn't think it was done correctly. This makes its clearer. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Fram/OpEd

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Interesting. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The article seems to be concerned about DYK procedures. Would this article pass DYK procedures? Is there a cite for the project being "proud" of displaying "incorrect" information? Will the Signpost allow this title or will it require correct information? Victuallers (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Now published (with that title). BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 10:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Now overdue. Admins please help transfer the hooks from prep areas to the queues. SSTflyer 13:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Error in Prep 4

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
... that despite being banned by the BBC, E-Zee Possee and MC Kinky's "Everything Starts With An 'E'" was once played by Dave Pearce on his BBC Radio 2 show Dance Years?

The claim that Pearce violated an existing ban is almost certainly false, see my explanation on the article's talk page. I have changed this statement in the article. As for the hook, perhaps this could work instead:

... that despite being banned by the BBC, the acid house anthem "Everything Starts With An 'E'" reached #15 on the UK Singles charts?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done but you could have just fixed it. sstflyer 13:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I've pulled the hook altogether: the article now has a (justified) "citation needed" template at the end of the lede, and should not be back in prep until the issue is dealt with. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list has just been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing. As of the most recent update, 139 nominations are approved, leaving 198 of 337 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those left over from July.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a problem with this update?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

[6] This is much smaller than other DYK updates. sstflyer 05:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For example, it seems like the credits are not copied. Can an admin help fix this? sstflyer 05:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Definitely a problem: the version of prep 1 immediately before it was incompletely copied to queue 1 is this one. I'd suggest completely redoing the prep to queue move; it looks like there's an orphaned ending "noinclude" tag at the top, in addition to the missing credits at the bottom. An admin is definitely needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Fixed (hopefully). Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple list of problem "Pass" reviews

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

We have a very new reviewer going through a bunch of nominations and giving them a Pass (within minutes of each) with virtually the exact same wording. At least in one, I know it was passed pre-maturely and have so noted on the template. However, there needs to be a second set of eyes on these:


— Maile (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Just undo the lot and hope that someone with some level of competence revisits. This piecemeal approach to someone who clearly isn't really capable and is wasting time is a drain on scarce resources and will just drag DYK further into the mire. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that anybody's even talked to User:FrogmanOfTheSahara to let him know that there are problems with his reviews. That might go some way to stopping him from doing any more, at least for the short term. There's certainly nothing on his talk page history showing any attempt to contact him. MeegsC (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
100% right, I mistakenly assumed that Maile66 would have done that already, or at least left a note to the editor in question that their reviews were being reviewed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, MeegsC - I had planned to do that, and will, but I didn't have time to take care of it all at once. I was also going to list the ones pulled from prep at "Removed", but I see BlueMoonset beat me to it. Thanks for reminding me to contact the editor in question. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Notice given on the user's page. — Maile (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort taken to draw notice to this as it's certainly suspicious, but would have preferred simply undoing the green ticks. As it is, perfectly good nominations will probably languish indefinitely because at first glance potential reviewers will see "disputed pass" and move on, probably assuming the original reviewer will return to fix issues. Julia\talk 20:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup, it would have been ideal to undo all the review ticks and inform the user in question. Still, DYK doesn't do things like the rest of Wikipedia, that's what makes it so special..... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Come on, let's not make this a sniping contest. Let's just fix it and move on. MeegsC (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, my apologies if that could be considered an initiation of a "sniping contest", particularly when I'm trying to parse every DYK that somehow makes it to the main page. Most articles have problems. I tend to just fix them and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, Julia W, do you do reviews at DYK? Just wondering, since your name is new to me even though it looks like you've been with WP for years. Yes, I started off just correcting this. I usually do that without anything over here. But when I saw that some of them had been promoted without anyone noticing anything was odd, I thought it might be better to have a list of all 15, somewhat like an alert in case the problem persisted and got promoted again. It may not have been your way of how to handle it, but we need to add a little prevention of slip-ups where we can at DYK.— Maile (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I've struck the ones I've re-reviewed and noted the results (I haven't done them all; I'm not a machine). Belle (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe not a machine. But in my book, you're Wonder Woman. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
So my request did work after all. Belle (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised you didn't already have that permission. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: a new review, complete with tick, was done at 06:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC): Template:Did you know nominations/Safeword (game show). This is one where a second opinion was requested regarding the quality of the sourcing, so having a Wikipedia novice is a dubious proposition, even if we hadn't seen the errors above. I've superseded the tick with a "review again" icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Got it too. Belle (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With 122 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 316 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order.

The following are 18 nominations that were approved over two weeks ago; several are over three weeks old. Since we're promoting 102 per week, these 18 have been waiting quite a bit longer than average. Date given is date of approval.

I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.

Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 23:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_117&oldid=1137408651"