Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

I killed Cock Robin...

I've removed the Palestinian Land Law nomination. Why? For a combination of three reasons:

1. Because the quality of the article was poor (that's normal, it's new) and
2. it is a controversial and divisive topic and
3. this is the main page of Wikipedia.

There is a hell of a lot of history behind the current conflict in the Middle East. In a short, rough DYK article with only a few days of collaborative editing we just haven't covered the topic adequately enough to make a balanced article. Therefore, I don't believe it should be on the front page.

In the future, I think we can run articles on very controversial topics at DYK. However, I think that we should hold those articles to a higher content standard than the less controversial shark species, historic buildings, radio stations, mushrooms or Cambodian districts (cough). For controversial topics we should aim for a balanced treatment of the subject. I believe that we should aim for WP:NPOV, even in a new DYK article, if we want to put it on the front page. Despite a flurry of activity on the article in the last few days (which was all positive), it still wasn't a balanced article representing "all significant views". I'm sorry that this is a tough call for User:Brewcrewer. I'd like to thank him for making an excellent start article on a notable and very topical subject. Insults, complaints, brickbats etc can be sent to User talk:Paxse. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Paxse, there was a general consensus to promote the article, even Gatoclass proposed a hook which would be acceptable according to him:

• ... that the Palestinian Land Law, which authorizes the death penalty for the sale of land to Jews, is necessary, according to the Palestinian Authority, to combat an alleged Israeli scheme to reduce the Arab population of Jerusalem? Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be no reason not to promote the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The 60,000 byte thread shows there definitely is a reason to not promote the article. No one hook was acceptable to all participants. The title of article itself has been questioned. There was a request for an uninvolved editor, and uninvolved editors offered their opinion. At this rate we won't have any uninvolved DYK editors left, and the involved editors can't agree. Shubinator (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The people who argued about it (including myself) wanted the opinion of an uninvolved editor (preferrably several of them), not an imposition of whatever one uninvolved editor decided at a given moment. That's not how the dispute resolution process works, and from what I understand of DYK, that's also not how DYK works—firstly, time is given to the original editor(s) to address the problems raised in the article, then a hook is decided. I think the hook isn't really the problem anyway, there have been numerous alternatives proposed and it's only a matter of time before one is agreed on. I am willing to compromise as far as the hook goes, and I'm sure that so are all the other editors involved in the dispute. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It does not appear that there are any unresolved disputes about the article itself, and per Paxse's comment, the article is indeed written to a much higher sourcing standard than the average DYK nom. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, actually I think the article fails WP:NPOV. My comments above are not about sourcing, but about the need for a balanced presentation of a contentious topic. I don't think the article achieves that standard currently. I think the article is cursory and lacks context to understand the law. This is normal, it's a new article, but I don't think it's suitable for the main page. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I probably would have done the same thing as Paxse had I been paying better attention to this page and support his boldness in removing the nom. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody restored the discussion to the DYK suggestions page. I've deleted it. At last count there were at least five editors who have come out against running this article, myself, Shubinator, Lar, Paxse and Ed-17. I think that's more enough to justify disqualifying it. Furthermore, I have found further problems with the article (some of which I alluded to in the thread above this one), and with the addition of some new editors to the fray, the article right now is actively getting worse, not better. So I see no chance of it getting up.

If the article had been properly prepared in the first place, it might well have passed muster, but it's not the responsibility of DYK reviewers to try and straighten up articles for nominators. Gatoclass (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. It's done. Now we can look forward to multiplied drama next time an I-P article is nominated. I suggest we be bold and proactive and ban them from this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That should have been called by an uninvolved editor. It looks very bad that the editor who originally pulled the hook from the queue has deleted the discussion. SpinningSpark 06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way Spinningspark. I have been contributing to this wikiproject as long as or longer than almost everyone here. As a general rule of thumb, articles here are not promoted if even one editor disagrees with a hook, unless that user is perceived to be behaving unreasonably. So our standard of promotion has always leaned more toward unanimity rather than mere consensus. Generally speaking, disagreements are resolved with a little negotiation and goodwill on all sides. In almost all cases where there have been irreconcilable disputes, the hook doesn't get promoted. Because after all, we are talking about the front page. If a hook is causing angst and hand-wringing here, chances are it's going to do the same when it gets to the mainpage. So I just feel that a hook should not be promoted, period, when we have more than two users in good standing objecting to it. In this case, we ended up with at least five. And I'd really hate to think we are going to have to descend to taking !votes to determine whether or not a hook is promoted. I think if there's that much dissension about a hook that it needs a !vote to resolve the situation, it probably shouldn't be on the front page to begin with. Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it really didn't matter; consensus seems to lie with not running the article. Are you really going to make a big deal over who removed it when it wasn't going to run in any case? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I consider the issue resolved. Not entirely to my satisfaction, but resolved. But I am concerned we'll have the same thing, bitter dissent, hundreds of thousands of pixels permanently blighted, in spades, next time an I-P hook is proposed, with every argument above thrown back again. I'm inclined to suggest banning I-P conflict hooks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree re the comment about not wanting to have a repeat of this. The last few days have left me feeling quite exhausted.

A few weeks ago we had the unfortunate situation of a valued contributor quitting the project because of a fracas that began here at DYK. I suggested to her then that perhaps next time she wants to nominate an article that is likely to be contentious, that she keep it in namespace and consult with some of the "opposition", or ask for some feedback here at the DYK discussions page, so that all potential issues can be resolved before the article is nominated and the countdown to expiry begins. I am now thinking we may have to make a formal recommendation in that regard. If such a warning is included in our rules, and someone nominates a contentious hook without due notice, then they will only have themselves to blame if the issues are not resolved before the hook reaches its use by date. Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

One further comment. Perhaps I should also point out that we generally never run articles until disputes have been resolved. The content of this article is still disputed, it's not stable, and in every other circumstance where that is the case we have not run the article. It's just reached a point here where I've been asking myself why this article alone should be exempt from our usual practice. I am also asking myself, quite frankly, why I should have had to work so hard over the last few days to bring this article up to scratch myself when it should have been at an acceptable standard on nomination. I shouldn't have to be trying to NPOV someone else's article for them. It's an extra workload that quite frankly I could do without. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is why I am proposing we avoid this area. The Death March article was promoted with raging edit and titling disputes, which were not quickly settled. Since one man's diamond is another man's corrupted carbon, I'm suggesting we simply avoid this area, period.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the reason that occurred is because the dispute broke out just as the article was about to hit the main page. I did try to pull it from the update before it got there, but unfortunately someone promoted it just a moment earlier. Gatoclass (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Drama resolved, approved hooks in short supply

There are plenty of nominated hooks on the Suggestions page but the approved ones are in very short supply. Now that the recent drama has come to an end, I would appreciate it (as would many others, no doubt) if some of that energy just freed up could be applied to checking and reviewing the remaining hooks. Barely one-sixth of the extant hooks have been approved so there should be plenty of fertile soil in which to dig. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn good point - now we're up to a quarter ;) G'night. Paxse (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We're back to just 25 verified hooks out of 151, we have two empty queues, and neither "next" is in use. Folks, please start with the oldest noms so we can clear the backlog and get back to where we were just a few days ago. Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. Normally, that is something I especially would do, but I've been sick with the flu, and only recently began recovering. You can count on me to help with the backlog of nominations in a few days, however! :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 01:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd give it a go given that you looked desperate, but I could only offer up some ? marks. Kudos to all of you who do this regularly, it's not my cup of tea, although it gives me an insight in to what it is you're all looking for. Top work! Bigger digger (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lacrosse

Unresolved

It's too late now to make a big fuss, as this hook will be gone in an hour or so anyway, but just for future reference...should

• ... that during the 20th century, many football players at the United States Military Academy also played Army lacrosse (modern player pictured) to stay physically fit during the off-season?

really have been promoted? The hook is sourced to the team's own publicity brochure and it's entirely mundane and non-unique (football players at most institutions participate in other sports during off-season). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I found it interesting that football players chose to play specifically lacrosse to stay fit rather than other games. While the sourced hook is indeed the team's own publicity brochure, this brochure is published by the army (a government source) and I thought should hence be reliable.Smallman12q (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Clifton's Cafeteria

I am about to go live with a delightful article about the historical Clifton's Cafeteria in Los Angeles. In researching it, I unearthed a treasure trove of facts about its history that are themselves fascinating. I'd definitely like to put up a DYK after moving to mainspace, but wonder if I am allowed to offer several different DYKs for the same subject... not as "alternates", but as unique individual DYKs. I prepared a few examples HERE, and each is as interesting a DYK as the one before. Is there some limit? Is an acceptable minimum? Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a hard and fast limit of one appearance at DYK per article. That's not to say you couldn't create or expand other related articles that happen to mention Clifton's Cafeteria as part of their nominated hook, of course. - Dravecky (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One interesting fact is already more than a lot of DYK hooks have. Just offer several alternate hooks when you nominate the article, and the DYK volunteers will choose whichever they like the best. If it's good enough, people will come read the article and they'll see all the other interesting facts anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough... and thank you. Its an amazing bit of history. After moving the article, I will choose three of the best of possible DYKs and let you guys determine which has the most oomph. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kludge not needed

I mentioned this in an above section, but I'm afraid it is buried :). Regardless I've fixed the "bug" (if we give it that honor...) that required usernames to have trailing spaces after them. As such someone should update the various pages to remove that requirement. Additionally keep an eye on the bot this next run and let me know if it stops before the run is completed. —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, the bot didn't do user credits on the last run. Shubinator (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Amend that, it's only doing nom credits. Shubinator (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On the last run it also didn't increment the queue count. Shubinator (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See credits section. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Credits

The user credits from the last update from Queue 5 have not been done yet, although the bot did post the credits to the article talk pages. Davewild (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken care of it for this round. Let's hope the bot catches 'em next time. - Dravecky (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And it didn't. The bot did the article tagging and it did credit the one nom in the bunch but none of the make credits were handed out. (I've since done them manually.) Was there a change to the bot that could have caused this? I seem to recall mention of an update to fix the duplication glitch but it seems to have gone awry. - Dravecky (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

#Kludge_not_needed. Shubinator (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GAH! I've now manually done the credits for queue 1 but, as one of mine is in the mix, could somebody please follow this link to do the credits for queue 2? And then could we please get the bot to resume doing the credits? Please?!? - Dravecky (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Returned the favour from earlier, I have done those credits for queue 2. Davewild (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Credits for Queue 4 need to be done and, yes, one of mine is in the list. I'd be grateful if some kind editor could follow this link and do the credits. Thanks. (So any word on why the bot has stopped doing these?) - Dravecky (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Has someone emailed nixeagle about the problem? Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for handling Queue 4. I've just completed the credits for Queue 5. - Dravecky (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue should be fixed... Post here if its not. Sorry for the delay, life is getting in the way. I'm fixing some other bugs reported to me as well. In the future lets try to give each bug/issue its own section... just for the sake of my sanity. —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A side note, please use DYKmake and not DYKnom templates on the queues until further notice. I've isolated a regex error thats causing part of our grief here (was in the original code, my changes happened to break the strange hack that was done). —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

The Did you know section is my favorite section of Wikipedia.There are interesting facts about different topics. The DYK section is fun to read.Keep up the good work-Many thanks-RFD (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to hear someone enjoys the section, we do try to make it as interesting as possible :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK rules

I have question about particular DYK rule - Articles that have appeared on the main page's In the News section are not eligible. Is this applied to the article in general or to specific article's version. For instance one article version (somth like a stub) was on the News section, however later article was expanded far beyond required threshold. So, is this article would be OK for DYk or no? Explanation needed. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the consensus in that discussion was that if something has already been on the main page in the ITN section, it doesn't get a second promotion in the DYK section. Gatoclass (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That means that rule applied to the article in general rather then its version, right? To understand what I mean NEWS version, DYk version (not on the News). M.K. (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that is an interesting point you raised. Still, I'm fair sure that it's not the specific revision that counts, but the article as a whole. Following that guideline, it wouldn't matter if the former-ITN article was 5x expanded for DYK. I don't really hold a strong opinion on the matter, but I think this is a possible that this is a point for changing our rules (to allow 5x articles that were featured at ITN). Thoughts? Jamie^☆S93 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Being featured in ITN is different from DYK. I wouldn't support allowing a previous DYK featured being expanded 5x and allowed a second pass at DYK. But I can see the merit in allowing an ITN that has been 5x expanded. It is a radically different article with substantial amount of new content that has never been featured before. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand the spirit of the rule, it's to prevent contemporaneous appearances by the same article at DYK and ITN. If a pilot lands a plane in the Hudson River, his bio should wind up on ITN without having to worry about a competing hook from DYK about his library books. However, if a suitable amount of time were to pass after the ITN appearance (six month bare minimum, at least) if that same article can be 5x expanded I think a strong case could be made for inclusion at DYK. This would need serious discussion before we consider changing the rule, however. - Dravecky (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I have to point out that the statement in the rule is unqualified, and as I recall there was a pretty strong consensus last time this was discussed that hooks featured on ITN don't get a second bite at the cherry through DYK, period. I don't think this is the first time that this particular issue raised by M.K. has come up. But you'd have to wade back through the archives to when this rule was first added to confirm it. Gatoclass (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I will look into archives in order to find rationale behind this, in any case I also would support changing rules, in order that former ITN articles, which were expanded to X symbols, would be allowed to take another chance on DYK, if the hook is not the same as News headline. M.K. (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles which have featured at DYK have occasionally been updated for ITN so I would offer the opinion that if an ITN article has been expanded X5 (and presumably bears little resemblance to what it previously was) that it ought to be appropriate for DYK too. If my statement is questionable, I have one example of this unusual phenomenon - Talk:Anglo Irish Bank hidden loans controversy. --candle•wicke 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Rules

You never know if you don't ask. Are the rules unbendable? I ask because I'm working on an article which is already a fair size, but is garbage. The content is being completely replaced with substantial, referenced material as well as images, but won't be any larger (and nowhere near fivefold) than the existing mess. It would be nice when it's done to be able to showcase it somehow. Cheers, --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• What article are you talking about? Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As per WP:IAR, few Wikipedia rules are unbendable. However, I have never seen an occasion when the rule of 'replacing cruddy stuff with excellent stuff not sufficient' has been broken. I think the best thing then would be to not submit this article to DYK yet, until consensus here has been gained to allow a rule-break. Importantly, what article is it? Plus, if DYK doesn't work out, you could always go for GA-class. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands is Hugh Evan-Thomas. My work-in-progress is User:Simon Harley/Hugh Evan-Thomas which should be done in the next day or two if I pull my finger out. When I get it done I'll probably just send it to ACR or GAR if DYK will, quite rightly, cause a problem. Cheers, --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Goodness me, we couldn't possibly give you a DYK for replacing that! If we did, we might as well just throw the entire DYK concept out the window. Yes, I think GA will definitely be the right venue for your project. Good luck, Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is, for want of a better word, garbage? And in a few words is a poor reflection of the subject and an abysmal representation of the one source which is actually cited. After all, the whole point of non-new content DYKs is surely to improve articles. By the time I'm done with Evan-Thomas, the article will have been markedly improved. Never mind, it was worth a shot anyway! --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Simon, follow the rules. Remove all of the unreferenced material per WP:V ("Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed"). Then history merge/paste/whatever in your new article. I would hope that would be 5x, and it also technically follows all of the rules. For the record, I know that allowing things like these is more work, but we really ought to let these through IMHO... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, now I take a look at the article and see that the article has citations for most of the paras. *Sigh* - no, you probably can't get a DYK for that then. What I meant by the small text above was that we should allow totally unreferenced articles to go through if they've been expanded a bit and totally referenced. :/ —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins protecting DYK images

We've been very lax at protecting images in the DYK queues so that a vandal doesn't upload a horrible image on the main page. Theoretically, someone could upload a penis image to Commons over the top of an image on the main page. But it has been working out because I've been checking the queues about twice per day and protecting the images on Commons. I've already caught some images just a few hours before they hit the main page. I'm going camping for the next 2+ days, so I don't plan to be available to protect images on Commons. So admins will have to download Commons images locally to the English Wikipedia and manually protect them. The template to use is {{C-uploaded}}. So everyone please watch out for unprotected images. I've protected everything currently in the numbered queues plus the next updates. I think we should be sure to protect all images as the hit the numbered queues. All local images (ones on the English Wikipedia) in the numbered queues are protected by cascading protection - I worked out the bugs about a month ago. They are protected by User:Ameliorate!/DYKlock. So you actually only need to download the image locally and apply the Template:C-uploaded. You can test it if you don't believe me - the image will have the fully-pink screen to indicate that only admins can edit it. Royalbroil 12:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Next update

Why are all the queues filled, but the next update only has two hooks? I am new, so if there is a good reason I'm sorry for wasting peoples time, but it doesnt make sense to me.^DrewSmith 09:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The next update is a place for non-admins to load hooks from the suggestions. An admin reviews the hooks in the next update, and will place these hooks in one of the 6 numbered queues after approval. The hooks are moved from the numbered queues to the template that appears on the main page. So the next update is a staging area early in the process. It was named before the numbered queues existed. It originally was a place for someone to build the next update for the main page, but we needed more storage space so that we didn't have to improvise so much. Royalbroil 11:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. we should really move it elswhere. the current name is quite misleading.^DrewSmith 12:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Next, Next update is also oddly named. Suggestions for new names? Royalbroil 13:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First and second assembly areas (or queues)? We also have to consider how we'll refer to them in short. Say "Next" or "Next next" around here and people know what you're talking about; "first" and "second" might work. Shubinator (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Pending queue 1 and 2? Then Shube (shortened) can call 'em P1 and P2 :) Paxse (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never been bothered by the name "next update", but "next next" is a odd, and both are kind of misleading. I agree that we need a rename.

How about → "Preparation area 1" and "Preparation area 2"? That's the best I can think of right now, and it seems fairly clear and simple. Our shortcuts could be T:DYK/P1 and T:DYK/P2. Comments? Jamie^☆S93 17:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that works. I'm sure "prep 1" and "prep 2" will also become nicknames. Shubinator (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What about "Next to queue"? Prep area 1 and prep area are also good (although I would slightly prefer "Staging area", it sounds cooler), but "next to queue" might be closer to what we have already (and we could keep the shortcut at T:DYK/N). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I like "staging area", but I also don't really care. ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Prep 1 and prep 2 sound good to me. ^DrewSmith 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Prep A & Prep B because we are using numbers for the queues. Otherwise, we could use Roman numerals: Prep I and Prep II. Royalbroil 02:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Prep A & B is best. Shubinator (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Prep 1 and Prep 2 sounds good to me too. Paxse (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to boldly do the change myself, but Next Update is move-protected because it has a high revision count. Do we run the risk of bringing down the servers temporarily if an admin did the move? (Even if the answer is no, best to do it at 7 or 8 UTC when everyone's asleep) Shubinator (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ping. Shubinator (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to change it to something better, but to me it's not clear which title will be best, based on the comments: "Prep A" & "Prep B"? Have we dumped the number idea (Prep 1 and 2)? Not a lot of discussion generated, but I guess nobody would really be offended (besides myself ;)) with moving to "Prep A" and "Prep B". I still think that numbers are more orderly, and a short title like "Prep A" might be ambiguous, before one found the "Prep B" page. I don't see how "1" and "2" would interfere with the 6-queue arrangement; switching to letters is an inconsistency with ourselves, in my eyes. Jamie^☆S93 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and is it "Preparation area" 1-2/A-B? Jamie^☆S93 02:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's "Preparation area", with shortcut links WP:DYKP(1/2/A/B) and WP:DYKPREP{1/2/A/B). Either way works for me on numbers or letters. At first I though letters would be best, since currently the only way of distinguishing the numbered queues from Next and Next next is by saying the numbered queues, but if we change to prep, we can refer to "preparation areas" and "queues" without confusion. Shubinator (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit of planning with the moving procedures (several sub-pages and redirects exist), and will move the pages now. I'll drop a note in a new section on this page once it happens. Jamie^☆S93 00:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Failure in credit

I feel a bit owny but i nominated and created the article on the Dollis Brook Viaduct. I see it has been on the main page. Yet i did not get any recognition for this. I was not able to see that it was on the Next Update page as for me that was in the middle of the night. The hook does appear in Recent additions. E.g. See here and here Simply south (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize for wanting earned credit for your hard work. Somehow the editor that assembled that queue left the credit template for Dollis Brook Viaduct off the list (accidents happen) and mentioning it here was the exact right course of action. I've tagged the article and put the DYK notification on your talk page. Thanks for creating such great content. - Dravecky (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Approved hooks still in short supply

I know it's the end of the school year for a lot of folks, finals for others, and the Memorial Day weekend for those of us in the United States but we're in serious need of hook review. Especially for the older hooks, doubly especially for non-bio hooks. Many of the older hooks remaining have been poked at once and just need a fresh set of eyes while others have been skipped in favor of flashier bio hooks or "easier" reviews. Not every hook has to be a masterpiece of quirky surprise but every hook does need a thorough review for length, dates, and references. If everybody who read this could just find half a dozen to pass or mark for improvement, we could knock down the backlog in no time. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back in the swing of things when it comes to editing on Wikipedia by tonight, so I am sure I can help with the backlog. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 09:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably should be sleeping, but I went ahead and approved some of the older hooks, anyway. Also, I have a question about a source for a hook, that I hope someone can answer, here. I hope I've helped clear the backlog a little bit more! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 09:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it, Dravecky. Jamie^☆S93 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just did my half a dozen. Four of them are verified. I'm afraid two of them were biographies though. --candle•wicke 19:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys can always do a approve-n-move if you're doing a next update, instead of going through the few approved ones. It takes actual work, but it's probabyl a good idea. Wizardman 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've went ahead and approved a lot more hooks. I hope I was able to help a little! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 22:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Preparation areas 1 & 2

I've moved the "next update" and "next next update" pages to their new (and more clear) titles → Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 and Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. This was based on the loose consensus established in the above discussion (#Next update). I'm still in the process of sorting out the links and redirects, updating all of the pages. If I miss anything, or if there's some big bad problem, let me know. :-) Jamie^☆S93 01:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. That's quite a feat. Shubinator (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it kind of was. :-) I believe I've done all of the major changes, the links, templates and instructions now reflect the new changes. Looks like Art LaPella has handled some of less visible sub-pages that refer to the "next update" page process, too. I'll be heading to bed now, but everything seems to be settled for the most part. New shortcuts are: T:DYK/P, T:DYK/P1, and T:DYK/P2. Jamie^☆S93 02:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Special request for last minute Memorial Day entry

I offer my sincerest apologies for even asking this, but I was searching through recent deaths and found a red link for Newt Heisley, the creator of the POW/MIA flag just about an hour ago. I found a number of sources, created the article and offer it for an extremely last minute review and promotion. I would appreciate any assistance from any DYK admin who might be interested in helping here and would more than understand if it must be placed on the usual cycle for review. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Because we are total process wonks and would deny this request based on the five day rule. :-P It'll definitely get into a Memorial Day queue, but the 31st hasn't been scheduled yet. But, when they are made up, I think that this should be placed into a U.S.-time evening slot (read: end of 31st, beginning of the 1st UTC time)... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Memorial Day in the US is May 25th (today) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I started to think I was celebrating a week early. Hiccup. Law _{type! snype?} 04:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that I'm dumb. For whatever reason I was thinking that it was the 31st? I should probably hit myself with a wet minnow. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to double check to make sure it was today - I see the article is on the Main Page now, so it all worked out. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Seam Brewer Hook

I also would like to raise a concern with the Sean Brewer hook currently at Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1#Hooks as it says ... that after selecting Sean Brewer in the 2001 NFL Draft the Cincinnati Bengals discovered he had a cigarette addiction?. I personally have never heard of a cigarette addiction, and the source says Sean Brewer, a restricted free agent perhaps best known for the three-pack-a-day cigarette habit the Bengals discovered shortly after burning a third-round pick on him in the 2001 draft, will remain in Atlanta for a second season. Perhaps the hook should be changed to say: ...that after selecting Sean Brewer in the 2001 NFL Draft the Cincinnati Bengals discovered he suffered from a three-pack-a-day cigarette habit. Comments are welcome=DSmallman12q (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with your idea, feel free to make a change.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 12:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. On a side note, Giant, have you considered using WP:Friendly, it has a talkback function=D.Smallman12q (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh...I see you noticed my typo ;) and I have but I've got Internet explorer and like most things it doesn't work with it. :(--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

=D Have you considered installing firefox, (just for wikipedia)? They also have a portable version in which most wiki tools should also work.Smallman12q (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot error

This is non-essential but is there a reason why this shows the 24th as having 23 hooks and 25 verified.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 01:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding wikilinks into the rules and dyk award question

1) The rules regarding hooks do not mention wikilinks. Perhaps a phrase stating It is advised that relevant words be wikilinked. However, please do not overlink Anyone agree, disagree? Comments?Smallman12q (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

2)Do contributions towards the DYK medal also include successful nominations?Smallman12q (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1) I don't like the idea of encouraging wikilinks because people will get too enthusiastic and overlink. Here's an example, and I only unlinked the more egregious ones.

2) Yes, nominations are included. Shubinator (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to mention wikilinks in the instructions as I would think it's self evident. Anyone who's seen the DYKs on the main page can see that each hook has a couple of links to important terms. Instructions are all very well, but people learn by seeing examples and copying them, such as other nominations on T:TDYK or from the DYK section on the main page. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't explicitly having it in the rules make it more clear?Smallman12q (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Template talk:Did you know#Sample DYK suggestion strings states "Do wikilink words in the hook". Nev1 (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Shubinator, we don't want to encourage overlinking, and people already generally wikilink relevant words, so I'd say this is a solution looking for a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently, it appears that a many words are not being wikilinked, and you could always include a "don't overlink" statement in addition to the wikilink request.Smallman12q (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The editnotice says to wikilink words in the hook, and more people read that than the rules. If people aren't wikilinking, it's generally not because they're not aware that they're supposed to wikilink, but they think certain things are "common" terms. Reviewers are always encouraged to add or remove links when necessary; if you're reviewing and come across a term that's not familiar, wikilink it (or, better yet, rewrite the hook so that it will be clear to anyone). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple hooks

If there are multiple alternative hooks for an article, and for some we assume good faith, but not for others, do we tag the article with {{DYKtick}} or {{DYKtickAGF}}.Smallman12q (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, those ticks are just a way of getting other reviewers' attention when they populate the update. If you need to be specific, you can consider tagging each hook separately; otherwise, you can either do "/" with an explanation of which applies to which hook, or you can just the whole thing and explan which hooks are verified in which way. The written explanation is more important than the kind of tick used, the tick is just a way to make it easy for people to find verified hooks. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining.Smallman12q (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-published wrestling sources

There are a few nominations right now (1, 2, 3) about wrestling that are sourced almost exclusively to the association's own website. The Professional wrestling style guide says that promotion websites are the most reliable, but is this appropriate when the article is on the promotion? WP:SELFPUB says that an article should not rely primarily on self-published sources. Shubinator (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it can be sourced from the association's website, but not entirely.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 01:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ping? Any further discussion on this? The three hooks in question are now at the bottom of the queue, not getting any younger. If we could get some discussion going and a consensus in the next 24 hours or so, that would be deeply appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll source all three with another reliable ref here in a second. I've been out of town (went to the Indy 500) and just got back so sorry for my late reply. Also solie isn't a fan site just for you to know.--WillC 16:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've sourced both lists, while the tag title article is difficult. There is not alot of reliable wrestling sites, and only two or three who even mention PWG, let alone their championship's histories. I'll keep looking for something though. But I believe I've shown that there are other sources out there for PWG.--WillC 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this over yet? Two of the three DYKs have been approved already plus I've added new reliable sources to go along with the PWG sources. They haven't been moved on to be featured because of this discussion and are almost too old to even be DYKs. Can we end this now and someone either approve the last nomination or fail it?--WillC 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still uncomfortable with the articles relying primarily on primary sources. Sources have been added, so the articles are now above the threshold for notability, but borderline for a DYK. The articles, and the hooks, are mostly factual, so it's not so much of an issue that the hooks are sourced to primary sources. Could another editor review the noms? Shubinator (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I can assure you that all of my work is properly sourced and accurate to the best of my knowledge. All the articles I write are notable, even though they may not seem like they are. I just tend to like to use a low amount of sources since they tend to get in the way and ips like to remove them. There are plenty of sources out there regrading PWG, CZW, ROH, FIP, etc so notability is not really a question.--WillC 06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, those hooks have been hanging at the bottom of T:TDYK long enough. Quality is important, but I feel fine with these now, and it's high time they be promoted IMHO. The three noms are decent articles, better than some that come through here. I would move two over to prep1 and prep2 myself, but I seem to be the only other participant in this discussion. Jamie^☆S93 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it helps, I also agree that it's high time, and the articles look fine now. :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Both bottom hooks have been moved to the preparation areas. Jamie^☆S93 22:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was getting worried that they were forgotten about. Thanks for the compliment if it was intended (the comment that they are "better than some that come through here"). I'm planning to take all of them to FLC. So I try to make them as good as possible so there is no problems during the nomination.--WillC 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot late

It's running 25 minutes late. Has it been disabled, or just stopped working again? I will give it an hour or so, and if it hasn't been updated by then and there's no word here I will do it manually. Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed nixeagle about the problem. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan, Gatoclass. It's 2:45am here so I'll leave it in your capable hands. - Dravecky (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I've temporarily undone the new redirect from Template:Did you know/Next update/Time to Template:Did you know/Time on the theory that the bot is looking in the old location and not following the redirect. We'll know in a few minutes, I hope. - Dravecky (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Something weird just happened to the template so I'm not sure what's going on. However, I notice that the bot also failed to archive the hooks after its last update, although it did do the credits. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot hasn't been updating the archive for a while but it has been doing everything else so it's been a small price to pay. I think either my experiment didn't give the bot enough lead time or it's not the only problem. I'll try another time a bit farther down the road (20 minutes) and see if that gets a rise from the bot. - Dravecky (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No wonder the bot didn't work, someone redirected the Time template! But now it doesn't appear to be working anyway, so I'm not sure what's gone wrong with it now. Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't work this time, we will have to manually update and hope it all works properly next time. Gatoclass (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for staying on top of this, Gatoclass. - Dravecky (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jamie also moved Template:Did you know/Next update/Hours, a page I didn't even know existed, so if the bot doesn't work this time I will move that page back and try again before going to a manual update. Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ka-ching! It fired. Looks like its back in business :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, how could I forget that the bot directly relied upon those pages? *facepalm* I just thought it would be best clean up and get the sub-pages of the non-existent "next update" filed elsewhere. Thanks for cleaning up my mess, now I feel like a deficient admin. :/ Jamie^☆S93 12:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, you did a good job overall, and this problem was easily fixed :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok guys, thanks for fixing the problem without my help. Let me know where you want the new pages and I'll fix it to point at the new page. Unfortunately its a holiday weekend, and I was working 10 hours yesterday, and family today. I'll do whatever changes that need doing tomorrow. In the future lets refrain from major changes during holidays XD.

Generally if the bot edits a page, it relies on the page, don't move them without giving me a heads up. Additionally the bot relies on the DYK queues being where they are. That is it as far as pages its dependent on. It does not care about the Template:Did you know/Next update/Hours page (I did not even know it existed). I'll change the program tonight when I get home to use whatever the /time page is. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

{{DYK-Refresh}} uses /Hours. Also, I've got a couple more minor bugs above. Shubinator (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How come none of today's Did you know hooks have been archived yet? There have been at least three sets that haven't been added yet! The most recent one archived starts with William Windsor (goat)! Please fix it!SPNic (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot doesn't archive sets, so we have to manage it manually. Sometimes we aren't caught up on a few batches, though. It's all updated now - I added two sets, and Dravecky got the last one. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 22:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you.SPNic (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The hooks aren't being archived again. There are now at least three sets that aren't in the archives; the most recent set archived starts with Emily Fowler.SPNic (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed hook

I removed the hook for Adam (film) in the current DYK set because at least one section of it was blatantly copied and pasted from the source. Everyone please be careful to check for issues like this when reviewing hooks. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Recreated articles

Do recreated articles count as 'new articles' when it comes to the DYK criteria? For example Arvydas Novikovas was deleted on 16 December 2008, but was recreated today due to him passing the WP:ATHLETE criteria. If it was expanded to 1,500 characters would a DYK then be valid? --Jimbo^[online] 18:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-creation or UNdeletion? We should go by what's in the current edit-history (ignoring the parts that only admins can see). If after an article was deleted, someone turns the red link blue again and everything in the edit-history of the article is freshly created, the article should be considered brand new. It needs to be 1500 characters long to qualify for DYK. If the article is undeleted and contains pre-deletion materials from more than 5 days ago, it's old. It needs a 5-fold expansion to qualify for DYK. At least this is how I would interpret the DYK rules. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Queue 4 glitch!

Would an admin be so kind as to sort out a small formatting problem at the bottom of Q4. The HMS Pique (1795) hook is running into the preceding hook (Gunnar Heiberg), and just needs to be put on a separate line. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Law _{type! snype?} 23:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Special Event idea - Independence Day

July 4th is the celebration of the United States' Independence Day. While that day is particular to the US, the concept of an Independence Day is near universal as evidence by the long list of countries on the Independence Day article. Surprisingly, a good chunk of those other Independence Days don't seem to have articles (and a few have very small ones). How about we have a DYK special event for July 4th that encourages submissions relating to Independence Days across the globe? It would be a good way to counter systematic bias and bring some much needed love and attention to areas lacking coverage. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent plan. It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - Dravecky (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes! WP:CSB is what I'm all about at the moment. Bigger digger (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AWESOME idea! If any get submitted too late, they can be used on that country's actual date. Royalbroil 11:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really don't think this is a good idea! It sounds kind of chauvinistic to me. The idea of celebrating the independence days of every country on America's anniversary makes it sound as if there was something about American independence day that renders it more important than all the rest. I really can't imagine too many non-Americans getting excited about this one. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? I think your reading far too much into this. The benefit of doing this on July 4th is that readers (especially in the US but elsewhere I'm sure) will be "thinking" about Independence Day and familiar with its association with the date when they come to the main page. This way they will be in for an educational treat and chance to learn about independence days across the globe. If anything that makes all those days seem more special because it really hones in on the universal desire for freedom among all humans and how that desires drives brave and heroic individuals to rise up and fight for it--regardless of language and land. It can be a very impactful event and, more importantly, stir interest and contribution in a lot of areas that are seriously lacking coverage. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what you're missing is that every country is proud of its own independence day. Would it be acceptable to you if we started commemorating American Independence Day on, say, Australia Day? There would practically be a riot. I'm sure your proposal was made with the best intentions, but I think perhaps you ought to reflect for a moment on how this proposed arrangement might be likely to be received outside the United States. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think non-Americans would see this as some glorification of the US Independence Day. In fact, judging by the sentiments expressed in a recent Village Pump Proposal there would be some non-Americans who would most likely enthusiastically support efforts to bring more non-US centric topics to DYK. It's not like we're commemorating US Independence Day by stacking the queues with US-oriented hooks. In fact we would consciously be doing the opposite and encouraging submissions on non-US subjects that are poorly represented normally at DYK. And that is a bad thing that would somehow offend non-Americans? I think that is a bit of a stretch. But of course it would be worthwhile to hear the view points of non-Americans on this. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How about making the Independence Day for each country special by primarily focusing on articles specific to that country (or countries where the day is shared) on the day of its independence? B. Fairbairn  Talk  16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thought. But putting together "special events" is a lot of work and probably wouldn't maintain much steam and enthusiasm with having 50+ events over the course of the year. The reason why I thought July 4th was a good day to make an event around was not because the US Independence Day is any more special than any other country's independence day but simply because it presented a theme and an opportunity. And considering that most of the systematic bias is related to US-centricity, what better way to actively counter that bias than by taking a day that is normally US-centric and turn it into a day where the focus is on ALL the world and highlight independence day related topics from across the globe. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are completely correct. Considering there are about 250 nations around the world and that some possibly do not even have internet access ;-) it would be a major undertaking. Okay - let us do it: on the US date of independence there be an effort not to focus on the US, which will be a major shock for the many US citizens who focus on their country 365.25 days per year. B. Fairbairn  Talk  16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(a) great idea, Agne. (b) a "major shock"?!? I somehow doubt that...but your anti-American POV (yes, I read that Village Pump proposal you put forth with its related discussion...massive TL;DR) is not needed here. Neutrality, please. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 07:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My point-of-view is definitely not anti-American. You know, it is so typical of people such as yourself to automatically assume that because I do not get down on my knees before Uncle Sam that I must be anti-American. All I am saying is that there are too many pro-americans out there going on and on about their country as if it is the only place of any importance in the world. B. Fairbairn  Talk  17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

...blarg. I should have not said anything, but it's a little late for takebacks, eh? Well, I will not be commenting in this section anymore after this reply: whatever you want to call your POV, it has nothing to do with DYK and I would appreciate it if you would focus on helping/improving the event that Agne27 (talk · contribs) and company are planning instead of snide stereotypical comments about Americans and what you think they think. Thanks in advance and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 08:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the first person to respond in the enthusiastic affirmative (me!) is an American so please don't presume to know how we'll all react or how inward-looking we are. (The editor who wrote or expanded many of the articles in Category:Radio stations in the Cayman Islands? Me again.) I still think this is a great idea. - Dravecky (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read my comment properly instead of stupidly jumping to the wrong conclusion like you both have, you will see that I said "for the many US citizens" and "there are too many pro-americans out there", not all like you claim. Many and all are two different words in the Oxford English dictionary, though maybe webster's English American dictionary disagrees. I get so tired of people like yourselves who as soon as you see someone who is not pro-american assume they are anti-american. Wake up to yourselves. B. Fairbairn  Talk  17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fairbairn and Ed, please take your misunderstanding elsewhere this is a conversation about a DYK project, not who's too POVy (new word, copyrighted to me!). I had to stop and think about Gatoclass's comments but I think Agnes is right. Most wikipedia users would be aware of America's Independence Day, so on July 4 it would be nice to twist their expectations and show that there are plenty of other IDs they might want to know about... The non-American Bigger digger (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to Bigger digger for helping us get back on path after straying erratically. B. Fairbairn  Talk  17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus-check So is there general agreement to do this? The only objection I've seen is Gato and I don't know if he still has reservations. If everything is a go, do you think it is good idea to create a special page for the event where we can give examples of articles and ideas or just create a holding bay on the suggestion page? 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange to celebrate a country's Independence Day on the date of another country's independence. Add to that the perception of Americans by much of the rest of the world as being self centered, and I don't think this is a good idea. -Freekee (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Exempt from DYK?

I'm planning on publishing an article I'm writing, however I'd prefer it if it wasn't "DYK-ed" on the front page. Is there any way I can let my articles be exempt from DYK? Or would I have to post them in stages so it doesn't satisfy the DYK criteria? Thanks, Antivenin 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Like tax law, you would have to legally and purposefully keep your article exempt from the rules. However, others may improve your article, bringing it back into the running. Law _{type! snype?} 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In stages, then. Cumbersome, but oh well. Antivenin 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then again, any editor may wish to expand it, or work on it in some way that makes it eligible for DYK. There's not really any guarantee. Law _{type! snype?} 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could just check the page regularly and make a statement saying you don't want it. Most DYK are only added if people run into the page. The chances of that are slim, so don't worry about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Curiosity question, why wouldn't you want them featured on DYK? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal preference. I'd rather not be thanked for the content I contribute. I think I'll follow Ottava's suggestion. It'll save me the trouble of waiting for 5 whole days before I can publish the rest of the article. Antivenin 03:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just keep in mind also that no-one can claim ownership of an article. See WP:OWN. --Bruce1ee^talk 09:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly familiar with WP:OWN. The point of DYK is to encourage contributors. The two are unrelated. Antivenin 15:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. DYK is not solely focus on an article's original contributor but rather on encouraging a broader range of potential contributors by featuring new and (hopefully) interesting articles on the mainpage. As I noted in a previous thread, nothing hammers down the point of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit better than featuring articles that can be improved by the casual reader who notices the article being featured on the mainpage. If another editor comes across an interesting article that you newly created, there is nothing prohibiting them from nominating it and per WP:OWN, I don't think your single objection would merit its exclusion. Now you noted that you don't like to be thanked for your contributions as a reason for not wanting to be a part of DYK. But again, I want to emphasize that this is not about you-it's a broader community project that reaches millions on a daily basis and you shouldn't worry about what other editors do. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

An interesting POV. Noted. Antivenin 16:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Easy DYK Link Script

A screenshot of the script, click for full resolution

Hey everyone, I have been using a bit of custom .js to make my work at DYK easier for the past few months (viewable at my monobook.js) and I have just made a form of the script that I use into a script that can be used by other DYK volunteers, what the script does is it adds links to the main DYK pages (All the Queues, the Prep Areas, the main DYK template, the hook suggestion page, and the Wikipedia pages related to DYK) under the toolbox header of your sidebar, also the script does not interfere with any other scripts to my knowledge. To use the script add

importScript('User:Mifter/DYK tools.js');

to your monobook.js :). If anyone has any changes that they would like made or and suggestions, I would be happy to hear them :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mifter! Something that would be nice would be a link in Special:WhatLinksHere, or some place like that, that goes directly to an article's DYK nom on T:TDYK (assuming that article is on DYK) rather than to the T:TDYK page in general. For single articles, the template {{T:TDYK}} creates a link directly to a nom (ie, for an article Example, {{T:TDYK|Example}} is the same as [[Template talk:Did you know#Example|Example]]), but I don't know if there's any way to work that into a script in some way such that the link will just be there (without anyone's having to type it out) whenever you go to Special:WhatLinksHere for an article that's ok DYK. (If it's not possible, no worries, it's not super-important...just thought it might be handy.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Essentially new?

I've been working on Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate recently in the hopes of making it a DYK and eventual GA/FA. As I was doing so, I found that I had a question about the DYK process.

Basically, I rewrote the entire article. All that's the same to when I started working on it is maybe one sentence of the lead, some stuff in the infobox, categories, and the navbox. I'm not sure if I can do a fivefold expansion in the five day requirement, not because I don't have time, but because I don't think that there is enough relevant content for an encyclopedia article on the game that isn't already in the article. I feel like I essentially "created" the article since it has more or less no resemblance—especially when it comes to the prose—to what I started with. I'm basically wondering if a complete rewrite like this counts as a "new article" for the purposes of DYK... it had had a copyvio plot summary, and all of the development had been sourced to unreliable sources and was all about the delays in the game's release. As I worked through the article, all of that was deleted and what remains of it was remade from the ground-up. So although it isn't technically "new", it is essentially "new".

I just thought I'd ask here before actually trying to nominate it. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, we usually only make this kind of exception when the rewritten article was originally all copyvio, OR/essay, etc. As far as I can tell from this, the original article was not like that (i.e., it was blatantly and uncontroversially terrible, it was only somewhat terrible), and so I probably would not make an exception. But there have been several recent discussions about this sort of thing and other editors may not agree, so I'll see what everyone has to say. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK this is still the consensus view. I haven't done a count, but it looked like you weren't far off a 5x expansion, which of course would be fine. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)That's a good observation. Right now the article is right around 4x expansion, which is close to the gray area where some editors will accept it as an outright expansion anyway. If you get it over about 4.5x it's a pretty easy IAR; 4x is a bit more iffy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's at about a 4x expansion right now, and I really don't think that much more can be added with the current sources. Although if you take the one paragraph copyvio (the unsourced plot summary from "an official description") out of the original count, it's only about 200 bytes away from a fivefold expansion, which I could probably do without too much difficulty. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that I can do this... I just took a bunch from one source that I'd been overlooking. Thanks for your help; I hope to nominate this today or tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Archives for the suggestion page

Are the threads on the suggestion/nomination page archived anywhere? I can't seem to find a link.Smallman12q (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. They're in the history though. Shubinator (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a truly atrocious way to do it. Why not have an archival bot? Going through history is a completely unnecessary and last resort pain. There should definitely be an archive of some sort.Smallman12q (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The archives would be massive. We have an archive of hooks that appear on the Main Page; no need to have an archive of failed hooks. Shubinator (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant an archive for the threads, not just the hooks. It wouldn't be overly massive, and it would provide a reference of past approved/dissaproved hooks as well a reference for people who wish to view one another's DYK work.Smallman12q (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don´t see a need for this. Searching the history might be a bit of a hassle, but I do it all the time and it works perfectly fine to reference old hooks. It would make extra work for people (I don´t see how this could be done by a bot; people remove discussions from T:TDYK manually, and would have to put them in an archive as they remove them) and doesn´t provide anything you don´t already have in the history. --rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of removing them manually, perhaps we could put some type of archival message and then a bot would auto-archive only those with the archival message, or the bot could be set to say 15 days(as the longest lasting dyk thread appears to be 10 days). The current method is indeed quite a hassle, especially for people trying to review someones DYK work. Smallman12q (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Are the concern's related to a perceived technical difficulty, or rather that there is some opposition to the archives themselves?Smallman12q (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of an archive. We already have an archive page for the hooks actually promoted, and we have an archive page for this here discussion page. If anyone wants to search for a discussion about a particlar hook that's been promoted, it's easy enough to do it from the existing archive pages. In the 18 months I've been contributing to DYK, there have been exactly zero requests for a link to an old discussion about a hook that wasn't promoted, so again, I think this is a case of a solution looking for a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

At WP:RFA, when people mention DYK work, the fact that its difficult to follow a person's work here often leads to confusion.Smallman12q (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how perusing the article history for the suggestions page is more difficult than reviewing the article history of anything else a candidate for adminship might be. Indeed, this seems like a seriously complicating and time/resources/effort consuming request for a very minor benefit, none of which would actually accrue to the DYK efforts. - Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well in addition to being able to review an editor, we could reference previous hooks to see how to work things out. I don't really understand why it would be so difficult? People already copy paste the hooks, it would take only an extra moment to copy paste the whole thread to a relevant archive. The process can also be automated. I'll gladly volunteer.Smallman12q (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK has enough steps as it is without archiving of threads. Judging by the conversation, DYK editors don't see the point of an archive, and are unlikely to archive threads. One of the bot requirements is that the bot performs only tasks for which there is consensus. There is no consensus in favor of a thread archive here; in fact, there's consensus against a thread archive. Shubinator (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I agree with the consensus, but in this case I'm not going to drop the stick until I get a clear explanation as to why an archive is so unwanted? I always thought that people on wikipedia wanted to preserve and showcase their work, but I am beginning to doubt this. I'm not trying to be a dick; all I seek is an answer.Smallman12q (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm proud of my DYKs, yes. Am I proud of the discussion threads? No. Shubinator (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer is, as has been said above, that other editors here don't see a necessity for an archive. It's important to be able to point to specific threads, discussions, noms, etc., but archives don't really make that any easier than the existing page history does (especially now that we use subheaders, which we started doing back in November—they show up in the page history, which makes the history easily searchable). The things said above don't mean we think an archive would be bad; they mean we think it wouldn't do any extra good, and isn't worth the trouble of implementing.

By now, this discussion is going in circles, and if it continues I might just {{archive top}} {{archive bottom}} it... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My question is: what do you mean by "the trouble of implementing"? Would you like a bot to help with the archiving?Smallman12q (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

B-Day

The time is finally here for the eagerly awaited Bacon Challenge 2009 to reach its thrilling and historic conclusion. Participants are moving their articles to mainspace and we'll be putting up our DYK noms soon. The plan is to group the hooks together so, hopefully, we can have an update or two comprised of hooks that were part of the event.

If there are any questions or concerns, please let us know. Because several people are involved, the hooks may not get put up all at one time, but I'm hoping that grouping them together will be okay and that we can maybe include a special note or banner so people know that they are part of this event and that the intention is for them to be kept together (if possible) for a massive bacon-y update. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are the hooks so far:

1. ... that the peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich would be New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's choice for his last meal and was a favorite with Elvis?
2. ... that Seduced by Bacon by Joanna Pruess includes a recipe for pecan, brown sugar and bacon ice cream as well as writings by Mark Twain?
3. ... that National Pig Day is included in a handbook for first year teachers as a day for activities including cooking bacon, making BLTs, and discussing where pork chops come from?
4. ... that angels on horseback are an appetizer of bacon-wrapped oysters that was invented in 1888 and featured in the New York Times in 1896 as a "dish for sultry weather"?
5. ... that a Mitch Morgan, bourbon with a slice of bacon as a garnish, served as the inspiration for Bacon Salt?
6. ... that Stegt Flæsk, a popular bacon dish in Danish cuisine, has been described as "a dish of pork fat, and only pork fat, in parsley sauce. Mmmm".
7. ... that turkey bacon is used as a substitute for pork bacon at Camille's Sidewalk Cafe locations in the Middle East?
8. ... that to prepare a bacon martini, bacon has to soak in vodka for 24 hours, before it is strained over ice and served with a bacon garnish?
9. ... that miniature pigs are used for medical research and kept as pets, unlike the larger bacon-type pigs raised for meat. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

   alt. ...that miniature pigs are bred and raised as pets and for medical research into organ transplant rather than for bacon?

10. ... that a maple bacon donut served at a new Wichita, Kansas donut shop is already famous?
11. ... that Snake 'n' Bacon is a cartoon duo consisting of a snake and a strip of bacon whose conversations are limited to hissing (on Snake's part) and making bacon-related comments (on Bacon's part)?

    alt: ... that on the cartoon show Snake 'n' Bacon, the Bacon character communicates solely with bacon related comments like, "I am a piece of bacon."?

The Shake 'n' Bacon article needs to be expanded (it's in User:Drmies userspace right now NOT the short mainspace version).

There's still plenty of time if anyone wants to check the Bacon Challenge page for ideas or has their own bacon related article that they've been waiting for this special moment to unveil... Bacon vodka anyone? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I'm too keen on this idea myself - not unless there is an actual "bacon day" celebration somewhere, otherwise people are just going to wonder why we are featuring a bunch of bacon-related hooks at once. It's also not likely to be met with much approval from vegetarians or animal rights supporters. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this could have been perfect for National Pig Day but that was on March 1st. Given sufficiently diverse hooks, I don't see why these couldn't run 1 (or maybe 2) per queue over the course of a few days. It looks like my arteries won't be the only things clogged by bacon this week. - Dravecky (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass & Dravecky's comments. Spread them out with 1 (maybe 2) hooks per update. Royalbroil 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think an all bacon update would be best, but I'm not sure, and respect the opinion of others more experienced in the process. I think an all bacon update would be fun, and yes I know we missed National pig day, but nobody's perfect. I don't know what protocols apply, and if having a bacon hook in every update for the next week or so is a better way to go, I think that's okay too. There are a couple hooks with good photos, so that might allow for more photo included hooks as well... :) Thanks for your consideration.

We've tried to be as open and possible and I mentioned the plan a while back in case there were any concerns... I'm not sure what other participants think about splitting the hooks up, but as the BC event has been about fun and collaboration I doubt anyone would mind if it's determined that divying up the bacon is the best approach. I do think we'd get the bacon out of our system faster with a focused update, but I understand why editors want to savor their bacon and spread the joy over a longer period of time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> So far the feedback on the Bacon Challenge discussion page seems to support keeping the bacon hooks together in an update if possible. Anyone else care to weight in? Could a brief note or explanation in the update be put in to explain it was a Wikipedia event?ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly biased as I participated, but I think the reluctance of the regular DYK-ers is based on

• Potential to insult vegetarians/animal lovers — I think that this is a potential problem but then there are always hooks that might put someone off (you can't please all the people all the time, etc). If a user actually took issue with it, I'm sure we could have a Vegetarian Challenge or some such balancing measure.
• Lack of comprehension about the reason — Releasing all the hooks in one go would probably make more sense to the average user than about 8 updates all featuring bacon. A hook around "A group of editores collaborated to produce some bacon-themed articles for DYK" would probably draw some more attention to DYK and maybe get some more nominations or some more editors helping out with reviewing hooks.

We worked quite hard to get these articles up to a decent standard and it would be a nice reward if they could go out all at once, that was the original plan.

Obviously we won't get very far if all the regulars say, "Thanks, but no." but I don't think there are any major reasons not to, and it makes loading two queues very easy indeed! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think those two things are the main reasons for opposing the Bacon Update. The main reason is the already-existing standard about preparing DYK updates—the precedent is that the update should be varied (we have rules like no more than 50% US-related hooks, no more than 2, maybe 3, biography hooks, etc. etc.). We generally try to avoid having hooks with undue focus on one geographical area, topic, etc. That's why people might not be keen on this.

That being said, I also recognize that a DYK update is only up for a couple hours and, if we have a little fun with it, what gives. But that's an IAR-type situation, and the fact is that the status quo is to avoid these types of updates. If you do think DYK should IAR and do it anyway, the burden of argument is on the Bacon Cabal to prove why we should ignore the rule, not on DYK people to defend why they shouldn't. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rjanag, you make a good point. In fact, if you assume the first 9 will make it into one update, there are 2 articles about food dishes, 1 about a book, 1 about an author, 1 about a particular day, 2 about drinks, 1 about Danish food culture, 1 about an ingredient and 1 about an animal. That's a fairly good balance, it's just that they're all linked by a theme, which actually gives all the hooks a unique extra slant of their own... Bigger digger (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say, that is quite a stretch now. All the hooks (except maybe the mini pig one) are about food, fair and square.

Themed updates have happened in the past, but only on real days (such as Darwin Day), and even then it's often been limited to 4 or 5 themed hooks per update (and regular hooks for the rest of the update) to spread it out through the day. And, as far as I know, this has only ever happened to celebrate a real day, not just to amuse Wikipedia editors who thought it would be fun (no offense, but that is just what this looks like to me).

Now, why not just nominate these normally and let them be spread out across multiple updates? With this number of hooks, you would have 1-2 bacon hooks on the main page more or less nonstop, for at least 2 days; is that not at least as good (if not better) than one big update? (This is assuming for the sake of argument that all your articles are up to DYK standards; I just found some borderline plagiarism in the very first one.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone helping out at DYK and for their consideration, feedback, work vetting hooks, checking citations, and verifying article length. I understand the consensus is against single topic updates, and will try to do a better job of taking this into account in future "events". Keep up the good work. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Extended cycle

I've noticed that the number of available hooks on the Suggestions page has declined sharply since the bot started running again - we are currently down to only 108 hooks, and the queue isn't even full. For the last six months or so we've usually had between 180 and 240 hooks to choose from, it becomes increasingly difficult to put together balanced updates when the pool is small.

I have therefore extended the Bot time cycle to seven hours from six to give the system time to accumulate some more hooks. I guess I could have gone straight to eight hours, but I thought it might be worth trying a seven hour cycle first. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. We could decrease the hooks/set too. Shubinator (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always been a fan of decreasing the number of hooks (not just to spread out our resources, but also because it's more reader-friendly and because it might allow us to eventually become more selective--which is not, of course, something everyone agrees should happen, but it's something I would like to see someday). As far as I can remember, one of the main objections to that in the past has been main page layout: if T:DYK gets smaller, it may leave whitespace on the main page unless ITN or something also gets smaller (although, to be honest, it seems there's often whitespace below On This Day because T:DYK is too big). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Either way is fine by me - although it will have to be made clear to contributors that we are promoting less hooks per update for a while. I guess I could leave a note on the Prep Clear page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the above comments, I've restored the cycle to six hours and left a note on the Prep Clear page so that updaters who miss this discussion will know what's going on. Gatoclass (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I just went and nominated a bunch of articles from User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult, but from what I remember during my work at DYK over the last year or so, we seem to go through these cycles from time to time, their have been times when their have been 4 days of expiring verified noms and we have had too many hooks (generally not that bad of a think :P), and there have been times when their are next to no verified hooks and we have had a very small amount of hooks in the pipeline waiting for approval. So, this shortage will most likely pass is a week or so, and we should be fine with just decreasing the number of hooks per update until the number of hooks picks back up again :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The number of hooks has been gradually declining for some months IIRC, and when the bot is working it tends to run through hooks more quickly as there are no delays between updates, so I don't think this is something that is likely to pass "in a week or so". In any case we have to take preventative action when the number of hooks is getting too low, so I think a reduction in the number of hooks per update is quite appropriate right now, although your noms are obviously going to be of some assistance in the short term, so thanks for helping out :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My hunch is that the current reduction in the number of hooks is directly attributable to the academic calendar in the northern hemisphere. Some time after university students finish with their exams and recover from their after-term holidays, the numbers are likely to creep upward again. --Orlady (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK Templates

Is there a reason why Template:DYKalt, Template:DYKre, Template:DYK welcome are listed at Category:Deprecated DYK templates?

Also, I would like to know if I can create a general page dedicated to the documentation and usage two dozen or so DYK templates? I previously wasn't aware of these templates as no such page exsists an believe that other users will find it beneficial.Smallman12q (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• DYKalt really is deprecated; it is never used, and in a discussion here it was decided that the template wasn't needed; it was brought up again here and there didn't seem to be much interest (and another version was created at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/alt, although to be honest I think it can probably be deleted).
• DYKre is a template I created but that I do not believe is used much, and I put it in the deprecated category because I'm pretty sure it's not needed. If anyone does use that template, speak up and let me know. Since it's a template that is always substituted, it's difficult to gauge how often it's being used. If this is a major interest, I could make a tweak that would allow us to keep track (for, I dunno, a week or two) and see if it's being used or not.
• Same with DYKwelcome, after I made it there appeared to be little interest so I listed it there to be on the safe side. Since then, though, I have used it occasionally, and some other people have as well, so it could probably be delisted (just replace that category with one of the other subcategories in Category:Wikipedia Did you know templates). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• As for a page with template instructions and whatnot, you are certainly welcome to make one; any resources for newcomers are helpful. Feel free to leave a link here once you've started it, so people can take a look and offer suggestions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember when I first made {{DYKalt}} it was in an effort to standardize the alternate hook suggestions and to make it easier for reviewers to find approved alt hooks, but it was soon after I had made the template that a new hook suggestion form was implemented that had a parameter for alt hooks, now that template is depreciated, but that was one the reasons that DYKalt was never widely used, although it was used for a short while before it was decided that it was unnecessary and more complex than it had to be, if you have any ideas to make it work or bring it back into use, I would be happy to hear them :). Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the templates aren't used because people don't know about they exist. I will make it at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Templates.Smallman12q (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Having a list won't help people realize they exist; I thought you were more planning on making a set of instructions for how to use them, etc. The templates are all already listed in the categories. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Lack of verified hooks

Only 5 hooks "verified" at the DYK hook count page? And there seems to be a prevalence of American or American sports-related hooks. At the prep areas I'm facing issues with trying to keep sets balanced nationally. This isn't an emergency call, since we have a few queues ready and the sets only call for 6 hooks now—but could each editor reading this please drop by and approve (or leave comments about) a few noms at T:TDYK? Thank you, Jamie^☆S93 14:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Had a look at a few, hope it helps.  Skomorokh  18:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the DYK'ers. Looks like we're in better shape now, more noms have been verified. :-) Just shuttled two batches off to the queues, after making sure that most of the hooks were balanced and alternated by topic and nation. Jamie^☆S93 01:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Paraho process

I would like to ask for restoring the Paraho process article, created on 24 May, for the DYK nomination. The article was removed by Awadewit for unresolved plagiarism issues. I understand that the nomination was removed without checking the article, because the issue was resolved and was already resolved even before the last comment by Moonriddengirl. As I was sure that the comment by Moonriddengirl was just explaining policy (and I really appreciate this) and not a comment about the current status of the article, I did not made any additional comment from my side. It was really surprising that the nomination was removed without checking the article and without any further notification. Beagel (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you post a link to the discussion about the article so it can be reviewed please? Gatoclass (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the link is here. Beagel (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As a rule, articles found to have copyvio or plagiarism problems don't get a second chance. Assuming the sentence referred to was the only one with a plagiarism issue, perhaps you were a little unlucky to have the article passed over, given that you only lifted two or three pretty basic descriptive phrases which arguably did not lend themselves to much rephrasing in any case. I guess we could consider reinstating it but I'd like to hear what others think first. Gatoclass (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the sentence that I pointed out was fixed days ago. I'm not sure if the nom was failed for other spots of plagiarism still in the article. For example, the sentence A test of indirect heating process was commenced in March 1976 in the article is very close to the source. Shubinator (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Once one sentence of more-or-less plagiarism comes up in the article, there's no telling how many more there are. No offense to you as an editor, but if you didn't understand the definition of plagiarism and paraphrasing when you wrote that sentence, then you probably didn't when you wrote the rest of the article either, and so the entire thing is suspect until an uninvolved editor has checked it one sentence at a time. If anyone wants to do that they're welcome to, but my opinion has always been that DYK editors should not be required to re-check the entire article, given that it's so time-consuming; as Gatoclass said, once an article is found to have a plagiarism issue then it's basically lost its shot at DYK unless some DYK editor chooses to go out of their way to rescue it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DYKadminbot

Ok, I think the last run went ok: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DYKadminBot

Go over it and see if there are any more errors. Post errors as a level 3 header under this section. Lets try to keep all the bot discussion in this one section. —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Following redirects

Bot does not follow redirects.

Ex: [1]

The previous was reported on my talk page —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DYKnom

Can we use this again yet? I think you said above not to use it, but your last post suggests you may have resolved that issue. Gatoclass (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please use DYKmake for the time being... at least until I get home from work today. (AFAIK the two templates do the same thing, at least that is how the code treats it... two regexes, one for DYKnom and one for DYKMake with two different sections of the code (identical!) doing a loop for both.... (with small changes in the loops for the nom/make) its messed up and before I do any changes I gotta test them first. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I am not here to complain, but I thought I should report that the DYKadminBot has not given me a DYKnom notice for the Bigeye trevally article. My hook was on Q2 and then MainPage earlier today. I think I am the only person ignored by the DYKadminBot in this round of DYK updating. I'm giving myself the {{UpdatedDYKNom}} on my next edit. Hope it's alright. --PFHLai (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - You should be able to use DYKnom now. On the upside the bot now has 50 fewer lines of code :). —— nixeagle^{email me} 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to Special:Contributions/DYKadminBot, the bot has created new usertalk pages to post both {{UpdatedDYK}} and {{UpdatedDYKNom}} for the most recent round of DYK updating (from Q3) based on the article's title, rather than posting the notices on the actual users' talkpage. So both {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} are not working properly. Or I should say the bot is not working properly. --PFHLai (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Those bot-created usertalkpages are now gone. (See Special:DeletedContributions/DYKadminBot.) --PFHLai (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I'd like to report that the bot also made the same mistake in the previous round of DYK updating (from Q2). --PFHLai (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've given out the DYK notices for the last two rounds of DYK updating (Q2 & Q3). Can someone take care of the next set of DYK credits for hooks from Q4, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Another issue

It looks like the bot gives out nom credits, but incorrectly labels them as "an article you created or expanded" instead of using the {{UpdatedDYKNom}} template [2], [3]. Jamie^☆S93 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In both cases, {{DYKnom}} was properly used on the DYKQ ([4], [5]). I've just put in the {{UpdatedDYKNom}} template on the two usertalkpages to fix the mistakes by the bot. I think the bot needs a little more tweaking. --PFHLai (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found a third error and fixed it ([6], [7]). --PFHLai (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bot did it again, and I've just fixed the error on the nominator's talkpage ([8], [9]). Hopefully, the Bot gets fixed soon. --PFHLai (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bot continues to use {{UpdatedDYK}} when it should be using {{UpdatedDYKNom}} (e.g. [10], [11]; [12],[13]; [14], [15]). Can someone take over the credit template replacement (or, better, fix the bot), please? I won't be around the next little while to do much fixing. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The template it is using is User:Ameliorate!/DYKmake, feel free to fix this to whatever it is supposed to be, however notice that it has been using this template forever. Do not move or redirect that template page without notifying me beforehand. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please tell the bot to use User:Ameliorate!/DYKnom when a {{DYKnom}} on Queue calls for it. Thanks. --74.14.20.169 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing the text of the updates

The bot took off the leading part of $10,000 to give ,000 in the latest set. Maybe the dollar sign is confusing it? See [16] and [17]. Shubinator (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Likely the same reason as the reported issue below. Both will require the same fix. —— nixeagle^{email me} 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't find hook

This edit shows the bot couldn't find the hook for that article. I strongly suspect it's the + sign that's throwing the regex. It might be more reliable (even if it takes up more lines) to search by indexes of strings... then you don't have to worry about escaping special characters. Very minor bug, low priority, but thought I'd mention it. Shubinator (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

These seem to both be related to how php does regex, a topic I am not really up to date. I'll do some research on the matter and fix both of these and future bugs in this class of issues. PHP ought to have triggers/flags similar to perl's \Q and \E for indicating to the regex engine "take the following as a literal string". —— nixeagle^{email me} 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Should be fixed (along with the bug reported in above section), turns out \Q and \E works in php as it does in perl. :). —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Bot doesn't archive. Shubinator (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus check

Since it has gotten buried on this page up above, do we have consensus about doing the July 4th Special Event on topics relating to Independence Days around the world? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 10:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Great idea :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still very much opposed to this. I'm sure it's been proposed with the best of intentions but I think celebrating other nation's independence days on American Independence Day is completely inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Gato. It's a convenient way to feature some national holidays that might not otherwise be featured (since there are not a lot of people on en-wiki who churn out articles on, say, Ghana), but it seems a bit weird to assume that the USA's independence day should be celebrated by the whole world. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Gatoclass. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The idea can sound like "equality to other nations in Wikipedia that has been favoring US centric views and articles" but it only insinuates that the U.S holiday has to be regarded as international one to the world. The holiday on the day is just for Americans.--Caspian blue 14:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe some of you may have missed the fact that we're not celebrating the American Independence Day here. Rather we are using a themed opportunity to consciously work on promoting topics and articles that are extremely lacking in coverage on both Wikipedia and DYK. I have to admit this line of thinking and objection is quite odd. Did anyone think that promoting topics relating to Halloween and Darwin day was offensive to millions of fundamentalist Christians? Or that Christmas related DYK event was offensive to to agnostics and atheists? Under the same lines of reasoning espoused above, I supposed those events are going to be tabled the next time they come around. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Halloween and Darwin Day are celebrated in numerous countries; US Independence Day is only celebrated in one. It's fine to use July 4 to showcase some articles related to US Independence Day, but to showcase articles related to some other country's independence seems a little rude (i.e., "hey little guys, we'd love to celebrate your special day, but make sure you do it on the same day as our special day!"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how many countries they are celebrated in. They are still offensive topics to millions of potential readers and under the line of logic espoused above, by focusing on article creation and promotion of those article topics during those days means we are celebrating those days. Under that same line of thinking, we are rising up the idea of Halloween and Darwinism over the viewpoints and feelings of millions of other readers. That seem rather rude, doesn't it? In fact, those topics are much more offensive and potential drama powder keg than the conscious effort to counter systematic bias and encourage content creation in areas sorely lacking coverage. Seriously, how can we in good conscious support "celebrating" other special topics days when there is apparently this potential to offend so many? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Agne27, you've got wrong comparisons. Your idea is like for Christmas DYKs, we can gather all birthdays of various gods, saints, and religious leaders in the world to commemorate them on one day; putting together themes of Christmas, Buddha's birthday, and Muhammad's birthday on December 25 for the sake of equal opportunity. However that would obviously offend not only Christians but also Buddhists, and Muslims.--Caspian blue 16:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Geez, that would still offend the agnostics and atheists, now wouldn't it? I guess we're dammed if we do. Dammed if we don't. Again, how can we support these special events in good conscious if they apparently have the potential to offend so many? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If people are offended because Wikipedians chose to acknowledge a widely known and acknowledged holiday (such as Halloween), that's their own problem. They know Halloween is out there and that people acknowledge it, they chose to be sensitive about it.

If people are offended because Wikipedians chose to equate their own national Independence Day with America's, that's Wikipedians' problem—we would be the ones who made an arbitrary pairing and we would be the ones who were appearing (whether intentionally or not) ignorant to the differences between different countries' histories. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Still that same. Under the logic espoused above, setting aside a day to do a special events means that Wikipedia is "raising" that day and all it stands for above all others. Under that same logic, having special event days for Halloween, Darwin Day, Christmas, etc means that Wikipedia condones and celebrates ideologies and worldviews that are offensive to millions of people. Now I don't happen to be one of those millions because I see the benefit of encouraging content creation over political correctness. But to ignore the similarities and this biased selectivity is absurd. This pointed alliance and commemoration of these potentially offensive view points is in a category way worse than good faith efforts to improve coverage in poorly represented areas and to focus on countering systematic bias. The later is an inclusive event, the former is exclusive. Yet DYK wholeheartedly condones these exclusive offensive special events while ignoring inclusive ones? That is certainly a Wikipedia problem. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just curious - why does it have to be the 4th of July? We have the independence days of Tonga, Sweden, the Philippines, Iceland, Mozambique, Madagascar, Seychelles and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in June, I see no reason why you want to wait until July if any independence day is good for your proposal. There is nothing special about the American independence day any more than any other independence day, is there? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately I would be fine with that though it would certainly sacrifice effectiveness. There is more "public awareness" with July 4th and potentially more contributions due to that awareness but I guess we are in business of gouging out the eye in order to remove the splinter. Very well, in the end only the project and the continued lack of coverage in these poorly represented areas will suffer. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange to celebrate a country's Independence Day on the date of another country's independence. Add to that the perception of Americans by much of the rest of the world as being self centered, and I don't think this is a good idea. -Freekee (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We could do it on Canada Day instead, if the US holiday is the real sticking point. I'm still not clear on how ignoring US topics for a whole day, a day usually very country-focused in the US, and featuring articles written about other countries is US-centric or offensive to the rest of the world. It's better to not feature an article on another country because that would make them angry but a list of American baseball players or a small town in Minnesota would make everything fine and dandy? I'm feeling a logical disconnect here. - Dravecky (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. By all means create a DYK collection relating to independence days, but then put those individual DYKs public on appropriate dates, not one single country's independence day. Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. No world collection of independence days on one country's independence day. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Will this be occurring on the independence days of other countries? --candle•wicke 00:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pencil skirt passes DYK with atrocious references

This article is currently on the main page with references like this. It's really important that some basic quality control be implemented on DYK nominees, even if that means cutting down on the number of updates. It only takes 20 seconds to click through the references in this article and see at a glance that they are inappropriate.  Skomorokh  17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I haven't checked all the refs but there is a ref there from the Sydney Morning Herald, one of Australia's leading newspapers, and there's also a piece from Wisegeek, which appears to have an editorial board, so the refs certainly aren't all bad and at the end of the day, this is only an article about a fashion item after all. Gatoclass (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've commented elsewhere about the poor quality of a great many DYKs, but nobody seems very concerned to address the issue. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite the same issue Malleus :) This one's about sourcing rather than quality per se. For the record, I am personally opposed to introducing any kind of quality considerations that are dependent upon subjective judgement, but not averse to considering objectively quantifiable criteria where appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct spelling and grammar, or even a close approximation thereto, are hardly "subjective". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I usually copyed articles I review myself before approving them. However, I didn't get much support when I suggested a higher standard for this sort of thing some time ago. Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) These issues about refs would be a lot easier to sort out if we required people to give real citations, not just random titles. In an article like this, I can look at the reflist but I have no idea what any of those references are unless I click each one (or at least hover my mouse over it); things are much easier if people give the full author/date/publisher/title information. Personally, when I review I urge people to do this anyway, but maybe it would help to make this a rule. We already have a rule that the reflist should not include bare links; seeing as refs like the ones in this article are little better than bare links (they're prettier than bare links, but just as uninformative), it would not be a major change to raise the bar just a bit and require real citations. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

When the rule was added it was supposed to mean proper citations, and the article in question normally should have been failed for the lack of them - but we do usually give new contributors a little leeway in that regard as they are still on the learning curve. I should add however that while I support the general principle, I would oppose any move to mandate the use of citation templates, as they are not mandatory anywhere else on the wiki and a lot of people, myself included, really dislike them. Gatoclass (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mean to imply I'd require using templates; I know people like you and Awadewit don't use them, but still have perfectly formatted references. I just mean requiring basic information. I don't see that as biting newbies, because it's supposed to be general knowledge among anyone who's gone to school; you don't need technical Wiki knowledge to put information in footnotes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Script bug

We're still miscopying large numbers. See [18], [19] and #Changing the text of the updates. Art LaPella (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Note also that Template:Did you know/Queue/2, which contains the number 1,000, comes up June 1, 21:21 UTC. Art LaPella (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed nixeagle about it. Since it affects the front page rather than one of the process pages, I think it's of more importance than the other outstanding issues. Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the dollar signs, the bot's treating them as unassigned variables. We had this problem before when I was running it and my fix (admittedly dodgy) fix was to replace them with "&#36;" which in HTML becomes: $. But Nixeagle has (understandably) probably rewritten a lot of code so perhaps that fix was forgotten? As a workaround, until Nix fixes it, you could replace dollar signs in the queues with "&#36;" and they should appear correctly. (Or am I completely wrong and it's truncating non-currency numbers as well?) ~ Ameliorate! 13:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, I'll see what I can do. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Might be fixed now. Let me know if the problem continues. Ameliorate! You might be surprised at how much of your original code still remains. I've been in mostly maintenance mode, fixing whatever breaks while trying not to break anything else ;)... though I have done quite a bit of a rewrite in credits.php. My next goal is to rewrite archive.php and get it doing that right. —— nixeagle^{email me} 14:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A disgrace

A dubious puff piece featured as a current DYK contains a completely unsourced long list of notable customers. It is an absolute disgrace that this is prominently displayed on the main page. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, other than that, the entire article looks pretty OK, from a quick skim through, though admittably I haven't taken an in-depth look. You could just remove the list if you believe it is trivial, which I believe so as well. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I already did. My point though is that it should not have been featured in that state. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's odd that something with not notable trivia like that would have been added. I haven't reviewed DYK noms regularly in a while (I've been incredibly busy, though every now and then I've found time to take a look at some DYK noms,) but I definitely would've asked to remove that before accepting it. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 19:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not only not notable, but unsourced. Makes you wonder who wrote the article doesn't it? Who would have access to the company's customer database? Did all of those customers agree to have their names included? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:StJenna also appears to be a big fan of Lynda Resnick. - Dravecky (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be more productive just to leave messages with Jamie and Giants, the editors who promoted and verified (respectively) this article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What would be even more productive would be for this project to take some responsibility for the rubbish that's too often featured on the main page. Is that asking for too much? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We always appreciate help filtering out the rubbish. Awadewit (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Malleus. The contributors here would appreciate your careful eye and high standards. Durova^Charge! 22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not offering to help, I'm just trying to draw attention to what I see as a serious problem. I've got quite enough on my plate without DYK. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As someone who just sent something though the DYK process I was surprised at how fast it made it to the main page. I was expecting to have some time to fix it up, go take a picture etc. The last time I sent something through it took a while to cycle up and I had time to polish it (if I remember right).

I think part of the problem is the ravonous appetite DYK seems to have. The queue is short and (at this point in time anyway) doesn't allow for much inspection. Perhaps we should include fewer of them, or lengthen the amount of time they spend on the main page...or something. Something to slow the whole process down. I certainly don't mean this as a criticism of anyone who works here. RxS (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's newest articles: WP:FAC is thataway. ;) Durova^Charge! 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think RxS makes a very valid point. DYK's indecent haste and insatiable appetite makes it inevitable that rubbish will be featured on the main page. Is that really what we want? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Option A should be "don't nominate it until you think it's ready" and not "nominate it before it's done then hope for a bunch of time to fix it". If the article is nominated before it's ready, at least some of the concern should be for the judgment of the nominator. - Dravecky (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How many DYKs have you done, Malleus? Just wondering. Durova^Charge! 23:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Four, as you can see from my user page. Why is that relevant? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The hook amount has been lowered from eight to six and I thought that the time was extended but looking at it again it looks as though it hasn't and Malleus, how about instead of complaining doing something about it like checking out the queues, do something about this "problem" or just stop complaining on multiple pages like this one and WT:RFA.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 23:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you aren't waiting for me to fix all of DYK's problems, or indeed any of them, because the day that happens will be a cold day in Hell. Why don't you pull your finger out? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you do all of them but instead of complaining look over some and fix stuff you don't like and stop discussing how awful the section is, and I do help out around here but like everybody I make my fair share of mistakes.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you calm down and look at how many of the DYKs I've already fixed, including one of the worst I've ever seen on the main page earlier today. Like it or not I'm suggesting that the DYK selection process is broken. If you on the other hand believe that the DYKs appearing on the main page for the most part meet any reasonable standard for spelling. grammar, and neutrality, then we will simply have to agree to disagree. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) And I often feel guilty for not helping out more often. Had intended to start another African geography article today, but discovered a really subtle and prolific spammer instead whose spam had crept into hundreds of pages including a few featured articles. Am busy extracting that, but very much respect the hardworking volunteers who do their best here. It bites when something slips through the screening, but they are much more careful here than DYK was a year ago. Let's remember we're all volunteers and do our best to encourage better efforts. Durova^Charge! 00:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I get the picture. Criticism is not allowed, DYK is wonderful. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kinda more like walking the walk is a good idea. If you roll up your sleeves, do your best for a month, and still see these problems--then those whose sleeves have been rolled for months with ring around the collar and sweat stains under the armpits will probably be more receptive. ;) Durova^Charge! 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I "roll up my sleeves" every day, how dare you suggest that I don't; take a look at Trafalgar Square, or Kevin Youkilis for instance. I can't be everywhere though, so why not take a moment to reflect on what I'm saying, instead of suggesting that I'm some kind of dilletante who has no idea? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I looked at Trafalgar Square and made this edit. My following silly criticism should definitely NOT be taken seriously at face value!

How could you leave a link like Chartist undisambiguated? Are you unaware of User:Splarka/dabfinder.js, or WP:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages for that matter? And what about those colons? They don't appear on the book cover {see this), so why would you want a space before the colons in violation of WP:MOS#Punctuation at the end of a sentence? Are you here to help or not?

Once again, my previous ridiculous criticism is NOT my actual opinion; I routinely find and correct such errors in featured articles, without saying anything. The point is to give you a look in the mirror. Suggesting that we go slower, as we have recently dropped from 8 hooks to 6, is arguable; but say it that way. It's a lot easier to look like Der Führer by telling someone else to fix something than by just fixing it, and we have more than enough volunteers for Führerhood already. Art LaPella (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Then there's obviously no problem, I must have been mistaken. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. you appear to be labouring under the delusion that I played some part in the writing of Trafalgar Square. I perhaps now begin to see the problem here; you don't take the trouble to check your facts. I initiated the article's GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Every article has problems, but just saying so isn't a plan to fix them. I took the trouble to check Trafalgar Square's edit history, and found your name on some minor edits. If you also reviewed it for GA, that only reinforces my point. Art LaPella (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one responsible for putting crap on the main page; that would be you.

You also appear to be unable to understand even the most basic of English. Take a look at the Trafalgar Square article again. What leads you to believe that I was the GA reviewer who listed it? I'm the GA reviewer who's suggesting that it may have to be delisted. Do the facts mean nothing to you? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a couple solutions to what I see as systemic problems here and got pointed to WP:FAC for some reason. You don't have to be active here to be able to see ongoing issues here. This conversation is going the same way it went a year or so ago when I suggested some improvements, which was basically piss off. There are few other areas of Wikipedia with as many ownership issues as DYK has. Not too mention a completely Byzantine process that almost assures that few editors will become part-time helpers. I know people work hard here and I thank them but there are issues and editors should be able to discuss them without someone asking how many DYK's have you produced. RxS (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think both sides need to cool off and be a little more civil, because I've seen nothing but sarcasm and venom spewed by both sides of this argument. Let's all discuss this civily, everyone. :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 04:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aye-aye. Toddling off to Tanzanian geography to see about filling in another good redlink. ;) Durova^Charge! 05:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm pretty sure the conversation would go better if it wasn't this same loop every single time. MF: "I've noticed a few typos in recent DYK articles." DYK: "Great, we can use the help reviewing hooks." MF: "Oh no, I'm just here to call into question everything you do." DYK: "Oh. So you'll be proofing more DYK articles then?" MF: "Nope, I think errors like this actual example I posted on May 25th say it all." DYK: "Uh, yeah. Well, see you again in six months." MF: "But what about this additional actual example I also posted on May 25th?" DYK: "Thanks for stopping by." (That's a paraphrase, of course, but the actual examples are genuine. Appalling, I know. You're welcome.) - Dravecky (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I should write an essay similar to User:Art LaPella/Long hook to summarize this recurring problem (not just noticing typos, proposing review mechanisms, or even calling for abolishing DYK, but moralizing without proposing a solution, other than to command our imaginary staff to shape up or ship out). Inviting participation should indeed be part of it; if they have time to complain, they have time to help us fix it. Art LaPella (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't be bothering again as I can see that there's no point. DYK is obviously perfect just the way it is. Silly of me not to have recognised that earlier. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)