Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Lisbon Treaty

I should have been paying more attention to this, but there is an error in the hook for an article I nominated, Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, which currently stands in Queue 4. In the time between when the article was nominated and today, Ireland has rapidly finished their process. So the hook "... that 25 nations have ratified the Treaty of Lisbon since 2007, and only two countries, Ireland and the Czech Republic, have yet to complete the process?" should be changed to reflect this. Perhaps to something like "... that 26 nations have ratified the Treaty of Lisbon since 2007, and only one country, the Czech Republic, has yet to complete the process?" Sorry about this, but the final piece came in just today.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 17:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistent current

I have to run and posted this before doing anything drastic. This hook was promoted by Allen3 although the article expansion is 2.47, the article author might have COI (see article history), and I'm not sure about the NPOV and correctness of physics there. Please consider pulling it out of Queue 4 and replacing before its too late. Materialscientist (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, the expansion is insufficient. (It could be considered borderline since the article was created recently anyway, but given the COI concern I'd rather err on the side of caution.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the concerns raised are sufficient to remove it (for now). Let's await Allen3's comment. Regards SoWhy 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Allen3 seems to have made a large number of premature verify-promotions in the past few hours. I'm leaving him a message. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In the word's of Art LaPella, "Glad you volunteered!" I am aware that I have been making the bulk of the update errors during the last few days, but further research will show that he primary reason for this is that I have been doing the bulk of the grunt work involved in making sure updates happen on a regular basis. With three new eager volunteers to help share the load, all with a sysop bit enabled, there will be more time available to perform the desired checks while still ensuring the required activities are still accomplished.

During my efforts I have consistently left a couple of empty queues available for anyone who wished to help with the workload an opportunity to contribute. I will furthermore hold off performing any updates to allow you the opportunity to show us all how to better perform the task. Some notes before you jump in and show us all how to better perform the task of providing regular updates in a manner that maintains the suggestions queue in a sustainable condition and ensures all nominations receive due consideration in a timely basis.

1. You should review Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules#Rules of thumb for preparing updates. The last item in an update is traditionally a funny of quirky entry, suicides hardly qualify.[1]
2. Please be aware of the efforts at Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2009 and the previously announced update time skew to bring update times back into sync with UTC.[2] Assuming no problems with the bot and continued availability of updates in the queues then queue 4 will be the first update on the 31st. You will need to check to see if enough updates have been prepared that use of queue 3 is needed as per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Halloween
3. There are qualitative differences between performing a single update and performing a series of regular updates over an extended period of time. When performing a single update it is possible to cherry pick nothing but the high-quality pre-verified nominations that conventional wisdom tells you to take. When performing regular and timely updates, you will learn that the supply of high-quality pre-verified nominations does not keep up with the demand, particularly in the older entries that need to be handled. At this point in time you are forced to deal with the realities of the nominations queue and start performing the verification effort that inevitably leads to mistakes and criticism.
4. Know that despite the level of effort required and necessity to the continued operation of DYK, performing update work will rarely if ever result your receiving praise (In more than three years of off-and-on effort I have only received positive feedback once, and that was indirect praise). You are more likely to encounter critics who sit back, watching and waiting till you make an inevitable mistake. Do not be discouraged when they finally emerge from hiding. Instead, use the opportunity to tactfully challenge those critics to help improve the situation by making positive contributions beyond driving off DYK's limited supply of workers. In this way you will help them become part of the solution instead of remaining part of the problem.

I am looking forward to seeing the fruits of your efforts and learning from a demonstration of your improved methodologies. --Allen3 ^talk 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure whom your message is directed at. I also don't see how your third point applies here; when you made the two verify-promotions that were pointed out above, there were 40-some already-verified hooks sitting at T:TDYK, and thus no need for you to unilaterally promote hooks that did not qualify. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, where is the "large number of premature verify-promotions" you say Allen made recently? I can see reference to only one error above, and that a "borderline" case. Gatoclass (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing he's referring to the edits with the edit summary "verify and promote", like [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Shubinator (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification, I thought Allen3 was being accused of making multiple mistakes in his promotions. I think it's worth remembering however that we don't have a hard and fast policy on the number of verify-promotions deemed "appropriate", and it would be rather difficult to define one. So I think one should bear that in mind before leveling criticism at any user for alleged over-promoting of this kind. Gatoclass (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Eckstein

The hook needs the word (pictured) removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks ! Materialscientist (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A football player with a mouth full of crackers

Didn't Saltine cracker challenge already go on the main page? It's still in the suggestions list. Geraldk (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Long story short, over a series of edits, an editor removed it from one of the queues but accidentally left the bot flag, so DYKadminBot added templates to various talk pages saying that the article had gone on DYK, even though it hadn't. (I'm reverting those templates.) Every step of the way for this article has been like pulling teeth; I'm starting to think it's cursed!

If you'd like to put it back in the queue, feel free to use the bar bet link and/or the image this time! ;-) Melchoir (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin needed to move prep areas 1 and 2 into queues 1 and 2

All queues are empty and the two prep areas are full. I'd like to fill some more so if an admin can move those in the prep areas into the queues, that would be awesome. Tiamut^talk 19:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, and Killiondude got the images protected at Commons. JamieS93 21:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Q2 fix required

Hook 1 in T:DYK/Q2 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

9 part Blake nom

A different set on Blake nominated. I am not against any tweakings on the matter, but I would like people to understand the original wording. I think I explained it there, but yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the nom is about "Blake", is there any available illustration for the nom?--Caspian blue 14:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are hundreds of pictures related to the topic, as the book itself has 4000 lines of poetry with each page illustrated and Jerusalem had 100+ plates on its own (Jerusalem reduplicates many of the themes), plus most of the characters were part of three or four other works. However, from experience, people don't tend to accept literature hooks with images anymore, and the ones I nominate tend to be dropped and the hook inserted near the bottom. So, I just stopped bothering. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well..I think people certainly would differentiate between ordinary articles about "poets" and "poem" and articles about the poet who is also equally famous for his illustration. Worth trying in my opinion, so just pick one.--Caspian blue 15:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Current Queue four

An admin needs to make a quick tweak to Queue 4, Hook three to remove the extraneous (pictured). Thanks Calmer Waters 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for noticing that. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Tulsi Vivah

I request admins to shift the DYK to 2 nov (Kartik Poornima), as written in the article, Tulsi Vivah can be celebrated any time from Prabodhini Ekadashi to Kartik Poornima (28/10-2/11). The important dates for the ceremony are 28/10/09 - Prabodhini Ekadashi, 29/10 and 2/11/09 - Kartik Poornima. I request the admin to shift the DYK to 2 Nov and add "(performed today)" in hook. If it is not possible to shift to 2 Nov then The DYK on 1 Nov can also have a "(performed today)" in it.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

I'd like to start helping out here with DYK verifications, perhaps as karmic payback for all of my DYK submissions that have been verified by others. My question: if a hook needs copyediting, should I just go ahead and do it while I'm verifying, or should I leave a copyedited version as an alt hook? I would think the former, but ya never know, and I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to do copy-editing while I'm verifying. I only leave an alt without verifying if I'm rewriting it completely with new facts or a new way of presenting the informaiton.Geraldk (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Second what Geraldk says. I generally will do mild copy edits when verifying/approving. If I have an alt that is very different, then I'll leave it and note I just verified the original hook. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This is also explained in the second paragraph of WP:Did you know/Proofreading#Proofreading Template talk:Did you know. Art LaPella (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am more cautious and fix only obvious typos, capitalization, grammar, MOS, etc. issues, as soon as I see them. With the rest I feel safer to propose an ALT - some authors are picky on wording. PS. I was dreaming last night about Sasata's help with reviewing, especially life science articles which scare me a bit :-D Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As Capt. Slog says ...The primary directive is to improve. You have to do a lot to deserve joint authorship. If the urge takes you then improve as much as you can. You can always approve first and that removes COI in my opinion. I think your right - its only correct to approve more articles than you submit to make up for those who cannot or do not. Victuallers (talk)

Request for lead hook review

Normally I wouldn't do this, but we have had a very large number of building leads in recent weeks, while we haven't had a ship lead article since October 13. There is currently a ship article in update 4 with a perfectly good image, but again we have a building hook in the lead. Unfortunately I can't really do anything about it because I happen to be the author of the ship article with an obvious COI. We also currently have only one other ship image article on the suggestions page. Would it be possible for someone to review the choice of lead in this update? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the ship image would work better considering those building articles seem to dominate updates and as you mention a ship article hasn't been the lead since October 13.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is about USAT McClellan in Queue 4, then my full support for moving it to the lead, not only because of topic, but also because it is a detailed historical 30k article. No any slight to the current lead St. Paul’s Church, Diu, but the former appears stronger to me on all counts. Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too. WP:DYKA shows we've had too many buildings lately. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. Thanks for the input guys :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot hiccup

The bot didn't reset its timer on an update a few hours ago, which lead to another update 7 minutes later from a different queue. Could an admin put the skipped set back into a queue so it can get its time on the Main Page? Shubinator (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It will have to wait until after the Halloween updates have been done now. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping. Shubinator (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder :)  Done Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_for_2_Nov

Please check the hooks at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_for_2_Nov: Prabodhini Ekadashi and Kartik Ekadashi. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

These articles have now been promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Self-nom" for multiple-creator nominations

I'd like to see us deprecate the idea of "self-nom" for articles with multiple authors. Consider the Hallville Mill Historic District in this version of T:TDYK: three different people contributed to writing it, but it's a "self-nom" — who nominated it? It would be simpler if we instructed nominators of articles with multiple authors to give their names, regardless of whether they were one of the authors. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't think, by the way, that I'm trying to change the way articles are nominated or restrict who can nominate them; this is simply a matter of using the nomination template to make it clearer who is doing the nominating. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is already possible to give credit to multi-users when an article's hook is nominated. However; if it became the reviewer's responsiblity, I believe the bigger issue would be how to decide what constitutes which editors are the major contributors to the article or its subsequent expansion. Right now, it seems to be on the honesty scale and as such is still the way that is in the best interest of the project. Unless otherwise pointed out. Can you elaborate a little on your suggestion for clarity thru? Incase I for one am understanding something incorrectly. Calmer Waters 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it matters. All the authors will be getting credits for creating/expanding the article ({{DYKmake}}). Who nominated it doesn't really matter since they won't be getting separate credits for the nom. The "self nom" part just indicates that one of the authors have nominated it. If a different person nominates, then they will be given the nom credit template ({{DYKnom}}). ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusing wording. In the Hallville Mill example that I gave, if my suggestion had been followed, it would read "Nom by Orlady at...". I'm not trying to change the way that we credit those who wrote the article; but to change the way we show who nominated it, because we might want to address specific comments to the nominator. For example, just after I made this proposal, I left a note for a nominator (of a different suggestion) regarding a minor wording issue on the hook that really should be determined by the nominator. Since looking at a "self-nom" for a multiple-written article won't tell us who nominated it, finding whom to address as the nominator would be simplified under my suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe Nyttend is taking about the [Template:NewDYKnomination] to show which user nominated the hook when there are more than one editor to be credited, such as Russian Settlement, Utah that has both GreenGlass1972 and Ntsimp as the DYKmakes and does not address which one to inform of an issue. As it stands now I would notify both with the [subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes] templete; however, this suggestion would clarify which to specifically address in these cases. This doesn't seem to be a problem when someone noms a different editor in which they themself didn't contribute to the article. Calmer Waters 18:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

When I nominated Russian Settlement, Utah, I was really surprised that the template changed it to say "self nom" although I had specifically put myself as the nominator. GreenGlass1972 says he's only online about once a week, so in this case, I'm the go-to guy. I agree that the template should be changed. Ntsimp (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I nominated Hallville Mill Historic District and filled out the template with 3 authors (including myself) and myself as nominator, I also was surprised to see "self nom" listed on the suggestions page. I considered editing that page to display my name as nominator, but I figured I'd leave well enough alone. Next time, I'll edit the display...
I agree that the template should be revised to restore the old behavior, in which it named the nominator of a multi-authored article that is self-nominated by one of the authors. --Orlady (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anywone well versed on how to make this change to the templete without breaking it? Calmer Waters 05:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an easy fix to make. (Actually, making it the way it is now was harder--I remember months ago someone asked me to do it, but I no longer remember who or why...part of the reason, I think, was so it didn't link the person's name twice if they listed themselves as "nominator" and "author" and there were no others.) I can do it soon. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Rjanag :) Calmer Waters 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the section that resulted in edits to Template:NewDYKnomination, but it seems to be broken now and has been leaving |Self nom}} all over the place on the suggestions page since about 10:00 UTC on 2 November. -- Testing times (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Shubinator (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that should fix it. Sorry about missing those! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Pat on the back

Just wanted to say to everyone - good work. For the last couple days, the queues have been filled, everything's been smooth, and we've been hovering near 100 approved hooks all day (EST). If you've been helping with all that, then pat yourself on the back. Geraldk (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, fantastic to see all those approved hooks! Someone's been working hard, thanks to everyone concerned :) Gatoclass (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work everybody, hopefully it can be sustained.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And also for the smooth transition of the Halloween project for the 31st. DYK has been really bustling lately :) Calmer Waters 02:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

With all this good news, is it time to go back to 8 hooks in each set? --Orlady (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We should never have been off eight, but we had one inexperienced contributor who put together a couple of short updates. I've had a word with him about that, so hopefully it won't occur again. Gatoclass (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I will now remember to do eight each time. Jolly Ω Janner 18:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Cascade protecting queues

If you cascade protect the queues would this prevent non-sysop users from uploading new versions of the DYK image before it gets put on the Main Page? Therefore eradicating the need to protect the images prior to show time in case someone quickly uploads a new version just before it gets put on the Main Page? Jolly Ω Janner 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The queues are protected, only the prep areas aren't. The problem is with Commons images - they don't get automatically protected. I have make comments to the developers so they are aware of the problem. While only English Wikipedia admins are able to upload an English Wikipedia image with the same name as a Commons image, so that's not a problem. The problem is that anyone could upload over a Commons image, which is a major problem when it's on the English Wikipedia main page. Royalbroil 00:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, but still upload it locally to the English Wikipedia. Just in case a sneaky vandal vandalises the image one minute before the bot loads it to the DYK template, rendering a vandalised image on the Main Page. Jolly Ω Janner 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Once the image is on a queue, it is protected (through cascading protection). But the best option is to get a commons admin to protect the image over there, but they are not always around. With the problem of some commons admins' unwillingness to protect images for us, that is not always possible. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Automatic cascading protection of Commons images has been discussed here numerous times and has not seemed to work. Manually protecting images on Commons has generally been discouraged because people pointed out [reasonably, I think] that it doesn't make sense for Commons to have to protect every image that's being used on the main pages of every Wikipedia. (That being said, sometimes Commons admins will IAR and protect the images; but it can't be relied on or made into a rule.) So, as annoying as it is, the only option for the foreseeable future seems to be to upload local versions every time. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Upload-by-url will make it much easier to temporarily upload from Commons. Unfortunately it's still in testing. Shubinator (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Protecting images

The previous set of hooks used an unprotected image on the Main Page. PS the upcoming images in the queues haven't been protected yet (File:1804 Jeffersons-Polygraph-Monticello Cville VA.jpg and File:TS Leda-crop.jpg). Jolly Ω Janner 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I protected those 2 for 3 days (admin editing allowed only). Pls let me know if I did something wrong. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You protected something that does not exist (yet). The files are uploaded to Commons. You can either protect them on Commons or (pressuming you're not a sysop there) upload the files locally to the English Wikipedia with the same file name. In theory, you don't really need to proect them, because the cascading mode on the Main Page does that anyway. Unfortunately, I can't upload them locally myself, because it doesn't allow. I'm hoping to get to the bottom of this in the near future. Anyway, bascailly save the file to your computer then upload it to Wikipedia with the same name and same file description (including license and a {{c-uploaded}}. I think that's all. You can delete it after it's had its show time on the Main Page, as the Commons file will still exist. Jolly Ω Janner 23:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I am still sleepy and didn't notice that they are still on commons (I thought anyone can upload?). Uploaded. Reply if problems. Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Jolly Ω Janner 00:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Local images do not have to be protected. They are automatically protected through cascading protection when on the main page and queues. Knowing all this, I was the poor idiot that put up an unprotected image on the main page. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jolly, only admins can upload files to en.wiki to the same filename as an existing Commons file. See reupload-shared at Special:ListGroupRights. Shubinator (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hooks transfer

Can a sysop please transfer the hooks at preperation area 1 to the next queue. It is currently empty and will be added to the Main Page in under an hour. Cheers, Jolly Ω Janner 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget to protect the image ;) Jolly Ω Janner 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Royalbroil has protected the image at Commons already. Bencherlite^Talk 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One

I have a question. Recently, I posted a hook (with picture, shown in archive), which is shown below, along with the discussion accompanying it.

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

---

... that Ray Davies achieved the signature clangy sound at the beginning of The Kinks' 1970 hit "Lola" by combining the sounds of a National Steel (pictured) and Martin guitar? Created by I.M.S. (talk). Self nom at 02:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I see my hook slowly slipping away... A note to reviewers: this article has been expanded 5x - I've checked myself. Thanks in advance to whomever reviews it! - I.M.S. (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely this is Lola (song)? Victuallers (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes - but I was trying to fit the incredibly long title into one short, compact one. Any suggestions? Is it ever allowed for one tiny exception to the rules by allowing a few characters over 200? How it would read is

... that Ray Davies achieved the signature clangy sound at the beginning of The Kinks' 1970 hit "Lola", from the album Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, by combining the sounds of a National Steel (pictured) and Martin guitar?

This snippet of info is unique to the Lola versus Powerman article, and deals with the recording sessions of the record. What do you think? The hook is about 230 characters long. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? - I.M.S. (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Date, length, and hook verified AGF for offline references. Think the original hook should be fine using Lola as a direct. Using the 51 character title of the hook's article would incredibly limit the amount of information provided in the hook. Calmer Waters 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reviewing and helping me work this out, Calmer Waters. I appreciate it - I.M.S. (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

As you can see, multiple issues were raised, including the link to the album as opposed to the song, and the length of the hook. User:SoWhy recently posted on my talk page about the hooks recent rewrite and moving to Prep 1. This was the discussion:

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

---

About that DYK suggestion, I think the hook was not only too long but also not really about the album but the single. I hope you don't mind that I wrote a new one. Regards SoWhy 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your caring for the hook, however, a similar one was recently featured on the front page about Konk, as well as the "recent success" bit. I liked the old one about the guitars, and Calmer Waters agreed that it was alright to keep the link to Lola versus Powerman. The hook was still under 200 characters in that version. If you could change it back before it gets to the front page, I would appreciate it. Many thanks for your concern, - I.M.S. (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if you can move it back to template talk, with the original image (which I would very much like to see as part of the hook) so it can be used at a later date, I would appreciate it. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see. But you have to agree that the hook as it was previously was not about the album really but about Lola (song) (which does not mention those facts at all apparently), don't you? Do you think you could think of a hook that describes a fact about the album itself rather than the title track? Regards SoWhy 22:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Perhaps we should move it back so we can discuss this properly before adding it to Prep 1? I believe I can muster up another good hook from the album article. The reason I mentioned the guitars is that not only does it tie in with "Lola", but it also has to due with the sessions for the album itself and many, many, song to come in the future, and by adding the example of "Lola", I was mentioning the best known and most prominent example of it. I'm aware of the issue with the link, so perhaps we should change the original hook to accommodate the massive title. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, but the hook focused on that song. Maybe you can bring Lola (song) to DYK instead later on? I have restored the nom to the template talk page now though. Regards SoWhy 22:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am currently writing a post for the template discussion page so we can see what others think on the subject. Many thanks for your time and understanding, SoWhy. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm simply interested in seeing what others think about these issues, and what we can do to solve them. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Toruń

There is something fishy about this hook and its discussion, considering this Arbcom case. Piotrus is already desysoped, and is considered negatively, but I'm not sure about the others. I am a bit of a coward in such situations and prefer to not pass such hooks. Anyway, I suggest that the hook in question is not to be promoted by a non-admin. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would being promoted by an admin make any difference? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to have feedback from experienced (and willing - I don't want to dive in there and don't ask others, but some info, like proposed topic bans, is well relevant to future DYKs) admins and meant that some non-admins might not understand the backdoor nuances (arbcom). Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As a non admin, I've refrained from promoting the hook due to the instability of the article. appears to be an ongoing issue with a couple of editors dealing with WikiProject Poland articles. Was hoping they would have worked the issues out by now. Calmer Waters 11:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Leaving the arbcom case aside, do these guys have something against each other? If you don't agree with an edit, you are supposed to discuss at the talk page, but I don't see much of that here. Accusations of hijacking and POVing the article suggests WP:OWN to me; but apart from that I'm thoroughly confused what their problem is. I wouldn't pass that until and unless they resolve whatever issues they have. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Second that, i.e. that I'm confused too :-) and that the hook should not be passed unless the authors agree among each other, which might close this thread. The mentioned arbcom case worries me by that several regular DYK contributors are listed there. Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Chamal here; admins are just regular users who have a few extra buttons, that doesn't mean they have any more or less right to promote noms. Some non-admins who work here have much more experience than admins; anyone who has sufficient experience can deal with this nom.

For what it's worth, I don't see a reason to reject it just because it's controversial. If there's not a serious NPOV tag or a massive edit war currently going on, then it still meets the criteria. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to avoid misunderstanding - my apologies. I did not mean that admins have more rights or are more experienced (I should be careful with my words - a lesson to me). I meant someone experienced with arbcom-like issues. The rest of my comments stays. The arbcom case is old, not good looking and involves DYK regulars, who write on the questioned topic. Surely, the judgment is up to arbcom, but I thought DYK needs to know that too. Russavia has honestly and openly stated at DYK that he is on a topic ban and shall not get into this area. Materialscientist (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason I suggested holding off passing this is that they seem to have a problem with sharing the credits. Once editor does not want to share the credits with others (who he says have "hijacked" the article). But unless these edits were in bad faith, they should be given credit for working on the article - that is the DYK rule. Whatever way we go, it's likely to kick up a row I think. I think it's be best to have a thorough review of the article and these issued cleared out first. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Empty queues at 6 hours auto notification suggestion

I suggest that we have the bot notifify the Active Admins (from the rules list) when the update is past due with empty queues. I understand that the admin notice board is notified when it is approaching; however, this could be a backup for when immediate attention is warrented. This will reach admins who are online and active with DYK, rather than waiting until one looks at the notice board or their watch page list. Thanks Calmer Waters 15:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea...the only caveat I have is that that list is not always necessarily up to date. A better idea might be to have an opt-in list just for the bot, and admins can add or remove themselves if they want (for example, if someone is getting messages all the time but not interested in them, s/he can manually remove herself from that list). The reason it would be nice to keep that separate is because there are people who are not very active in the real verifying/promoting work right now (like me) but are willing to update the template and stuff if needed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point, maybe it might be a good idea although simply checking the queue page once every few hours should be possible without bot help. Although I agree that it does not work, I filled two queues when I went to bed yesterday and when I came home today both preps were full but all queues empty. Regards SoWhy 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it would be better to start with a blank list of admins who "opt-in" and then they add themselves to it, because there are a lot of admins who aren't currently involved in the DYK project on the current list we have. Jolly Ω Janner 15:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Yeah, that seems to be what usually happens; the issue is that there are just a lot more non-admin than admin volunteers. This project seems to have, for the most part, short retention of volunteers and quick turnover (and I'm not at all blaming anyone for that--I'm just as guilty as anyone else): it's exciting and fast-moving when you get started, but as time goes on it gets tiring (not to mention you see the same types of hooks over and over again). In a way, I guess, it's similar to Wikipedia as a whole, just sped-up by several orders of magnitude: generally people dive in and get super-involved for some period of time, and gradually lose interest (after several months, several years, whatever). The upshot is that people like me do a ton of work here, then apply for the bit because we know the project could use more admins and we want to help...but by the time we've gotten it, we've lost the motivation to devote so much of our time to DYK (and for that reason I admire editors like Gatoclass and BorgQueen, who have been here way longer than I have and are still regularly doing the un-exciting busy work of promoting queues and whatnot).

Anyway, I don't know of any solution to this situation (or if it even needs a solution). Just musing a bit. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't been able to help out much over the last few days, as unfortunately I'm a bit burned out with Wikipedia in general ATM, and as I'm also currently bogged down in a content dispute, I don't have much energy for anything else on Wiki right now. But I do think the notion of auto-notification of active DYK admins might be worth a try. Can a separate bot for that be written? There doesn't seem much point in trying to get it added to DYKadminbot, as the maintainer of that program has not shown much interest in it lately. Gatoclass (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, just out of interest, does anyone know what language DYKadminbot is written in? Although I'm not a professional programmer, I have done a little programming in other languages, and if one of the DYK regulars could learn the appropriate language, we wouldn't be so dependent on outside help for maintaining and improving the bot. Gatoclass (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Per User:DYKBot/code, it looks like it's in php. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

PHP? Never heard of it :)

I might see if I can find a (cheapish) manual for it next time I'm in my local bookstore. Thanks for the info! Gatoclass (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Prep area 1

Is it just grumpy me or anyone else thinks that the lead hook in T:DYK/P1 could be more interesting? Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the classic hook problems: trying to cram in too many facts. Do you know if any ALTs were proposed with this one? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No alt hooks were proposed. Materialscientist (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned it up and moved it to queue 5. Same fact, but written so as to be a bit less boring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks! (Sorry I didn't rewrite myself - trying to avoid some topics). Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Manpower

[11] = this is cited in the article, per cite, The New York Times. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The article may well be cited, but the fact that's included in the hook isn't included in the article. Indeed, the word "women" doesn't even turn up anywhere in the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...: "Despite the fact that almost all of their initial temps were women, they chose the name Manpower at the suggestion of a friend." —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Cirt (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarified it a bit more: [12]. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

List of people who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards

Is it me or is this article that is now on DYK mostly a split from Golden Raspberry Award (old version) with much of the material duplicated in both articles? I think something went wrong when checking the nomination here but I am not sure. What do others think about it? Regards SoWhy 11:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good catch, but upon a superficial look I would say the nom is Ok - the actual lists of people are "same" in both versions, but they don't contribute to the DYK count; the prose seems quite different and expanded. Materialscientist (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a split. I wrote the entire thing from scratch. Yes, I did happen to remove the info that is related from the main article, but I did not use it when creating the new one. It took a lot of work and research. Cirt (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything of course but both articles share parts in common which makes it look as if information has been duplicated. Regards SoWhy 12:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It was not. Cirt (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Queue 6 error

In Template:Did you know/Queue/6, the credits for Whole Earth Discipline have square brackets around them. Jolly Ω Janner 17:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot stalled?

It seems to me, that the bot has just updated the main page from queue2 and gave credits to the authors, but he didn't purge the queue and didn't give credits at the talk page of the articles. Would someone please check, fix and, if possible, note how to deal with this. My major concern is next updates, as I'll not be on-line then. Many thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've cleared queue 2 and manually updated the queue count, but can someone finish the article tagging? You just have to go here, and click on the "tag" links next to credits. This will take you to the article's talk page, where you have to copy and paste the displayed template. The bot has done only the first four articles. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Irenomys

I posted the article on the Chilean Climbing Mouse (Irenomys) to be posted on November 11, the anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I, but it is now in queue 3. Could someone restore it to the suggestions page, please? It was promoted here. Ucucha 13:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It was I who prematurely promoted that hook. My mistake and my apologies (I would certainly restore, but was off-line). Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's no big deal. Especially for articles such as this which don't have such an obvious connection to their hold dates, it shouldn't matter that much. Ucucha 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

5000 vs 20000

What if an article nomination causes another article to rise dramatically? An example would be the recent Jim Sanborn nomination gained 5000+ views while Kryptos gained 20000+ views because of it (Also in the hook). Does the hook qualify as a DYK entry over 20000 views because of Kryptos since the stats evaluate hooks rather than articles. Its not a big deal and don't see it happenning much, but thought I would ask. (disclosure- I wrote the hook and thats why it came to my attention) Thanks Calmer Waters 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There were two discussions at Wikipedia_talk:DYKSTATS about this idea: both seem to have an editor saying no, you only list the hits received by the nominated DYK article. I don't think consensus has been reach formally on the issue, but current conditions are no, you go with 5000, not 20k. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The specific section was WT:DYK#DYK stats for non-DYK article? (and there's a similar, smaller discussion just a few threads below that). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok thought would ask. Thanks for responding. I specifically left the article that gained the large amount of hits non wiki-linked to draw attention to the new article. However, it appears that someone inserted the wikilink. I think sometimes we over wikilink hooks, defeating the primary reason for DYK, bringing reader's attention to a new article for possible collaberation. Calmer Waters 16:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I had asked myself this question too and decided that I shouldn't think about "my nom" - If I can attract attention to any article, it is already great. As to numbers, I think you have all rights to post actual numbers (20k+5k) on your personal DYK list. Materialscientist (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your right. Collateral hits do serve the benefit of bringing attention to other articles as well and works in the best interest of Wikipedia as a whole. Thanks MS Calmer Waters 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of DYK the improvement of articles. An article on the main page gets more attention, and more eyes will spot typos and other minor errors. There is a possibility that one of those set of eye will have an off-line source and further improve the article that way. On the down side, there is a risk of more vandalism, but that generally is not a big problem. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Q6

Any admins up for placing 1 more hook into Queue 6 to making it an even 8. Thanks in advance Calmer Waters 06:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Next update: URGENT

I've quick-assembled Prep1 and moved to Q6 (it seems as minutes are left for the next updates). It is my first time to do all that. Image is c-uploaded. The rest must be checked by an admin who has done all that at least once (its all on the main page now). Materialscientist (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Threw in a couple of commas and other minor tweaks, can't see much else wrong. Bencherlite^Talk 10:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was really not up to commas (all moves were to be done within a few minutes) :-) As I'm still hot, I've assembled prep2 and a bit of prep1, and better stop. In all my moves I did nothing about credits (only moved the hooks around) - simply don't know how to deal with that. Please check and advise for the future. Materialscientist (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've issued the credits and tagged the hooks for the first set, so that's all sorted. I've also added the credit lines to Prep 2, so that the bot will issue the credits and tag the pages when Prep 2 is eventually on the main page. Each DYK submission should have a line looking like , which needs to be added to the "credits" section of the prep area when you're assembling the selection. Thanks for helping out, by the way. Bencherlite^Talk 11:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I got that and added credits to the 2 hooks in prep1, but I don't understand what to do with credits after hooks are moved from prep to a queue. There are also those "give" and "tag" buttons there. Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good work Bencherlite and good advice. In case the hidden credit section is missing (when people nommed without the template mostly), simply fill them in using {{DYKmake|article name|author}} (separate template for every editor). When moving to a queue, simply copy+paste the whole prep area to the queue. You can ignore the "give" and "tag" buttons if the bot is running, they are only needed to manually give out credit and tag talk pages if the bot failed to update. I suggest you make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas and assemble a few more queues but request an experienced admin to review them. It's not really that hard, even I managed to learn it. Regards SoWhy 12:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've shuffled the hooks slightly to end with a slightly quirky one, like the "and finally" section of a news broadcast. Not always possible, but nice if you can. Bencherlite^Talk 12:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll disappear in a few minutes. Thanks a lot for advice! One thing I don't get: After I cut the preps and move paste them to a queue, what to do with those credit lines in the prep area? Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Simply cut + paste the whole prep area (not only the hooks section), then revert the prep area to a previous revision when it was empty (describing what you did in the edit summary - example). Regards SoWhy 12:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help out here now that I've got the tools. What is really needed is a step-by-step idiot's guide on how to do prep, queues and everything associated with it. There are plenty of confirmed hooks, so it should be possible to fill all the queues with them. Once this has been done, we'd only need to worry about filling the prep area every 6 hrs. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a crash learning on that and can repeat what I've been told at your talk page. Off course, further instructions from the regulars to both of us (to me at least :) are welcome. For example, I can only rely on the DYK bot and don't know how he stumbles and what to do if he does so. Materialscientist (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked for something like this when I became an admin, but I seem to remember that a lot of people thought it wasn't worth bothering ;) Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas is the best you get. It's not as hard as you think at first though. You just have to mix up different hooks, and avoid having similar ones together. Always remember to check that the hooks are eligible, because you'll be responsible for them. Pay particular attention to negative BLP hooks, or someone will kick up a huge row and you'll get the biggest trout of your life. Maybe we should have a sort of essay on the bot issues though; I'll try to come up with something when I have time. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a quick note on my recent experience here. Correct me wherever I'm wrong or inaccurate (well, Mjroots might get crazy and move that page though :-). Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

<random indent> I agree that an essay would be helpful. Something that helps an editor beyond the flat out rules and suggestions on the Prep fill area. A way to help both new users and experienced alike. From the nomination of the hook to the promotion to a queue. I have be writing up an essay on this for the past week; however, have not moved it onto onto my user page yet. It goes over help on setting up the nom templates (including multi hooks), help with things that seem to tie-up nominations, verifing hooks, aarticle issues to watch for, and help with filling prep areas. I would be willing to up load it a a couple of days if some experienced DYK editors would be nice enough to c.e. it. Thanks Calmer Waters 22:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Those who have this question and have managed to find WP:Did you know/Learning DYK are directed to WP:Did you know/Preparation areas, WP:Did you know/Adminbot and WP:Did you know/Guide. All this was pre-existing material I didn't understand very well, so improvement or replacement is certainly possible. If someone writes an essay on this subject, I will at least point to it. Art LaPella (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Queue 1 error

Queue 1 currently has an empty Prep 2 copied in at the bottom, needs fixing before next update. Mikenorton (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for reporting. :-) Regards SoWhy 13:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

New member

As I've started nominating some of my work for dyk, I thought I should join the project and do some reviewing. As I'm still learning the ropes, I'm reviewing newer nominations so that anyone who wants to double check my work can do so before they're likely to be grabbed for the prep areas. As I get more experienced, I'll start looking at older ones instead and do some prepping.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Great! Welcome aboard the good ship DYK :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I am a member of WP:WPO and fully aware of the problems with dyk-addict and serial plagiariser User:Nrswanson and his all-singing. all-dancing sockpuppets.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Credit templates

The bot is sending out the same credits for DYKnom as for DYKmake. Isn't there suppose to be a different template sent? Calmer Waters 21:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been doing this for months now. All we can do is to fix it manually.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange entry

Are we sure this entry is a good article for the main page? It seems to be some strange conspiracy theory reported entirely uncritically, supported almost exclusively by unreliable advocacy sites except for some mention in a local newspaper. The hook fact in itself is supported, but the article in general seems like it fails WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, for a start. Lampman (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure this should even have an article? No problem with it being on the main page, but the notability is questionable.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If it has been covered in the sceptical literature, there might be enough to source an article. But what is here is dubious.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the article creator even admitted as a caption to the creation that this was a rpeviously deleted article.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Article now decorated with specualtion and cite tags.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe the best thing would be to replace it with another hook for the remainder of the time on the main page. Lampman (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice if any such concerns had been raised before the hook got to the main page, but as you say, the hook fact itself is supported, and I don't see how it fails any of the DYK criteria. Small-town hero (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYKadminBot checklist and troubleshooting

Since there's a lot of confusion among editors who are not familiar with the process on how to fix something when the bot breaks down, I've put together a sort of a guide page at User:Chamal N/DYKadminBot checklist and troubleshooting. We are currently handling these problems from our experience only, and someone else is likely to have a hard time figuring out what's wrong and how to fix it. So this might also be helpful to someone responding to a request at AN etc, but is not familiar with the process. Please feel free to improve/correct it, and if you guys think it's ok, a link to it can be added to the prep areas and site map for easy reference. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I think you should locate this in the Wikipedia:DYK/ namespace since it's probably very useful to many people :-) Regards SoWhy 07:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I linked to it from Wikipedia:Did you know/Adminbot. Art LaPella (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a few changes, and linked to it from User:Shubinator/DYK site map. Shubinator (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just added it to Template:Did you know/Clear as well, so that it will be copied to P1 & P2 next time. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan Fefferman

FYI, a live DYK scheduled to go live (Dan Fefferman) has been nominated at WP:AfD.  Frank  |  talk  18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dark humor and alike

Just wanted to have a feedback on suitability of the following 4 hooks for DYK: Leonidas Vargas, Liliana Lozano, Colin Ferguson (convict) and Personal relationships of Michael Jackson. A follow-up question: are Colin Ferguson (convict) and Leonidas Vargas suitable for a bottom hook in a queue? Promotions happen too quickly at times, and I feel we (better say I :) should be prepared to dealing with those in the prep area. Materialscientist (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. Wikipedia should not be placed in the position of possibly dealing unneeded additional trauma to a living individual. Articles need to be written balanced, as I believe a hook should be. In the example of Colin Ferguson (convict) it falls short of this. I don't believe it to be an assessment of the article itself; however, the hook as stated should not appear on the Main Page Calmer Waters 09:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Queue 4 is short

Any particular reason that Queue 4 has only 7 hooks, and all of them quite short ones too? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for belated reply (just got back to DYK). The reason is my counting mistake when updating the queue + someone was systematically composing preps with 7 hooks (I thought it was because of shortage of hooks at some time). I actually favor short hooks, but this particular choice was not mine. Materialscientist (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's ok then. I was wondering if it had been changed. I'm not complaining, not when I haven't prepared a queue in days ;) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead hook in Prep1

I just pulled down Jim Trickey from prep1 as IMO it is somewhat short of a lead hook (and it doesn't fit as non-lead as all hooks in prep1 are too serious). I suggest "Richard Woodman (martyr), James Henry Hurdis, Mark Antony Lower" as a possible lead replacement and post this here to avoid unilateralism (I've pulled out another lead hook yesterday for the same reason - article too short and insufficiently notable, IMHO) Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I prepared to prep and placed it as it was one of the few older noms with a picture and also needed a US based hook to balance the queue. Your reasons are sound thru. Calmer Waters 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that too - for already several days there is a shortage of (approved) US hooks, and I was putting fewer than 4 of those per queue. Same with the lead hooks - had to pick up from the middle, as the bottom ones were not so interesting, IMHO. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is DYK bot stealing?

or it is a bug or a temporary glitch? The bot took an update from Queue4 with the number $83,000 and placed it on the main page with $000. Thanks to Warofdreams for noticing and correcting this (after an hour at the main page though). Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a Communist bot. Previous recent updates with similar texts suggests that it likes it when it gets at least a million dollars ([13]) but not when it gets only 5000 ([14]). Most likely, there is some bug in the bot that makes it react to something like "$X,000 ". Ucucha 00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the bot ate all instances of "$"? (hence the need for $?) —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had missed the {{dollarsign}} in the 100 million dollar hook. So, that means we have to use that template in hooks (and/or link to US dollar). Ucucha 00:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on articles moved from userspace

According to the DYK rules, articles that have been started in userspace are considered new as of the time they are moved into the main namespace. What I want to know is whether there is some kind of time limit on this. For example, if it took me a month to finish work on an article, would it still be eligible for DYK? (not that I would take that long, but I'm just curious) Or is there an unofficial limit closer to a couple of weeks? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An article moved from the user space is considered new on the day it was moved to the main space. The DYK check tool can verifiy the move date. If it is an expansion to an existing article that has been expanded in the user space, the time of expansion would also start on the date it was moved. You would then have 5 days from that date to nominate it per DYK rules. It would not matter whether it took 2 days or 2 months in the user space. What counts is the amount of time in the main space. Kindly Calmer Waters 02:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly what I was hoping to see. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

7 hook queues

We are continuing to recieve updates and queues that are prepared with 7 hooks (see current Q2), sometimes leading to excessive whitespacing on the main page template. Suggest since the current consensus is 8 hooks per update, placing that information onto the prep area instructions. If the availible number of nominations continues to drop, a better alternative may be temporarily going to an 8 hour update. I however don't see that as an issue at this time, as queues are still able to be prepared. Calmer Waters 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I added one hook to Q2, thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Naive question

The prep areas can be edited by anons. Why are they not semiprotected? Any objection to do so (not that I've seen vandalism, but sooner or later ..) Materialscientist (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Three reasons off the top of my head: (1) There are some helpful anons at DYK, who ought not to be excluded from the prep areas. (2) Pages are not protected pre-emptively. (3) Any vandalism is likely to be spotted easily, since the pages are on lots of watchlists, the prep areas are generally only used for a short period by one person compiling a set of hooks (rather than 7 or 8 individuals each adding one hook each) so edits outside that time will stand out like a sore thumb, and the admin moving the hooks to the queue should be making a final check anyway. Bencherlite^Talk 07:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I brought this up a few weeks ago since I thought the approval and selecting of hooks were supposed to be done by a registered user (the idea was that it would prevent any "cheating" by logging out an taking your own hook). But it turns out that there never was a rule like that, and a lot of people didn't think it would be necessary since IPs rarely edit the prep areas or even approve hooks. So currently IPs are allowed to do both. We haven't come across a problem so far, except an unrelated recent incident where a blocked user tried to add himself for DYK credits at the suggestions page using an IP. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot stalled

I've updated manually the main page from Q3 (with some mistake which BorgQueen has apparently fixed), reset queue count and hopefully the time (please check !). Issuing credits now .. Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. When you're updating from a queue, only copy the part between <!--Hooks--> and <!--HooksEnd--> (that's the error BorgQueen caught). For future reference, Template:Did you know/Next update/Time is the correct one, Template:Did you know/Time is a remnant from the name change of next update to prep. Shubinator (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Naive question. Could the on-going maintenance of the Toolserver affect the DYK bot somehow? Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it does. I seem to recall that the bot stopped working last time the toolserver was down for maintenance. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we get rid of Template:Did you know/Time if it's no longer in use? It can only be confusing. Ucucha 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nov 14 hook

The MV Pieter Corneliszoon Hooft hook has been approved, it now needs to be moved so that it appears on the requested date of 14 November. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Calmer Waters 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Q5 hook 1

Just a quick {{mp}} template needs to be added to the lead hook currently in Q5. It may be interfering with the image setup. Thanks Calmer Waters 17:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it looks like just removing the "right" from the image setup should correct it. Calmer Waters 17:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed it. Hope that does it. Regards SoWhy 20:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot issues

Anyone recalls a case that the bot did not crash recently on multiple nominations? "Yesterday" this resulted in one queue getting twice on the main page (mistakes fixed). Other things, (i) I forgot who, but someone kept adding "|right" to the lead image code, which results in some problem at the main page. (ii) Some nominators wikilink the section headings at T:TDYK. This results in extra brackets in the credits and has to be removed manually (better at T:TDYK). Sorry for my grumpy morning mood. Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the bot does seem to crash every time there's a large number of articles. It looks like it can't issue a lot of credits and crashes halfway through. Since the queue count is updated at the end of the cycle (which does not happen when it crashes halfway through credits), it will update again with the same thing. So we have to fix it manually as explained here. The other two are mistakes by the editors (us). Although a good program would be able to detect stuff like that and make amendments, our bot is far from perfect. Right now, the code seems to be very messy, and problems are not that easy to fix. No offense to Ameliorate! though; without him we'll still be updating the entire thing manually :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but it boils down to this: multiple noms can destabilize DYK operation (as they require interference of an experienced admin, who might not be around - note the difference between (i) manual update and (ii) when it "seems" the bot has done it all, but stalled at the last credit, like yesterday). I myself would not like to have such noms in a queue, but it is not fair to the nominators. Something should be done here. Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Credits

The bot did not tag articles or distribute credits for the update before the current one. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I issued the credits and don't really understand what went wrong - the credits before and after that set seem Ok. Materialscientist (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK Archive

Just a note to remind everyone updating the DYK archive page (thanks btw); I think the time we add on top of each set is the time that it was removed from the T:DYK template (that is, the time the next set was added). The instructions there were different, so I've changed it. At least, I think that's the way our one man army was doing it for a long time ;) Since almost all of the past archives are recorded this way, I think we should continue with that for consistency. And don't forget that if you have a different time zone selected in your preferences than UTC, the time you see on the page history will be different. In that case, you'll need to add/subtract that amount to get UTC :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it was I who updated it these days. I couldn't figure out that the time corresponds to removal of the hooks and thought the time was just messed up long ago and simply kept 6 hr interval for consistency. Still mulling how to correct that in the archive. Materialscientist (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just fixed it in the archive. The bot failure on the 13th was the time it seems to have changed. No worries :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Q6 image formatting

The "right" from the lead hook's image need to be removed to correct formatting in Q6. Thanks Calmer Waters 17:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed. It is not the first time someone puts "right" to the images (it is not in the template) - please don't.

Thanks for doing that Calmer Waters 01:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Prep1

Sorry for becoming too aggressive and unilateral - slap me .. whenever. I demoted the lead hook from prep1 to No2 position as it sounds too uninteresting to me. Would anyone please check English for the No3 hook in prep1 (I'm not sure how to rewrite). Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Think there was too much unneeded information. trimmed it down a bit. Calmer Waters 01:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent update

To inform you on recent events: I just noticed that Staxringold didn't paste the bot template to the Q1 and Q6. Thus, the last update was delayed by some 5 hrs, no other apparent problems. I reshuffled some queues to adjust for the time zone "delay". I am an idiot who stayed on-line most of that time and didn't notice that. The next two updates I'm offline. There is a chance for a crash (double nom in one queue). If someone could keep an eye on the updates this would be great. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin alert! Q4

In Queue 4, plz could an available admin correct the format of the lead hook. There is a misplaced comma and a missing "that". Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it now? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, all looks fine now – thanks. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Siegfried Translateur

I'm concerned about this article created by User:Tempodivalse. I think it follows too closely the wording of the German source and is therefore a copyvio. Could someone else give an opinion before this is moved onto a queue? I've asked at the Opera copyvio sub-project whether anyone has checkusered Tdv against known accoutns of User:Nrswanson.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I have now initiated a checkuser request for this editor.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the copyright tag from the article, restored and quickly brushed up its content. No hard feeling, but I do not see a copyright infringement issue. The article briefly summarizes major events of his life taken from the mentioned German www page. I believe the author acted in good faith to provide content for en.wiki and that this issue could be tackled friendly, without that horrifying black copyright template. As to the users, I have no idea about relation of the blocked User:Nrswanson to User:Tempodivalse. This could be an issue on its own, but I don't see how it relates to this article. In summary, I don't see yet a valid reason to fail that DYK nomination and, for the sake of "justice", kindly ask to reassess it. Materialscientist (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.planet-vienna.com/Musik/Komponisten/Translateur/Translateur.htm

German: Siegfried Translateur wurde ... ins Konzentrationslager Theresianstadt deportiert, wo er am 1. März 1944 starb.

Google translate: Siegfried Translateur... Theresa town were deported to concentration camps, where he was on 1 Died in March 1944.

Wikipedia: Translateur was deported to a concentration camp in the town of Teresa, where he died on March 1, 1944...

Notice how the name Theresianstadt is broken up by Google and he duplicates it.

German: Translateurs Oeuvre umfasst rund 200 Kompositionen, von welchen heute die meisten vergessen sind.

Google: Translateurs oeuvre includes some 200 compositions, forgotten today, most of whom are.

Wikpedia: Translateur wrote about 200 pieces of music in his lifetime, most of which have now been largely forgotten.

http://cmslib.rrz.uni-hamburg.de:6292/object/lexm_lexmperson_00001073

Siegfried Translateur wurde am 19. Juni 1875 als Sohn von Rosaline und Salomon Translateur im oberschlesischen Carlsruhe geboren. Er erhielt seine musikalische Ausbildung in Breslau, Wien und Leipzig. Anschließend ging er nach Berlin und leitete dort ab 1900/1901 eine eigene Kapelle.

Google:Siegfried Translateur was on 19 June 1875, the son of Rosaline and Salomon Translateur Carlsruhe born in Upper Silesia. He received his musical education in Breslau, Vienna and Leipzig. Then he went to Berlin where he led from 1900/1901 a chapel.

Translateur was born on June 19, 1875, in Carlsruhe, Silesia, now Pokój, Opole Voivodeship, as the son of Rosaline and Salomon Translateur. He started his music studies in Breslau, Vienna, and Leipzig. In 1900 he moved to Berlin where he became an orchestra conductor.

German:1911 gründete Siegfried Translateur in Berlin den Musikverlag Lyra. Er publizierte mit dem Verlag vor allem seine eigenen Kompositionen, aber auch Werke anderer Komponisten, wie etwa von José Armandola, Marc Roland, Franz von Blon, Paul Linke, Hellmut Meyer u. a

Google:Siegfried Translateur in Berlin in 1911 founded the music publishing Lyra. He has published with the publishing mainly his own compositions, but also works by other composers such as José Armandola, Marc Roland, Franz von Blon, Paul Linke, Hellmut Meyer and others

Wikipedia:There, in 1911, Translateur founded his music publishing company, called "Lyra". The company mostly published his own works, but also compositions by José Armandola, Marc Roland, Franz von Blon and Paul Linke, among others.

I could go on, but will merely point you to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and say that I'm re-adding the copyvio template.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is my fault and I apologise for having been so lenient with paraphrasing. I admit that I did use Google Translator partially to help me translate the page, as my German is not very good (although I did check it against the original, to verify that the translation was accurate). I've removed the copyvio template, as I've worked on paraphrasing this. Perhaps someone could take a look and see if this is any better now? Thanks. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal of the {{close paraphrase}} template; in your edit, all you did was replace a few words with synonyms, which does not change the paraphrasing issue. With a template like this, it's better to leave it and let an uninvolved editor review it and make the decision about removing it; therefore, I hope you will restore the template and invite an outside editor to review the page in your place. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I've returned the template, it is probably best to let an uninvolved person do it. (I spend most of my time at Wikinews, where the editing customs are quite different, and I haven't been here for a long time, so I'm not very familiar with the protocol here). Tempodivalse [talk] 03:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute tag after approval?

Just wondering, since the rules do not really talk about it: What happens if someone tags an article for a problem (NPOV, notability, etc.) after an experienced user has approved the nomination? After all, I would expect that approving the article includes a check for such problems. What if the tag is added after the article is in a queue, i.e. approved by an admin? Regards SoWhy 17:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, we ought not ignore the tag, regardless of how far the hook has advanced in the DYK process. If a tag raising serious concerns about the article is added, we should allow time to investigate before promoting to the main page. If it's already in queue, I'd suggest pulling it until the matter can be resolved. Particularly if the tag involves BLP or NPOV issues, we need to be cautious. The hook can always be re-promoted after the issue is resolved. Cbl62 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule against it, it's better to judge on the case-by-case basis. In some cases the tag might not be enough of a problem to pull the article, in other cases it might be. I agree with Cbl that an article's status at DYK shouldn't be a reason to put it off-limits from tagging (sometimes there is a "This article is a FAC, don't mess it up" attitude; taking that attitude to DYK would be more than a bit ridiculous). Can you give a link to the article in question? (or is this hypothetical?) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's about MissbrauchsOpfer Gegen InternetSperren which caused quite a stir when it was deleted on de-wiki (see the article) and a user (who is mainly working at de-wiki) has tagged it for notability. Now notability is not a tag like BLP or NPOV, so I wonder if there is a rule how to handle such tags. What about cleanup or wikify tags for example? Regards SoWhy 22:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I general, DYK operation is rather quick these days and even if not so, there is always a chance for a gross mistake. Thus IMO, even seeing a hook as far as at the main page means nothing regarding possible issues with the article. There is a number of admins at DYK, and thus we can handle WP issues here, up to speedy deleting, starting AFDs, blocking misbehaving editors, etc., but it is not a regular practice presently. Regarding MissbrauchsOpfer Gegen InternetSperren, I must admit that I myself put it on the main page just now. Perhaps too speedily - there was a lack of approved hooks for a proper time zone. Also, I do not see a notability case now. This WP article induced a chain of media news and IMO automatically became notable. It is quite ironic that a German article might became notable on English, but not on German wiki, and that WP itself might "self-generate" notability for an article. Materialscientist (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative hook format

I was walking around at work yesterday trying to figure out if it is possible to construct a valid DYK hook that doesn't start with "that". The only thing I could come up with is if the hook starts with a question word. For example, instead of:

... that London-born actress Sarah Badel made her acting debut in India?

An alternative could be:

... where London-born actress Sarah Badel made her acting debut?

I realize that, as the rules are currently written, this would not be a valid hook. I also realize that it isn't entirely grammatically correct, as this construction would be better if it started with "Do you know..." rather than "Did you know...". However, I think that this would be a fresh, fun alternative to the current hook format. I also think it would encourage readers to actually read through the article to try to find the fun fact. Any thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd agree with that. Hooks that contain few facts but sound interesting are much more likely to attract readers than those where the most interesting parts are already in the hook. But for such a change we need a clear consensus and much input, an RFC maybe? Regards SoWhy 18:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally would be agreeable to having words other than "that" as the first word of a hook (If memory serves, there have been past nominations beginning with "when"). The example and alternative however show a separate concern. While the example contains a complete fact (the location the highlighted article's subject made her acting debut) the alternative is simply a game show style question. The existence of a stand alone fact needs to preserved instead of converting DYK into a series of trivia questions. --Allen3 ^talk 18:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right in that it is a bit like a game show. However, it was not my intention to suggest that the alternative format should replace the current one. Instead, I think it would it should complement the current one. If need be, perhaps a limit could be imposed on the number of question hooks in a single batch. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The bureaucratic answer is that we do not have a rule about "that". See WP:Did you know/Lore#Debatable rules. But according to User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Rapid-fire mode on T:TDYK, "The hooks are detected by "... that " at the start and "?" at the end." So DYKcheck's "rapid-fire mode" won't work without "that". In practice, "that" is often omitted; later the "that" is often, but not always, added by others. Art LaPella (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case, "Did you know where ... " doesn't make sense. For such a question, the phrase should be "Do you know ... ?" Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

DYKcheck and Prosesizebytes are down

I tried them on several articles. Instead of results, I got a mostly blank screen that says:

You are looking at the HTML representation of the XML format.
HTML is good for debugging, but probably is not suitable for your application.
See complete documentation, or API help for more information.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<api />
Art LaPella (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Same for me (using Vector, Firefox, Mac). Ucucha 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As a temporal solution, I copy/paste the text (not the code) from an article to MS Word and do "word count". This gives bytes too, which are close to (but not same as) DYK check. I compared results long ago when I only started using the DYK script. BTW, I always used MS Word for hook length check. Materialscientist (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too, I'm getting a "No connection" message for it. Yet, every other page works...strange.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's part of a bigger problem. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Scripts are down Art LaPella (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be related to clicktracking. (I've weighed in at the VPT thread as well). As a workaround you can use the javascript trick for running scripts. E.g. to run prosesizebytes, type the following in the address bar of your browser when you're on the desired page

javascript:importScript('User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js'); getDocumentSize();

The corresponding thing should work for other scripts as well—hover over the link in the toolbox you usually click, and look in the status bar at the bottom of your browser to find out the name of the corresponding command (instead of getDocumentSize). Note that this way of calling a script does not require it to be installed in your monobook.js, so it's a convenient way of trying out a new script to see if you want to use it. Dr pda (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's working for me on Safari and Firefox now that I have removed the banners by using my preferences... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dr pda:) Question through, in MS word do we count the brackets and wiki directs also (ie. [[World war II|WWII]]? Calmer Waters 04:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't count brackets; we count the article page, not the edit page. For more details see WP:Did you know/DYKcheck#Counting prose characters without DYKcheck. Art LaPella (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is about my comment then I paste the output article text (cutting out figures, tables, quotes, etc, manually then) - never the code. Materialscientist (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure. Thanks. Calmer Waters 05:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

600B or 0B

User:Una Smith/Queso flameado has a strange history. It began in January 2007 as a text dump that was shortly deleted. A few hours ago I requested that it be undeleted, simply to recover the page history. For purposes of DYK, should the page size start from 600B or 0B? That is, do I have to provide 3000B or only 1500B? The original 600B was entirely in Spanish. --Una Smith (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say 0B, as it was never really an article and was only online for about 2 weeks, over 2 years ago. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. A copy/paste of Spanish text into English WP doesn't qualify as it was an article. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Length check?

Sorry, I'm too stupid to get this working... can someone do a length check on Cabinentaxi? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Pre-expansion 5848 characters; currently 21677 characters, which is a 3.7x expansion, not yet a 5x. Bencherlite^Talk 15:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we doing proper fact checking on hooks?

This was the DYK tagline:

... that the crematory at the Oahu Cemetery in Hawaii was used to burn $200 million in U.S. bank notes after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941?

Note mark 3 indicates Nuuanu Mortuary. Note mark 4 notes Nuuanu cemetery crematorium. Note mark 5 notes Oahu cemetery crematorium.

I ask because I did the Hawaii overprint note article, and I had to make a note mark because two of my sources (A book and note mark 3 in the recent DYK article) couldn't agree on the location seeing that there are two separate businesses with the same/similar names in the area mentioned in the article. Even my DYK hook had to reflect this:

... that more than $200 million in US currency was burned at both a crematorium and the Aiea Sugar Mill in Hawaii, due to being redeemed for HAWAII Overprint Notes ($20 Note pictured)?

And I just had to seek advice at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on how to handle this dilemma of conflicting references. I know we have to assume good faith with nominations, but when you have three references with 3 conflicting location names, wouldn't have that raised a red flag in a sense that "Wait, something's not quite right here"?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It was quite clear that $200 million were burned there, not at a single locations but at several, and that the crematory at the Oahu Cemetery was one of them. Any contradiction with the hook above? Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you have 3 references that cannot provide a clear name on where the notes were burned. 3 references that were apparently used to support the DYK hook. And given my experience in the matter concerning a 4th reference and the associated fact checking, there is now doubt as to the usage of the references. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly said that neither facility was capable of disposing that amount of paper and that the burning occurred at several nearby locations. Those 3 refs confirm that statement and indicate the locations used for burning: "Oahu Cemetery located in Nuuanu valley", Nuuanu Mortuary and Nuuanu Mortuary cemetery crematory, as well as a Sugar Plantation mill. The former 3 do appear as three different names of one establishment mentioned in the hook. I could only see a few lines of refs. 4,5 and AGFed the fact. Thus I don't understand your concern. If it is about repetition of your hook at talk:Hawaii overprint note, I admit it is regrettable, but didn't see your hook until now. Materialscientist (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting another editor to address my concerns. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I've just realized that this debate is a surfacing of quite an old story. Materialscientist (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue is pretty much about whether or not Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research has even been followed in relation to this hook. I only became aware of the DYK wrinkle quite recently when I saw it on the front page, not during the whole argument over who's right/who's wrong within the Hawaii overprint note article. I had no knowledge Oahu Cemetery was even nominated for a DYK during the whole argument elsewhere.

By my observations, I see 2 verifiability problems, a possible attempt at original research, and perhaps a violation of DYK rules when tying in the hook to an inline citation.

Now, even thought DYK rules only state: cited with an inline citation , I can only assume that all three citations were used in trying to verify the hook. This shows, to me, that someone looked at the links, did not adequately question the discrepancy in the site name differences thru the three sources (their was a one-word difference), and allowed it to go thru. This became a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability since it appears the three citation links are helping to cite the passage which in turn helped support the DYK hook as legitimate when two of them have conflicting information. Also, because there is a location called Nuuanu Memorial Park and Mortuary, I now have to question whether or not the citations are being used in a Original research type of way, as it is being used to support facts that do not agree with the statements posed.

Also, I don't know the exact reasoning, but is it DYK policy to allow a hook with one credible source (assuming we throw out the Nuuanu Cemetery/Mortuary references)? I know for my hook, I made sure I had at least two sources that could at least agree in some way with each other. just in case someone had reservations about the hook and wanted me to prove it.

The associated quarrel over the citations only backs up my claim that proper fact checking was not done. The latter link Materialscientist posted contains a passage near the end of the section from another unrelated editor noting the business locations of the two sites (one having similar name to two of the sources) mentioned after User:W Nowicki did the edits to Hawaii overprint note and conflicted with my fact checking and reasonable attempt to provide any subsequent fact checker the notations over the location discrepancy in my sources and for them to do searches on their own. Note User:W Nowicki did accuse me of providing dead link for Nu'uanu Mortuary in the Hawaii overprint article, but a search on the internet wayback machine with the web addy in the link did produce archived copies of the pages up until 2007. Even thought they are located in the same general area, they do have separate business locations separated by a street. Combined with the references, this clearly shows that upon comparing the citations with the physical documented locations, one has to ask why we have 4 citations spread across two articles with two separate locations. Yeah, you could accuse me also of OR, but the fact we have two physical locations that match the citations passages perfectly leaves abit of a doubt.

So I dunno where you got the whole ripping-off bit (seeing that this is Wikipedia, where the content can be taken by anyone), here is the evidence as I see it: It's a matter of the citations not matching the text and the evidence to support the claims that something is amiss. Which in turn, would've potentially disqualified a DYK hook due to faulty citations.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Emergency with reviewing the nominations

We are running out of approved hooks. I'll try to contribute, but have less than 1 hr left online. Materialscientist (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand the perceived problem, but realistically there's no issue with the number of verified hooks moving down. Reason being that, the editor who fills the prep area can always review an unverified hook and immediately move it to the queue.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should generally avoid verify-promotes; it's good when more than one person has a look at the article. I quite agree with MS that we have too few approved hooks at the moment. I might do some more later today. Ucucha 15:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

NO, it is NOT a proper practice to approve and move to preps right away, it is an emergency, and technically, it slows down the filling process a lot. Time zone and similarity of the hook topics dictate that we need many more approved hooks than formally required to fill up the queues. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is okay, because the admin who moves it to the queue should be taking a look at which is two people. Three is just a reward for hard work and is usually uncommon.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Reposting, lack of reviews again (we need to make some button for that :-) - several are approved, but might be better for lead hooks, pity to put them as regular just because of emergency. Materialscientist (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a firewalled connection right now but more than happy to help in a about 2 hours Calmer Waters 13:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Horton Plains National Park

Hi all, From from this edit 2029b to current version of Horton Plains National Park of 10146 b, I count exactly *5 plus 1 b expansion. But Dykcheck says otherwise. Could someone please tell me am I missing something. Kind regards.--Chanaka L (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

DYKcheck regularly misses 5x expansions. Please try it this way: open a certain version of an article from its history, run DYKcheck, note than count, repeat with another version, divide manually. Materialscientist (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For more explanation, see User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Expansion and this edit. Art LaPella (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MS, Art for the replies. I did exactly what MS is telling me. From above edit to now, article has under gone a 10166/2029 = 5.01 expansion. I see, Because of article size fluctuations DYKcheck missed it. I am confident enough to suggest it for DYK now. Thank you very much, guys. Kind Regards!--Chanaka L (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR Award - straw poll

Editors are invivted to vote in this straw poll about whether the FOUR award should recognise DYK qualifying ITN contributors or not. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: USS Borie (DD-215) ... let's talk about editing the DYK criteria

I've "adopted" this article but do not WP:OWN it, of course. Please leave a note on my User Talk page with any concerns or questions. At this point, it almost satisfies Good Article criteria. I devoted the better part of two days to expanding this from a 660-word stub to over 3300 words. When I started, it didn't even have one inline citation of a source; now it has over 20 (some added by reviewing admin Harrias, for whom many thanks are in order). Most of this was in response to critique from the DYK admins. I reviewed the DYK criteria, and after the first day it satisfied the "written" DYK criteria regarding inline citations. I've since learned there are more stringent "unwritten" criteria.

I respectfully suggest that we should either revise the written criteria to include these unwritten standards, or have a brief discussion with DYK admins so that they will enforce only the more lenient criteria currently written. For what it's worth, I prefer the latter course of action. I perceive DYK as an initial threshold step in the development of a new (or substantially, 5x expanded) article.

The tale of USS Borie's final battle is amazing when properly told. My first glance told me that the existing stub did not do it justice. This was extremely unusual for a modern naval battle, since the ships were engaged for an extended time at very close range. They were so close that Borie's guns couldn't be depressed enough to fire accurately; they used all manner of weapons on each other, including Tommy guns, rifles, pistols, shotguns, and even a flare pistol, a sheath knife and a thrown shell casing; the last three weapons listed were each responsible for successfully dispatching an enemy.

There's plenty of time in the lifespan of the new article to bring its inline citations up to Good Article standards, but the initial five-day window limits opportunities to do that, particularly with a four-day holiday weekend starting tomorrow, and when starting with a 660-word stub that had to be expanded 5x. Adding more inline citations could have been done in the weeks or months ahead. But the reviewing admin conceded initially that the article was well-written and had a very interesting hook, that was supported by source citation; this satisfied the DYK criteria as currently written. I hope that all will accept this criticism in the constructive and collegial manner it's intended, and that it's the start of a discussion that's constructive for the DYK project. Skoal, and have a very Happy Thanksgiving. I'm off to Grandma's. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the one cite per paragraph rule is now universally used, so it should be on WP:DYK. The current set of "additional rules" and "unwritten rules" and what not is only confusing. Ucucha 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Notes: (i) one cite per paragraph doesn't apply to lede and plots (books, movies). Otherwise my full support to bring this to the rules. We can always tolerate exceptions as we do with 5x expansions and 5-day rule. (ii) I sometimes see that the article is artificially blown off to reach 1500 limit - this is not a big deal though, as I can just quickly copyedit and bring it to <1500. Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me that people, when given constructive criticism that their article has unreferenced chunks, would rather start a big push to change the rules instead of, I don't know, adding the references and improving their article? What is it about writing good articles and adhering to WP:V that is such a turn-off to people? Or do these people care more about getting an easy DYK (without having to do any more work than they wanted to) more than about writing a good article? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delay my holiday trip to Grandma's just long enough to stress that these criteria shouldn't be all that stringent. I'm thinking specifically of the UNWRITTEN "one cite per paragraph" rule. As long as the hook itself is supported by facts in a WP:RS citation, that should be enough for DYK. There's still a lot of time to add more citations later, Rjanag. Particularly in this case, where a 660-word stub was expanded to 3300 words, it certainly isn't a case of laziness. First, I fully satisfied the stringent criteria by adding about 16 in-line citations and obtained approval from a DYK admin for inclusion on the WP main page. Only after obtaining that approval have I now lobbied NOT to change the rules, but to limit enforcement to the rules as currently written. Standards for DYK should be a new (or 5x expanded), reasonably well-written article with a well-sourced hook, not necessarily a "Good Article" as far as source citations go. Enforcing new and more stringent DYK standards may discourage editors from writing new articles, or substantially expanding old ones. It's counterproductive. After my second full day of editing that article and being told that it still didn't measure up, I must admit that I was briefly very discouraged, and almost walked away. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not if anything it should be more strict. This is DYK, i.e. it's on the main page. Wikipedia doesn't need bogus stuff getting linked on the main page. People who complain about the 1 citation per paragraph should stop complaining and add the references since you clearly got them from somewhere, how hard is it to just add them in? Just do it.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See for yourself, Giants27. It isn't "bogus stuff." And it is, in fact, very time-consuming to add one reference per paragraph to a 3300-word article that started at 660 words with no inline cites at all. I don't mean to be argumentative, Giants27, but it's a new article and there's plenty of time for all that. I never intended to abandon the article once it was approved for DYK. Eventually I hope to take it to Featured Article status. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not time-consuming to add references if you do it at the same time you're adding content (see my message just below this). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by "bogus stuff" is "unreferenced material", the only person who knows who said it and where it came from is the writer. Any unreferenced material is bogus because it's unverifiable. And usually I add references as I go along no matter how many (see Nathan Horton for example which has 86 or so for a 13k article). Adding a reference using refTools (which I highly recommend) is usually quick and easy, since you don't have to type out all the code. BTW, there's no need to do the article in 5 days if you have a version in your own sandbox because the day you move it into mainspace is when the 5 days clock starts. Finally, I understand it's a new article and I appreciate the hard work you've put into it and the plans you have for it but being new is not an excuse for it being unreferenced, even if the original version was unreferenced.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For anyone else coming to this discussion, I should point out that the version of the article Harrias (the DYK reviewer) first commented on is here. Clearly, Phoenix & Winslow's statement above is a bit misleading, as the article didn't have tons of inline citations added and only a small paragraph here and there missing citations; almost the entire article was unreferenced, with only 4 measly references for 13K character (and all those references in the same section). Harrias was absolutely correct in objecting to this kind of poorly-referenced article. There's no reason to criticize the people who point out shortcomings in an article, when your time would be better spent correcting those shortcomings.

Also, Phoenix, I see you are relatively new to the project so I'll offer a bit of advice... when writing or expanding articles, it's always better to include references as you're doing it, rather than adding prose first and finding references later. By the time you come back a few days later (if ever) you may not remember where exactly all the information came from, or you may miss things that should be referenced, leaving unreferenced things scattered throughout the article. For my part, when I'm working in-depth on an article, I pretty much never add anything without putting a reference on it in the same edit. I hope you will take these suggestions to heart and continue being involved with the project, as we can always use more bold editors who take the initiative to fill gaps in the encyclopedia's coverage. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Rjanag (and Giants27, even though he gave me an edit conflict :) ) that we shouldn't ease the rules. The one cite per paragraph rule (of course with the exceptions Materialscientist mentioned) does a good job in stimulating the writing of quality, well-referenced articles. But we should make that rule clear on this page (WP:DYK), not on some hard-to-find backdoor page. Ucucha 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. I always have this in mind - someone takes a fact, referenced it and builds around a dubious article for the sake of getting a DYK medal. Wait, some even fight referees who dare to ask where did that material come from (i.e. "mind your business and assess the hook, article length and date"). DYK system automatically stimulates quickly made articles. Whereas copyedit issues can be easily solved, referencing sometimes is trickier and IMO should be enforced. One cite per para can still be tricked by bogus refs, but this rule is better than nothing. There is another side off course, which IMO started this thread - we often friendly push the authors to further improve the article when it is close to DYK acceptance. The phrasing there should be careful as some take offense. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There is a rule somewhere that basically says an article with major cleanup tags, or cleanup-tag-worthy problems (i.e., someone could add a tag and not be incorrect), can be rejected until the problems are fixed. That basically covers most of these issues, as {{refimprove}} is a major tag if the lack of references is serious enough. It might help to make that rule more prominent. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And there, precisely there, is the problem: there's "a rule somewhere." Not in the DYK criteria as written, but it's "somewhere." If you insist, rewrite the written rules to clearly include these stringent standards so that new editors don't make these mistakes in the future. But I think you'll get fewer submissions. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If we used WP:Did you know/Learning DYK, it would be easier to find the "rule somewhere": it's R2. The regulars know what I'm going to say, but for others: I have always argued that we need to be easier to understand for newcomers. Unwritten rules should be written. If writing them makes them too rigid, then write about how flexible they are; we even have R6 to say the rules aren't intended to cover everything. Yes, unwritten rules and additional rules and WP:Did you know/Learning DYK rules are confusing; that was a compromise, and if the regular rules would adopt some of my Learning DYK ideas – especially the undisputed improvements – then maybe we could get back to a unified set of rules. I'm better at getting things done by myself than I am at Wikipedia politics. Art LaPella (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose to change the text under "Selection criteria" after the current nr. 4 (neutrality) to:

5. Well-referenced. The article should make clear what its sources are; specifically, most reviewers generally expect at least one inline citation per paragraph (except where that is not feasible, for example in the lead or a plot summary).

Many submissions are made which fail to satisfy one or more of these points, but there is usually plenty of time to address issues after the nomination. We like it better when the article passes the criteria right away, however, and articles that still fail some points even when the article's writer(s) have had a reasonable amount of time to address the issues may be rejected.

This codifies the unwritten one cite per paragraph rule and simultaneously makes the text at the bottom a little more encouraging. Feel free to tweak the text. Ucucha 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to the comments below, I toned down the text a little. Again, feel free to tweak it yourself; this is a wiki, after all. Ucucha 13:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Great. A poll. Who would agree to ask Art LaPella to modify the DYK rules to cover the above problems?

• Full support. Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Of course. Just from reading his first comment, I can see that he recognizes the problem clearly. Skoal, and a Happy Thanksgiving to all. Even you. ;-) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Well, that came down in the wrong place due to conflicting edits that didn't conflict. It seems I have usurped Art's job, but I still support the poll. Ucucha 00:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Unnecessary in the current wording. We don't need a rule specifically about referencing; more appropriate would be a rule saying about serious cleanup issues in general. (That is to say, serious copyediting, lack of references, etc....NPOV is already mentioned, I think.) It would be more vague, but would also help preclude the need for rule creep since it covers more of the perennial issues. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) Sure. That goes on top but is vague and leads to such threads as above (not the first time). Refs are a major issue, and IMO, whatever can be made clear cut (like min. 1500 bytes of prose, max 200 chars in hook, min. 1 ref per para) should be solidified in the rules. Materialscientist (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Insufficient referencing is by far the most frequently encountered issue, I believe, so it makes sense to mention it specifically. I may also support adding a general rule about issues with the article, but I think it makes sense to mention a frequently-encountered issue specifically. Ucucha 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Specific mention is better in the 'additional rules'; the main rules page should have as few rules as possible, and the rules there should be as general as possible. The longer the list of rules, the less likely a newbie is to read them. And as for other frequent 'gen cleanup' issues, severe grammar/copyediting problems, overuse of quotations, and plagiarism/paraphrasing are other perennial issues that articles get rejected for and nominators get bent out of shape over. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
      • In my experience, insufficient referencing is the single most frequent problem, and among the more difficult to fix, and I think it deserves to be mentioned separately. Ucucha 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • And, for what it's worth, I certainly don't think "one citation per paragraph" should ever be formalized as a rule anywhere in this encyclopedia. It's a quick-and-dirty heuristic to help with the enforcement of a fundamental rule (WP:CITE), nothing more. To lose sight of the fundamental rule in favor of the heuristic (which is meaningless on its own) is not a good direction to move in. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I assume you mean WP:Verifiability. My reasoning is that the rule is currently being enforced and is beneficial to submission quality by setting an unambiguous minimum standard for referencing quality, and that it is unfair to nominators not to have it documented somewhere (it's actually not even at the additional rules page). I believe my proposal addresses your concern by first linking to the general verifiability policy and then positing the specific heuristic we use to determine whether verifiability has been met. Ucucha 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Even "Most reviewers enforce one citation per paragraph, but a couple reviewers object" would explain the DYK facts of life better than just letting people guess. Art LaPella (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It's true that this is kinda covered by R2 already, but it would be useful to newcomers to have it explicitly stated, as many (and not just newcomers) have objected to it. I agree with Rjanag that the wording should be toned down to something like Art's suggestion, or "At least one citation per paragraph is preferred." Shubinator (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - too strongly worded. For one thing, I myself will often have an "introductory" paragraph in each section which basically sums up the information to follow. It's superfluous (and sometimes quite impractical) to add references to such summary paragraphs when all the info is fully referenced in the expanded text below. I agree with Rjanag that we need to retain a little flexibility in such matters. Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Howabout just bumping the requirement from minimum of one reference to two or more references? That way, any doubt over the questionably of one reference can be metted by another or several. If they don't match and agree on certain points, then it can easily send a red flag and send the hook as needed attention. From how I see it, one "Verifiable" hook easily allows someone to get their hook thru even if it is false. Adding the stipulation to get two or more references cuts down on people zerg-rushing DYK with questionable hooks in order to bump their contribution counts.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  I think that would just add considerably to the burden on creators and reviewers alike for no discernable benefit. I don't think it's relevant to this debate in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'm afraid that's a bad idea. Sometimes a given paragraph will need only one cite; that is acceptable even in FAs. With one cite per paragraph, we of course also have exceptions, but it's generally quite clear that these should be exceptions. With two cites per paragraph as a rule, not so much. Ucucha 13:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Another rule

(Moved down for clarity.) On the other hand, the rule "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators.", currently at WP:DYK, should perhaps be stricken, as I don't believe this happens with any regularity. Ucucha 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done it in the past (I was more active in 2008 than I am now), although people sometimes raised a fuss. I don't know if it's still being done. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it often. Perhaps it would be better, also considering what Materialscientist wrote above, to have a general rule along the lines of "Crappy articles will not be promoted even if they have over 1500 b of readable prose." Ucucha 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much need to modify that. The current rule gives us a window to bash overblown texts, and people know we are friendly at DYK :-D. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; let's not change it when there's no real need. Ucucha 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's important to retain this caveat as it prevents contributors screaming about being discriminated against. I myself still turn down articles from time to time if I feel their treatment of the topic is unacceptably patchy or just plain lacking in useful information, which happens at times. Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Donnelley

It looks like our fact-checking broke down here. Art LaPella (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Prep1

Could someone please have a look at the prep1 hooks wording? I am particularly unhappy with hook3, IMO, even something clumsy like

• ... that a homeless LGBT youth center in New York City was named after African-American advocate for homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Ali Forney for his aid work?

would sound better. Materialscientist (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been placed back onto the suggestion page for more refining. Calmer Waters 18:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Queu 6

{{editprotected}} In the current queue 6, can an admin please delete the words "including the Greater Bulldog Bat" from the bats of the Caribbean hook? I added this species because it was pictured in my suggestion, but since the picture is not in the queue, the text doesn't add anything to the hook. Ucucha 15:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Regards SoWhy 15:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong tense?

After reading Queue 1 hook 8 again, I may have moved the hook with the wrong tense ...have not touched a keyboard, rather than had not touched a keyboard. Would someone be able to modify this. Thanks Calmer Waters 05:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it was "never touched" which I changed to "have not touched" because I thought "never touched .. for sixteen years" was a bit weird (was it?). Do you mean "had not" is better? Materialscientist (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Good call. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the evolution of a hook from submission to front page. Yes, I meant had not touched; however, both may be correct Calmer Waters 05:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed (honestly, I was hesitating between those two earlier, but couldn't be sure). Materialscientist (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Calmer Waters 05:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Update counter not ready for next update

A heads up. Queue one is currently on the main page along with the queue and the update counter is stuck on 1 rather than 2. Calmer Waters 06:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixing. Materialscientist (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. (checked and issued credits, incremented counter, reset the queue). Materialscientist (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Calmer Waters 07:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)