Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Women's Day images

Right now, there are eight possible images to put up for Women's Day, to go with seven articles. Among the seven article images, one is of Nome, Alaska, one is of a man, and one is a painting by a man. I suggest that these images are less important to Women's Day. This leaves four articles offering images of women, linking to articles about women:

• 
  Michele S. Jones
• 
  Wilma B. Liebman
• 
  Wilma B. Liebman
• 
  Lore Agnes
• 
  Rawya Ateya

The second Liebman image, if selected, could be cropped for greater interest and focus. Me, I like the first portrait image because it is so apt for 100x100 pixel size limitations.

The four queues can pick up these images as the sun moves into their regions of interest, which are Eastern USA (2), Germany and Egypt. I propose a prime-time queuing like this, listed in UTC time:

• 8 March 12 AM none (or perhaps the Portrait of Nine Muses, for Richard Samuel)
• 8 March 6 AM Lore Agnes (in Germany, 7 AM to 1 PM)
• 8 March 12 PM Rawya Ateya (in Egypt, 2 PM to 8 PM)
• 8 March 6 PM Michele S. Jones (in Eastern USA, 1 PM to 7 PM)
• 9 March 12 AM Wilma B. Liebman (in Eastern USA, 7 PM, 8 March to 1 AM, 9 March)

Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Chrystal Macmillan

Sure, thanks. Obviously, No 3 (an alt for No2) and 4 don't look good. I do crop images, maybe too often ;-) Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another possible image, to go with the new article about Scottish barrister, feminist and pacifist Chrystal Macmillan. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Q5 query

In hook 5 in Queue 5 I think "Bluestocking" should be "bluestocking". The Wiktionary entry has a New York Times quote where it is not capitalized. Should the word also be quoted in the hook? --Bruce1ee^talk 06:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I myself decapitalized it in another hook and missed this one. Materialscientist (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook about fact of history from over 200 years ago

• Template_talk:Did_you_know#List_of_New_York_Legislature_members_expelled_or_censured

I worked very very hard on the researching and referencing of this article - List of New York Legislature members expelled or censured.

• I think an inappropriate and extreme position is being taken here. I researched and gathered together historical material from multiple different WP:RS sources. Gatoclass (talk · contribs) has a concern that parts of the article focus on negative info about BLPs - but I hardly think anyone would object to the existence of a very similar article, titled, List of United States senators expelled or censured. In response to the concern raised by Gatoclass, I suggested an alternate hook. This alternate hook deals with a fact of history from the year 1781, over 200 years ago. I really think that since this newly suggested alternate hook is focused specifically on something that occurred and on an individual who died over 200 years ago, that the DYK hook should be allowed to be approved. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The relevant clause in the rules is the one which states that Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. I'm concerned that by singling out one particular negative event in the lives of the BLP's concerned, that the article breaches our rules for inclusion. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article does not focus on a negative aspect of living individuals, it focuses on a negative aspect of the members of a legislative body, including both living and dead. It is not a hit piece article, which is what I think the rules were trying to filter out. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not so sure. I recently argued to reject an article on a controversy about a living Irish politician, and this may be comparable. However, this article mainly covers non-living people, and Cirt's proposed alt hook does not concern any living people.

In any case, Cirt, your work on creating the article is appreciated, but not an argument in favor of promoting the hook. There are many people on Wikipedia who do great work that does not appear on DYK, and the spirit of the BLP policy should trump most other considerations. Ucucha 16:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should have stuck to mentioning that Montosante (sp?) was expelled following a a conviction for misdemeanor assault and left it to the interested reader to pursue further details either at his article or at outside sources. The mention of dragging across the lobby, which the former senator would probably dispute, is enough to bounce it out as far as I am concerned. I agree with Gatoclass. But I also applaud Cirt's work in the article, putting together a list like that can't be fun.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. Only 3 of the individuals in the article are still living, and in all cases the summary focuses on junctures of their careers, not "he is geh!!!11", which are well-known, widely-reported, and covered in detail at their respective articles (except for the 1987 guy, who is a redlink). And in the past we have run much more negative ones—for example, back in 2008 there was one on a Chinese politician where the hook essentially said he was responsible for thousands of deaths in the 1989 Tiananmen incident (Wikipedia:Recent_additions_235). The politician, Li Ximing, had died only days before the hook ran. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet (talk · contribs) is correct, the article focuses on a historical fact regarding members of a legislative body, and does so quite matter-of-factly. Ucucha (talk · contribs) properly noted that the hook I have proposed does not pertain to a living person, and Ucucha is also correct that the majority of the article does not deal primarily with living people. As per the comment from Wehwalt (talk · contribs), I have modified that particular entry to remove specific details of that individual incident - and I thank you for that as that is a most appropriate recommendation. I agree with the astute point by Rjanag (talk · contribs) that the article has a small minority of living people, and focuses on a widely-covered fact from reliable sources. I respectfully ask that the hook be allowed to be used and confirmed, for the ALT hook that I have proposed - which deals with a factual event that occurred over 200 years ago. Thank you for your time and your consideration in this matter, Cirt (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of my concern is that there is probably potential for a lot more articles of this type. So if we allow one through, we will have difficulty saying "no" to similar articles in future.

I guess what we could do is take the issue to the BLP noticeboard. Although BLP does not have exactly the same concerns as we do, I might feel a little more comfortable if the article at least had the green light from the BLP folks. Gatoclass (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: With edit summary of "nothing wrong", admin Nyttend made this comment below the nom itself at T:TDYK: "Wikipedia:Did_you_know#DYK_rules says that articles that focus unduly about negative aspects of living people should be avoided, but it doesn't prohibit them, and it definitely doesn't prohibit articles that focus duly on the subject and that is primarily about dead individuals. " And previously, admin J Milburn (talk · contribs) had stated, "Hook and article look great." -- It appears that what we have at this point in time, is a majority consensus of editors and admins that approve of using this hook regarding a fact from 200 years ago, from an article that concentrates its focus mainly on individuals that are no longer living. And we have one individual, Gatoclass (talk · contribs), that has now commented about this issue repeatedly, who is in a distinct minority against consensus, and who now proposes bringing it to yet another forum - instead of agreeing with the consensus of editors in comments in separate locations now at both T:TDYK and WT:DYK. Let us please move on, and use the hook that focuses on a factual event from over 200 years ago. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Point of clarification: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) was the one who suggested to me to bring this discussion from T:TDYK to here 06:26, 6 March 2010. Subsequently, when it appears that consensus of a majority of editors does not support the POV of Gatoclass, he proposes to bring the discussion to yet another forum, 19:53, 8 March 2010. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not helping your case here with such comments. Funny that you emphasize that Nyttend and J Milburn are admins, but not that Gatoclass is one too. Also interesting to note that nowhere in your summaries do you mention that Wehwalt wrote "I agree with Gatoclass" or that I am not too comfortable with the hook either. Ucucha 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha, I am sorry, I am simply frustrated with this whole process. I am sorry if you feel a problem with a comment, but I have done quite a bit of research on this issue. Which hook do you have a problem with - the hook that focuses on the event from 200 years ago? Why? How can I remedy it so that you find it satisfactory? Cirt (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with the article itself, not any particular hook. And as said before: Great work on the article, thank you very much, but that does not have any bearing on whether it is appropriate for DYK. Ucucha 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

However, the article itself "mainly covers non-living people", as noted above by Ucucha, when in the above comment, "However, this article mainly covers non-living people, and Cirt's proposed alt hook does not concern any living people." Therefore, it should not be a problem. As the article does not "unduly" focus on BLPs. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Cirt, but the reason I made the proposal above is because my reading is that there is in fact no clear consensus for promotion, with at least three editors including myself expressing reservations. My proposal to have the matter resolved at WP:BLPN is in fact a concession due to the fact that we usually don't promote hooks that have any opposition from the regular contributors. And I really don't know why you would object to this solution - if you are truly confident that the article does not violate BLP, you should welcome the opportunity to resolve the matter. Gatoclass (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Done. [1]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think this hook should go through, but the more important issue is to settle what criteria to apply to such hooks, because I'm sure there will be others. I see that Cirt placed a notice at BLPN inviting people to comment here. Fine. We have plenty of older DYK hooks to use, let's give it a few days and see what comments are made. cmadler (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm a bit bothered because this list includes not only criminals, but also the five honest Socialists expelled during the WW 1 war hysteria; and it's bad enough that they are lumped in with the crooks, without drawing people's attention to this list further. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not a matter of editor discretion, unfortunately, but rather a matter of historical fact. We cannot change the historical fact, and for the future, the only thing that could be done would be to complain directly to the New York State Legislature about their state laws. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides which, those five are all deceased, so there is no potential BLP issue with regard to them. cmadler (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have shortened two entries, and removed another two entirely (two where individuals were investigated but no actual sanction itself was enacted in the end result). Cirt (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollover text not appearing

I've recently noticed that the image rollover text is not appearing for me. Is it working for others? Gatoclass (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this may be due to images having alt text, but not a rollover caption. They should have both. Does this edit solve the problem for you? Ucucha 23:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, alt text is different than rollover text. Alt-text only appears when an image cannot be displayed (because of browser problems or something), and it appears for people using screen readers or things like that. Both alt-text and rollover text need to be specified in the image. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Restricting to only trusted reviewers?

Should reviewers of DYK hooks be restricted to users who have shown in some manner that they are trustworthy? If consensus determines 'yes', the measure of trustworthiness can be debated later. Among the suggested measures would be to limit reviewers to the 5,000 or so users with rollback rights, or the nearly 3,000 autoreviewers. Just guessing, I would say that the combined group would number about 6,000. Other determinations of trustworthiness can be suggested, but this RfC is simply to determine whether we should limit reviewers in some way. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nom. I think we should try rollbackers and autoreviewers first. If the rollbacker scheme is too open to hoaxes and gaming of the system, we could tighten the rule to allow only autoreviewers. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I was going to support for rollbackers and autoreviewers, as long as this can be checked quickly and with minimum hastle. But then I start to ask a few questions... Who would do the checking? And what do you do if an "unauthorised" user reviews a DYK? Or maybe this just sends the wrong message entirely - after all, anyone can review a GAN or FAC (although very few can actually promote the FAC). Simon Burchell (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can a wiki tool be constructed to disallow either of the two DYKtick approval templates being used by unproven users? Can a wiki tool be constructed to right click or hover over a username link and have that person shown to be an admin, rollbacker, etc.? Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The latter can be done using WP:POPUPS. Regards SoWhy 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The former is impossible, there is no way (aside from abuse filters, which are only used for stuff like spam and whatever) to prevent certain users from adding certain content in an edit. We can prevent certain people from editing at all (blocks and protection) but we can't filter the characters that are included in the edit.

As for the latter, it's not really a solution. As I said below, lacking administrator, rollbacker, or autoreviewer status doesn't automatically make someone unreliable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support DYK needs other editors to help out in the cause; however, even if this is an unwritten rule, most hook reviewers are Admins, Rollbackers, and Autoreviewers. Binksternet's got a point, what we need is a tool/notification/alert, when a new user or a user with only a few edits has approved a hook. What do you guys think? _{--TitanOne (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)}

• Oppose I don't think the solution proposed is correct for the problem at hand. Yes, such mistakes need to be avoided but restricting the group of reviewers both makes it harder for new users to work at T:TDYK and more difficult to handle the workload. Instead, it should be upon the promoting admin to assure that nominations are in fact eligible for DYK. That's a major reason for separating approving hooks and compiling queues as we do. I understand if an admin does not double-check hooks reviewed by experienced users but an admin who promotes hooks approved by new users should always double-check the nominations. A determined vandal can easily get 5,000 edits and rollback and then approve a bunch of hooks they wrote themselves. But that's much harder if an admin thinks "wait a minute, I never saw X approving hooks" to themselves and then double-checks. Regards SoWhy 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with SoWhy. This too can be easily gamed and will only lead to loss of volunteers and increase in workload for those still dedicated to reviewing nominations. The primary responsibility should be to the Queue assembler and promoting Administrator to double check the contributions of new, relatively inexperienced, unknown, or other editors who have shown questionable verifying judgment along with articles that are submitted by those who appear new or not familiar to DYK itself. Calmer Waters 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Should this be added to WP:CENT? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point, that it bears on the entire project. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - you can't just bar people from reviewing, that would kill the project. Per Calmer Waters. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This project relies on new blood, every few months there seems to be a new batch of reviewers. How do you think people become "trusted", other than by BOLDly starting to review? Not to mention we explicitly encourage newbies to review--just like PR and other places, we have a note saying "try to help out with the backlog: if you nominate something, also consider reviewing something". This proposal is unnecessary and would hurt the DYK project. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I just read the proposal more carefully and I see you're suggesting to restrict it to people who are trusted in general, not with DYK specifically. But your criteria are a bit iffy. Autoreviewer status is not necessary to make someone trusted...I don't have autoreviewer (or, if I do now, I certainly did not have it when I did the bulk of my work for DYK), but I daresay I am at least a little bit trusted. Lots of people don't have rollback, because they simply never asked. These arbitrary standards are not really helpful.
  • On top of that, this would just be instruction creep. People already often double-check other verifications, and when an unfamiliar name pops up it catches people's eyes. If something slips through like this latest thing did, it's not because the rules are insufficient, it's because someone made a mistake--and no amount of new rules can ever prevent human error. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Caspian blue 22:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm reluctant to go for this as I think DYK is one of the better places for people to get early reviewing practice within the project. I would rather look at a restriction on moving hooks to the prep areas. This means that newish editors can still do most of the screening and more experienced editors only have the double checking of approved hooks to do.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There already is a de facto restriction on promoting hooks to the prep area. It's not written officially anywhere, of course, but if User:Some random unknown guy moves a bunch of hooks to prep (especially if one is his own) he is likely to get reverted—or, at the very least, people will take a good long look at the diff. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment on potential impact. In the past week, I examined the suggestion page and determined we had 50 active reviewers. Twelve were administrators, twenty-six were non-admin users with one or more additional privileges, and twelve were users with no additional privileges. Only two of these last group were new-ish accounts less than two months old. It seems to me to be a useful effort to encourage veteran DYK reviewers who are not rollbackers or autoreviewers to seek further privileges and so aid in defining their trustworthiness. Or, we can add another user metric specific to this project, something like "reliable contributor" or "contributor in good standing" or similar. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think users should be forced to jump through new hoops to "define" their trustworthiness, it seems like an unnecessary formality and a potential deterrent to good reviewers. If people are trustworthy they're trustworthy, no matter what baubles they have to prove it. DYK regulars already have a good idea who these people are. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. We all started at DYK as newcomers, and I've seen them doing much better than some of the "experienced" reviewers and sometimes much worse. That recent hoax claimed to reveal WP weaknesses, which I don't see that way (it was too intricate and perhaps self-exposing for that): to me it aimed at suppressing AGF spirit; thus I ignore the goals of that feat and rather focus on doing better what I do. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support if limited to BLPs on DYK, Oppose if this is meant to apply generally to all the noms. There is a trade off here and the fact that DYK is understaffed and backlogged, as well as the points raised by Rjanag, still need to be taken into consideration. Also not quite happy with the arbitrary criteria for "trusted" (rollback? Encourages bad editing practice and's for lazy people). Also - would it be possible to put some kind of "exclamation mark" sign next to any nom that is a BLP which would alert any potential newbie reviewers (as well as nominators) that the standards for such articles are higher/article needs to be checked more carefully?radek (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I will be interested to see how "trust" is defined if this proposal goes ahead. Autoreviewer? Rollbacker? I'm neither, so am I not trustworthy? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  I would encourage to stop poking a dead horse - obviously, neither autoreviewer nor rollbacker are valid criteria here. Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Others do not seem to share your view. This horse is by no means dead. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  I hope not. As Rjanag mentioned, many "trusted" users had no such rights. Just to add an example, I don't think I ever was autoreviewer, and got rollbacker rights a few weeks before becoming an admin, only because someone specifically offered that to me. Materialscientist (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  This is drifting a little off topic, so this will be my last comment on the matter. Exactly the same problem will come up with flagged revisions, probably quite shortly, as to who is to be trusted and who isn't. The same issues will be gone over again; should it be a separate right, allocated automatically to rollbackers/autoreviewers, or granted at the whim of individual administrators ... wikipedia is at a crossroads, and if it takes a wrong turning now it will have serious consequences for the future of the project. I realise of course though that as an administrator these kinds of issues don't affect you. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  (i) "glass half empty" argument (ii) DYK review ≠ individual edits. Materialscientist (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Far from it. My response to that "glass half full or half empty" chestnut is always the same. In real life my question would be "are you going to finish that drink?" Realism =/= pessimism. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  My opinion is that it is high time to abandon the pretense that Wikipedia is equally open to all editors, since it has not been for some time. I know mine is not a popular position, and it goes directly against the encyclopedia's tag line, "...the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I think performance in editing should somehow determine trustworthiness, with deletions of one's trivially created articles, edit warring, vandalism and generally bad behavior counting against one's record. Of course Malleus would be one of the more trusted editors under an appropriate system. If such a system were devised, the problem of hoaxes at DYK would be more easily nipped in the bud. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Please. The cause of this thread could bypass most barriers which we would make visible. IMO, the only reasonable way to reduce the hoax chances are simply do what we do, but do it better. As to "free wikipedia" - this topic should be discussed elsewhere. Materialscientist (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Without your advantage of being able to see the deleted article all I can say is that I'm not certain I'd agree with you. Common sense ought to have raised a few red flags. I'd say that the general level of checking even of the basics in DYK is pretty poor, and something the project ought to consider addressing. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support, only for BLP's: This is not an ideal solution and there are likely to be problems in carrying it out, but we need to do something to minimize the damage here. We can't ignore it every time a BLP issue comes up saying that it "happens rarely". ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I hate seeing proposals put up before discussion, IMO it's the wrong way around. However, I'm thinking we may have to implement something like this for BLP's at least. We really can't afford to have another instance of some hoaxer's sock verifying an article and thus fooling the updater into promoting a bogus BLP. I'm just not sure what exactly the best way to go about it might be. Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  We don't want to alienate newcomers, and thus should let them review. The only practical solution I see is: "DYK regulars", when noticing a tick mark by an "unfamiliar" editor, go and checks their assessment, BLP or not (with the accent on the former) - the hoaxer specifically chose a target: academic BLP, we shouldn't jump right there and leave the rest uncovered, or we might get a hoax elsewhere (like in soccer :) Materialscientist (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Updaters are supposed to do that already. Problem is, they don't. Anyone can update after all, and for new updaters, these subleties tend to be missed. And even experienced reviewers will sometimes get careless and upload an inappropriate article. I think the point is, we need some sort of more formal process for preventing this sort of thing happening. Gatoclass (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  The way these discussion have been going so far, I wouldn't be surprised if they end without coming to any reasonable solution. In that case Materialscientist's suggestion above (DYK regulars double checking hooks) is the best we can do. As Gatoclass says we are supposed to do that already, so maybe the more experienced contributors here will have to take that responsibility. The editors moving the hooks to prep areas and those promoting them to the queues will have to spend a few minutes to check the articles (better than usual, I mean). This would be easier if we have more help, such as from those who have promised to work there but don't ;) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  (ec) In reality, there are two regular prep updaters, myself and Calmer Waters, and I suppose we can easily adjust. Everybody here should note that I make lots of silly mistakes (sometimes picking unapproved hooks, missing bits and pieces, etc - many do know already :), thus I shouldn't be trusted by default and should be checked for blunders. There is one practicality - I (and perhaps others) might not have hours for scrutinizing every article when composing the preps - life doesn't grant them and there are too many variables to consider. I rely on intuition and good work by reviewers. In summary, refereeing should be strengthened first and foremost, with double checking newcomers (and some regulars too :) and .. we should go do our DYK work rather than filling up this page :-) Materialscientist (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Ultimately it all gets back to lack of manpower. What I find so irritating about these AN/I threads is that one always gets a mob screaming with indignation demanding better quality control, but you never see any of them actually coming over here to offer a helping hand. I mean, some guy over there who has never made a single edit to T:TDYK in his life just accused me of "laziness". It makes you feel like just packing it in and walking away in disgust.

  I really don't know what can be done to improve QC, I very much doubt double verification of every hook would work as it would mean twice the workload for everybody. And of course, ultimately nothing is going to prevent a determined hoaxster from getting his article promoted, no matter what precautions one takes. Gatoclass (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe what we could do is have a "BLP" field in NewDYKnom that would output an eyecatching graphic so uploaders couldn't miss it. For those submissions, updaters would be instructed to ensure that (a) the review had been done by a known and trusted user, and (b) that they doublechecked the article themselves before promoting it. That ought to provide a much better safety net than what we have currently. Gatoclass (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry for bugging Gato's posts, perhaps we could use another tiny template to mark any controversial noms and hooks - again, not only BLP, but also racial, political, etc. issues. Materialscientist (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  But who decides what's "controversial"? In a sense, we already have such an icon, which is the blue one indicating "wait". If we have a "controversial" icon, I can see users plastering it all over everything just to be on the safe side. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  We have situations (take Gita Sahgal hook, to be specific, but it is a relatively simple case) when sensitive issues might be involved and referees are unsure about promotion. As you suggested using extra tags, maybe they are to be used in such (infrequent) situations, to say "this is a potential problem, need 3rd opinion". And again, BLPs are not the only issue. Just an example, one editor thinks that DYK promotion of Bloom Energy Server was a part of slick marketing campaign - sure BLPs are 1st priority, but we never know what can hit us. Materialscientist (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• CommentI think the point this guy/girl was trying to do was stir up trouble(obviously). It was a malicious attempt by this individual to cause trouble and build attention for him/herself (not to proove a point). The system works i believe at this stage, the problem was the checks were laxed. In an ideal world with the existing policies we have it s/could have been caught. The solution i think is just to tighten up the process according to the existing rules. One way to do this i think is just have the signature of the nominaters/approval contributions show up so they can be quickly scanned by the admin when the hooks are posted. I do not beleive its necessary to increase restrictions on the posters/volunteers. Just have a higher awareness of what checks to articles need to be done. At least thats my view. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment All of these are subject to gaming. None of these would prevent the libelous material from being added post approval, as the hoaxster did (incidentally, why isn't his account blocked?). I suppose we should take Jimbo at his word (at AN/I) that flagged revisions will solve this. However, even if it would, that just shifts the attack, say, to libelous but superficially relevant material being added to a non-BLP DYK candidate.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

Since there is an obvious difficulty in adding to the existing workload for reviewers, I think as an alternative we may have to tighten up our eligibility criteria. We could, for example, require that every article, at least from an unfamiliar user, include at least one online source to verify the existence of the individual or subject of the article. I don't think that should represent too much of a burden on contributors, since the overwhelming majority of our submissions contain plenty of online refs. Thoughts? Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps a better idea, a stipulation that no articles get verified whose sources are all uncheckable without the approval of at least two regular reviewers. That would avoid adding to the existing eligibility criteria which are already difficult for new users to remember. It would leave us greater flexibility as well. Gatoclass (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this idea of moving towards only online sources being seen as being acceptable. As I've commented elsewhere, print sources (in my opinion) are more reliable than web sources. In my own particular area of interest, Mesoamerica, some of the best (and completely reliable) sources are foreign-language publications from developing countries and they aren't necessarily even catalogued online. Some of my article rely entirely on Spanish language print sources, and articles sourced in this way help counter systemic bias towards online English-language subjects. I'm not offering any solutions - just nitpicking! Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that Simon. What I suggested is that, where we get an article which is all sourced to offline refs, that two experienced users sign off on it. That wouldn't actually prohibit the use of offline sources in any way, it would only mean they get checked more carefully. Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Struck my initial proposal to clarify that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK - in that case, it sounds fine. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean like asking for a third opinion when you are unsure about the sourcing of an article? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really worked out the details yet. It's just that I'm concerned about this occurring again, and I'd like to do something to try and tighten up our verification process a bit. This was after all not just one hoax article that slipped through, but five of them, and I think that clearly shows our current system is not very good at identifying such articles. Gatoclass (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support having two experinced reviewers instead of one sign off on articles with offline refs only. I dont think it fixes the problem (You could still have two socks show up) but it certaintly would check articles more throughly. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How about if articles with no online refs are marked with a certain icon, so that reviewers and updaters know to take particular care when checking the article? That way, we could take more time over the review of such articles. Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of an icon that would indicate "This looks good to me, but someone else should also check it for approval". Then a second user, after reviewing the article and hook, would give the AGF confirmation icon. I don't think there's any feasible way to completely solve the problem; if someone really wants to push through a hoax they will find a way to do so, and I don't think we should gear all our systems to the worst-case scenario. cmadler (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Advertising

How is this item

... that the upcoming video game Scrap Metal, set to be released on XBox Live Arcade, will allow players to customize monster trucks and bulldozers with flamethrowers and rocket launchers?

not blatant advertising? --Peter Farago (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

An advertisement is something that is written in a non neutral way, usually with WP:PEACOCK terms and WP:WEASEL terms, in order to portray the subject as something "good" (not the best way to put it, but I'm not very good at wording things). Simply mentioning a feature of the game is not an advertisement, but something that should be included in the article if it is to be complete. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It would have been fine in an article about the game itself, but appearing on the front page, apropos of nothing, is quite certainly advertising IMO. --Peter Farago (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Animated GIFs on Main Page

File:TectonicReconstructionGlobal.gif

Would this image be appropriate (in terms of flashiness) for a DYK lead on the main page? Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why it wouldn't be. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't see it as being obtrusive by flashing different colors back and forth. Calmer Waters 08:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a 3MB+ file is all that ideal given that people may be viewing the site on mobile browsers or dial-up/low speed connections. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

I copied this thread to Talk:Main Page where it received much feedback. The gist is - yes, allowed, but the image should be physically resized (reduce pixel size in a file) to its frame (100x100px in this case) to minimize the file size because the wikimedia software does not resize animated gifs and sends the whole file no matter thumb or not. Materialscientist (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Chicago

Shouldn't the Chicago time be updated, it is an hour of ahead of the actual Chicago time (daylight savings time issue?) CTJF83 chat 06:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an hour ahead. Daylight savings time starts on the second Sunday of March and ends on the first Sunday of November. There's no easy way to find the first or second Sunday of the month with templates, so the template is hardcoded with March 8 as the beginning and November 1 as the end of DST. Shubinator (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Never mind, I fixed it. Shubinator (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, CTJF83 chat 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

iron-55 has a wrong numer in it

Queue1 sheduled for the 13th. I missed a wrong year, the launch of ExoMars is delayed and will happen now in 2018. Can an admin change:

that iron-55 source will be used in an X-ray diffraction instrument flown to Mars in 2013?

To

that iron-55 source will be used in an X-ray diffraction instrument flown to Mars in 2018? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone (talk • contribs) 13:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Where in the sources is this mentioned? Ucucha 13:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Right will add source for 2018.--Stone (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

added source for launch in 2018 ( I hope for it) --Stone (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Ucucha 13:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

500 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal - Thanks

Binksternet kindly left me a 500 DYK creation medal today, which got me reminiscing. I've enjoyed participating in this project and value its ability to draw attention to diverse and little-known subjects. I'm still amazed that 21,800 people viewed an article about a little-known house in Pasadena based on a hook I submitted (...that Frank Lloyd Wright said of the Millard House that he "would rather have built this little house than St. Peter's in Rome"?). Binksternet reminded me of another (... that 19th-century California bandit Procopio, also known as Red-Handed Dick, was said to "love the feel and the color of warm blood," and his name was used by mothers to frighten their children?). And there's one that I thought might be a record-breaker but barely registered (... that the white suckerfish responds to a touch on its belly by forcefully erecting its pelvic fins?). Some other favorites are at My Favorites. DYK has brought me many hours of entertainment, and occasionally enlightenment, over the past three years, and I want to thank everyone who works so hard on the project. Despite the occasional drama over hoaxes, rules and unwritten rules, BLP debates, quibbles over hook appropriateness, etc. (and probably frustration with my recent penchant for college football articles), this is a really extraordinary and valuable project. Cheers. Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cbl, and thankyou for your own contributions here :) I remember the Millard House hook myself, because I too was suprised at the high number of hits it got. One can often tell when a hook is going to get a lot of hits, but sometimes the results are still suprising. My recent multis on Skinner and Eddy ships could not even muster 5k hits between the lot of them, but the recent multi on Frank Freeman and his buildings, which I expected to do no better and probably worse, got more than 10k! Maybe there's more interest in architecture out there than one would think.

And finally, congrats on the achievement. 500 DYKs is a truly awesome contribution! Gatoclass (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, the DYK appearance just happens to fall at a time when certain pop media outlets are looking for material. I think it may be the media bots roaming the web which cause the unexpectedly high hit results. Saxbe fix with 39k? No way! But keeping track of the hits, and trying to figure out the mechanism, is fun. Binksternet (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK bot is down

Could an admin please monitor the next update of 18:00 13 Feb (I am offline, but will be back for the update after). If no time, just copy/paste the hooks from queue 3 into hooks of T:DYK. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be around. Ucucha 12:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot's back up. To be honest I'm not sure what happened. Shubinator (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw the server lag notice quite frequently today. Could this be the problem? The previous bot had problems with this IIRC. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so. I tweaked the code two days ago so it wouldn't be affected, and the bot completed the 06:00 update on 12 March while the server lag was above 2 hours (VPT thread on the lag). Shubinator (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Typo in Queue 4

I have done a page move from Academic All-American to Academic All-America. The hook should reflect the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shubinator (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK putting religious POV and pseudoscience on the main page

It appears that on 6 March we had the following hook on the main page:

"... that the concept of weak dematerialization suggests the Resurrection of Jesus?"

Problems:

1. Weak dematerialization is obvious pseudoscience.
2. The hook claims that something that poses as science supports a specific religion, whereas calling the evidence flimsy would be extremely generous. This is hardly religiously neutral POV.

Just a heads-up for those who are active in this are, to be a bit more careful in the future if time allows. Hans Adler 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have stopped that at some stage (easy to say for me now - all the tagging and discussions appeared after the article was promoted and featured). Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite true to claim "all the tagging and discussions appeared after the article was promoted and featured". I commented on/complained about this hook twice on 28 Feb. See this diff[2], in which my first comment reads "Maybe change "suggests" to "is thought by some to support the idea of", and my second reads "...your words suggest that the resurrection is a fact, whereas it's merely an unverifiable notion. Without a weasel word or two I can't think of how else to phrase something to do with this fairy tale. Perhaps someone else can help here." Ericoides (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with covering pseudoscience, if it's covered in a neutral way and not presented as fact (see, for example, Reverse speech—not a former DYK article or anything, just one that popped into my mind). Of course, if the article or the hook passes it off as real science and doesn't include the proper criticism, then it's a problem. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the hook is neutral enough and pseudoscience is not banned. My words "should have stopped that" above are not to be taken as DYK policy, but as my personal attitude :-). Materialscientist (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion passing it off as real science is exactly what happened here. In DYK hooks there is a general expectation that we are dealing with surprising facts. "Weak dematerialization" sounds as if it was a concept from physics. When it appears in this way, almost all readers will read it as "something from mainstream physics, perhaps quantum physics, that I haven't heard of", and assume that the surprise is in the connection to resurrection. I am aware that this is a matter of nuances, and I don't want to blame anybody, just trying to raise awareness. By the way, it looks as if this pseudoscience is not even notable. Hans Adler 10:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC) (slightly expanded 16:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

I agree with that. I wasn't terribly happy with the hook myself, and thought of making a comment, but never got around to it. And it seemed to get promoted quickly. Sometimes it happens like that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need a post mortem of what happened, just being a bit more alert in the future should help. I would like to help with that, but I don't understand the DYK process. What would be the best page(s) to watch so that I could just go over the hooks of (very likely to be) accepted articles to check them for POV? Hans Adler 09:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know/Queue contains hooks which will (most likely) be featured on the main page within hours-days. The bolded items are the articles to look at. T:TDYK contains all candidates. Materialscientist (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to your first point, and with respect, a post-mortem is quite useful given that the only lessons of history blah blah. Having raised the problem with the nomination myself, perhaps I should have been more vigilant as to what happened to it further down the line. If you want to track things just before they go to the home page, this is the place, although it might be a bit 11th hour. I'm sure someone else can give you better advice. Ericoides (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am going to watchlist Template:Did you know/Queue/1 etc., since the page itself isn't busy enough to remind me of its existence. As to the post mortem, my main point was avoidance of anything that looks like recriminations. Hans Adler 10:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:AnakngAraw

I do appreciate the efforts of that user to improve wikipedia and provide new material to T:TDYK. Yet, several editors have expressed concerns with the use of unreliable references (i.e. not clearly not passing WP:RS, even spam sites) and with marginal notability of the topics. As I have returned 2 of their hooks from preps in the last 2 days I would ask the promoting editors (and referees) to double check their noms. The intention is to urge AnakngAraw to improve the quality of their work. Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with reviewing

With about a dozen of approved hooks right now, it is very difficult to compose balanced sets. Direct promotion to the queues increases the risk of factual and stylistic blunders. St. Patrick's day noms are the priority. Materialscientist (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Agitos" in paralympic symbols

This seems to be a new coinage that is not even explained in the article. The article just treats it as if everybody knew what it means. That doesn't seem to be acceptable.

At the very least the word needs scare quotes or something like "so-called" in the hook, so that people don't go to the article in order to – learn nothing about the word. I would just do it, but Q4 is protected and I am not an admin. Hans Adler 13:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I put it in quotes. Do you think that suffices? Ucucha 14:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I have done the same at the article. Hans Adler 14:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Question on expanded fivefold and "new prose"

If an article is completely rewritten (completely, considering it had no valid sourcing before and thus had to be rewritten to comply with the new sources), but it's length is then shorter than what it was before, even though it is now entirely different from previous, does it still not fit DYK just for the fact that it has to be expanded fivefold regardless? Or does the fact that it is entirely new material put it more on the "new" side of things and, thus, make it a valid article? Silverseren^C 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, such an article would not be acceptable. This has been discussed recently and consensus was not to accept articles like that. Ucucha 14:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Silverseren^C 14:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Material removed as copyright violation is the only exception of which I'm aware. See Additional rule A4. cmadler (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a list of perennial questions (WP:DYKPEREN?). rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a link to these previous discussions would be useful. And keep in mind that consensus can change.radek (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah! It was copyright violation info! Cool, so I can still use it. The one I want to use is in AfD right now, but i'm confident that it'll get out and I rewrote the whole thing. So, awesome, I can use it. Silverseren^C 16:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that; the copyright violation thing applies mostly to blatant copy-pasting. It would help if you could show us a link to the article you're thinking of. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, DYKPEREN already exists. It's called WP:DYK and WP:DYKAR. Ucucha 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Machine to Machine. Before, it was 11k bytes, but it was all a complete copy from a page that someone brought up. Because there were so many viable sources to be had, I rewrote the entire thing based on the sources. Silverseren^C 16:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the article qualifies. Look carefully at the dates; the site you claim this was copied from was posted after the article (posted 18 February 2010, whereas the article was written in December 2009 or earlier). The blog copied the article, not vice versa. Furthermore, it looks to me that only the intro of the older version of the article was copyvio, not the rest. You deserve a pat on the back for cleaning up a bad article, but it's not a cleanup that qualifies for DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that. Huh...so it was never Speedy Delete in the first place. >_> Oh well. Thanks for taking the time to check that. I can still submit my other one, at least. Silverseren^C 17:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3 error for March 16th

Ive noticed a small error in the hook supplied for a new article;

... that Duchess Sophie of Bavaria died in a fire at a French charity bazaar, but some hotel visitors escaped through the kitchen window?

The hook as it stands is kinda confusing (and a bit wrong if you follow the text, the hotel vistors did not escape through the kitchen window, the attendees escaped the fire by going into the hotels kitchen), can i suggest we use the original hook here;

• ......that a fire that broke out at a French charity bazaar killed Duchess Sophie of Bavaria, while other visitors escaped through the kitchen window of the adjoining hotel with the help of the cook?

Sorry to be a pain, thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On it. Another question though—the article says she was duchess of Alençon, not of Bavaria, when she died; shouldn't we use that title? Ucucha 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Changed the second part; left the first part, only to keep the hook shorter (and because only some visitors escaped). I saw the discussion at the review, but missed the part that it was the adjoining hotel's windows. Further tweaks are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep it would be more appropriate to say she was Duchess of Alençon, not of Bavaria (the first ref of the article that confirms she died in the fire refers to her in this way). If you can make that change it would be appreciated thanks. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note (no time to fix myself now) - the linked article Duchess Sophie Charlotte in Bavaria needs to be quickfixed in terms of names and titles. Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day hooks

I have started to place the St. Patty's Day hooks in prep 1, prep 2 and extra prep. I moved the James Long hook out of the lead in prep 1 (and added it to prep 2 as a non-lead) to make room for a St. Patrick's Day hook. I thought that was best for March 17 lead, but if anyone feels the Long hook should be a lead, maybe it could be saved for March 18? I realize the three lead hooks for St. Patty's that I chose are not "fully developed" articles, but I think they are the best Irish-themed images for the lead spot. I expect the National Leprechaun Museum (lead hook for US daytime on March 17) to draw a lot of views; it's a pretty clever hook. Cbl62 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Need feedback on the following (St. Patrick or not):

• Is File:Leprechaun ill artlibre jnl.png free domain?
• Is West Jewellers article neutral and non-promotional enough for main page? Materialscientist (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For St. Patrick's Day, I thought it best to pick the lead hooks and images with an Irish theme. The one that had been the lead in Prep 1 (James Long) had no tie-in to St. Patrick's Day. That said, I agree that the West Jewellers hook is the weakest of the three St. Patty's leads. According to the article, West Jewellers is no longer in business (thus nothing to promote), but if it is viewed as too POV or promotional, I suggest using Adrian Crowley as the lead in prep 1 -- maybe tweaking the hook to emphasize that he's Irish? Cbl62 (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the leprechaun image, it's been on Commons and listed as free since 2005.Cbl62 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And still can be pulled off any time if author/license info is missing. I'm missing the connection between artlibre.org/licence/lal/en linked there and this particular image. As to West Jewellers, they closed a month ago and who knows, might (should? given the 300 years history) reopen any time. My concerns are POV and focus on the other shops and the industry as a whole. Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, the image license looks fine to me. I don't think we should be that concerned about being promotional for a company that no longer exists, and I don't see a problem with the West Jewellers article. Ucucha 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Per MatSci's comments, I swapped Adrian Crowley in place of West Jewelers as the first St. Patrick's lead hook. Cbl62 (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree; an article as short as that shouldn't be a lead. MS, the artist has licensed the image under the Art Libre license; what is the issue with that? Ucucha 03:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing :-). It took me some time to realize that this is a modern illustration rather than historical image. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hook fact nom under March 1

• ... that in 1779, a New York State Senator was expelled from the Senate for defrauding fellow soldiers of income during the American Revolutionary War? -- (see nom)

---

I'd suggest we go with this hook (ALT2), dealing with a fact from an event that occurred in 1779. Please note this comment by Cmadler, and this comment by Nyttend. All recommendations for changes to the article have been addressed, both from suggestions here and at WP:BLPN. The article deals primarily with individuals dead for over 100 years. Every single sentence in the article is cited to WP:RS appropriate sources. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Or refer to him by name (ALT4): ... that in 1779, New York State Senator John Williams was expelled from the Senate for defrauding fellow soldiers of income during the American Revolutionary War? Is there any remaining objection to using one of these hooks? cmadler (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Either way of those for ALT2 or ALT4 is fine by me. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 5

Hook 1 of Queue 5 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 12:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Added. (I knew I should let it sit in preps before moving to queues, but have to go :) Materialscientist (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Grace Groner

Just wondering, does anyone know why Grace Groner appeared as DYK twice (on March 15, and currently)? -M.Nelson (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think an editor noticed a problem with it after it went up, so they pulled it down and put it back on T:TDYK. The problem was fixed and it went back up. cmadler (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, first time the hook spent only one hour on the main page, but there was no major problem and thus it would be unfair to discard it. Materialscientist (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Must the hook fact appear in prose?

I thought I'd seen a rule invoked that the fact used for the hook had to appear in the prose section of the article with an inline citation, and that it was not accepted if it appeared, for example, in a table or an image caption. However, I can't find this documented anywhere. See [3] for the current issue. Thoughts? cmadler (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a sensible rule. We don't want people including sentences in articles just because they would be DYK hooks, after all. The hook should be "verifiable" for the average reader on reading the article: the average reader hasn't been lobotomized or robotized to the point of needing rules to interpret the the article as it appears on their computer screen. Physchim62 (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. We put up the entire article on the main page and not just its prose part, and what we want is the hook fact to be in the article. It doesn't matter how it's given as long as it's clearly there. Prose is just a measurement for calculating article length, and it's not the only thing that matters for DYK. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the hook fact should be easily locatable, which is to say, it should be in the prose portion of the article. I also think that if the hook is interesting enough to be made into a hook, then it's surely interesting enough to be in the prose portion. I concede however that I personally don't always enforce the rule in cases where the hook fact is readily apparent. However, as it can be quite difficult to verify a hook that is not in the prose portion, I think the rule should stay. Gatoclass (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be OK if it were in a prominent table. But I think it would be preferable to have it in prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that at least in a list article like the one cited by cmadler it's okay to have the fact from the hook to be outside the prose. The whole point of having the data as a table is that it's easier to read than prose after all and forcing a fact-containing prose defeats the whole point. The hook should not be constructed into the article just to meet some arbitrary DYK rule. Regards SoWhy 22:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be just a practical issue - the fact of the hook should be in the article when it is featured, and preferably longer. A plain text has fewer chances to be accidentally removed than a figure, its caption, a reference or other "auxiliary" items. Materialscientist (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I was the author of the article in question, permit me a brief comment, having stumbled across this discussion by accident (my suggested hook having already been approved, incidentally). The facts in the hook in question are in the text and also in the table; I pointed to the references for the facts in the table to avoid having to duplicate references unnecessarily in the text (particularly as requiring an extra reference to back up the fact that Ronald Reagan neither studied nor taught at Keble College, Oxford seemed rather, how shall I say, unnecessary...) It's all a question of common sense for any particular article, surely. If a DYK reviewer is having difficulty finding the facts in the article to back up the hook, let alone citations for them, then it would probably be a good sign that the article needs tweaking to make it clearer to readers why it's on the main page for that hook. Bencherlite^Talk 23:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that even with the rule, we still have nominators failing to clearly state the hook or cite it in the article, without the rule we can expect even more difficulties, and there are enough difficulties verifying hooks as it is. In any case, as I've said I think it's good practice to have the hook clearly stated in the prose, one is only going to irritate readers by making them work to find the actual topic of the hook, it should be clearly expressed and easy to locate. Gatoclass (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we actually have this rule at the time. WP:DYK only says the hook should be in the article. Ucucha 23:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well whether it's written down or not, I think it's been a convention for quite some time. Gatoclass (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that; if such a rule exists, it should be written down. But from the discussion here, it doesn't really appear that this rule or convention has consensus. Ucucha 00:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if it isn't written down, it should be in my opinion. I don't think we can say whether such an addition to the rules currently has "consensus" or not however as we've barely even discussed the pros and cons to this point. Gatoclass (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, then let's let the discussion run its course and decide after that whether to write the rule down. Ucucha 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If the reviewer (who is usually an experienced wikipedian) can't easily find the hook then an average main page reader won't find it either. I believe, the nominators must think about this before posting a nom at T:TDYK. IMO, the hook should be searchable through <CTRL-F> + one of the key words of the hook. Materialscientist (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any dispute that the factoid provided by the hook must be findable in the article: the minor differences of opinion are as to how formally that should be stated as a rule for DYK. Imagine I was to write an article about the 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis (as I do from time to time!), and my DYK hook was going to be "...that the three major Icelandic banks had to write off up to two-thirds of their loans to customers as a result of the country's financial crisis." I'd reckon that's a valid DYK hook (it happens to be a true factoid, btw), but the information in the article might be in the form of a table, especially for a new article. I can't quickly think of an example for a hook in a picture caption, but I'm sure there would be valid cases, if only occasionally. DYK shouldn't be about telling people how to write articles for DYK, it should be about recognizing the content which is written in any case. Physchim62 (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion should be started in the proper place so that consensus can be confirmed and it can be seen if it should be put officially into policy? If consensus is as black and white as many of you are saying it is, then it shouldn't be too hard to do. Silverseren^C 01:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the proper place for that discussion. Ucucha 01:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know policy was also made here. Never mind me then. ^_^; Silverseren^C 01:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact we give in the hook is usually an important part of the article, so if it is a list article the lead would mention it too. However, it's not necessary to cite the fact in the lead (per WP:LEADCITE) as long as it's clearly given in the article. If it's a fact that can't be directly given in the table/list, then it will have to be separately cited in the lead. For example, taking one of my own recent lists, List of international cricket centuries by Mahela Jayawardene, if I say that Jayawardene has scored the most centuries for Sri Lanka I have to cite it in the lead since it's not possible to give that information completely in the table. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't care if it's cited in the lead, or cited elsewhere in the article - it's common for article leads to be nearly or entirely uncited since the lead is often a summary of the subject - but it should be stated and cited in a prose portion of the article. cmadler (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) Let me put it this way. DYK does not actually exist for the sake of our contributors. It exists for our readership, the thousands of people who see the mainpage of wikipedia and who decide to follow up on the links they see there.

A DYK hook is just that - it's a means of getting a reader's interest, so that he is motivated to go and read the article. Creating interest in wikipedia is what the mainpage is all about, but coincidentally the interest that is inspired is also part of the payoff for our contributors, because it means more people have a chance to read and appreciate their work.

Now, just imagine the process when someone sees a DYK hook that interests him, so he clicks on the article to read more about it. But when he gets to the article, he finds to his suprise that the hook is not mentioned in the actual prose. Perhaps if he searches carefully, in a table or the original references, he may be able to find it or confirm it, but now he has had to work to find it, which is likely to leave him feeling irritated or perhaps even cheated. Or he may not be able to find it at all, which is likely to leave him feeling even more irritated and/or cheated. What is the end result of this process? A dissatisfied reader, who is that much less likely to return to the wikipedia mainpage or to click on a DYK link again. And the more such experiences the reader has, the less likely he is to bother again. So wikipedia loses and so do the mainpage contributors.

The point is, we have to think about DYK primarily from the POV of our readers rather than our contributors. We want to make DYK as interesting and as accessible and fun as possible, frustrating the readership with difficult to find hooks is obviously going to be counterproductive to those aims. By contrast, it's only a small imposition on our contributors to ask for the hook to be clearly expressed in the prose portion, but by meeting the expectations of readers, there is a longterm payoff for them as well. Gatoclass (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

While I am in agreement that a hook's facts need to be readily verifiable within an article, I would oppose adding a new rule requiring the text of a hook to be contained literally within an article. There are several reasons for this. First, hooks are written in the form of a question while most articles contain only declarative sentences. Secondly, hooks are limited in size while an article is expected to explain all appropriate details about its subject with only minimal consideration to text size. These two facts combined will almost always prevent a hook from being literally contained within an article and often will result in the hook information being spread over several sentences. Finally, it would effectively block the commonly used technique of juxtaposing facts from two or three separate sections of an article within a single hook. --Allen3 ^talk 02:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean that the hook statement should literally be included in the article text, that would be completely impractical. I simply meant, the hook information should be included in the text. Gatoclass (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the reason for making a rule that says that the hook information has to be in the text: of course, usually it will be in the text but I think DYK can and should survive with occasional exceptions to that norm. I would be over the moon if DYK reviewers could agree to reject the three-quarters of hooks that currently waste space on the Main Page, but to reject them solely because the factoid is contained in a table or a picture caption would be only to serve editors, not readers. Physchim62 (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The three-quarters issue can take extra days of talking; IMO, the only realistic solution is improving the quality through reviewing (impossible to specify what is boring or not) and the only impediment is insufficient number and level of good reviewers and contributors. Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, IMO, the only way to do that fairly would be to take a vote on the articles, and we just don't have the manpower to do that. Gatoclass (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I must disagree with the latter comment Physchim, per my previous post. Re the other comment, personally, I can't see a problem with making it a formal requirement. Users can still include the information in tables or wherever else they like, but it shouldn't be difficult for them to include it in the prose portion as well. And it will ensure that the hook is transparent not only to readers but also to reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen this required before (in practice), and I think it makes sense. The hook fact should be mentioned and cited in the prose section of the article. Another current example of this being a problem is with T:TDYK#List of number-one albums of 2008 (México). As with the previously-mentioned article (and as with most well-cited list articles), this has a lot of citations in it. In both cases the hooked facts were mentioned in the prose, but the supporting citations were in the list/table. The problem with this is that, in this case, it requires a reviewer to hunt through a bunch of different citations to different sources to find the citation(s) needed to confirm the hook. This would be simply solved be requiring that the hooked fact appear in prose, with the citation. If it's interesting/important enough for the main page, I would think it's important enough to give the fact in the prose portion, and presumably the author/nominator knows which citation supports the hook, and so it's not much work to add that citation into the prose. Likewise, as Gatoclass mentioned, a reader who clicks through from the main page should not be forced to hunt through all those citations/sources to try to find the single relevant source. cmadler (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my earlier comment, the hook fact is an important and interesting part of the article and should normally be included in the lead of a list article (unless it's something you can directly and clearly see from the table itself, like "George Washington was a president of the United States"). However, there's no need to duplicate references unnecessarily; the article can follow the usual referencing and formatting guidelines. If the fact is something special then it needs to be referenced. If it is just a simple summarizing of the table there's no need to add a source for that (as per the lead section guidelines) DYK is part of Wikipedia, and we don't need to change the way Wikipedia works so that it suits us better. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

April Fools

I would just like to point out that the hooks on the April Fools DYK page are starting to pile up, and if last year is any indication, it will only become much, much worse. I have never reviewed any DYK's, only submitted ones, but i will try my hand at reviewing the back long there, and i would love some help from experienced reviewers.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Album articles at DYK

Is the tracklisting/personnel section counted in the "readable content" count?  f o x  (formerly garden) 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No; only prose is counted, lists are not included. The easiest way to count is to use User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Can soemone rename the DYK credit for #5 from "Coldplay Expert" (my old name) to my current one? Thanks.--Whité Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Q1 tweak

In the Villiers High School hook in Queue 1, the hyphen in West-London is not needed. Pls could an admin tweak accordingly. Cheers! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Personally I think the hook would flow a bit better as

• that 92% of students at West London's Villiers High School do not speak English as their first language?

rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, that says the same thing but flows better. cmadler (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good call for the rewording. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New or pre-existing fact for expansion?

For a five times expansion, does the hook fact have to be part of the newly added material? 159.83.4.153 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No. But if the article already has a DYK, it can't be nominated a second time. Gatoclass (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with hook in prep area 1.

Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant has a hook that is not supported by the sources. It is partially supported by one source and not mentioned by others, but even Suetonius doesn't say that Claudius had to run round the lake, just that he did. Yomangani^talk 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) (and "around" is wrong too. The lake was huge).

Thanks. I was partly mislead by the discussion at T:TDYK when promoting that hook. Returned to T:TDYK for polishing. Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hooks for 21 March

I am new to reserving hooks for a specific date and confused. Two hooks were reserved for 21 March, birthday of Bach: Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191 and Gächinger Kantorei. Now I find the first one in queue 5, the second in prep area 1. To my understanding that means that the second one will not appear 21 March at all. But that is the one actually mentioning the date. Therefore: most desirable both hooks 21 March as reserved or -- if not possible (but then what is the reservation for?) - switch the two that at least the one with the date appears on the date. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (now those 2 hooks are in Q4 and Q5). Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that across the world, 21 March covers much more than 24 hours due to the different time zones. It may be 20 or 22 March where you are, but 21 March somewhere else. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

I think the bot crashed while performing the last DYK update from Queue1 (6 hours ago), I finished giving the credits and tagging the pages, but I can't clear queue 1 or reset the timer so it's still there. Yazan (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. I'll keep an eye on the next 2 updates. Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The DYK bot is still down. Could an admin please monitor the next update (18:00, 21 March). Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot's back up. It crashed because of the ampersand in "Ladd & Co.". I've fixed the bug. Shubinator (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Annette Dasch

At present in prep area 2: To my understanding ALT1 should be taken, s. discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

NewDYKnom guide

I just created Template:NewDYKnomination/guide as a step-by-step instruction for how to fill out the nomination template, explaining what things to leave blank, what belongs in each field, yada yada yada. It doesn't have any information that wasn't already in the template documentation, but seeing all that information at once is maybe intimidating for someone who's never used the template before...this guide should, hopefully, allow a new nominator to take things one at a time and not have to know any technical stuff to understand how to use the template. If someone has already nominated a lot (as probably everyone reading this page has) you don't need to look at this, but for a newbie hopefully it will help. (I'm not sure if it's necessary, as I haven't seen a whole lot of template errors lately, but I suppose it can't hurt. Also, the irony is not lost on me that a template designed to streamline the DYK process has come to require several pages worth of documentation and instructions...oh well!)

Here's what it looks like, for those who are curious:

Base template

Type in your article name into the box below, and click on the blue button to create your nomination.

This will open an edit box with the following template:

{{subst:NewDYKnomination
 | article       = {{subst:str right|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|25}} 
 |    article2   = 
 | status        = new / expanded / mainspace / redirect / GA
 | hook          = ... that ...? <small>Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)</small>
 | ALT1          = ... that ...? <small>Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)</small>
 | author        = 
 |    author2    = 
 | image         = 
 |    caption    = 
 | comment       = 
 | reviewed      = 
}}

You may wish to open this page in a separate browser tab so that you can read this guide while you are editing.

articles

Add the names of the articles you are nominating. You can skip this step if you are only nominating one article, and its name is the same as the one you typed into the input box above.

Add the name of the first article (no wiki formatting) to the parameter called |article=. For example:

 | article = French Revolution

If you are nominating more than one article, add the others to |article2=, |article3=, etc. Example:

 | article2 = Maximilien Robespierre
 | article3 = Guillotine
 | article4 = Cake

hook

Add the hook to the parameter called |hook=, following the hook guidelines at WP:DYK#The hook. Remember to begin the hook with "... that", to end it with a question mark, and to link the article title within the hook and make it bold. If you will be using an image with the hook, don't forget to put ''(pictured)'' in it. Example:

 | hook = ... that a lot of people died during the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)''?

status

If you created this article from scratch, make |status=new. If you expanded it from an existing article, make |status=expanded. If you newly source and expand a completely unsourced BLP, make |status=BLP expanded. If you moved it from non-mainspace to mainspace, make |status=moved. If the article passed a Good Article review, make |status=GA. If you converted the page to an article from a redirect or a disambiguation page, use |status=redirect.

contributors

Add the names of the editors who contributed to the article being nominated for DYK. You can skip this step if you are the main contributor, and there are no other contributors that need to be credited.

In the parameter called |author= add the name of the article's primary author (whoever did the work that's being nominated for DYK—either the person who originally created the article, or the one who expanded it recently). Type out the username in plain text with no formatting; do not use ~~~~. Example:

 | author = Jimbo Wales

Just like the article names, you can add more than one author if several people collaborated, using |author2=, |author3=, etc.

If you are nominating an article of which you are not an |author=, don't worry. The template knows that you are the nominator; you don't have to fill in anything extra.

image

If you are not nominating an image to go with your hook, skip this section.

If you are nominating an image, put its filename in |image=. Do note use File:, Image:, or any attributes like thumb and 100px, just use the bare filename, like this:

 | image = Prise de la Bastille.jpg

After that, add an appropriate caption in the |caption= parameter. This supplies both the tooltip (the text that appears when a reader leaves his mouse over the image for a moment) and the alt-text (the text that is used by screen readers or is shown to readers whose browser cannot display the image). It should be a physical description of the contents of the image, not a comment about the image. Please review WP:ALT to see the guidelines for how alt-text should be written.

Overall, the code for the image nomination should look something like this:

 | image = Prise de la Bastille.jpg
 | caption = A painting depicting the storming of the Bastille, 1789

comments

If you have any additional comments or explanation to add (such as "the source of the hook fact can be found on page 12"), add them in the |comment= field. If not, leave that field blank.

 | comment = Article created in my userspace on May 12, moved to mainspace on June 3.

review

If applicable, list the article that you reviewed, in accordance with the review requirement. Please provide the article name, or note that you still have to conduct a review.

 | reviewed = I still have to review another nomination and will post this here once it's done.

alternate hooks

If you have only one hook to suggest for your nomination, skip this step. But if you want to suggest more than one hook, you can put addition hooks in the fields |ALT1=, |ALT2=, etc.

 | ALT1 = ... that millions of high school students learn about the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)'' every year?

nominate

Now the template in the edit window should be nicely filled up. Mine looks something like this:

{{subst:NewDYKnomination
 | article         = French Revolution
 |    article2     = 
 | status          = expanded
 | hook            = ... that a lot of people died during the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)''?
 | ALT1            = ... that millions of high school students learn about the '''[[French Revolution]]''' ''(pictured)'' every year?
 | author          = Jimbo Wales
 |    author2      = 
 | image           = Prise de la Bastille.jpg
 |    caption      = A painting depicting the storming of the Bastille, 1789
 | comment         = Please save this nomination for a couple days so it can be on the main page for April Fools' Day!
 | reviewed        = Everlost (novel)
}}

(Your nomination does not necessarily need to have so many fields filled in. I just purposely filled in a lot to illustrate all of them.)

When you are ready, save the page. It should look something like this:

French Revolution

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a lot of people died during the French Revolution (pictured)?

• ALT1:... that millions of high school students learn about the French Revolution (pictured) every year?
• Reviewed: Everlost (novel)
• Comment: Please save this nomination for a couple days so it can be on the main page for April Fools Day!

5x expanded by Jimbo Wales (talk). Nominated by Mr. Stradivarius (talk) at 05:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC).

As always, comments, suggestions, and tweaks are welcome. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! Why not expand it with DYK criteria? Such as hook length, cited hook, expansion, or new article length. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 02:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Rjanag. Simple (as simple can be) and to the point. Calmer Waters 02:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

@NativeForeigner: I considered that, but I also thought it would be nice to keep the instructions limited to filling out the template itself, for simplicity's sake, and to assume that users have already checked the rules before trying to nominate. (Of course, that is probably not an accurate assumption to make.) It would be easy, though, to add some links in each section of the instructions (for example, under articles, just a brief sentence like "make sure your article satisfies the DYK criteria", and likewise for the other sections). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Although that assumption probably isn't 'true' it's certainly fair to make. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 02:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Maybe we could transclude it onto T:TDYK? Shubinator (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3

Sorry to keep doing this, but ... hook 1 of Queue 3 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 07:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Added. Materialscientist (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

I expect everybody is now aware of the fact that we (that is to say, Wikipedia) have been doing alt text the wrong way :) Wikipedia:Alternative text for images is no longer a Wikipedia guideline, at least until the matter is resolved. It has also been temporarily removed from both FA and FL criteria. According to the discussion so far on Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images, the idea seems to be that alt text should be short and concise. Quote from the expert's comment there: "Alternative text is an alternative to the image. It is NOT a description of an image."

Perhaps the updaters are doing this already, but I suggest we mention only what the image is (without describing it) on the DYK template until this is cleared up. See the alt text on WP:POTD for example. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Or if you take a loot at the POTD of 22 March (File:Brighton Beach, Vic Pano, 10.01.2009.jpg), it's simply "Brighton, Victoria". The alt text for File:Pope, 13 march 2007-cropped.jpg which is currently on ITN is "Pope Benedict XVI". ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You can also write "alt=refer to caption," where the caption is a good enough alternative. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3

In the fourth hook in queue 3, 'magnitude' is currently linked to Richter scale - it should be linked to Moment magnitude scale, as in the article. I'd be grateful if someone could fix that. Mikenorton (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Relinked. Materialscientist (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom Cruise Purple

Regarding the hook in Queue 4 that is set to hit the Main Page in the morning -- I am not an expert in the law on vicarious liability for disparagement, common law right of publicity, implied endorsement, or California's Civil Code 3344 (statutory equivalent of right of publicity), but the article itself notes that Cruise is presently seeking legal advice for use of his name and likeness to promote a psychotropic drug. Given the potential legal dispute, is this something that has been fully vetted to ensure that we are comfortable featuring it on the Main Page? I am not advocating a particular outcome, but want to make sure that this has been thought through. Cbl62 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The more I reflect on this, the more I think it would be imprudent to feature this hook on the Main Page. The article notes that Cruise is angered by the association with the drug, says "his lawyers are on this like white on rice" and that "Tom and his lawyers do not have a sense of humor". I think the article is balanced and the hook is funny. But I just don't think it's worth exposing Wikipedia to potential legal risk. The article itself is balanced, but the hook (which is all that many readers will see) does not point out that Cruise is not associated with or endorsing the product. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not CNN and doesn't have a staff of lawyers to deal with such "risky business." I'd be inclined not to feature this on the Main Page. Other thoughts? Cbl62 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The hook is neutral enough. I don't see an immediate problem with the neutrality or legal aspects of the article (Cruise can sue WP over this?), but I'm ignorant in this matter. Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we pink Mike Godwin something about this and hold off on Queue 4 for a while? Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The hook (which is all that many viewers will see) does not state the Cruise is not associated with the product or that he objects to his being associated with a cannabis product. I am a California lawyer who has handled a couple right of publicity cases. I'm not a specialist in the area, but the hook has my lawyer antennae tingling. I'd be inclined to pull the hook, but AT A MINIMUM I think it should be modified to say it features an "unauthorized" photo of Cruise.... or some other disclaimer to ensure that someone who reads only the hook on the Main Page cannot be confused into thinking that Cruise endorses this product. Is there a Wikipedia lawyer who can review this before it's featured? I think it's a good article and a clever hook, but in my judgment Wikipedia ought not to be poking a stick at a celebrity who the article describes as "lawsuit happy". Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I shall return the hook in question (now or a bit later, i.e. not featuring this hook unless the issue is resolved here). Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How about turning the hook round: "... that the actor Tom Cruise most definitely does not endorse a potent strain of cannabis called Tom Cruise Purple?" Bencherlite^Talk 01:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bencherlite's suggestion would resolve my concern. I doubt the original hook would give rise to a valid claim, but even a dubious claim (particularly in California) can result in a lot of legal expense. Whilst the original hook is a true factual statement, there may be a risk that the hook, as drafted and in isolation, could create confusion over Cruise's association with the product. Bencherlite's alt hook certainly avoids any risk of confusion. Cbl62 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think Bencherlite's alt is a more intriguing hook than the original. Very nice. Unless Cirt objects, I suggest swapping Bencherlite's alt into queue 4. Cbl62 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Either hook is fine. Feel free to swap. Kewlness. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

But please just use it in some capacity at T:DYK cuz I improved it good. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done, hook swapped to version suggested by Bencherlite (talk · contribs), done by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs). Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

...what Cirt said :) NW (Talk) 02:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone rephrase this?

• ... that the dum dum bullet invented by Neville Bertie-Clay was used by the British Army against African and Asian opponents but was considered "too cruel" for use against Europeans?
  to avoid repetition of "used against" (it is in Q3). My copyediting brain part is virtually dormant during composing preps. Materialscientist (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this: ... that the dum dum bullet invented by Neville Bertie-Clay was used by the British Army against African and Asian opponents but not Europeans as it was considered "too cruel"? --Bruce1ee^talk 09:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

how about ... that the dum dum bullet invented by Neville Bertie-Clay was used by the British Army against African and Asian but not European opponents as it was considered "too cruel"? (a few commas could be added, but I'm not sure they are required) Materialscientist (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

or ... ... that the dum dum bullet, invented by Neville Bertie-Clay and used by the British Army against African and Asians, was considered "too cruel" for European opponents? --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally I dislike repetition but in this case I don't find the original hook problematic, as one use is split and it hardly notices. On the other hand, there are problems with all the suggested alts (the last one for example being ambiguous). So unless someone comes up with something else, I would just stick with the original. Gatoclass (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

April Fools DYK rules question

A question has arisen at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Rules Question, regarding one of the DYK rules for April fools. any input would be great!--Found5dollar (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Grammar mistake in Queue 4

Oops, just spotted a grammar mistake in queue 4 (and I was the person who drafted the DYK nomination). For Edward Richardson, it should say "...was the first person to build..." rather than "...was the first person to built...". Sorry for that. Schwede66 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 tweak

Queue 6, hook 5: The Master of Game needs to be italicized. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Donner Party hook in queue

Isn't it a shame that such a good article as this is given such a horribly phrased hook: "... that the three primary factors to survival in the Donner Party were age, sex, and the size of each person's family group?" "Three primary factors to survival"??? This would shame even a sociologist. It's live in an hour or so; can someone please rewrite this in English? Ericoides (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 1 item 8

The It's A Crime, Mr. Collins hook currently reads:

... that the 1956 radio program It's A Crime, Mr. Collins was "a flagrant rip-off of The Adventures of the Abbotts in which only the names had been changed"?

It should really read "...was deemed to be a flagrant rip-off...", as the reference in the article is to a single person's opinion. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that a proper thing to do?

I know that administrators, who were involved with editors are not allowed to block the editors. I strongly believe that the administrators, who were heavily involved in the articles deletion requests should not be allowed neither to comment nor to vote on DYK nomination of that article. It dictates by common sense.It is simply a bad tone to do otherwise. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please link to the DYK nomination that you're referring to? rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is about this edit. I have promoted that article, but did/do not object its removal - the article does have its problems (including undue accent on Kennedy's views) and I would go on and not make a drama of it. Materialscientist (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The nomination was removed with the reason "AFD closed as "no consensus" " [4]. It is extremely unfair and wrong. The most vocal opposer was User:Gatoclass. Please see some language the user used in the deletion request badly sourced, POV rant, when asked how he could call Robert Kennedy writings "rant" I was explained that it is my presentation that made it rant (he later deleted word "rant" after I complained at his talk page). Then he said "Well if he wrote copiously on the topic, you ought to be able to create a more nuanced article than a grab-bag of comments that make him sound like a cheerleader for Zionism". Later in DYK nomination he said to me: "As for time wasting, seems to me you are the one who has wasted a great deal of everyone's time by writing an article that was immediately nominated for AfD on the basis of numerous apparent inadequacies, and which others have had to spend a considerable amount of time trying to rectify, so I hardly think you are in a position to accuse others of this particular vice" that was a clear discrimination towards my English and writing skills. The truth is that Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) is extremely well sourced article, that was re-written by many other editors to remove any POV, there is no POV tag present in the article now. It was removed by me on March 13, and nobody posted it back. There was no valid reason not to promote the article. It was a wrong thing to do, and should be corrected.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to ask Materialscientist or anybody else to link me to few other examples that were closed as "no consensus". Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was certainly plenty of time to object to the promotion of this hook while the article was under discussion. To quietly vaporize the hook after it has been promoted and without returning it to the talk page for discussion is improper, at best. The hook should, at a minimum, be restored for further discussion. However, as the article is significantly improved and a neutral hook has been carefully crafted and promoted, I feel returning it directly to the queue is called for in this case. The objection raised is that it's "unencyclopedic" and, per WP:Unencyclopedic, ""Unencyclopedic" is meaningless in an argument, really." - Dravecky (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a convention here that there has to be at the very least, a solid consensus in favour of promoting an article. Usually even a couple of noes from regular contributors to DYK is enough to sink a nom. In this case, there were no less than 17 users who expressed the view at the AfD that the article was unencyclopedic, and it was closed as "no consensus". I hardly think that is the kind of article we would want to feature on the main page.

I might as well point out that had I placed a POV tag on the article, it would have been automatically disqualified until disputes had been resolved in any case. I refrained from doing that because I didn't want to be responsible for trying to fix the article, but certainly I would have been entitled to do so. I have done that in the past, but why should I have to? It is the responsibility of nominators to ensure their articles meet policy, and if they fail to do so, they only have themselves to blame if their submission is not promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The time and place to raise those objections was in the several weeks it was on the DYK talk page before it was promoted. In any case, you should have put the hook back on the DYK talk page for discussion instead of simply disappearing it. The objections of commenters in an AfD discussion that closed "no consensus" is interesting but not relevant here. Surely every article taken to AfD has at least some editor objecting to its inclusion in Wikipedia, at least initially. If they wanted to object to an article being promoted at DYK, the place to voice those objections is at DYK on the talk page.

While not every commenter at AfD is DYK-savvy, certainly that's not true of you, Gatoclass. If you felt the article should have been tagged, you should have tagged it. If you felt the article should not have been promoted after it survived AfD, you should have objected on the DYK talk page. The hook was promoted and you removed it from the prep area without discussion citing "unencyclopedic" as the reason. As this is not a valid reason, per policy, it should be restored or, at the very least, returned for further discussion. To simply stab it in the dark without tagging, discussion, or return after promotion is quite frankly unacceptable. - Dravecky (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I used the term "unencyclopedic" in this instance as a means of summarizing the various arguments that were made against the article at the AfD - specifically, that the article content was not notable, that it was POV, COATRACK, OR, SYNTH and so on.

As to your charge that removing it from the queue without restoring it to the Suggestions page was "improper" - I felt in this instance I was justified in doing so given the large number of users who had opposed it at the AfD. Given our usual policies about consensus, I felt it was self evident that the article was not going to achieve consensus here either.

I will concede in retrospect, that in spite of my sense that the article was clearly going to fail, it probably would have been better to return it to the Suggestions page, if only for the sake of transparency. I confess however that after a week of discussion about this article, and some less than pleasant exchanges with Mbz, I was hoping to spare myself and the community any further unpleasantness by simply dropping it from the page.

Since the discussion has now been reopened however, I am obliged to reiterate my opposition to the promotion of this article. I do not believe it is anywhere near NPOV and it is likely to take considerable work to fix it. I am hoping not to be forced to try and fix it myself, but if there is now going to be a move to promote the article, I will have no choice but to do so. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Transparency in the face of controversy is, in my opinion, always the best policy. If proper objections had been raised on the Suggestions page, it likely would not have been promoted and this drama would have been avoided. To unilaterally completely delete a hook after promotion and without discussion, especially by an involved editor, is always going to create more controversy, both over the article and the tactics, than any discussion of the article by itself could ever raise. (Who ever said this stuff was supposed to be easy?) - Dravecky (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I did raise objections at the Suggestions page. I think the mistake I made was not to reiterate them after matsci noted the AFD had closed as "no consensus" and Mbz proposed a new hook. I guess that made it look as if I had no further objections, when in fact my concerns had not changed. I have now rectified that error in the revived thread. Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have returned the hook to the Suggestions page for further discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs, Dravecky. I do not think so far somebody responded my initial question, which was, it it is a proper thing to do to allow the administrator, who was one of the most vocal users in the deletion process, who keeps attacking my English and writing skills, once again saying that I "wasted an enormous amount of the community's time by writing an article that had and which still has significant problems", to impose his more than biased opinion on DYK nomination? IMO the editors, who was so heavily involved with the deletion process as Gatoclass was, should excuse himself from DYK discussion on the article. The bottom line is: There's no POV tag, there's no edit warring, the article meets each and every DYK criteria. It is the time to move it directly to the queue.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ucucha has removed the discussion, what was of course the proper thing to do, and long overdue. The user wrote: "Lengthy discussion removed. Comments from uninvolved editors are needed on the suitability of this article for DYK, but there have been two uninvolved editors, who commented at the nomination and here already. So, IMO the opinion of two uninvolved editors should be enough to proceed with the nomination. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have listed my concerns about this article at the article talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an update. The nomination was removed once again. That's fine. I just wonder, if there were any precedents like that before, when a nomination was promoted, added to Queue, removed from the Queue, added back to nomination lists and removed without anybody actually declining it? I mean I am just interested, if this is the only case of unbelievable unfairness, or there were similar situations before?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Feast or famine?

Hi all, are we in a feast or famine as far as hooks go? If the latter, I will prioritise fivefold expanding a few more articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The number of nominations at T:TDYK page almost halved from after the New Year. Currently, it is neither feast nor famine, but. I would argue that the number of strong nominations has decreased significantly and it is often difficult to find a good lead. Thus your expansions are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget there's a fair few April Fool's Day DYK hooks which need verifying, plus those already verified. Less than 4 days to go now. Mjroots2 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist, when you say a "good lead", is that in reference to the article itself (well developed, etc.) or the hook, or the image used? Yazan (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

All three are important. Materialscientist (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Triple hook

Does it makes sense that all of the content in a DYK hook for a triple nom is required to be in every article and be together? I have a current nomination for USAC Stock Cars, one of its champions Norm Nelson, who won one race in rival series NASCAR at the only time NASCAR raced at Las Vegas Park Speedway. For instance, why should the USAC article have content about a race in a rival series? USAC itself only raced once at that speedway, so having content about that race is too trivial and off topic to be included in the USAC article. Even less relevant should be content about a race done by a rival sanction, right? The rules are written for a single nomination and don't fit cases like this one. I thought we had consensus for cases like this, but I don't find it in the "Rules" or "Additional Rules". I think that's because we don't want the rules to be too wordy and list every last scenario. Royalbroil 12:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Storey book is mistaken in this instance. There is no requirement that the hook statement in a multi be present in all the articles, it only has to be in one. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gatoclass - I didn't know that. I still think that the hook under discussion should be reviewed by someone else, though.--Storye book (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor hook for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories

There is a hook on the main page for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories that reads:

... that although U.S. President Barack Obama is Christian, high-ranked al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri has falsely claimed that Obama secretly "pray[s] the prayers of the Jews"?

I don't believe that such a hook should have been approved. This hook violates the neutrality criteria required by DYK which states focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. I would also like to point out that the article Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories does not state that al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri claims are false. Am I the only one who is dissatisfied with such a hook?Smallman12q (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I too was bothered by the "falsely claimed" phrase as, far-fetched as the notion is, there is no way of knowing what someone does "in secret". Gatoclass (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's off the main page now, but I do agree the hook failed NPOV. Gatoclass (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's simply idiotic as a Main Page hook. Can the standards of DYK really get any lower? Physchim62 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't have been all that bad, since we only had the one complaint for the six hours it was up. But I do agree it needed some work. Gatoclass (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Imho Baseball Bugs' comment on ANI that we have Muslims claiming him to be a secret Jew and right-wing commentators claiming he is a secret Muslim would have made a much better hook for its "priceless"-ness (to quote BB). Regards SoWhy 09:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Muslims"? plural? "claiming him to be a secret Jew"? where? We have one single extremist nutcase saying that Obama "pray[s] the prayers of the Jews", nothing about him doing it secretly. In fact, it is factually accurate that Obama has 'prayed the prayers of the Jews' [5] and there are thousands of photos of the occasion. It is surely no coincidence that Obama's visit to the Western Wall came less than four months before al-Zawahiri's diatribe, which also included such slurs as "House Negro". The only evidence I can find of a conspiracy theory that Obama is Jewish comes from the Huffington Post [6][7][8][9], and it's obviously not meant to be taken too seriously. Physchim62 (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also very much like to know how on earth that hook got approved. I don't know too much about the DYK approval process, but...I mean, if the bar is set so low that this hook actually MET the DYK standards, I'm thinkin' we might wanna invest in some new bars.GJC 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It was approved by Dravecky in here and moved to prep by Materialscientist in this edit. I'm not here to blame anyone...I would simply like to ensure that we have quality dyks. This hook, is an example of something that should not have been approved...perhaps we should make a list for poor hooks?Smallman12q (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll cop to the "falsely claimed" phrasing as it was my suggestion to replace more troubling language. That said, the article is well referenced, reasonably neutral, and meets the basic DYK standards. Remember that this is not GA or FA. You may also note that I warned that this article would attract a certain element of the Wikipedia userbase and clearly that was prescient. As always, I do encourage interested editors to review the long list of hooks nominated for DYK and make any concerns known. This hook drew little comment in the almost two weeks between nomination and promotion. - Dravecky (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

April Fools Day DYKS

I did mention it earlier, but it seems to have got overlooked. 1 April is almost upon us, there are 30 hooks approved, and 17 still to be approved. This quantity of hooks may mean a tweak in the duration each batch appears for. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look through and left some comments, but it looks to me as if they have all pretty much been reviewed now. 30 hooks is enough for April Fool's in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There are draft queues assembled at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. I suppose leftover hooks can be featured right after. An important and urgent question is when exactly do we launch these queues? Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

At 0:00 UTC time 1st April. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See ur point. Sidney seems to beat the other time zones by at least 1 queue, unless I'm missing something Calmer Waters 05:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Special days are done on UTC time. We tried doing it by local time a year or two ago and copped a lot of criticism for it. Basically, we have to conform with what the FA does, and they do it on UTC. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the current queues, when the next update is done, that empty queue will then be the first to appear on 1 April using UTC. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3 is the queue that should have the first 1 April update. Updates are currently running 9 minutes longer that the normal 6 hours in order to resync with UTC.[10] Baring any server or bot problems knocking the update clock off again, I will manually correct the remaining time offset and returning to normal 6 hour updates while Queue 2 is being displayed. This will have the result of Queue 3 being displayed on the Main page starting at midnight. --Allen3 ^talk 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Now he tells me. I just reloaded queue #3 :/

Never mind, we'll figure it out when AF Day comes around. Gatoclass (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rolled back the edits. Gatoclass (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We had originally hoped Quehanna Wild Area might be the April Fools TFA, but it qualifies for DYK this year and is a new FA. Just nominated it here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Promoted first April 1 set to Queue 3 (just to be sure we'll have a set while I'm offline). Removed promoted hooks from April 1 area. Note that draft queues have 9 hooks whereas we usually run 8, thus if problems with the last April 1 queue then it can be filled using other queues. Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Thanks to everyone for helping doing this year's AFMP. I did a lot of work on it the past few years. There's a template where the hooks have been archived in the past. For each DYK set, would someone please paste in the main page? Near the end of a set's run (to ensure that there isn't major changes during a set's run), I carefully copied the the source code for the main page. Then I pasted it in the appropriate archive. I had to subst each and every template because they constant change - there's a large number to subst. I might be able to get the first, second, and fourth groups but there's no way I could do the third. Royalbroil 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 tweak

Hook 1 of Queue 6 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I left it out, as others may have, because this one reads better with the pictured within the hook rather than in brackets. I may be wrong, but with April fools OI thought it would be ok today. Calmer Waters 05:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. I'm so used to scanning for "(pictured)". But you're right, it probably is better as it is. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

left over April 1st submissions

What to do with left over hooks from Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know/Archive 2010? look to be about 15 that weren't exactly declined. Should we move them back to the talk template under their prospective submission dates? Most if used, will probably need their hooks changed now that 0401 is done. Calmer Waters 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I have annihilated most of them now, moved a few eligible back to T:TDYK, and one to prep2 (great nom dashed by that Moscow bombing). Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Materialscientist:). Calmer Waters 07:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Short on reviewed hooks

I've done a few, but I need a break. There are currently only 15, could someone pitch in and do a few? Gatoclass (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Friday

Max van Egmond was reserved for Good Friday and is not in a queue for April 2. I hope that will be changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Kurt Equiluz would be good for the date as well but wasn't approved yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Which "the date"? Isn't 2 April the date for Good Friday (Max van Egmond was placed for April 2 and promoted accordingly)? Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Max van Egmond! Sorry, I had overlooked that the queues were not yet filled. - For Kurt Equiluz: "the date" 2 April passed. For the next time: should I have nominated "him" in the "special occasion" section to start with? - So far I experienced articles nominated normally and transferred there once they were approved. Ready to learn, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the special occasion section is the place to put it. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Special consideration request

It was suggested to me that I might put a special consideration request in here for this DYK. As it relates to one (actually, two) of the ballplayers who will be playing in tonight's NCAA national basketball championship game (and one of his teammates got nearly 10K hits yesterday), I thought the timeliness of it might be of interest, if it could be put up today. Many thanks for your consideration.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, your link only worked until someone added or removed a section from T:TDYK. Let me see if I can find it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the Mason Plumlee hook. I went ahead and checked it out, so if some passing admin wanted to put it in a queue for today, it could be done. It would be timely. At 183 characters it's a rather long hook, but within the rules. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Sorry for my inexperience/errors.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate possible queues for that (a basketball lead was rushed to Q4 already). Preps 1/2 are taken for now, but I can fix the composition later today. Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the parity of putting it in Q5, since a Butler (The other team in the title game) hook is in Q4. Q5 also has the benefit of not having any sport hooks. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept a co-contributor recognition for cleaning up the templates and such.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please accept sincere thanks from the DYK project instead. Quite a number of editors clean up DYK noms .. Materialscientist (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Material here. Tony, you've been around DYK enough to know that isn't done. Why would you even ask? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 12:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Although all the content was in two major template improvements, I have done less substantive work to get solo authored DYK credits. Just asking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172

The hook is currently in queue 2 and reads: ... that Bach marked to repeat the opening chorus of cantata Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten, BWV 172 after the final chorale? - I am happy that the first suggestion "made it", but since its nomination one character in the title changed, and a new wiki-link would be possible, please compare the discussion. Therefore I suggest to change to ... that Bach marked to repeat the opening chorus of cantata Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 after the final chorale? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Relinked. Materialscientist (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! But now we got (too?) many leading dots. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore ... Materialscientist (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting talk page content

Hi, It is my understanding that we generally don't delete talkpage content that is not otherwise in violation of policy, normally we tend to collapse a conversation which has run its course or reflects a previous reality. Is this the case on DYK as well? I am seeing an editor repeatedly removing talkpage comments and while I don't want to harass the person I find it unlikely that such deletion is proper, could someone set me straight either way? Thanks! Unomi (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "talk page", but if it refers to the comments left below DYK nomination on the T:TDYK page then they must stay until the nomination is deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought as much, please consider these edits [11],[12], [13]. I am at 3rd rv. Unomi (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not appropriate, especially given the very dubious reason for scratching them, which is purportedly that the user in question "agreed" to have his comments scratched, per this edit. I'll take a closer look at it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I was given permission to remove irrelevant contest] in order not to influence an independent reviewer opinion on the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, you can hardly cite someone's comment that they don't care what you do with the nom as "permission" to remove part of the thread. In any case, it doesn't conform with our conventions here and you have an obvious COI in removing criticism from a nomination submitted by yourself. Please don't do this again. Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record. I meant it when I said I didn't care what Mbz1 did with the nomination. For one, I quickly grow tired of accusative people (and the conversation is very evident of this attitude) and I wasn't going to go into an edit war over this, because I know there are many more qualified contributors, than I am, here that will comment on the nomination regardless of whether my criticism is there or not. Mbz1's behavior and assumption of bad faith is hardly the issue here though (for me at least), my main concern is the article. The article is about a very interesting place, and if I were Mbz1, I'd listen to the criticism as they are "criticisms" not as attacks or "attempts to kill her nomination," but rather to improve it. As I said, I will refrain from contributing any further to the article or the nomination, but I felt, since I was mentioned here, I ought to explain. Yazan (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I was also asked to remove my comment on that DYK nom. I noticed that Mbz1 hid a bunch of comments that were critical of the nom, which bothered me a bit, but I never noticed the outright deletion. Mbz1's comments about not wanting to "influence an independent reviewer opinion" strike me as a significant misunderstanding of what we're trying to do here. If I leave a comment that is critical or an article or hook, I think it's important that a subsequent reviewer should see that comment, so they know to take a closer look at that aspect. They're free to decide that I was wrong, or that I was right but the problem has been addressed, but they need to know that I saw a potential problem. cmadler (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2011 April Fools Day DYKs

I've kicked this off with the first nom. Just gonna have to be a bit patient now until it can appear. Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors

Could a few of the admins who look in on DYK from time to time add User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors to their watch list. This is the file the DYK bot uses to report problems it detects an issue. There was a 2½ hour delay in an update today due to a missing <!--Hooks--> line, with the bot having reported the problem two hours before the update was scheduled to run. A couple more eyes scattered across a variety of time zones would probably help to keep things running on a regular basis when the occasional hiccup occurs. --Allen3 ^talk 20:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Added —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching it, but am offline for that specific time of the day. Materialscientist (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist, thanks for the info. Gatoclass (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Scenario query

I had a query that im unsure of. Lets say on May 28th or so (hypothetically an article is created) on May 30th it is nominated for deletion, On June 7th it is closed as keep, and on June 8th Its listed for dyk. Is it still ok to treat as a new article?., or is it necessary to treat it as a 5x expansion. Thanks for the thoughts out there, happy editing, Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The author should nominate it ASAP no matter the AFD. This would allow DYK review to go on, and if success, we just wait for AFD to be closed. Nominated after AFD may get rejected because it is too old (with some tolerance to "new users" etc., Hawaiian traditions, etc :) Materialscientist (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Q2 tweak

Pls could a watching admin tweak the lead hook in Queue 2 (capilla abierta) by adding (pictured). Thanks! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.  f o x  19:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

World Migratory bird day...

is 8-9 May - can we do a special occasion of migratory bird articles? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Birds articles usually have cute pictures and are good leads (provided the article is Ok). I do not think though that World Migratory bird day is well known, and thus would dilute the queues with other topics, or most readers will not understand. Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I just saw it and thought...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot Error

I think the bot jumped off Queue 4, and updated DYK with Queue 5 instead. Because now we have Q3, and Q5 as empty. Yazan (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The bot didn't jump, I did ;-) I updated Q4 first to separate two very similar sets prepared for Q3 and Q5 - you'll see it now. We are having very few reviewed noms these days, thus it is not easy to make balanced sets - anyone who can help with reviewing, please do. Materialscientist (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, I just saw the new queues. Great, thanks! Yazan (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why are newer DYK nominations generally being chosen for the main page at the moment instead of older ones which have less time to be possibly chosen? Seems silly as far as I am concerned. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking strictly for myself, when I'm compiling a queue, I usually try to take the oldest verified hooks, and I'm less likely to skip a really old verified hook even if it might unbalance the queue. If a verified hook got skipped, I probably a) didn't see it, b) deliberately skipped it because I thought it would be a good candidate for using the picture and already had a hook with a picture for that queue, or c) deliberately skipped it in the interest of trying to make a balanced queue (e.g., not too many US-related hooks all at once). For example, on the most recent one I did (currently in Prep Area 1), I deliberately skipped two verified hooks in the "Older Nominations" section. Both are still at the top of that section (April 8), and both had images that I thought would make them candidates for top hooks and image inclusion. Personally, I do verify hooks, but when I compile a queue, I like to do the whole thing uninterrupted, including not stopping to verify unverified hooks. If there's something that you think was really egregious that I missed, please let me know - it won't hurt my feelings! (See {{User screw}}.) cmadler (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Change lead image for queue 1

That's a fine hook, and it would be good to have a donated image, but I can't really tell what the image is of at 100px. I'll look for an image that might look better at 100px. (or maybe it's my small monitor, tell me) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 22:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How about File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Studioportret van Hamengku Buwana VII Sultan van Jogjakarta TMnr 60001455b.jpg? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 03:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Running short on hooks again

Well after that long period with a massively excessive number of submissions, suddenly the number has dropped back to only 140 or so. I suggest that if we get as low as 120 again, we move back to three eight hour updates a day. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead hook in Queue 3

Looking at it in the queue, I think that the hook has a missing 'the', as in "... that the 60 million years old Carmelo Formation". I verified it but failed to notice that, maybe others think that the change is unnecessary. Mikenorton (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Added. Materialscientist (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No cows in sight

In today's DYK: "... that 6th-century poet Talhaearn Tad Awen has left no surviving verse, yet may have been remembered as the father of Welsh poetry, whose work used to be rewarded with 100 cows in a bath-tub every Saturday?" That's an intriguing teaser, and sounds like an April Fool's Day entry, so I went to the article to read more about the cows. No cows. As far as I can see, this teaser was in the nominations [14] but I can't find cows in any of the earlier versions in the article's history. If this is vandalism or a hoax, I don't see how it was done. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The apparent problem is you are looking for "cows" when you should have instead searched for "bath-tub". The hook apparently refers to the quotation, "the man who used to give a hundred kine every Saturday in a bath-tub to Talhaearn". Updating to Modern English this in turn produces 100 cows. --Allen3 ^talk 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ha. Search for "kine" :-) Materialscientist (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(double edit conflict—you beat me to this) The cows are there, though called "kine". —innotata 01:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is everybody so concerned about hoaxes? —innotata 01:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I looked for "cows" and "bathtub" (without hyphen, as it appears in DYK). To Innotata: Why shouldn't everyone be concerned about hoaxes? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

@Innotata: Occasionally we get hoaxes at DYK. There was a recent incident that made everyone more cautious: 1, 2, 3. Shubinator (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, the above. It certainly doesn't help wikipedia's image: "The reliable hoax provider". NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it has seemed a bit crazy. I nominated Sussex dialect for DYK, an article I did not work on, and was asked to provide an online source to show that it was not a hoax. —innotata 15:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Minuscule 671

Queue 1, third hooks reads: "... that the owner of the Minuscule 671 and the place of its housing officially is unknown?" Ok, English is not my first language, but shouldn't that rather be "... that the owner of the Minuscule 671 and the place of its housing is officially unknown?" Schwede66 09:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Tweaked. Materialscientist (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(pictured)

Let me ask you the following: what are we, after all, supposed to be using - A. (pictured) (italics include the brackets) or B. (pictured) (italics only within the brackets). I distinctly remember that the standard was defined as variant B., but all the hooks now seem to go with option A. It's whichever, but it has to be one. Dahn (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Variant A has been the norm since at least October 2006 when I began performing occasional updates to DYK (example here). --Allen3 ^talk 23:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's A. See Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Additional_rules#Rules_listed_elsewhere_but_often_overlooked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Back a while ago (I can't tell you exactly when), I used to italicize entries per A, but they went on being changed per B in the prep areas and queues. I was still confused about what we're supposed to be using, thank you both for clearing that up. Dahn (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Pls use Variant A per rule F4. This is the format used in other sections on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to change cycle

We are now down to 126 hooks with several queues empty. Definitely time to go to an 8-hour cycle. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles which are eligible for Did you know that aren't nominated; I think this could help, but not enough to avoid the 8-hour schedule. —innotata 16:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to wait till the midnight (UTC) update is loaded just to keep the cycle in sync with the FA and OTD sections of the Main Page, but otherwise agree that a change to 3 updates per day appears to be in order. --Allen3 ^talk 21:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• As there has been no opposition to changing to 8-hour cycles, I have updated User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates. Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes and Template:DYK-Refresh both key off the bot's configuration so hopefully this is all that is now needed to complete the change. --Allen3 ^talk 00:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I normally don't lodge my articles until I've fully finished and hadn't noticed that there was suddenly a shortage and not a 10-day lag on DYKs so I apologise for the late submissions (1-week old) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive reorg

Recently, I saw that the archives had been reorganized by month. Then I saw that was all reverted back to the ad hoc numerical system. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

They weren't reorganized. There are (and have been for a few months) two archive systems; one with the old numeral system, another by month. We should decide which one we want to continue with though. Does anyone mind if we switch to the month system? (This wouldn't be a major change, it would just mean the template at the top of the archives is {{DYK monthly archive nav}} instead of {{DYK archive nav}} and the redirects are flipped for some of the pages (for example, Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/January redirects to Wikipedia:Recent additions 252; after the change the numeral archive would redirect to the month archive)). Shubinator (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed this closely, but I think it makes sense to go with the monthly system. While we're at it, I'm also asking myself why we put the latest updates at the top of the archive page instead of the bottom. Also, I think we should probably fix the headers so that they reflect the actual time the update was posted to the mainpage rather than the time they were removed. Gatoclass (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Flipping the order to put new sets at the bottom would be relatively easy to do (it would take hours to flip the archives though). Changing the update time to when it was posted is tougher because we only want to archive once the hooks come off the Main page (so errors are fixed before it gets archived), but when the hooks are being removed the bot doesn't know when they were originally posted. It's possible for the bot to search through revisions of T:DYK until it finds a rev where the hook doesn't exist, but this makes a few assumptions that are occasionally broken (for example, if the bot finds articles by their title, occasionally the title will change, often because of a move or avoiding a redirect). Shubinator (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I saw the page with months displayed a few weeks ago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Long ago, I suggested switching to the monthly system and of course support the proposed change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also support the monthly system. - Dravecky (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shubinator (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Karl-Otto Kiepenheuer in Prep2

Karl-Otto Kiepenheuer was doing research on the sun and its interaction with earth, sunspots and a lot of other aspects of the sun. This is not exactly pointed out when you call him a researcher on solar energy. There might be a change to solar physics or somthing similar be the best choice to go on. Sorry for pointing out this so late! I nominated the article, and I read the hook several times, but I did not get that it now reads different.--Stone (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Q6 tweaks

A couple of suggested adjustments to Queue 6, for admins in the vicinity: Rene Farrell's pic needs to have the right parameter removed to align it correctly; and in the third hook (Norwegian railways), some word order changing: to never be → never to be. Thx, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tick, thanks for your eagle eyes! Bencherlite^Talk 20:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Preparing updates: US hooks

Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas (and I think some other places also) says:

N5: Because of the preponderance of submissions on US topics and biography hooks, it is usually appropriate to have roughly 50% of hooks in a given update on both US and biography topics. That is to say, in an eight-hook update you should have roughly four hooks per update on US topics, and four on biography. These are not mutually exclusive, for example if you have two US bio hooks that would count as both two US hooks and two bio hooks. Note that "roughly 50%" means just that – this is not an absolute; you can have less of either if there are not many currently available such hooks to choose from on the Suggestions page. Note however that as a general rule you should never have more than 50% of hooks on US, biography or any other topic, except when doing so is unavoidable.

Of the 56 hooks in 6 queues and 1 prep area currently, I count 15 on US topics, about 25%. This strikes me as reasonably close to what we've had for a little while, and I think it is a reasonable representation of approved hooks over the past weeks. I suggest that the above guideline be changed to replace "roughly" with "no more than", as follows (changes are italicized):

Because of the frequency of submissions on US topics and biography hooks, it is usually appropriate to have no more than 50% of hooks in a given update on both US and biography topics. That is to say, in an eight-hook update you should have no more than four hooks per update on US topics, and four on biography. These are not mutually exclusive, for example if you have two US bio hooks that would count as both two US hooks and two bio hooks. Note that this is a suggested maximum, not an absolute; you can have less of either if there are not many currently available such hooks to choose from on the Suggestions page. Note however that as a general rule you should never have more than 50% of hooks on US, biography or any other topic, except when doing so is unavoidable.

I just think we shouldn't say "roughly 50%" given that 50% seems unreasonably high based on what we've had recently. Thoughts? cmadler (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The number of approved US hooks at T:TDYK fluctuates a lot and there were days and even weeks when it was nowhere near 50%. Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a survey of just the queues will give a fair sample, it would probably be more appropriate to look through the last month's worth of updates. But that suggestion was written a long time ago, so it may need a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

How about changing 50% to 37½% (⅜)? Thus allowing a range of 2-4 in practice, with an aim of 3 where possible. Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to be too specific, but I do think someone needs to go through the last month's submissions so that we actually have a representative sample before tweaking the wording. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Queue 2 last hook

• ... that intense heat from a WWII bombing was interfered with a ceramic dating assay?

The "was" should be dropped to make the sentence grammatically correct. –Grondemar 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 16:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! –Grondemar 16:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor rejecting many DYK nominations

I am concerned about all of the DYK nominations rejected by User:BruceSwanson. In the past hour, he has flatly rejected 7 nominations. I don't believe that his reasons are in keeping with DYK practices. For example, a nomination about an Andy Warhol work was rejected because there was no picture. Articles about other people with multiple reasons for notability (a politician who tried out for the Olympics, and a woman who competed at the top levels as both a sprinter and weighlifter) were rejected because they are not interesting enough. However, DYK has let several hooks go that are far less interesting than these. What is the best way to proceed with these rejected nominations? Can someone provide a second opinion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say strike them all for now. No offense to BruceSwanson, but it's clear that he's not familiar with the DYK process. His own nomination is incorrectly formatted, and he's done some edits that are undoubtedly faux pas (such as here, "rejecting" a nom that had already been approved by someone else; in cases like that it's more appropriate to post a message there saying "I'm not sure I agree, I think this article isn't ready yet because...."). Needs a bit more familiarity with the system before he can be so harsh with people's noms. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And I have gone ahead and stricken them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense intended, these are my first reviews. I guess I'll just lay off for awhile. I stand behind my postings but didn't intend them to be snarky.

As for my own nomination, the prose is actually in the footnote. I put it there because an editor deleted it from the HIV article where I had originally put it. I think the subject matter itself qualifies. I'll try to fit it in somewhere and renominate. BruceSwanson (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you got much wrong, mainly you used the delete vote icon instead of the concern icon. Basically your point was that the hooks weren't interesting enough. That's a fair enough point, but you must give nominators the chance to come up with an alternative hook, and you have to give others a chance to comment as well, maybe not everyone will agree that the hook is not up to scratch. Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, you got your own submission very wrong, so yes, I definitely think you should read the DYK rules carefully before you start trying to review submissions. Maybe get a couple of your own submissions right first before trying to review other people's hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers.Smallman12q (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well intentioned, kindly worded advice does not equal biting, mate.  f o x  09:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Breakouts

Here's a question I'm not sure there's an answer to in the rules: Does a breakout page, in which the text taken from the previous article meets DYK criteria otherwise, qualify? And who is credited with it - the person who did the breakout, the creator of the content on the previous page (which might have been created more than five days ago on that page...), both, or...? - The Bushranger (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's not newly-written content, it doesn't qualify. i.e., you can't get a DYK by moving 1500 characters of text from one article to a new article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But if the moved text is expanded 5x it does count. See Rule A5. --Bruce1ee^talk 15:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but thought I'd ask to be sure. Thanks. - The Bushranger (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• One question, I'm 99.9% sure I know the answer already but just to be 100% sure: if a breakout is <1500 words, can it just be expanded to over 1500 or does it need the full 5x? - The Bushranger (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Never mind, the article in question has been rewritten to be a new article instead of just a breakout. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Katey Stone DYK

The "winningest" coach - I'm sorry but as an English Literature major I have to say that that isn't a real word. Can we change it to "most successful" or equivalent please? GiantSnowman 05:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a real word: Merriam-webster. (Plus as someone who's dabbled in linguistics, language should be descriptive.) Shubinator (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I still think it sounds clunky...GiantSnowman 06:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Giant Snowman. Most successful sounds better than winningest. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. "Most successful" is subjective, to the point where it requires attribution (e.g. Expert X stated that Person Y was the most successful coach in Z sport.) Winningest has a very clear (and within at least the US sporting world, well understood) meaning, and within a defined grouping (e.g., NCAA Division I women’s ice hockey) it can be definitively said that a particular person is, or is not, the winningest. For example, people might argue about whether Pat Summitt or Geno Auriemma is more successful, so any statement in that regard would be someone's opinion and would require attribution. However, we can say without doubt and without requiring attribution that Pat Summitt is the winningest coach in NCAA basketball history, across all levels. cmadler (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

To a British ear it sounds like a joke – something a toddler might come up with. I don't know how it comes over for other English-speaking countries, but the nuances that cmadler mentions were entirely lost on me. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Winningest" is a generally accepted word in US English, with documented use since at least 1909, but from what I've read, it is not widely used in other English-speaking nations (See the entry at Wiktionary and the associated Talk page). If people have objections to "winningest", a better replacement than "most successful" would be to say "has won more games than anyone else" or something like that. That way the meaning and the specificity is retained. cmadler (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with cmadler and Shubinator. The phrase "most successful" is too subjective and unclear. In this case, "winningest" has the more precise and accurate meaning. Cbl62 (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mimie Mathy appeared on the Main Page twice

User:Abductive recently pointed out to me that his proposed hook for Mimie Mathy appeared in two different DYK sets sent to the Main Page, on April 30 and May 1. The root cause of this was a mistake on my part, when compiling a DYK set in prep1 on April 27. My general practice when I compile DYK sets is to first place the {{inuse}} template on the prep area, open T:TDYK in another browser, and open tabs in the second browser window for each of the hooks as I select them. I only blank the hook from T:TDYK when I have copied over both the hook and credit, and have finalized what order I want the hooks to be in. Sometimes when I attempt to blank a hook, I get an edit conflict. When this happens, I open another tab with the hook and blank it from the new tab, because the edit conflict window lists the full content of T:TDYK, which isn't helpful for such a large page. Occasionally, when I click a section edit link on T:TDYK, the wrong section opens for editing; I've never seen this happen on any other Wikipedia page, but I figure it has to do with the length of T:TDYK.

In this case, I must have received an edit conflict when attempting to clear out the Mimie Mathy hook on T:TDYK, since the T:TDYK edit history shows six of the seven hooks I added removed around the time I saved the edit to prep1. (Julie Hunter was already there before I started.) When I tried to open the Mimie Mathy section again, the wrong section must have opened with me noticing, resulting in the wrong hook being removed. Since the Mimie Mathy hook was still on the page, User:Allen3 ended up adding it to another set later on, resulting in the hook appearing twice on the Main Page.

I've restored the hook I accidentally removed. I'm very sorry about all of this, and will strive to be more careful when updating Did you know in the future. –Grondemar 19:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh, don't get yourself too worked up about this; mistakes happen, and it's not like this one caused harm. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@Grondemar: beware that due to some wikimedia software glitch (something related to simultaneous edits of a frequently accessed modular page, maybe it is fixed now), a nomination may not disappear from the T:TDYK page even after a "successful" blanking of it subsection at T:TDYK. We (I and Calmer Waters, at least) did track such cases in the past for our edits. This happens rarely and doesn't mean "double check every edit". For myself, I was tracking such things automatically while preparing next sets and noticing something I have promoted already. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep an eye out for it. –Grondemar 08:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3

The fourth bullet in queue 3 has two DYK items in it. There's a bullet point missing for the second item. Schwede66 00:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

SMS Hannover

This has been nominated as an almost 5x expansion, but has already appeared on DYK. Editor Calmer Waters has commented that it may be eligible to reappear per past discussion. Is this really the case? My suggestion would be that the expander should push for GA status now. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As I recall the consensus has always been that we don't do repeats at DYK, and I personally am not in favour of them. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules D1: "No items that have been on DYK before (pre-expansion, for example)." cmadler (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that rule needs rewriting. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 51#DYK nom for Santa Muerte, where it was agreed that an article could appear again after 3 years. It's 2 years and 8-ish months for SMS Hannover, so it's not eligible. Shubinator (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed it, but please take a look at what I wrote to make sure it makes sense. In reading the previous discussion, it seemed that the consensus was strictly for allowing repeats after a gap of at least three years, regardless of whether the nominator or editor is different. cmadler (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It was nominated in 2007, by a different person, and it's now near FA level. This should be an obvious IAR, IMHO.... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree about IAR being somewhat appropriate. If someone has done enough work to 5x expand an article that already was long enough a couple years ago, it's a rare enough situation to run the hook and be proud the article has improved so. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That achieved discussion was the reason I had stated may be as this might possibly be an exception due to the length of time, different editor, quality of improvement (thanks for tracking that down Shubinator). As this would be essentially an IAR case, as was the Santa Muerte, I thought I would give the chance for others to weigh in on it. Calmer Waters 18:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have to cite IAR at all. The point of D1 is to avoid filling DYK with repeats and to allow someone to collect DYK credit twice for their work on a single article. In cases like this one, just with Santa Muerte, both reasons do not apply anymore, instead DYK is to be used as a way to showcase significant improvement that happened long after the previous appearance and has no connection to the previous editing. Regards SoWhy 19:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's near FA, then why not nominate it for FA instead of here? I think we should stick to one DYK per article. Gatoclass (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not nominate it at both? And why would we deny someone a chance at DYK credit if it is a different person and nearly three years later? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well look, the last discussion about this issue (which I missed) concluded that it would be okay if an article was promoted again after three years. But this one was last promoted only 2 years and 8 months ago, so it seems as if that condition is already going by the board. How long before it's two years, or 18 months? And why stop at just one additional DYK promotion, why not have 3, or half a dozen, or an unlimited number?

I mean, we have to draw the line somewhere. I think it's just more straightforward to say one DYK per article and that's it. People can still get rewards at GA and FA if that's what they want. Gatoclass (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass. As "rewards" come, DYKs are probably the easiest to get. GAs are much harder to get, and thus should be more rewarding to an editor when they are achieved. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with any straightforward rule. The rule previously said "no repeats", and that's fine with me. Shubinator pointed to a discussion last fall that came to an agreement that we could have repeats after at least 3 years, and that's fine with me too (I edited the above-mentioned D1 to reflect that apparent consensus). If someone wants to approve this particular hook and call it WP:IAR that's fine with me too; I'm not sure I'd agree with the application of IAR in that case, but I don't care enough to object. What I don't agree with is SoWhy's suggestion that "a long time has passed", as that is too vague. (See also Wikipedia:Did you know/Lore#Instruction creep: "...[T]he only thing worse than a million written rules, is a million unwritten rules.") cmadler (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that the consensus for a three-year rule may or may not apply, and there is clearly not consensus for the vague "a long time has passed", I am restoring the stated rule D1 back to the previous no repeats - no exceptions rule. cmadler (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Prose counter tool?

Can someone run the tool on Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit for me? It's got some complex layout... Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently at 27343 characters according to DYKcheck, before your rewrite it stood at 8035 characters, giving a roughly 3.5x expansion so far. Mikenorton (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If your sources end up maxing out, this is an case where I would be willing to IAR-approve it. Good luck with your effort though to get this to 5x expansion though. NW (Talk) 16:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks... I don't think there's another 1.5 in there. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I...

Request that a formely imaged item be held until a spot with an image opens up? (ae you get up a hook it's confirmed but the image is removed and it's not the head line, "just" a hook). This is regarding the bit on asphalt volcanism in Quene 5. It's an interesting topic and I was wondering if I could plug it into the "most viewed" of the month. Call me ambitious but it certainly seems more interesting then genestation periods...no offense intended. Thank you. ResMar 01:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

One man's exciting is another man's deadly boring. The mere fact that someone chose to promote your article without the image suggests that someone found the shark image more interesting than what you provided. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Future events on DYK

I just wanted to ask for general thoughts about including articles about expected future events in DYK. The article that raised this specific concern for me is 2010–11 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team (Hook: Template talk:Did you know#2010–11 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team). Aside from the obvious problem with the tense in which the article is written, is there any broader issue with putting an article about an expected future event on the main page via DYK? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been done before; Inauguration of Barack Obama was on DYK on 23 December 2008, despite occurring on 20 January 2009. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have DYKed the last two seasons of Michigan basketball and football articles in advance of the season if I recall correctly. There is no speculation as to whether the team will exist during the season, so the article must exist. At whatever point it is eligible for DYK it should be put on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the existence of the article, which clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria for future events, only the appropriateness of putting it on the main page. I hadn't seen it done before, and while I thought it could be done, I wanted to find out if there were any specially standards in such a case (similar, for example, to BLP considerations that don't necessarily prohibit such articles/hooks, but limit and provide guidance for DYK). cmadler (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Arizona

I have some NPOV concerns about the hook ... that Arizona passed the toughest illegal immigrant law in the U.S. following the murder of rancher Robert Krentz? that is currently in the queue, as it implies that the two events are action-reaction. It's like saying "Did you know that Germany passed the toughest illegal immigration laws in its history following the murder of a German railroad worker". The article itself uses one source to tie the two events together, and says that it "contributed" and that "there were no suspects, but speculation suggested it may have been", this all seems like an awful lot of conjecture to now be serving up in a DYK hook which implictly suggests that Mexicans were responsible for murdering someone, and thus must be cracked down upon. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's in the queue now. I don't know if there was a wider discussion before this was promoted, but I can see at least two sources in the article that support the hook and it looks reasonable enough to me. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How did I do?

This is my first time building a DYK set (at T:DYK/P2). Did I do well? One question I have though is whether the credit to User:Suomi Finland 2009 for Galaxy 15 is proper, since he created a redirect and not the article that soon replaced it. PleaseStand ^(talk) 22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to nom credit; Suomi did not really write the article (although he did nominate it as such). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You did well, indeed. Be warned, though, DYK-building is addictive. :D - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You did fine, but for future reference please note that we like to have a quirky or funny hook in the last slot.

Also, if you haven't done so yet, you should read this. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the last hook perhaps be moved to the second-to-last slot and the last hook be the ALT1 for Texas State Highway 112, possibly reworded slightly? And yes, I did read the update guidelines first. PleaseStand ^(talk) 10:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding COI since I came up with ALT1 there, I'll say that it would fit the "humourous" criterion. ;) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Queue 4

The "(pictured)" in queue 4, hook 1 needs to be italicized. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Videos instead of photos?

At Template_talk:Did_you_know#City_of_Military_Glory I have posted a hook, and have changed the initial photo of a ceremony to a video of the ceremony. I don't believe there is any hard and fast rule about only photos being able to be used at DYK? But would there be any drawbacks to using videos at DYK on front page? As were are WP:NOTPAPER, there is no limitations or is that? At National Anthem of Russia I have placed a video (a featured sound at that) of a performance of the anthem in the infobox instead of a photo. But what about DYK. Thoughts please. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the only concern is bandwidth for users with slow connections. What I think is usually done is to upload a reduced resolution version of the video, sized down to the exact size it would appear on the main page (100x100?) and use that - that way the file size is kept to a minimum. cmadler (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We've had a few videos over the last few years, although not many ... I remember some dramatic footage of a collapsing bridge (can anybody recall the article?). I think they usually go down quite well, partly because of their rarity (not just on DYK but on Wikipedia generally). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've raised that point at talk:Main Page once and the answer was close to what Cmadler said above: allowed, but efforts must be made to reduce file size, because the full size of the file (no matter the resizing) will be downloaded by the user, be it video or animated gif. Resizing a copy to 100x100 is a must, but sampling rate (or number of frames) is still an issue, and thus resizing alone might not help. I haven't heard a threshold (in file size) for inclusion, but my guess it is something of the order 1 Mb or less. Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:DYK sounds and Category:DYK videos show some non-image files featured on DYK. Shubinator (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hassocks5489 - is this the droidarticle you're looking for? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the one ... although it doesn't actually appear to have been on DYK. How strange—I must have imagined it! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any videos there; I thought was in ITN in 2007. —innotata 00:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on reflection it must have been an ITN item. The video is the first image under the "Collapse" subheading: it plays when you click into the full-size .gif image. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fume Hoods and Biosafety Cabinets

fume hood says that biosafety cabinets are a class of fume hood in the intro. Riffraffselbow (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved to WP:ERRORS. I'm blind as a bat. Riffraffselbow (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3: Loretta Ables Sayre

Can you add the date 2008 before the word Broadway? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You know that rule about DYK and ITN?

Well, Russavia (talk · contribs) has managed to get around it. The 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade article appeared on DYK, and is now back on the Main Page as an ITN article! Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, well we have a rule that articles which have appeared on ITN can't appear on DYK, but we can't impose our own rules on ITN. However, it might be an idea for someone to start a discussion about it at ITN. Gatoclass (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, point out to them that there is no link whatsoever to their project from any of the Main Page material, their Portal, or anywhere else that I could find. I've looked several times in the past, and only found them just now (finally), when you called them "ITN". It struck me that there might be a Wikipedia shortcut, which there was. I've never been able to figure out how to contact that group prior to now, because they don't link from their Main page section at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the link issue at WT:ITN#Publicising this project. I beleive the other issue has already been discussed and consensus is that appearing on DYK is not a bar to appearing on ITN. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Q6 tweak

To make it align properly, pls could the |right parameter be removed from the Ruins of Khulda pic in Queue 6. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ascension Day

For May 13 I nominated Kurt Huber some days ago and would like to see at least a question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done - both nominations in this section have been reviewed. However both were problematic so a second opinion wouldn't hurt, if anyone feels inclined. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Now ticked to go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased that the hook is now in queue 1! Since the Ascension day of 1735 fell on a different date I suggest to avoid "today" and slightly change to ... that the tenor Kurt Huber sang the Evangelist in Bach's Ascension Oratorio Lobet Gott in seinen Reichen, BWV 11, composed for the feast of the Ascension of 275 years ago? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Edited. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Queues 4 & 5

Hook 1 of Queue 4 is missing a "(pictured)".
In hook 1 of Queue 5, "(pictured)" should be "(pictured)". Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK rule change proposal: increase prose

In view of the many new articles clamoring from some DYK exposure, I am proposing to increase the minimum required prose from 1500 characters to 2500 (or even double to 3000 if we can get consensus). Maybe this will reduce the DYK workload somewhat, but the real reason for this proposal is to push the quality of new articles higher. There will always be new articles that are just a stub, but to deserve a DYK main-page accolade, editors should put in some extra effort to add more content. Afterall, 1500 characters is really low. The 1500 rule has been there since February 2007; it's time to raise the bar! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(to avoid long drawn-out discussions, let's confine discussion only to this proposal, not other DYK rules)

Support but would like to have seen more discussion. FA and GA have raised standards considerably since 2007, DYK could easily follow along. An exception could be made if the nominator can show that he has exhausted the topit.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - First, there are not that many new articles "clamoring" for DYK exposure. It was not that long ago that we had so few nominations that we had to lengthen the time between queue updates from 6 to 8 hours, so as to feature 8 fewer hooks each day. If there are so many nominations that we're struggling to use all of them, the first step should be to return to a 6 hour update schedule. That may not seem like a big difference, but believe me, over a week or two you'll see the backlog of hooks plunge back down. But beyond that, this isn't FA or GA, we're trying to feature new and recently-expanded non-stub articles. The point of the 1500 character rule is simply to eliminate stubs. I think there are many subjects that are legitimately non-stub at about 1500 characters of prose. Keep in mind also that many list articles can be complete, but still only have 1200-2000 characters of prose. I think it's unlikely that such a change would really push the quality of new articles higher; more likely it will just reduce DYK nominations, particularly from newer users who may be more likely to create a short article in articlespace, while more experienced users will know that they can write it in userspace until it gets to DYK length and then move it. I think the latter approach should be discouraged, because it leads to information that might be suitable for articlespace sitting on userpages until it's DYK-ready. cmadler (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Time will tell if the quality increases, but if nominations drop, I don't mind if we increase the time again between updates: better articles deserve longer main page exposure. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• But DYK is not based on article quality, beyond a certain minimum standard, and adjustments to the minimum standard won't change that. Every qualifying article gets a one sentence listing for n hours, and a Featured Article gets the same coverage here as one that just barely meets the minimum. The point of DYK is not to highlight the best work (or even good work) from Wikipedia; there are other venues for that. The point of DYK is to highlight new contributions. We want them to meet certain minimum standards, but the minimums are deliberately set low. It's an easy recognition that new editors can get without even knowing about it beforehand, and as such it's a way to retain those new editors. Also, by listing new contributions on the main page, it serves as an entrance point for potential new editors to jump in and contribute to an existing article. It can be a lot easier to contribute to a new or recently expanded article than to one that is stable as, for example, a GA or FA. cmadler (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Cmadler is correct that the volume of submissions does not justify an increase in the minimum article size at this time. This situation is only compounded by past year's experience showing a reduction in article submissions during summer in the Northern Hemisphere (many contributors have limited access to the internet and research material while school is out of session). --Allen3 ^talk 14:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - a perennial proposal that has never gained consensus. Recently we had to switch from four updates a day to three because we don't currently have enough hooks to sustain the usual four a day, so this is simply unnecessary. And while 1500 chars isn't much, it's enough to create a decent article for some topics, lists being a prime example. Gatoclass (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It's seemed to me for a long time that 1500 is barely above a stub. It's better to populate the section with fewer better articles that will reward the reader for clicking on them. The fact that consensus hasn't been gained before doesn't mean we can't agree now :) Espresso Addict (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, per Cmadler's comments. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral, it could be 1500 or 2000, 5x or 4x - this does not really matter. Forgive my philosophical note, but such proposals will always end as moot and waste of time because they attempt fixing what is not broken. Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral As above. Plus we have tried 2000 characters. Plus. quality has increased a lot since 2007. e.g. You didn't need one in-line ref! (I'm more concerned that we need to increase the variety of editors and non self nominations to make sure we reflect WP's genuine new articles. but thats off subject) Victuallers (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Oh and impressed by the near consensus above regarding what DYK is here to do from many of its leading supporters. Victuallers (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hooks building up

I think it's probably time we went back to a six-hour cycle, we currently have 245 hooks on suggestions and the queues are almost full. Gatoclass (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just this morning four queues were totally empty, with no preps ready for them. I'd think this may be slightly premature, perhaps. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the empty queues which are the issue, it's the total number of hooks. With 240+ hooks on the Suggestions page, and 7 full queues, we have no need to continue on the eight-hour cycle, and indeed if we stick to it we are soon likely to find ourselves with another substantial backlog. Gatoclass (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The hooks have been building up for a couple of days now. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I understand now. Sounds good to me then, I'll give this the seal of approval. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the cycle was last changed on April 23, the number of outstanding submissions at T:TDYK has roughly doubled. As a result it seems fairly obvious that we should change back, at least for a couple of weeks. If there are no objections, I would suggest that the change begin with the 0:00 15 May (UTC) update (Queue 6). This will keep DYK updates in sync with the FA and OTD sections of the Main Page while still allowing more than a full day for anyone needing to raise an issue with the change to make an appropriate posting. --Allen3 ^talk 11:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's go back to the six-hour cycle. cmadler (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should go back to 6 hours. There is quite a big backlog. Joe Chill (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to a six-hour cycle per consensus. Shubinator (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

Hi, I'm still not sure how the DYK process works, even after reading the rules page. I accepted a challenge by Victuallers to review nominations, which I did, and now I am wondering how they get to the main page? I went ahead and moved 3 of them (Fred Thompson (writer), Japan Series Most Valuable Player Award, and Capella Javelin) to the prep area because 2 of them were almost 5 days old. Was this the right thing to do? Or does a more experienced editor or bot comb the nominations page for approved hooks to move to the prep area? And is it an administrator's responsibility to move them from there to the queue?

Also, I still see on the nominations page hooks that are 4 or 5 or more days old and have not yet been reviewed. Have these just been "passed over" by your editors, or will they wilt away because no one has time to review them? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pleased you took up the challenge. Anyone can approve or comment on hooks suggested in the DYK suggestions list. They are then left for at least a few hours for everyone to see and agree that they are approved correctly. Then, as you have correctly found out - anyone can also move these hooks to the "Prep 1" and "Prep 2" areas (and its another helpful job). In time .... an admin will copy these into one of the queues (numbered 1 to 6). These will then be picked up by a friendly bot who pushes them onto the main page. The only "error" I can see with your prep 1 changes is that (at present) it take 8 hooks. Oh and don't be concerned if Prep 1 gets editted after you finish. Thats normal! Hope that helps. Continue to be BOLD! Someone will snap (gently :-) ) at your heels if you make a mistake.... but they will say thank you too usually! Victuallers (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the addictive world of DYK reviewing. ;) To answer your second question there - as I understand it, as long as a hook doesn't have any negative, unaddressed comments, it will remain on the queue until it either gets a yay and queued up, a nay that, once addressed, is converted to a yay and queuing, or a nay that is unaddressed for a few days, at which point it gets pruned. Approved or unreviewed hooks, however, hang around in the "older hooks" section until they get attended to (note also additional rules D7 and D8, which are relevant here). :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, as Victuallers pointed out, you left the closing hook empty. I added one there - one that, IMHO, is a good example of the kind of closing hook we look for. Odd/quirky/funny/humourous/something to put a smile on your face, and to close on a (usually) light-hearted note. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You did fine. The Japan Series MVP and Fred Thompson hooks are good. For Capella Javelin, the article says "The throttle control is of a unique motorcycle grip type" and this is sourced to an offline reference. So without access to the the offline reference, we have to take it literally, that it is a "motorcycle grip type", not necessarily a motorcycle throttle. I've changed the hook to reflect this. Also, only the first hook in any update uses an image. I think the easiest way for new editors to get involved in DYK is first to submit a few nominations to get a feel for DYK from that side, then start approving nominations but leave them for another editor to put into an update, and then, after you're comfortable with the nomination and approval process, start composing updates (moving hooks to the Prep areas). Personally, I like to keep hook approval separate from composing updates; when I approve a hook, I just put the tick mark on it, but usually leave it on the nominations page, and when I'm composing an update, I go through and select hooks that have already been approved. I know that some editors do approve a hook and move it into an update simultaneously, and I've done it occassionally, but I usually prefer not to; I think it's easier to treat them as separate processes.

As for hook age, it's generally best whether you're reviewing hooks or composing an update to work from the bottom of the page (oldest nominations) up. But it's often necessary to skip over nominated hooks, for example, if they have unresolved issues. We like to give editors/nominators some time to fix issues when possible, so as far as I'm concerned, a hook will only "wilt away" if a problem isn't addressed within a reasonable amount of time after the problem is mentioned. I hope this helps, if not, let me know and I'll try to be more clear. cmadler (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all. I read the other pages you suggested and now have a better feel for DYK. I think I'll stick to reviewing nominations for now and leave it to other editors to assemble the updates (it was a bit stressful). Yoninah (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

• I have just returned Manatee Palms Youth Services from Q1, an hour before launch. Just a gut feeling, my apologies if I'm wrong. Please check the article.
• Its author, User: Tkfy7cf has a few edits, and has another nom. Psychiatric Solutions (please check it too).
• Psychiatric Solutions was approved by an anon imposting as Victuallers. Same anon DYK credited User talk:Tkfy7cf. Materialscientist (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why this IP shouldn't be blocked? Looks like a pretty straightforward case of deception to me. Gatoclass (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good eye MS. No, there is no reason, so I just blocked him/her for two weeks. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What are we going to do about the articles? Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag them with NPOV at the least. The Youth Services article seemed to focus only on negative scandals and nothing else (besides a single sentence on its history). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible the author of these articles is also the IP? Maybe we should ask for a checkuser? Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Asked. Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Moving on: can anyone take a peek at User talk:The_ed17#Sockpuppetry and think about what we can/should/need to do? Also... both the impersonating IP and this (what seems to be Tkfy7cf) [15] geolocate to Providence, Rhode Island. Yes, the checkuser declined and Tkfy7cf seems nice enough on my talk, but the suspicion in the back of my mind refuses to go away. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  Part of my previous "gut feeling" was that both Tkfy7cf and the anon know quite well WP processes and templates, although both are formally very young on wikipedia. Another part was that Tkfy7cf is clearly trying their best to have his articles on the main page. I would scrutinize those first. Materialscientist (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  Tangent thought: at least you are acting on your gut feeling. I had one about Pastor Theo (talk · contribs) twice—once when he came to my talk as a total "noobie", then another time in his RfA. Both times I did not act, although I did ask add a question regarding it in his RfA (so did NuclearWarfare...but only after I prodded him to on IRC).

  On to Tkfy7cf. I'd prefer that someone else reviews them then me—I feel too involved. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that the SPI didn't exactly "clear" him—rather, CU doesn't normally release the IP address of registered users, and any CU here would do that. Ucucha 12:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

After a first inspection the article Manatee Palms Youth Services looks legitimate. Obviously I don't know if the accusations it contains are all true, but to the extent that I have checked them they appear to be backed up with reliable sources. I can't judge the reliability of the Bradenton Herald, but the Los Angeles Times article about the owning company is revealing and makes this article very plausible, to put it mildly.

Given the conditions at that institution and its function I don't find it surprising that we might have an editor here who (1) is highly motivated to write an article about it which stresses the grievances, and (2) might not be as convinced of our values as we are. Let's make sure that we preserve the integrity of our information, but that we also don't throw out the baby with the bath water. I suggest that a few more editors check the article for neutrality, and if everything is fine we return it to the DYK queue. Hans Adler 14:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I was never worried by the reliability of that information (it was always well referenced). My concerns were POV and unbalanced content. They are raised at T:TDYK review and are not addressed yet. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. I am Tkfy7cf (obviously). This is my only account. Most of the Google results for Manatee Palms Youth Services reflect the information currently on Wikipedia. The point of view might be on the negative side of the spectrum; however, that is the only view the public has of the facility outright based on the references and readily available public information. In order to "balance" the article in the manner that some of the editors are suggesting it be balanced would be rather impossible due to the absence of "positive" information. The piece cannot contain "positive" information that would be interpreted as encyclopedic lest said information in the article be exaggerated or intentionally misleading. Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick question

...if a new article appears as a "non-DYK" (non-bolded) link in a hook, is it still eligible to appear as a "main course" DYK? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes it is. I suspect I could find examples of it being done. For example, sometimes we'll have related articles and one isn't quite DYK-ready when the other is up. Though if it can be worked out, a double hook might be preferable. cmadler (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes they can. Previous DYKs may also appear as linked articles for other DYK articles too. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want an example, there's SS Brussels and Charles Fryatt. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I pondered double-hooking, but both articles had fine pictures, so... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Prep 2

If you want to know why I moved hooks with images to Prep 2 without the pictures, it's because the number of reviewed articles with pictures and without are very unbalanced. Joe Chill (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been having to start to do the same with some of the lower-quality pictures/less visually interesting subjects. No worries from me. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions about non-author nominations

Are there any conventions regarding the nomination of an article created/expanded by another user?

• Is there a certain amount of time you should wait before nominating someone else's article, to see if they nominate it themselves?
• Should you notify the author or ask their permission?
• What should the author do if they find that someone else has nominated the article and they would prefer a different hook? Should they add a completely new entry with their desired hook, or add it as an alternate? And in such cases, should the non-author still receive nomination credit? Agolib 22:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about question 1. To answer questions 2 and 3, the author should add the hook as an alternate, and the nominator will still receive credit. It is undesirable for an article to appear in DYK twice, so it should not be added to T:TDYK twice. PleaseStand ^(talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• • My two pennies on these would be:
    • Be bold!
    • It might be courteous in some circumstances, but isn't strictly necessary.
    • I can't speak for everybody, but adding an ALT# would be what I would do. And I'd say the original nominator would still be credited - after all, they were the one who brought the article to the attention of DYK. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
      • And that avoids splitting up the discussion on whether the article is ready for DYK recognition. PleaseStand ^(talk) 22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's generally regarded as a courtesy to ask the creator first. I have had people nom articles of mine which I intended for DYK but which I hadn't finished preparing, or which I was planning for a multi-hook. That sort of thing can be pretty annoying, so I think it's good practice to inform first. Gatoclass (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I nominate articles without asking first. I'm lucky so far. I've got nothing but thanks. Especially because my nomination usually gets them their first DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Image

How would I add an image to the article Cyrba under May 13 without redoing the entire template? Joe Chill (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit another subsection with an image and copy the part from <div .. to .. /div>, paste into your section and replace the image parameters. Materialscientist (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Joe Chill (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Once you're here, have a look at the bottom section of WP:ERRORS. Materialscientist (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

First mistake that I've made verifying an article in DYK. Damn it. Joe Chill (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is fixable by updating the references. Materialscientist (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Q3

A very small thing, but I realise now that I forgot to note that I nominated the George de Bothezat article that's in Q3 (because I have a self-nom in the same hook as a double hook). In a double hook like this, does the nominator get nom credit for the double when it's by another author, or just the DYK credit for their own article? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You should get both. It seems to be a simple mistake that an admin can easily fix. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast. I was just about to ask you to fix it on your talk page. Joe Chill (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, fast indeed. Much thanks, and I'll pay better attention to these things in the future. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Prep1

I am too sleepy to rewrite the last hook of prep1,

• ... that the former Ouvrage Vélosnes of the Maginot Line is now a protected habitat for bats?

but IMO, it should accentuate what the Maginot Line was (a French fortification used in the WWII). Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Q4

The "pictured" notation of the Courageous-class-battlecruiser hook could possibly use clarification - to "pictured after aircraft carrier conversion", perhaps. Because that photo shows her after she was rebuilt as a bird farm, instead of her original configuration as a battlecruiser. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shubinator (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• And another: "that the first Czech aviator Jan Kašpar made his first flight with Blériot XI in 1910?". Ouch. "that the first Czech aviator, Jan Kašpar, made his first flight in a Blériot XI in 1910?" is less of a grammatical train-wreck, I'd think. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  Added commas. Materialscientist (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Queue 1

Hook 1 of Queue 1 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 15:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I have a question, an article I have been working I would like to nominate for DYK soon, but it is dependent on one thing: the article, when I started editing it, was about 1200 characters of plagiarism directly lifted from the company website. I rewrote it, and expanded it to about 5000 characters. In retrospect, I feel like I could have deleted the plagiarized content first and saved, which would have made the rewrite and expansion passable, but I did not want to do it that way. Since I removed the plagiarized content and rewrote in a single edit, would this keep the article from qualifying for nomination? - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional rule A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), etc.. If it was plagarism/copyvio before, then it should be fine now. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, I think you'll be fine. We generally make exceptions for plagiarism because it is evil. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just be sure to point it out in your nomination to streamline the process. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Queue 2

Is it a good idea to have two soul/R&B singers - Jimmy Hughes and The Mighty Hannibal - in the same set of hooks? I don't mind personally, but someone might want to think whether either mine or Derek's should be swapped into a different queue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Too late! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That definitely shouldn't happen. Ideally, there should only be one arts-related hook per update, let alone two hooks on the same arts-related topic. Gatoclass (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Dr pda/prosesize.js and User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js

Does anyone have both of these scripts installed at the same time and, if so, have you experienced any problems with them working together? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I do, and I haven't. What problems are you referring to? Ucucha 20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have both of them installed. I was asking because the question was raised here when I notified the WikiProject Film members of the usefulness of Dr pda's tool for plot summary editing. Another editor wanted to know if the two scripts play well together, likely because she has one installed and wants to be sure before she installs the other one. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Prisoner functionary

Hi again, I have run into a disagreement with the creator of this article and am not sure how to proceed. Marrante insists that a Prisoner functionary is different from a Kapo, although the leads of both the Prisoner functionary and Kapo articles state that the terms are synonymous. Please see our discussion on the Prisoner functionary talk page, where I suggested a merge and he opposes it. I wonder if someone more experienced could pick up the thread of this DYK nomination. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pentecost

One of the two nominations in the DYK special occasion section has not yet been reviewed. General suggestion: to list that section with hooks nominated and approved like the others. Hoping to interest someone in Dorothee Mields, soprano --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sea Serpent (clipper)

I just removed this DYK from the Main Page. The article is comprised almost entirely of huge book quotes. The two big sources are old, so it might not be copyright violation, but it's still plagiarism to create an article with such large quotes. JamieS93^❤ 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked about that before approving the hook, and was told (which I accepted GF) that the sources were now public domain due to their age. Is this any more plagiarism than using any other public domain material as the basis for an article? Note the articles that say they use material from DANFS, for instance. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that plagiarism should be discouraged even if it is not against copyright. Did the people who approved of your using those sources know that you were planning to copy them word for word? —Soap— 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't use the sources - I questioned them. And I've heard that as long as it's clear it's a direct quote (i.e., "like so") it's not considered plagarism. Didn't know there was a DYK rule about it though. Oops? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize; I wrote what I wrote before I had looked into the situation more clearly. And you're right that it's okay to quote at length from sources, so long as the quotes are identified as such, but I do believe it's discouraged, especially for a high profile article such as a DYK. —Soap— 16:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Diff of the discussion preceding approval and selection for the queues, for reference. --Bencherlite^Talk 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a rule somewhere at DYK against articles consisting mainly of quotes from PD sources. Even if it's not a copyright violation, it is bad encyclopedia-writing. Ucucha 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All of which begs the question "should the DYK be struck from the records, or does it still count as it actually made the main page, albeit briefly". I note that after Bushranger raised the issue of close paraphrasing, no-one notified Djembayz of any potential problem with the article or hook. I merely confirmed that the books were (to the best of my knowledge) out of copyright as the had all been published over 100 years ago. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should we care? The hook is off the Main Page; I hope this serves as a reminder to the people who approved and promoted the hook that we have this rule (at WP:DYK#Selection criteria), which is in my opinion a very sensible one. I don't think anything else needs to be done. Ucucha 16:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Sometimes my brain slips a cog trying to do too much at once; I'll be more diligent about notifying from now own. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Jamie was right to remove this; copy-and-pastes of outside sources shouldn't be rewarded and aren't the sort of thing we want to be boasting about on the front page. As for how this article got there, I see that The Bushranger both approved the hook ({{DYKtick}}) and moved it to prep two days later. This is precisely why it's good to avoid promoting the same hooks that you approved, unless we're in a time crunch; letting someone else do it adds another double-check to make sure these things don't slip through the cracks. Ideally, a given DYK nom should get reviewed & approved by one editor, promoted to Prep by another, and moved from Prep to the Queue by a third. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

With the long quotes converted to block quotes, which don't count for DYK, it's clear that the actual text is not long enough to qualify for DYK (963 characters), although it could probably easily be expanded to that point. cmadler (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And that's my answer to Bushranger's comment above about attributed quotes: it's not plagiarism because it is attributed, but long quotes should be done as block quotes, which are excluded from the DYK character count. I don't think there's necessarily a problem with including lengthy public domain quotations that are properly attributed (though it may be a style problem), but the text of the article excluding those quotes is what should be counted for DYK qualification (and indeed, Shubinator's DYKcheck does exclude them, when they're formatted as block quotes). cmadler (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And had they been formatted as block quotes, I'd have not counted them - but since they were part of the article, well... ah, live and learn, I guess. As for promoting, I try hard to follow the "don't promote your own hooks" rule, but the "don't promote ones you reviewed" is rather harder - I try to let a couple of days pass on those, at least, but sometimes when preparing a prep it turns out halfway through that there simply aren't enough hooks - not without overloading on a certain topic, at least - in order to avoid it. I guess in those cases from now on I'll let somebody else finish it. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the discussion and clarifications. I thought that I had bent over backwards to observe copyright by citing all the sources and going out of my way to find material over 100 yrs. old. I was attempting to add material that is comparable to the DANFS / Britannica articles, about a merchant ship, without simply taking a single public domain source in its entirety, as is done with many of the DANFS naval ship articles. Please note that the actual, verifiable factual material about sailing merchant ships of this era is not very large, despite the significance of some of these vessels, unless one consults archival materials or proprietary database sources, which I have been avoiding for reasons of copyright. Djembayz (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was necessarily anything wrong it terms of copyright, citations, etc. The only issue was that the long quotes were in quotation marks ("") rather than block quotes. That can cause them to be incorrectly counted toward the article length. It's a DYK rule (because DYK is to recognize new additions written by Wikipedians, not stuff that someone else wrote 100 years ago), not a broader copyright issue. cmadler (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Can this hook be featured on the main page?

Can my hook - "...that award winning author Lois Duncan thinks that her novel Don't Look Behind You was a premonition of her daughter being killed by a hired gunman?" be on the main page? I'm not sure if it would be too controversial to have it featured on the main page as part of DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any inherent problem with such a hook, assuming it meets all the usual criteria. Because it relates to a living person, it will be held to a higher standard for sourcing, so make sure your sources are good and that you haven't mischaracterized or misinterpreted what they say. (I haven't really looked at the article or sources, just commenting on the appropriateness of the proposed hook.) cmadler (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Joe Chill (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Weed

Hello, I was the nominator of Bobby Weed which was in Queue #5 which just took effect. However, I did not get credit for my nomination. Could someone please correct this for me? TIA. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Possibly you forgot listing yourself when nominating. Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3

In hook 1 of Queue 3, "(example pictured)" needs to be italicized. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 07:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha 07:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Quirkies

Can updaters be sure to please put a quirky or funny hook in the last slot? We've had a few duds recently. Quirkies round an update off nicely and can make an otherwise weak update look much stronger. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I always try to, but there isn't always a quirky or funny hook to use. Joe Chill (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The lack of quirky or funny hooks is often a result of verified hooks being clearcut without consideration to the impact on future updates. Articles containing visually striking images or catchy hooks tend to draw quicker reviewer attention than more mundane hooks and thus tend to be verified more quickly. This results in such hooks being promoted with less waiting, often three or four to an update. When performing an update and seeing a verified hook that would work well in the last slot and working on an update already containing a quirky hook, please balance the needs of future updates against the need to move older hooks off the submissions page in much the same way as hooks with good images are handled. --Allen3 ^talk 17:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thinking loud, that what I did when I was composing - on purpose leaving some hooks for next updates (because they are younger, will suit better to another time zone, not taking 2 quirkies per prep as some do, etc.). But. Some nominators do their best to submit "interesting" articles and hooks, and some clearly don't, and I thought maybe there is some natural reward for this (in promotion speed). Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to think of some others - I thought a bird having a letter 'W' (or 'M') on its wing was quirky....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ableist hook

I think the hook for 2000 Dominican Republic presidential election in Queue 5 is discriminatory. The ' despite being blind and unable to walk ' makes it ableist.

It would be much more appropriate and more neutral POV if it read along the lines of:

... that Joaquín Balaguer who was blind and unable to walk without assistance at the time, won 24.6% of the vote in the 2000 Dominican Republic presidential election?

- HelioSmith (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Queue

*eyes four empty queues dubiously...* Just wondering what's up. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe leads in preps are too weak (barely above 1500b and not really exciting hooks)? Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter about the admin's personal beliefs. They are in the prep areas so they should be moved unless they want DYK to be empty later on. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

^ What he said. And when I fix up preps, I just take what's available, trying not to take too many image-bearing hooks for non-lead slots in the prep areas. (And also trying not to feel like I'm monopolising preparing the preps, too. :) ) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No slight to preps composers - it is a difficult and rarely rewarded job. Just please try to have strong first and quirky last hooks as this somewhat hides weakness in the middle. 8hr-rotation (instead of usual 6hr) encourages fewer, but more appealing noms. Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

None taken. And I probably could have done better than a plant and a house, true. :P - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• ...and there's four empty queues again. I've stuck what I hope is a more interesting lead hook in prep1. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• ...and now, five empty queues. Yipe! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cite after hook?

I was just told by an editor that a citation needs to be right after the hook, but I have had multiple experienced editors tell me that isn't so. I've seen many editors approve hooks without the citation right after the sentence and the hooks were never removed from the prep areas or queues.

So there is apparently two different belief systems when it comes to DYK approving. Reviewing the DYK rules, it says that hooks must be cited after the hooks. So what is up with these two belief systems and should the DYK rule be changed? Joe Chill (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK rules say the fact should be cited right after the hook. I and some editors allow citing further in the paragraph, as long as I can locate the reference. Materialscientist (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Two different systems of reviewing are annoying in my opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

One is set in the rules. Another is informal. Materialscientist (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the informal method - i.e. the first ref found after the hook fact appears must support the hook. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The method in the rules is more restrictive. So if a reviewer wants to, they can always use their judgment (WP:IAR]]) and decided that the citation is close enough to the hooked fact. But the rule does clearly say that the citation should come right after the fact, so if that's not the case, nominators should be prepared for a possible objection. cmadler (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to change the rule. Ucucha 15:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As long as the ref is (a) after the hook, (b) within the same paragraph, and (c) is clearly referencing the hook, there shouldn't be a problem. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm in favor of the current rule (with the understanding that some reviewers may be lax about it), for exactly the reason stated in the rule: "The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it since the fact is an extraordinary claim". This is also generally supported by WP:CITE#Inline citations, which states: "An inline citation should appear next to the material it supports. If the material is particularly contentious, the citation may be added within a sentence, but adding it to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient." If the DYK fact is really an extraordinary claim (as it should be), then the citation should generally be either at the end of the sentence, or (for long, complex sentences) even within the sentence. cmadler (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In reality, DYK facts are by no means always extraordinary claims, or "particularly contentious". Ucucha 16:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the current rule. It was added because without it submitters tend to get lax about citing the hook. When the hook is specifically cited, submitters have to take care that they provide the correct reference for it. But as matsci said, we don't have to apply it zealously, when the nearest cite can be checked online for example. Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)