Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Image question

I checked the DYK criteria but couldn't find anything on this. Does the hook image have to be a new image? The one I have in mind is very relevant to the article I have in mind, but has been on wiki for some time. Thanks in advance, WFC (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It can be almost any image; it should not be disturbing (e.g. excessive obscenity or controversy) and should comply with WP copyright - non-free images are not allowed on the Main Page. It should also have a decent look in the standard 100x100px DYK window and may be cropped for that. Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Although one more thing; what's the difference between alt text and rollover? WFC (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollover appears when you point to an image with the mouse. Alt text replaces the image on the page when images can not be displayed for one or another reason (network connection, browser settings, etc). Materialscientist (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Alt text is also important for readers with a degree of visual impairment who browse Wikipedia using a screen reader (see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images for more details) and needs to be descriptive rather than just the name of the image. Mikenorton (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I understood alt text, but on first reading I thought rollover was the same thing. So let's say I had a photograph of a person, the alt text should describe in reasonable detail what can be seen, while the rollover might be something as simple as his/her name? WFC (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It used to be like that: rollover is the "caption", explaining what is shown on the displayed image, whereas alt text explains what is supposed to be shown on the picture to a person who can't see it (visually or technically impaired). Materialscientist (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Lucas Maius

I just saw that this entry was moved to prep. Did someone verify it? It did not look like it. I have proposed an ALT hook but did not actually verify the entry... Nsk92 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I mis read it. Restored with a comment. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

George W. Thompson (Medal of Honor)

Hi, the nominator approved ALT1[1], but the original hook was put in Prep 2.Yoninah (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Erysiphe alphitoides

Hi, the same thing happened with Erysiphe alphitoides[2]. I think ALT1 is better. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that was intentional. I simply disagree with you. I think it's snappier with the main hook. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Next Queue 3

See the current extraprep area. Whomever moves this to a queue, please put in queue 3. The reason is the lead ties to the World Cup Final which will be on at that time. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page, make q3. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Note to do this I have to move queues a bit. Since no one has objected, I'm made it with the fewest moves possible. This thread on my talk is related, as well as chat that was on the noms page. It was time-sensitive and a huge worldwide sporting event so I felt the move was justified. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's plenty of precedent for swapping hooks/updates to synchronize them with current events, especially when the event is a major one. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Quién Como Tú (song)

Hi, the nominator approved ALT1,[3] but the original hook was put in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

fixed. --Allen3 ^talk 12:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the same thing just happened for Bernard Taylor (Medal of Honor),[4] which was moved to Prep 2. Am I doing something wrong here? Yoninah (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced it with the prefered ALT1 hook. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Instruction creep?

At this nom there is a suggestion that the well-referenced statement that one out of a group of fewer than 10 large examples of a type of medieval enamel is the "most famous" is too "POV-ish" and "Peacocky" for the main page. I am fairly sure that well-supported hook statements of a similar type have been accepted on numerous occasions before. Does anyone remember? Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be fine; on the main page at the moment we have a vague, uncited assertion of some boosting by Marcus Trescothick and a verbatim quote from a travel guide. Yomangani^talk 15:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think as long as you have a solid source or two to back it up it shouldn't be an issue. Some things really are famous and it shouldn't be considered POV to say so IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The general WP:V and WP:NPOV principles imply that stronger claims require stronger evidence. I would think that for something being the "most famous" anything, one generally needs more than one source, especially considering that we are talking about a hook to be featured at the main page. I am not sure about the circumstances of this particular entry, though. Nsk92 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to consider the claim itself as well as the source. A superlative within a small group (which seems to be the case here) is very different than a superlative within a very large group. The nature of a smaller group can make it easier to ascertain. cmadler (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional DYK criterion suggestion

AFAIK, DYK has a relatively plentiful supply of candidate articles. I'm wondering if we might consider adding a new criterion directed specifically at articles on geograpically locatable subject matter. The suggested criterion is:

• Articles covering geographically locatable subject matter should provide latitude and longitude using {{coord}} or an infobox counterpart.

Should that suggestion not get support, a watered down version would be:

• Articles covering geographically locatable subject matter should provide latitude and longitude using {{coord}} or an infobox counterpart, or else should include {{coord missing}} to encourage the addition of such coordinates.

The de facto standard for geographically locatable subjects is that they display coordinates. DYK's adoption of this standard would support other wikipedia efforts to geocode articles, such as WP:GEO.

I note, by way of example, that four of the current DYKs are geo-locatable, and none has coords nor "coord missing". They are Three Pigeons, South Carolina Highway 291, Portland City Grill, Battle of Lucas Bend. And that seems a missed opportunity. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the easiest way for someone to find such coords? And in the case of something like Hwy 291, which piece of highway to you set the coords for? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:GEOCODE is perhaps the best "how to" page that has been put together. It points to, amongst others, Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates. As to Hwy 291, the best advice is a rough centre point, and the use of scale or dim parameters such that the map viewed when following the coord link shows the extent of the linear feature. Example. See also WP:LINEAR. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose sounds like instruction creep to me. I see no reason to disqualify an article merely because a coord is lacking. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would you oppose something as trivial as adding {{coord missing}}? It takes next to nil effort. Why stop there? Why not dispense with the need for references? Part of the point of DYK criteria is to ensure a bsic good standard of article. DYK has and can still be used to push to quality bar higher. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - correct me if I'm wrong: it's possibly that coordinate tagging might be required in the featured article criteria (falls under comprehensive coverage?) but I see no suggestion that coordinate tagging is required in the good article criteria. New articles at the DYK level should certainly not be held to a higher standard than good articles. Also, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no mention in the WP:MOS that coordinated tagging is required or even desired. I'm not arguing against it per se, but questioning the degree to which there is project-wide desire to implement this. cmadler (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Per Mj and cm, I can see little reason to add this to DYK. You might insist on it at a GA I suppose, but at DYK it's only going to be instruction creep if we start adding rules about such minor details. Gatoclass (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think for our new comers creating their first article it complicatews the DYK process even more. I think it can be suggested howver (per GA) but not as a requirement for DYK. So essentially oppose per WP:Creep. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – Agree that this is instruction creep; we do not need to complicate DYK any more. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that the coordinates should be provided, wherever possible in an article, but I oppose making it a mandate. My favorite tool for getting the necessary data is http://www.batchgeo.com/lookup/, which provides geographic coordinates based on an address. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ASohn.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Shabazz

Malcolm Shabazz has made it into the queue after being verified by Epeefleche and Mbz1, in spite of my BLP concerns, clearly stated at T:TDYK. It's currently in queue #5. Since I have little doubt Epeefleche will attempt to have me sanctioned under a previous remedy at WP:AE if I try to remove it myself, and the last thing I want to do after the last couple of days is create an opportunity for another shitstorm, could someone please return it to the queue as I still have some BLP concerns and am considering putting it up for AFD. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Gato, I understand your concern, but I think in this case it would unfairly raise the standards too high for a DYK nom. The article is well referenced and factual, I disagree with lacking notability. Some of your past concerns were addressed. As I understand, others ask better analysis of the sources, but documenting facts usually suffices for a non-FA article. Materialscientist (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have returned it. Whatever the merits of the article, the hook used was inappropriate, a textbook example of an unduly negative BLP hook. Ucucha 08:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't look there .. yes, the hook was not appropriate. Materialscientist (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still mulliing over whether or not to AFD it, but I do at least need some more time to make a few changes. Gatoclass (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article that I think give a more balanced, less one-sided picture. I'm still not altogether comfortable about the idea of featuring this on the main page, but as the article might well survive AFD per WP:PERP:2, I think I might forgo the attempt. Quite frankly I've had about enough of Wikidrama over the last day or two in any case. Assuming the changes made are acceptable to Malik, I think I will bow out of this discussion and let others decide what to do with the nom. Gatoclass (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a general question about BLP. If the facts in a BLP article are supported by RS, how come it still violate the policy? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

One can create a seriously biased article from reliable sources, just by selecting material that supports one's POV and leaving out the rest. There's a lot more that goes into the creation of an encyclopedic article than WP:RS. That's why we have other policies like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Gatoclass, for your improvements to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Gatoclass (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• A few points of clarification.

1. Gato complains in his first entry above that his personal BLP concerns were clearly stated at the DYK discussion. Yet the hook was promoted. I would point out to Gato that, while he is strongly encouraged to share his views, at the end of the day it is consensus -- not his personal views -- that prevails. In that discussion, his views were a minority ; of one.
2. I note further that Gato's BLP concern, raised there, was a very different concern. It was a BLP1E concern. That concern, as all others who commented other than Gato consensed, was without merit or substance. Here, apparently still dissatisfied with the hook, Gato raises a completely different BLP argument.
3. I commend Gato on not removing the hook himself, but (as per sysop Sandstein's strong suggestion to Gato at his AN/I, and that of others to Gato in a more recent discussion) raising the issue for others to discuss, in accord w/wp:admin, and act on as appropriate.
4. Gato is of course welcome to AfD the article. But his claim as to a BLP violation existing in the article is reminiscent of his strong claim of a "clear WP:BLP violation" in this recent AFD. At that recent AFD, not one editor read BLP the same way Gato did. Accordingly, the result was a keep. I can't see why there would be a different result here, but if Gato believes he can make a good faith argument to delete the article, I would encourage him to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A little clarification for you. "Consensus" at DYK does not mean that if two users approve of the submission and one opposes, the hook gets promoted. What it means is that (before the hook is promoted) all interested parties must make their best endeavours to resolve their differences. To put it another way, hooks or articles which are the subject of unresolved disputes are not as a rule promoted until those disputes have been resolved. So even if one user objects to the content of the hook or article, the hook normally should not be promoted until that user's concerns have been met or until he or she agrees to drop his objections in the face of consensus.

Like everything on Wikipedia however, this is obviously not an absolute rule. If for example a general consensus was formed amongst DYK regulars or disinterested parties that someone was simply being obstructionist or otherwise quite unreasonable, then it is possible for those objections to be overruled or for a !vote to be taken. In practice however, this has almost never occurred, as in virtually all cases a hook will either fail because multiple parties oppose it, or an agreement will be reached. So I hope that helps to clarify things a little. When someone has a substantial objection to a submission, you are obliged to take note of those concerns and do your best to resolve them, you are not entitled to just go "Oh, someone else agrees with me, that's 2:1 against, tick." Main page content is too important to be decided upon by a temporary advantage in numbers at T:TDYK. Gatoclass (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I come to this discussion rather late, perhaps too late to do anything about this particular entry. However, I feel strongly that this entry should not have been promoted. I don't think this is a BLP1E case and the article appears to be well-sourced. I don't see a problem with this article existing in mainspace. However, being featured on the main page is a different matter. DYK rules set a higher standard than the formal WP:BLP requirements. One of the official DYK rules says: "Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided". Having read the article, IMO, the article almost entirely consists of negative information about its subject, a living individual. A lot of the article discusses his psychological and possible psychiatric problems, behavioral issues, various fairly embarrassing details about his family and private life, criminal convictions and arrests, etc. This seems to me exactly the sort of article that the above mentioned DYK rule was designed to preclude from being promoted. If this was a particularly famous individual, perhaps an exception might be warranted. But that is not the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The problematic hook was not promoted this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that. My problem is not with the current hook (which seems fine), but with the text of the article itself. The DYK rule I quoted says "Articles and hooks which focus on...." (emphasis added). Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Where to draw the line on BLP issues is often a problem. See the AFD, DRV, and ongoing talk on Mimi Mcpherson, which may get recreated, cleaned, and prot'd. I'm going to leave what to do with this particular Shabazz thing to someone else. I don't care if it stays or goes as a DYK but what happens needs to settle it once and for all. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that this entry needs to be resolved, and that the sky is not going to fall if this entry does appear on the main page. However, in terms of the article's content, this one looks to me to be well over the line of what is appropriate for a DYK BLP entry. Nsk92 (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of correctness, the actual rule states that "Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided" (my emphasis). I agree that this one may be over the line in that regard. Also, since it now seems necessary to chime in with an "I agree", I think Gatoclass's comment above about the nature of consensus as regards DYK is correct. Consensus is not the same as counting up votes. cmadler (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of inconsistency in the rules at Wikipedia:Did you know. In the "Selection criteria" subsection, part 4, it does use the term "unduly". However, further down, in Subsection "The hook", sub-subsection "Content", bullet no. 4, the same rule is given without "unduly". That's where I copy-pasted it from, when making my post. Nsk92 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the word "unduly" long ago as some users were protesting at the promotion of any article with predominantly negative information. That was leading to undesirable results such as rejection of articles about career criminals, for example. It should be obvious that we can't exclude every predominantly negative BLP, that would be akin to censorship, the idea is just to exclude the borderline articles or the ones that are clearly inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine by me. However, Wikipedia:Did you know does need to be modified for consistency, so that both occurrences of the above mentioned rule in the page have the same wording. Nsk92 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we to be subjected to a rant by Epeefleche every time Gatoclass makes a comment? This tiresome, vindictive and irritating behavior reflects very poorly on Epeefleche. 159.83.4.153 (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's always fascinating to me when an IP who hasn't edited in weeks (and rarely, at least under their IP) drops into a conversation such as this one with a hostile "every time" comment. Then again, of course it could just be the appearance of matters.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That does seem to be the pattern. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

DYKs with stubs

I have been noticing that several Wikipedia articles that were named DYK have stubs in them. I thought no stubs were to be on any DYK article. Chris (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Many editors do not update the stub tags after they expand the article. This is not an impediment against DYK promotion, but rather a technical inaccuracy - all articles that pass DYK length limits qualify as non-stubs. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not quite right. A 1500 char article on World War II would certainly be a stub. But I agree that the vast majority of "stubs" appearing as DYK noms should not be so classified. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I interpret the "no stubs in DYK" rule to mean that 1) the article should legitimately not be a stub and 2) it should not be classified as a stub. But if an article is legitimately not a stub, it is trivial for any editor to fix the classification (if in doubt, just remove any stub templates and change any stub classification on the talk page to "start-class"), and if it hasn't been done by that time, it should be done by the editor who approves the hook. cmadler (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Cmadler's point sounds like a reasonable approach to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hook length question

Another question about the rules that came up in the discussion of one of the DYK nominations today. When the nomination involves a picture together with a textual hook, should the word '(pictured)' in the hook be counted towards the 200 characters limit on the hook length? I thought that the answer is yes, and that every character and space, from '...' at the start to '?' and the end of the hook should be counted when the hook length is measured. However, since this was disputed, I'd like to double-check with the experts. Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Which hook do you have in mind, just out of interest? Gatoclass (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It was Janusz Krupski (July 5 section). So what's the story, did I just give the nominator a hard time by mistake? Nsk92 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we ever got around to adding the fine details concerning hook count to the rules. I have a vague memory there was a discussion about this long ago and consensus was that the (pictured) should be included in the count. I personally start the count from the word "that", BTW.

On the broader question, I rarely do a character count on hooks in any case as I tend to go by gut feeling. If it doesn't seem long or overly difficult to parse, it's usually okay in my book. However, hooks that are close to the 200-character count are often too long in any case. I'm really not a fan of double-barrelled hooks, for instance with this one I would probably suggest dropping the info about the plane crash because it really just distracts attention from the more interesting fact that he survived an acid attack. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I had thought of the 200 character limit as a hard rule, that does need to be well-defined. I looked up User:Art LaPella/Long hook and he also says that he does not count '...' but does count '?' So basically he begins the count with "that", same as you. Incidentally, what is the DYK convention on featuring two articles in the same DYK hook? Is that allowed? Nsk92 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't count (pictured) either. I also start with "that" and end with "?". I will sometimes allow a few extra characters for unique cases and "double" hooks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Oh heck yes Nsk, we even have a Hall of Fame for those - the current record is 26 :)

When counting the length of a multi-nom hook, you should only count the characters for one of the noms and ignore the others. The reasoning is that even if the total length is way over 200 characters, it's still a big space saving because otherwise they would all have their own individual hooks.

Re Art's methodology, that's the same way I do the count. Gatoclass (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's ever been a consensus on counting or not counting the characters in "(pictured)"; see E5. Personally, I've tended not to count it either. cmadler (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• First, I think as a general rule its good to have consistency, so as to avoid inconsistent application of rules by reviewers. Inconsistent application is an invitation for reviewers to apply POV in their reviews -- much like a police officer only applying jaywalking rules by gut ... which it turns out is them only applying it to red-heads, or the like. For sysops, that's especially important, as it allows them to avoid the inappropriate "appearance" of impropriety that wp:admin warns against. I've no strong feeling as to what the rule should be, though I lean towards counting "pictured" -- the rule, after all, is to make sure that the hook is not overly long, and the term "pictured" adds to its length. I would support any approach supported by consensus, however.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

View tool

What is wrong with the for checking page view stats? It looks like it hasn't worked since the 6th. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does seem to quit from time to time. A few days were lost a month or two ago. I think it gets data from some auto-generated data list and sometimes the list doesn't auto-generate, so the program has no data to report. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The underlying grok software, which is indeed quirky at times, is run by sysop Henrik. Feel free to contact him if you have any questions, but note that he has not edited for nearly four months now.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

T:DYK currently at seven hooks

Don't know if anyone noticed yet, but User:DragonflySixtyseven removed a hook from the current (as of this post) set on the Main Page without replacing it, leaving only seven hooks on the template. An administrator might want to consider promoting a replacement quickly. –Grondemar 04:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

1 hour left for an update. Materialscientist (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that one hook was removed[5]. The hook was for Taylor Vixen. I must say that agree with DragonflySixtyseven on that one. The hook text was rather in bad taste and very tabloidy, IMO. I don't think hooks like that should be promoted. Nsk92 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although I don't think there anything inherently wrong with the article. A simple hook like this would have worked: {{*mp))...that Taylor Vixen was Penthouse's 2010 Pet of the Year? –Grondemar 05:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Grondemar.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 1 fix

The second hook of Queue 1 contains a link to a disambiguation page. [[Red River]] should be [[Red River (Mississippi River)|Red River]]. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Spacing similar articles

You guys might want to space out my 1990–2004 Michigan Wolverines football teams. They are all pretty similar. I'd suggest using them every other 6 hour period starting pretty soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If they are similar, you might want to consider submitting a multi. We have plenty of hooks on hand ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have already nomed them all separately, each with worthwhile hooks. I don't really feel like doing a bunch of multis. I guess you guys can deal with them later this week when you have 15 different similar hooks if you don't want to take my advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless Tony objects, we could combine the 1996 team hook and the Remy Hamilton hook since the first hook already references Hamilton. That would create at least one multi. The combined hook would read: "that the 1996 Michigan Wolverines football team included Michigan's single-game reception and consecutive field goal record-setting performances by Tai Streets and Remy Hamilton, respectively?" Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the present surplusage of hooks, and unless Tony objects, I've come up with some multis that combine 10 of the proposed hooks into 4. The 4 proposed multis are:

(1) Combine the 1992 and 1993 hooks as follows: "that the 1992 and 1993 Michigan Wolverines football teams featured Tyrone Wheatley, who was the Big Ten Conference scoring champion in both years?"

I kind of like the 92 hook as a separate fact.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(2) There are currently 3 hooks that reference Remy Hamilton. They could be combined as follows: "that the 1994 and 1996 Michigan Wolverines football teams included Remy Hamilton, who still holds the Big Ten Conference single-season record for successful field goals at 25?"

Seems odd to skip 95, which has a very good hook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Also field goal needs to be linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(3) Combine the 1998 and 1999 hooks as follows: "that the 1998 and 1999 Michigan Wolverines football teams featured Tom Brady?"

O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

However, it seems that 1998 is being merged with 2000 and 2001 now at T:TDYK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(4) Combine the 2001, 2002, and 2003 hooks into the following multi: "that the 2001, 2002 and 2003 Michigan Wolverines football teams featured John Navarre who broke almost all of the school's passing records?"

These are simply suggestions given the excess number of hooks. Tony -- Please advise if this is objectionable. Cbl62 (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the 03 hook as a separate hook. Also I think, since Navarre is less well-known than the people whose records he broke, their names should stay in the hook as originally proposed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Prevent nominations of the same article

Hi there, I would like to suggest that actions be taken to prevent nominations of the same article from occurring. I came across this case of a nomination of an already-featured DYK article that almost got transferred to the queue. I was browsing through the nominator's talk page, and I realised the mistake. Currently, there doesn't seem to be any written statement or caution to prompt reviewers to ensure a nominated article has not been already a featured DYK before. I believe something can be done about this? Look for me at my talk page if I don't happen to check back this posting. Thanks, AngChenrui (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's part of the DYK rules that reviewers should be checking for, just the same as verifying the hook, in-line citations, article length, article newness (creation or expansion), hook length, etc. User:Shubinator/DYKcheck looks for previous appearances on DYK or ITN, so reviewers using that tool should easily catch this. cmadler (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 dab

The fourth hook of Queue 6 contains a link to the disambiguation page conundrum. The best thing to do may be to just unlink it. My second choice would be a link to Wiktionary: conundrum, which is apparently allowed by rule E4. Third choice, I guess, would be disambiguating it to riddle. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be disambiguated to riddle. It best matches the second entry at the disambiguation page, for which there is unfortunately no Wikipedia article. I think the best solution would be to link to Wiktionary. cmadler (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Which I did. Ucucha 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 copyedit

In the hook for The Mongoliad, could you replace the word "released" with "published"? It doesn't seem right to say a project is "released". Hook and article author here. Skomorokh 04:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Released" seems appropriate to me in the given context. Gatoclass (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One might say "the project released a novel", but "the project was released as a novel" strikes me as off. Skomorokh 07:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It reads okay to me. Perhaps you are just a little close to it. Creators are not always the best judges of hooks about their own articles. Anyway, it's only got a few minutes left now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Times?

Why are all but 1 of the queue times 6 hours, while one is for 18 hours....is this a typo? CTJF83 chat 06:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Ucucha 06:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Currently right now at Template:Did you know/Queue between Queue 5 and 6 there is an 18 hour gap. CTJF83 chat 16:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as of this writing, there is a 30 hour difference between the scheduled run times for Queue 5 and Queue 6. The reason for this is the bot which moves information from the queue to the Main Page cycles which queue it pulls from instead of shifting information between holding areas. Queue 1 follows Queue 6 in the rotation, not Queue 5. Thus the 30 hour difference is due to four other queues needing to be processed before the bot loads Queue 5. --Allen3 ^talk 16:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, thanks, CTJF83 chat 19:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue

I think the 8th hook in Queue 2 would read better this way:

... that Ramón Estévez, who played a sycophantic, "spineless corporal" in Cadence, wore glasses and "his hat most of the time" to prevent being recognized as Charlie Sheen's brother? Yoninah (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP?

Queue 2, Hook 4: ... that Sherman White was banned from ever playing in the NBA due to his involvement in a point shaving scandal in college? Is this a BLP issue which should disqualify this hook as written? Agolib 19:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say so- that's a hook that focuses on a negative aspect about a living person. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We even have an official DYK rule on the point: "Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." IMO, this hook should not have been approved, and, in fact, I would even suggest moving this entry from the queue back to T:TDYK. Nsk92 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it and promoted one from prep 1 to compensate. The hook is:

...that Sherman White was banned from ever playing in the NBA due to his involvement in a point shaving scandal in college?

and the credit is: *  Sherman White (basketball) – Jrcla2 (give) (tag). I'll leave it for someone else to fill the gap in prep 1 and move that back to T:TDYK if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I put it back on T:TDYK, with this hook struck, so that a more acceptable hook may be substituted. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sunday Bach cantata

Please remember Special occasions 18 July. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In prep 1 now. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Valuable"

Kayau is objecting to my nomination of Zaleski Mound Group in its current state, because it needs "a minor copyedit". Other than the existence of a sentence fragment (which s/he quickly realised didn't exist, and thus struck out an objection on that ground), the only specific detail that Kayau has given is the idea that these mounds are "valuable" archaeological sites. Multiple reliable sources on the article ensure that they're valuable — one source specifically about the mounds says so, and another says that all archaeological sites that fit a classification (which the mound group fits) are valuable. Given this fact, is there really any need to worry about this? I seriously doubt that there are any other objections — I nominated the article less than two hours after creating it; the length is more than 3,000 characters; and sufficient sourcing for the hook is present in the infobox. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a big issue. See comment there. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

ORP Rybitwa DYK hook

In the ORP Rybitwa hook currently on the Main Page the italics are incorrectly used. It's supposed to be ORP Rybitwa, not ORP Rybitwa, as we do not include the prefix in the italics. Also, its supposed to read ORP Mewa instead of ORP Mewa. Manxruler (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding length rules

I have not done DYK reviewing in a while, so my understanding of the DYK rules is fairly rusty. I have a question regarding the article length requirement (1500 characters of prose). Does this requirement have to be satisfied on the date the article was created? Or is it OK to still promote an entry if it was below the minimal length on the date of creation, but was expanded to over 1500 characters while the nomination was pending? The same question regarding the 5x+ expansion requirement. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They need to be 1500+ characters before someone approves it on the noms page at T:TDYK. If you nom it and it's still below 1500 char, hopefully the reviewer will tell you to get it over 1500 char before he/she approves it ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 10:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Usual rule is the article should be submitted within 5 days of its creation or expansion. If the article is too short, we push the authors to expand it ASAP (unless expansion is not feasible). If the article was submitted up to 8 days after expansion/creation, but the length is Ok, we accept it for review, but ask the author not to do that again. If it is both late and short, it is usually discarded. Materialscientist (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That too ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 10:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• For expansion, when do you begin tolling? In other words, under the usual "submit-within-5-days-rule", if an article expansion is begun on day 0, the article passes 5x on day 4, and expansion continues through day 8--must the editor submit it by day 5 (5 days after creation), day 9 (5 days after it passes 5x), or day 13 (5 days after the editor stops w/the expansion effort)? Or is there no clear answer?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• The article should be listed on the nominations page under the date the expansion began. The "formal rule" is that it should be submitted (and should therefore have reached 5x) within 5 days of that. But the informal practice is to accept nominations going back 8 days, or sometimes even farther, if there are still hooks on the nomination page for that date. (So, if there's a big backlog, you might be able to stretch it to 10-12 days after expansion began.) But if it's more than 8 days, and/or if it's way down near the very oldest date listed, editors may object to it. cmadler (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hook change request before it goes live

Resolved

 – Hook changed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current hook for Sherman White (basketball) in the queue is:

"...that in 1950–51, Sherman White came within 77 points of becoming the National Collegiate Athletic Association's all-time single season leading scorer?"

However, I'd like it changed to:

"...that Sherman White is remembered as the best college basketball player in New York City history whom barely anyone got to see play?"

I've been having a discussion with Yoninah about this hook (see the thread on my talk page here). I wrote the entire Sherman White article but was never notified that something was wrong my original hook (it was determined to be libel of a living person) and therefore never had a say in the new (present) hook, which I really hate. Can someone please change the DYK hook for Sherman White in the queue before it goes active later? Jrcla2 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you make it a bit more neutral? Also, it's a bit short notice (not your fault) as the new hook will have to be checked. If you can make the hook more neutral, I'll check it and change it for you, since I'm in a good mood. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I double-checked the article and references and this is pretty much a direct quote from the source:

ALT3: ... that Sherman White is remembered as the best college basketball player in Long Island University history, though few got to see him play? Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How does Yoninah's hook sound, HJ Mitchell? Jrcla2 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. I've replaced the hook in the queue, so that should be the hook that hits the MP in about 9 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Double DYKs

Are there articles that have been featured as DYKs twice? Some of the Michigan teams that I have gotten on the main page recently will be among my next GA and FA efforts. I anticipate improving them 5x again. Can I get them on the main page again?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to remember a "unofficial" three-year gap requirement, though I don't think it was ever written down anywhere. Courcelles (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That seems to be contrary to what DYK is all about. If there is a lot of new content in an article, it should get a day, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• No double dipping. That has been our policy for a long time now. Sorry. Gatoclass (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Damn. Midweek, I expect to start a full-blown FA-pursuit with 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team. I am sure there will be a ton more content and the article will look totally different. What if another author nominates it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Is no double dipping somewhere at Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• D1. Courcelles (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Also, if you're interested in DYK history, see 1 and 2. Shubinator (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• There have been discussions about allowing articles a second DYK appearance after a certain time has passed (three years was proposed), and possibly only in the case of it being done by different editor(s), but in the end there was no consensus to change the established rule. So no, they can't be in DYK twice. But you could get them on to the Main Page again as Featured Articles, or possibly through "On This Day". cmadler (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite for updating rules of thumb

I wrote the original Rules of thumb for preparing updates back in December 2008. I've felt for a long time that they needed updating, because even after all this time we are still unfortunately getting some very unbalanced updates from time to time.

I have therefore just written an updated version of the rules of thumb. I was going to boldly add it to the additional rules page as I did originally, but thought perhaps on this occasion it might be worthwhile seeking some feedback first. The new rules of thumb includes more detail about the principles involved in creating balanced updates, and a simple formula for doing so. The updated version can be read here.

I'm also thinking the rules of thumb for preparing updates would probably be better with their own page rather than tacked onto the end of the additional rules, as these are not really rules, but guidelines. Feedback welcome. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is general looks good to me. I do have a few suggestions:

• I would add somewhere that it's a good idea that no more that 75% (6 out of 8) of the hooks should come from the English-speaking world (i.e. the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand).
• In the frequent topic areas, instead of saying that there should be only one of each topic, I would say that there can be two, as long as the two hooks are from widely-different aspects of the topic area (i.e. a college football and a cricket hook, a World War II and a medieval war hook, a modern TV show and a classical music hook, a plant and an animal hook, etc.)
• I would add somewhere that it is better to select hooks from the bottom of the queue since the submitters have been waiting longer, and also that every promoted hook should have all concerns addressed before it is promoted (i.e., even if there is a green or blue checkmark, if someone posted a question or concern afterward, it is best to wait for that question or comment to be addressed first).

Hope this helps! –Grondemar 16:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the last point, not sure about the other two. I tried to keep it as simple as I could, and I'd be reluctant to add further complications. It can always be tweaked once it's in place of course. Gatoclass (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I think your second point is also probably valid, and have removed the phrase "preferably no more than one" and replaced it with "no more than two in a standard eight-hook update". Gatoclass (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the second and third suggestion by Grondemar; I'm not so sure about the first. I think Gatoclass's updated rules of thumb are good, provided that they are clearly labeled as rules of thumb and not as strict requirements. cmadler (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both for your input. I will move it into mainspace in the next day or two, but having taken a look through the various DYK pages, I may have to have more of a think about where exactly this page will be best located before going ahead and making the move. Gatoclass (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tweak to hook in current set

The current set includes the hook '... that on 3 July 1877 the French ironclad Thétis rammed her sister ship Reine Blanche who had to be run ashore to prevent her from sinking?', surely that should be '... that on 3 July 1877 the French ironclad Thétis rammed her sister ship Reine Blanche, which had to be run ashore to prevent her from sinking?'. Mikenorton (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree and changed, though not 100% sure about ships .. Materialscientist (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6, Hook 6

The ALT1 hook for Prix Blumenthal was approved by the nominator,[6] but the original hook was put in the queue instead. Yoninah (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching this - I have swapped the ALT1 hook into Queue 6 now, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • To make sure that rejected hooks are not used, it was suggested a little while back that they are struck out (like this) by the reviewer. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dhimiter Anagnosti, 15 july nomination

Can someone please review Dhimiter Anagnosti? It seems like no one wants to touch it. Thanks! --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that my personal record is nine days before the first comment and I'm sure that other could more than match that; just wait and eventually it will be looked at. Mikenorton (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed. Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

350 DYKs

In case you did not know, Daniel Case now has had 350 DYKs! I just gave him a well-deserved barnstar, but thought others might want to share in congratulating him on this milestone achievement. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's certainly piled them up. For some reason he doesn't update them at DYKSTATS though, only at his user page, which is why not many people know about it :) Gatoclass (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 1 fix

Fourth hook of Queue 1: "a improved" → "an improved". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, along with a few other things. Ucucha 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On hook3, Queue 1, the Mouth that Roared should be lowercase and in quotations; "the mouth that roared". Per the article, Hudson County Community College. (cited at bottom part of article under notable persons/officials) Thanks--NortyNort (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The good news and the bad news

The good news is that we currently have 114 verified hooks at T:TDYK. Thankyou everybody who is helping out!

The bad news is that the total number of hooks awaiting promotion has blown out over the last two or three weeks from 160-odd to over 250. Looks like we are about to enter another "catch-up" period. If anyone has been nominating articles written by other people, I suggest they refrain from doing so for a while until we get rid of some of the backlog. Gatoclass (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The latest round of Wikicup began on July 1. If past experience holds, the participants should be running out of pre-written articles in another day or two. --Allen3 ^talk 00:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that explains where they all came from in such a hurry. Thanks for the explanation :) Gatoclass (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the next round of DYKs supposed to be pulled from the oldest or is there no specific order?--NortyNort (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We generally try to pull from the oldest hooks first, but sometimes pull out of order for reasons such as balancing a queue, using hooks with compelling images for the lead hook, etc. cmadler (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One should lean toward promoting older hooks to clear them off the suggestions page, but it's much more important to create a balanced update, so an approved hook can be pulled from anywhere. Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been helping out here the past few days because of the backlog and moved some of the 'older' hooks in prep areas yesterday to help clear em' out. It looks like everything should balance out in the next few days. However, July 10 has 3 verified hooks (from what I see, the Q reads 4) and I wanted to move them in soon as well. The problem is that one of them is mine, nominated by someone else. Also, when do the stale discussions from older dates and unverified hooks get deleted? Does an administrator do that? --NortyNort (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nominations are deleted only after review; there is no "stale" at TDYK, but there is eternal "backlog". In other words, those which hit the bottom of T:TDYK queue sit there until sorted out. Any editor can delete a nomination, but should be prepared to justify that action. Some time is usually given to defend the nomination, and thus it is a good practice to notify the author(s) after posting (critical) comments. Materialscientist (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth 'fudging' a few early changes to clear the backlog for a day or three (i.e. every 5 hours?) I'll go and try Good Articles rather than DYK for a bit :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6, Hook 2

Hi, someone just pointed out that I shouldn't put so much detail in the hooks. Queue 6, Hook 2 would probably read better as:

... that during the Battles of Prek Klok I and II, 13 times more Viet Cong were killed than American troops?

Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it sounds fine as is. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How to flag "Did You Know" abuse?

I've seen a number of instances where a particular party (recently "Michigan Wolverines") have managed to somehow get themselves free publicity in the "Did You Know" spot. I can't find any simple way of checking that a) I was right in thinking that the party in question has appeared far more often than random chance would dictate, and b) how to flag it up where it's happened. Any suggestions? HieronymousCrowley (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean party? The way you wrote it, it made it sound like the DYK section was promoting a candidate from a political party. Do you have examples of a page appearing multiple times in the DYK section? CTJF83 chat 17:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Did you know?" hooks are not selected by "random chance"; they are selected based on the contributions made by Wikipedia editors. All DYK articles have either been recently created or 5X expanded. Sometimes certain Wikipedians write an extensive amount of material on a single subject across several articles within a short period, resulting in several hooks on articles that are on similar subjects being listed in Did You Know over a short time period. The best way to resolve that a certain topic area is being overrepresented is to write and expand more articles on underrepresented subjects and submit then to DYK, so we have a greater diversity of hook subjects to select from. –Grondemar 05:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What Grondemar said. Last year we had three different battleships up at today's featured article, in the news, and DYK, partly because of random chance and partly because three editors wrote and nominated the content. They don't appear without an editor's rewriting and nominating. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining how the DYKs are selected. Although I haven't been keeping score I'm pretty sure that Michigan Wolverines have appeared at least four times recently (the most recent being yet again today). To the neutral observer, something like that certainly appears... suspect at best. It's a specific team, after all, not something as generic as "battleships". As far as I can see simply adding more DYKs isn't going to necessarily resolve that problem, or stop similar things from happening in future HieronymousCrowley (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the recent spike in articles on the Wolverines is the result of a lot of hard work by User:TonyTheTiger. It's still not as much of a glut as it could have been, however. Because of a coincidental influx of articles from the WikiCup, most of the Wolverines hooks were condensed to feature multiple articles in order to make room. Otherwise,you would have been seeing one every update for several days. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess User:TonyTheTiger must have a Michigan Wolverines hotdog concession then? Well, good luck to him. Got ANOTHER entry today. *sigh* if only a Spurs supporter were quite so... conscientious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HieronymousCrowley (talk • contribs) 16:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John W. Shumaker

I wonder if a more experienced administrator could handle this DYK request. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Google book links

Does anyone know why it is that some users can see the contents of a Google Book linked page, while others, clicking on the same link, can't. For example while reviewing this nom, when I clicked on this link all I saw was a description of the book with a message "No preview available", yet the article creator claims (and I don't doubt him/her) that the link goes straight to the relevant page. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the page linked above. Google books, like Britannica and OED, might limit the previews if the frequency of accesses from a given IP exceeds some threshold. Materialscientist (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't. I have a feeling that Google Books has different previews available in different countries, presumably for copyright or licensing reasons. I'm in the UK, FWIW. Bencherlite^Talk 08:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That depends on the country you're in. For example, in the U.S., everything published before 1923 is public domain, so in the U.S. you can see the full text of most books published before 1923, but European Union copyright law is more restrictive, so users there often cannot see the full text of these books. Ucucha 08:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in South Africa and I can't see that link. Normally I can see "open" pages in "Limited preview" books. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Limited preview" has different dynamics than "full view". You (usually?) get "Full view" only when the book is out of copyright, and that depends on your country's copyright laws. "Limited preview" is only for newer books; I think is given as a result of an agreement between Google and the publisher of the book. Ucucha 08:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Edit: What I said didn't make too much sense considering that this was a limited preview book. I can actually see the page; I presume the agreements between Google and publishers may only be valid for some countries. Ucucha 08:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• As Materialscientist said above it's how often you visit google books. Google books tracks how many times you visit the site. If you visit a lot then you'll get the no preview page. New York Times does the same thing with their website I believe. -- Esemono (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wormrot

Taken from Template:Did you know/Queue/2: "... that Earache got Wormrot in January 2010?" why not "... that Earache got Wormrot after an illegal act?" Malice please.--Cannibaloki 23:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Due to WP:BLP, all negative statements about a living person or persons must be clearly sourced and written in a conservative manner. As both reviewers stated in their comments, the article sources only imply an illegal act occurred instead of making a clear statement of fact. Without clear and high quality sourcing that state an illegal act actually was committed by the person accused in the hook, we need to go with the hook that is actually supported by the article sources. --Allen3 ^talk 00:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this source please.--Cannibaloki 00:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} I added an additional source that provides information about the illegal download of Wormrot album Abuse. The source comes from a blog entry written by Cosmo Lee (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), a journalist that has contributed to a multitude of books, journals, and magazines.--Cannibaloki 05:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That source refers to Earaches own blog,[7] which says, This spurred me to download the album from mediafire - it does not make it clear that they admit to an illegal act; the actual blog is not conclusive; just because someone writes that they downloaded an album (with mediafire) on their own blog is not satisfactory evidence that they have committed any illegal act.  Chzz  ►  05:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

CAT:ADMINHELP patroller here... why does this need admin help specifically? sonia^♫♪ 06:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Please clarify why administrative help is needed. If you have concerns over content or sources, use a noticeboard instead. Regards SoWhy 08:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If this were to be changed, it would require an admin; the queues are protected, and in fact it is now on the Main Page. But Allen3 and Chzz are correct, it should not be changed. cmadler (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The journalist wrote: "Recently, Pearson used MediaFire to illegally download Wormrot's album before he acquired the rights to it and signed the band." I forgot to reply...--Cannibaloki 04:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem: same article in two Queues

Must go to bed now, but I have just spotted Vandalism of art in different hooks in two queues. It is part of the lead hook (a double hook) in Q4, and the last hook in Q6. Pls could an admin investigate before either set of hooks goes live. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed the one from q6, but I'll let a regular add a new one; I don't want to inadvertently unbalance it. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the swap out. --Allen3 ^talk 23:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both for sorting that out. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion for the Rules writers

With the heavy backlog that DYK has experienced in the past few weeks, I am sure that many first-time DYK submitters are worried about why no one is reviewing their hook. I, too, have succumbed to panic for my recent submission, which went 7 days without a review until I asked another reviewer to look at it. When I went to the bottom of the list to review some more, I found that people who had nominated their hooks on the same day as I did were waiting 10 or 11 days to be reviewed!

I mention this because for people who are experiencing the panic of "Why aren't they looking at my hook?" your rules offer little succor. On the Suggestions page, it says you should contact a reviewer if 6 hours have passed without an update. As we have well seen in the past weeks, that is a gross underestimation. I have desperately looked into the Rules page — and then into the Additional Rules page (G1) — finally to find a long-winded and rather unreassuring explanation for the delay.

I would like to suggest that you rewrite the Backlogged? section on the Suggestions page more to the point, so novice submitters won't have to frantically look elsewhere to figure out what's going on:

Backlogged?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first (so that those hooks don't grow stale), it may take several days until your submission is reviewed. If you wish to contact an administrator who regularly updates this page, see the page Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins for a list of administrators who have volunteered to help with this project.

Thank you for your consideration, Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done Yoninah ... its over 1500 chars and less than 5 days old. However no refs!!!!

More seriously - Good idea. Less seriously - Suggest: "Whilst you are waiting for your hook to be approved please try and review one other hook per hour belonging to others. When you have 48 reviewed then please feel free to contact an admin who will give you almost immediate attention." Cheers Victuallers (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL. cmadler (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean I can revise the paragraph on the Suggestions page? (It's not locked for editing.) Here is my suggested text, incorporating Victuallers' suggestion:

Backlogged?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first (so that those hooks don't grow stale), it may take several days until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions above).

Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. –Grondemar 04:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Two American football hooks in Queue 2

Queue 2 has two hooks (the sixth and the eighth) about American football. As the last one isn't "quirky" at all, I'd recommend replacing that one. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the first hook in that queue has the wrong tense and is missing a word: "is world's" should be "was the world's". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Prep2

• ... that freshman Louisiana State Rep. Erich Ponti was quickly caught up in a maelstrom over a large pay increase for legislators in 2008? does not make much sense to me (even though I know what maelstrom means, but I bet many don't). How about others? He, I was talking recently about quantum rotors being too technical for DYK :-P Materialscientist (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Maelstrom" may not be widely known in its technical meaning, but I think it's pretty well known as a metaphorical term, which is how its being used in this hook. However, metaphors can be misleading in the DYK context, and I don't see that the article text supports this hook wording. The article says

"In his first legislative session, Ponti voted in committee to send a proposed legislative pay raise to the House floor. He then voted in the full chamber against the measure, known as SB 672, which nevertheless passed the House 56-45 on June 13, 2008. Amid a large public protest, Governor Bobby Jindal announced that he would veto the legislation, which would have tripled lawmaker salaries."

That wording doesn't indicate to me that Ponti was "caught up" in any kind of controversy, much less a metaphorical maelstrom. It only says that voted in committee for something that later became the subject of public protest -- there's no indication that Ponti was affected by the controversy.

Furthermore, the one-sentence paragraph in the article about castrating sex offenders gives me a sense that the article is some sort of WP:coatrack (I don't for a minute think that's the contributor's intent; that's just a perception it gives me). I'm going to move the hook back to the suggestions page for more work. --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Prep1

• ... that Darryl Dawkins and Bill Willoughby were the first high school basketball players to directly enter the National Basketball Association (NBA) after they were drafted in the 1975 NBA Draft? do we need to define NBA and repeat "draft" in this hook? Materialscientist (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, maybe "...after they were drafted in 1975"?--NortyNort (Holla) 13:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah

I'm looking through my DYK numbers and I come to this. And my it was first DYK, too! Haha. I wish we had DYKCOUNT back then, now. :) ResMar 02:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We did have it back then. It was started in March 2008. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, does that mean I'm allowed to add it? Now that I think about it, "Asinara" and albino donkeys ARE pretty appealing, hehe.` ResMar 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes you can. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

'K. ResMar 02:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Murdough

• ... that while Ryan Murdough sought the Republican nomination for the New Hampshire Senate, he has dismissed the Republican Party itself, claiming that it has "sold white people out"?

Created by Stonemason89 (talk). Nominated by Stonemason89 (talk) at 00:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dismiss seems to be too strong of a word because he still is trying to get on their ballot. Also, he is "seeking" not "sought". How about ALT1? --NortyNort (Holla) 11:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• ]ALT1... that although Ryan Murdough is seeking the Republican nomination for the New Hampshire Senate, he has denounced the Republican Party itself, claiming that it has "sold white people out"?
• There are errors in both of the proposed hooks above. He's running for the state House of Representatives, not the State Senate. Also, it seems that it's not accurate to say that he is seeking "the nomination", because there are three positions to be elected (not just one) and the primary will winnow the number of Republican candidates from five to three. I suggest the following ALT:

• ALT2... that although Ryan Murdough is seeking public office in New Hampshire as a Republican, he says that the Republican Party has "sold white people out"?

--Orlady (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• ALT3... that Ryan Murdough, running for a seat on the New Hampshire House of Representatives, says that the Republican Party has "sold white people out"? -PinkBull 01:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• ALT2 verified.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

---

I removed this hook from T:DYK/Q2 on request of another sysop, as he and I both really weren't sure if the should be posted to the main page. I will let Stonemason89 and the other sysop know about this discussion. NW (Talk) 00:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think we should have DYK entries on current political candidates at that level, regardless of the abhorrence of his stance. DS (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there an official policy stating that political candidates couldn't/shouldn't be used as DYK entries? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am also not sure that this is suitable for DYK, white supremacists stating that so and so sold white people out is a bit of a yawn really, it might be suitable for Do You Care? According to New Hampshire House of Representatives - On average, each legislator represents about 3,300 residents - His running for such a position doesn't seem to make him particularly notable in the context of DYK. Unomi (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think posting a racially inflammatory hook on the main page will do good to anything. Materialscientist (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It may not be official policy. But it's common sense. DS (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine then. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this decision. (Not the decision to pull it from the queue for more discussion, I'm fine with that; I disagree with the decision that it shouldn't be run.) First, it is not the place of DYK to comment on notability. If you believe an article topic is not notable, nominate it for deletion. Contrary to Unomi's comment ("His running for such a position doesn't seem to make him particularly notable in the context of DYK."), there is no additional notability criterion for DYK. I don't really see a valid concern about the timing of this DYK relative to the election (e.g. giving him publicity immediately before the election) as the primary is not until September 14. As for the "inflammatory" nature of the hook, I'd say that Mr. Murdough is the one who made the statement, and it's clearly attributed to him. But I'm sure we could come up with another hook for him. Maybe something about him getting support from the American Third Position Party but not the Republicans, or about the statement that he is "fraudulently running as a Republican" because it's easier than getting on the ballot as an independent. cmadler (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Being the one that verified it, I didn't see a problem. He said it and in his current position, it is a hook. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has some sort of policy regarding racial DYK hooks on the front page. Maybe wikilinking white people was too much. Anyway, I believe this is the world we live but I do think we could come up with something more tasteful for the front page like Cmadler's second suggestion. I don't think a DYK for this article should be pulled for perceived notability.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ALT4: ...that while Ryan Murdough is attempting to run for the New Hampshire House of Representatives as a Republican, he is also the chairman of the New Hampshire chapter of the American Third Position Party? Stonemason89 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ALT5: ...that while Ryan Murdough is attempting to run for the New Hampshire House of Representatives as a Republican, the chairman of the state Republican Party refused to support him? Stonemason89 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think ALT5 is best as it will make a reader more curious but am fine with both.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ALT5 it is then. Anyone care to add it to one of the queues? Stonemason89 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it myself then. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Error reports

Is the "Error reports" box at the top of this page accurate? It says "Please do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS." Does that apply to all queues and preps, which are "specific template versions"? I thought that WP:ERRORS should only be used for problems currently on the main page. 159.83.4.148 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Specific template versions" refers to things currently on Template:Did you know, which is what is shown on the main page. It doesn't refer to things in queues and preps. Those are reported here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edited the message for clarity. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is 4.8-fold expansion enough (10 kB to 48 kB)?

Dincher and I have expanded Ricketts Glen State Park from 10 kB to the current 48 kB, but there is not 2 kB more of material to be added to the article. We also did most of the expansion work in a sandbox, then did a history merge on July 25th (10 to 44 kB) (diff of the history merge). I know there have been cases in the past where close enough to 5x expansion was deemed OK. We are going to submit this to peer review and then to FAC and feel it is close to FA quality already, so hopefully it can be a DYK. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that expansion; I'd certainly approve it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, I'd approve it under IAR- that's great work. Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Dincher (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much - since you both thought it was OK as is, would either of you want to approve the hook on the nominations page? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Current queues 2 & 4

Just a note: Nguyen Cao Ky appears in both queues, one with a regular link and one with an expanded link. Yoninah (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a problem as in both queues the other expanded link in the hooks is a different person. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Queue 5

Queue 5 has six U.S.-related hooks (all of them except 2 & 3), including two hooks right next to each other (4 & 5) about East Coast Republican politicians.

Also, in the third hook, "that have migrated" should be "who have migrated". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved out one of the politician ones for a Polish one. See note at top of the queues that about half of hooks being about the US. Fixed who/have too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue4

The lead hook of queue 4 has just been AFD nominated here. Materialscientist (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And is awaiting a speedy keep close... Somewhat POINTy, given the DYK queue ...--Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue 4: image and delete proposal of Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv

The image File:Everest Peace Project - Dudu with sewed flags.jpg has an absurd description. Some admin, please correct it per its commons description. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv is still being discussed in a deletion/merge (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv) proposal. This proposal may need to be resolved before the DYK. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an admin needs to pull that from the queue and it should be held until the AfD is resolved. cmadler (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not sure if the merge/deletion will be resolved in 7 hours. --NortyNort (Holla) 23:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the image, but I've gone and replaced the hook (and image) with the oldest verified hook that had an image and no concern. Namely, Warsaw University Library. I don't have a lot to do with the administrative side of DYK, but I think I've followed all instructions correctly (image has been uploaded locally and is covered by cascade protection). If I have done anything wrong I apologise. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese DYK overload?

I just noticed that there are alot of Vietnamese related hooks as of late. I thought DYK had a policy of not "topping" DYK with country-centric hooks? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The solution is to write articles about non-Vietnamese topics and nominate them at DYK. Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mind answering if there is such a policy or not first? That was the core of my question.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone writes a set of related DYKs on a country we don't get a lot of noms for. Plus they were spread around different queues. What's the big deal? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh fer....look, all I wanna know if theirs a policy on not overloading DYK with country-centric nominations, yes or no? Can a Wikipedian get a simple answer or not? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a rule against overloading a certain set of hooks, but DYK is largely a function of what is being written. Lots of Vietnamese hooks being written=lots of Vietnamese DYKs. We don't reject articles based on there being too many from a certain country, and Vietnam is certainly not a country WP as a whole has excellent coverage of, so anything to close that deficiency is a good thing. Courcelles (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec )As far as I know there's no policy about this, just an attempt by editors assembling sets of hooks to keep them balanced - i.e. not more than one on a similar topic in a set. We get rushes of hooks on particular subjects on a regular basis, it could be rats, bats, baseball teams, sharks, Norwegian politicians (or even earthquakes) but it all seems to even out in the end. Mikenorton (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an unspoken rule to spread them out so that there is no more than one hook on a topic or country up there at once, apart from UK and US because of the way the supply is, and I can't see how there has been flooding anyway, 25 or so in one month (packed into about 20 hooks) after many months of hardly anything at all. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you two for clearing it up. Greatly appreciate it.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors submitting Vietnam-related DYKs, I just wanted to confirm that, AFAIK, we're not trying to bomb DYK; IMO it's mainly just that members of WikiProject Vietnam have been experiencing a spike in activity lately, trying to fill voids in WP's coverage of Vietnam-related content, as was mentioned above. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the allegations of a big burst are true in any case and greatly overexaggerated. I submitted 22 VN articles in the last month, but haven't done anything else on new VN articles that I can remember for at least a year. Some of these were grouped into 2-3 article hooks and I think that only 15 hooks actually took up space. I only see eight in the last three months (and in total) on Dragfyre's page. There are no regular article writers on VN who have done more than the odd hook or two, except Grenouille vert (talk · contribs), but he hasn't been active for 4-5 months. In any case about 25 DYKs for a country in one month isn't anything at all. Some guys put out one DYK a day and they are usually on one small subtopic; I wonder how many US college sports DYKs there have been in the last month? A lot more than 25 I think as there are multiple regular DYK producers on it YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Rhodocene

I created an article on the chemical substance rhodocene a couple of days ago. It's my first effort at writing a page from scratch and I'm wondering if it is suitable for the DYK process (also a new experience for me). I was thinking of something like:

... that the rhodocene monomer (pictured) exists below -196 °C and above 150 °C in gas phase but not at room temperature?

I realise this isn't the place to make a nomination, I'm just looking for some thoughts / feedback on whether pursuing a DYK is a worthwhile idea. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked the sourcing for the fact mentioned in the hook, but from a quick look at the article I can say this looks like a good candidate: it is well-referenced (with correctly formatted refs), long enough, well structured and written, and has a decent-looking, snappy hook that non-chemists (like me) can engage with. I suggest you nominate this accordingly. Keep up the good work! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and encouragement - I've added a nomination to T:TDYK. EdChem (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected DYK images

Admins, remember to fully protect images when you're loading a set into the queue. Shubinator (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm hugely ignorant about image protection, so just to clarify -- is this a change to the established procedure? The instructions still talk about cascade protection. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No. In short, before promoting a set to the queues, the lead image should be fully protected for 3 days. If the image is on Commons and you are not an admin there, then the image should be (i) saved locally, (ii) uploaded to en.wiki (any license), with the entire summary text copied from Commons (as a code), and {{c-uploaded}} attached to that summary. (iii) Protected on en.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I reported an unprotected image on the Main Page here last week, and was told it was cascade protected from Commons. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Due to a software glitch, there is a chance that cascade protection will have a delayed action. My barbaric way is to try adding a hidden comment to the image text and save it (w/o admin privileges). If I manage to do that, then the image is to be protected :-). Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think of that, I'll try it next time! Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The instructions for image upload to the queue should probably be clarified/updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That'd be good. I'm also an admin on Commons and protect them there. I'd not heard of MS's "trick" but it's a good test. When you use a file from Commons without uploading here, it "shows through" and isn't actually on en wiki, just it's page info. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot that: if you try editing the image summary and it is empty (or does not contain usual pertinent file info), it means you're editing a ghost file and better look for the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Materialscientist (talk • contribs)

Is it possible to edit a ghost Wikipedia file when the original Commons file is protected? Is that the "cascading" protection mentioned above? cmadler (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) I was a little too vague in my original post (my bad), so I'll describe the gory details of image protection as I see it to clear up confusion. There are two ways an image can be protected and ready for the Main Page:

1. The image is protected at Commons. Once a Commons admin fully protects the image, we're set. Only admins can edit the "ghost" page here on en.wiki (see reupload-shared at Special:ListGroupRights).
2. The image is uploaded to en.wiki. The en.wiki admin uploads the image locally, copies the license and image information, and tags the image with {{c-uploaded}}. This is where cascading protection comes into play: it's not necessary for the admin to manually protect the image. When the image is loaded into the DYK queue, it becomes transcluded on a cascade-protected page, and the Mediawiki software will fully protect the image. This might take a while though as MatSci mentioned above. I'm skeptical of MatSci's trick; I've tried the same thing before and it doesn't work. What does work: 1) click edit on the original cascade-protected page (in this case it's User:Ameliorate!/DYKlock) 2) Scroll to the bottom and click "Save page". This is a null edit and won't actually change anything (the edit shouldn't show up in the history). However, it does force the software to rebuild its dependency tree, and immediately triggers cascading protection.

Shubinator (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a very different thing in mind, and my test edit was to check for protection, not to trigger it as nul edit might do. I had several cases when the file was protected on Commons, according to logs, but I could edit (vandalize) it. Materialscientist (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh whoops, misinterpreted your comment. That works fine as a litmus test :) Shubinator (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason for my saving that "litmus" edit is that there is one form of protection when you can click "edit" and see the code, but can't save changes. Surely there should be an easier test without cluttering the image file. Materialscientist (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Try this out: as an IP (logged out), click on "edit" at the top of the file. If you get the pink/red notice saying "This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded ...", then it's protected; else it isn't. This way you don't need to save. Shubinator (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hale Bopp

prep1 has

• ... that the Comet Hale-Bopp inspired Graham Waterhouse to compose Hale Bopp for string orchestra, ending with a boy soprano's, How Brightly Shines the Morning Star?

I don't understand the comma after boy soprano's, - could be: boy soprano's How Brightly Shines the Morning Star or: boy soprano singing How Brightly Shines the Morning Star. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 20:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Polykrates

Similar case: if there is a comma before the title of the opera Der Ring des Pölykrates, there should be one after it, right? Or none. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 20:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Listings

Have you ever considered a system similar to the one used on Wikipedia:Requests for feedback for the nomination listings? This way, the inputbox used to make a new entry would automatically do so on the current day's subpage, EX. "Template talk:Did you know/YEAR MONTH DAY" with a brief navbox at top of each page and those subpages are transcluded onto the main one based on whether there's anything left on them? It might make it easier to navigate and faster to load and it could be implemented without disrupting anything. シ ☏ 21:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_44#T:TDYK_and_Loading_Times and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_49#T:DYKT_Page_too_big for some of the previous discussions. Shubinator (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like we already have. シ ☏ 23:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK entry for 9 August: "Nanyang Style"

I note that a DYK hook on the "Nanyang Style" appears at "Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1". As it relates to Singapore, which is celebrating its National Day on 9 August, is this hook is going to appear on that date? I started a section at the special occasion holding area called "Template talk:Did you know#For 9 August, National Day of Singapore". — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is now in queue 4 and will appear on the main page beginning at 7am UTC 9 Aug. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Stefan Jaracz Theatre

Hi, not sure why this hook was removed from the nominations page. I reviewed this July 27th nomination on August 5 and posted a request to the creator's and nominator's talk pages to re-format the URLs. On August 6, when I was not at home, the nominator requested that I forward the request to another editor who helps with their WikiProject. It seems to me that 2 or 3 days can be allotted to fix up an otherwise eligible nomination, no? Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you asked Wizardman (talk · contribs) about the edit? After all, there might have been some reason you don't know or maybe he simply didn't know what you know. Usually, some days should be allowed for fixes of course. Regards SoWhy 20:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I posted it on his talk page. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I did give it two days before I removed it; the article still has the problems I removed it for anyway, so while it may have been a little quick, it should've been fine. Formatting the refs takes about five minutes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. What other problems did it have, other than the bare URLs? Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor suggestion about the way we count the 1500 characters

It strikes me as odd that we don't distinguish between the main text of the article and the lead, which in theory should simply be a summary of the main text and not contain any new information. An article with fewer than 1,500 characters in the body of the article should not creep over our threshold just because some of the information is repeated to make a lead. (Sheepishly admits that at least one of his shorter DYKs, Peulan, would have failed on this test...) It might help provide a painless way of getting rid of some of the shorter articles that add to the backlog, since if you can't write 1500 characters without repetition (let alone deviation or hesitation) then is it worth showcasing at DYK? If implemented, this would of course mean that the scripts used for checking character count would need to be adjusted, but that's a separate point. What do people think of the principle? Bencherlite^Talk 06:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The major problem with that suggestion is that not all articles are organised into sections. How do you determine what portion of the text constitutes the lede in, (from from a random selection) Seisia, Queensland, Vienna Symphonic Library or Bizerte crisis? What if the creators *had* added random section breaks, but none of the information in the opening one was repeated elsewhere, such as in Robert Edward Chambliss? And if you suggest that section breaks should become a requirement of DYK, I suspect most here will cry instruction creep. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion a few sections above "backlog" which is discussing an overall character minimums which could help address this problem. A 2000 character limit might help as most intros are relatively short. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hooks w/ images backlog

In the July 29 section, there is a plethora of hooks with pictures. Common sense tells me that along with the backlog, everyone one of those hooks won't make it to the lead. Is it ok to make a judgment call and place some without their pictures? It's been done to my hooks before but I didn't want to be bold without asking here. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I pick them based on how well they look in the small DYK window, a variety of topics as the lead, and how interesting its hook is. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. May I suggest adding the following note under the image rules? "Not all images will accompany their hook if DYK is experiencing a backlog." --NortyNort (Holla) 10:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Another criterion reviewers/queue composers may want to consider is the relevance of the image to both the hook and the article. cmadler (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some are very relevant and shouldn't be excluded. If the hook is on a house though but doesn't describe a feature of the house than there is a marginal need for the picture is DYK is backlogged. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how the picture of Mozart got to head queue 6, given we have a surplus of good images. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I had originally put those hooks in the prep area and after re-reading the rules today, the picture has to deal with the article being nom'd. I think it should be pulled out but I can't edit the queues. The hook can be bumped into a prep area. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks moot now. I don't see Mozart in the queues, someone took care of it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah too late, already on main page. Yep, should not have been the lead hook. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't updated DYK much since 2008, but I think the article quality and whether th picture works should be the main criteria for the pictured slot, that's how I did it anyway, I usually didn't give it to anything stubby YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, I fully understand that not every image I submit will be used. Many haven't been. The point of encouraging image submissions is to make sure we have a good pool to choose from, not to use every single one. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue 1 fix

In hook 7 of Queue 1, Space Hawk needs to be italicized as per MOS:T. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Whale meat in Prep2

I haven't looked into the details/circumstances behind it (rather short of time tonight), but I just looked at this article (currently in Prep 2) and noticed a {{POV}} (neutrality) tag at the top. Others may like to check and see if any action is needed before moving to a Q. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the suggestions page. Perhaps someone who knows something about the topic can address the neutrality tag. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a fairly healthy discussion going on on the article's talk page. I've solicited for an inclusive list of problems to be addressed in the hopes that we can see some movement before the nom expires. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DYKmake probem

In the credits currently in Prep 1,

{{DYKmake|Boys & Girls 1+1=3|Theornamentalist}}

is rendering as

  Theornamentalist – [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] (give) (tag)

Clearly DYKmake does not like the 1st parameter. Does anyone know how to fix this? —Bruce1ee^talk 05:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless Shubinator says something, I would remove this credit and issue it manually. There are easy ways to fix the look of this string, but experience tells that the bot might crash upon issuing such "fixed" credit. Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. DYKUpdateBot should run fine with it as-is. It's the "=" that's causing the trouble. Replacing it with {{=}} would make the string look nice, but would almost certainly crash the bot. Replacing it with &#61; (its HTML encoding) should display properly and the bot should run fine....but I'm not 100% sure. More like 70%. Shubinator (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the title and user fields are flipped. Shubinator (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to test the bot with your HTML encoding fix in a sandbox? Failing that, probably the safest option is to do what MS suggested above: remove the credit and issue it manually when the queue hits the Main Page. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding 1= and 2=

{{DYKmake|1=Boys & Girls 1+1=3|2=Theornamentalist}}

fixes the rendering:

  Boys & Girls 1+1=3 – Theornamentalist (give) (tag)

and I would think that the bot would also handle it properly.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot would fail with this method. It scrapes the wikitext directly from the queue and parses the wikitext on its own (which is why Mediawiki and DYKUpdateBot have slightly different behavior for non-standard titles/usernames). @Bruce1ee I'll try to do a test run tonight. It can't be in a sandbox because of the way the bot looks for associated talk pages, but I can test on the page itself and revert after. Shubinator (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just did a couple test runs, and the bot hangs with &#61;. My suggestion: leave the credit as-is and the bot will deal with it properly. If the broken display is really bugging you, you can remove it and manually credit. Shubinator (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I see you've also adjusted Queue 1 (where it's currently sitting) – thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for input re issue with Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

There's an unresolved discussion on T:TDYK concerning the inclusion of Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which indisputably meets the DYK inclusion criteria but is being opposed by a few editors for exclusively political reasons (i.e. factors other than Wikipedia policy). Some input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated here. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Special occasion

Please review August 14 and 15. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, see comments. Thanks. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Time and length per update

As discussed above in the "Backlog" section, could an admin: 1. Change the update schedule from 6 hours to 4 hours, and 2. Adjust all updates currently in queues/prep areas down to 8 hooks per (putting the removed hooks into a prep area so they aren't lost). Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Small suggested change to a hook

Regarding my hook about Hans Freeman, presently in queue 2: Looking at it now, I realise I should have wikilinked the word "protein" after the name of the protein (plastocyanin) to the article protein about the class of molecules. Is it worth making that small addition? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Red Baron

Queue 5 says: "... that Edwin Benbow, the only ace on the FE.8, evaded combat with the Red Baron, Manfred von Richthofen, on 23 January 1918, only to shoot him down on 6 March 1918?" But Manfred von Richtofen#Who fired the fatal shot? says: "Experts now generally agree that Richthofen was killed by someone on the ground." R4 says "If your article contradicts an existing article, the contradiction should be resolved one way or the other before your article is approved. Don't expect Did You Know regulars to resolve the contradiction for you." Art LaPella (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Could change it to "...only to be involved in shooting him down...". If that doesn't put it over length, at least. Silverseren^C 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This shoot down date is not the one that killed him. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A "shoot down" does not mean the pilot was necessarily injured or killed, only that the aircraft had to crash-land, which is what apparently happened to Richthofen on March 6, 1917. So there is no conflict which needs to be resolved. Crum375 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Art LaPella (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the dates in the queue which seemed wrong.[8] So assuming this is correct, it was a good thing this was brought up. Crum375 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Prep area 2, Hook 5

Hi, the hook about Eugene Anderson caught my eye and I read the article. The hook source doesn't say he was an orphan, but a son of a single mother who was frequently disabled; therefore he lived at times in orphanages and foster care. I changed the text in the article to reflect that, but something needs to be done about the hook. Personally, I think it's enough to say: "... that future insurance litigator Eugene Anderson got admitted to Harvard Law School with the help of an attorney he met while hitchhiking across the United States?" Yoninah (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I took out "an orphan", that solves it too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Typo in Queue 2, Hook 6

Note: ... that although Citizen Cope's "Sideways" has never charted, it is has been covered by Santana, Sheryl Crow and Corey Taylor? Yoninah (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Schreker operas

Two Schreker operas in one queue (5, soon) - isn't that too much of a good thing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Swapped one with a hook in queue 6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation again

Following a discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page, I've put forward a compromise proposal concerning the disputed DYK nomination for Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Briefly, this would involve passing the DYK now but deferring its appearance to January 1, 2011 to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the seal being first used. Please see T:TDYK#For January 1, 2011, Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for details. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Using Prosesize to count characters

I'd like to ask what might be a silly question. How does one use Prosesize to determine whether an article has at least 1,500 characters in it? I've installed the script and tried it out, and it only returns the "prose size (text only)" (or "readable prose size") in kilobytes and words. Does one have to multiply the figure in kilobytes by 1,024 to obtain the number of characters, or something like that? (It would be really great if Prosesize could also figure out the number of characters in an article automatically ...) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You use "Prose size (text only)". For small articles, it doesn't give kilobytes; for example, it says St. Leger is 6139 B. Ucucha 11:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so 6,139 bytes mean 6,139 characters? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I hope it's not 6139 kilobytes! Ucucha 12:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Just looked up the meaning of byte. I was getting it confused with bit (eight bits make a byte, and hence a character). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful, in some computer languages 16 bits (2 bytes) make up a character (in case you weren't confused before :) ). Shubinator (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You can also use, DYKcheck, which I prefer. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Will try it out. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantata on Sunday if possible

The Bach cantata BWV 179 was nominated for Sunday, the word Sunday is mentioned in the hook. It is now in queue 1 for Monday. Is there a way to move it "up"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hook swapped and now in Q6. Now scheduled to run at 18:00 (UTC) on Sunday. --Allen3 ^talk 21:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hook too long

The hook for Cordoba House, currently in the partially constructed Prep 2, is 225 characters. Since DYK is already expanded to nine hooks, I think the hook size limit should be strictly enforced for all hooks. In this case, I would probably just eliminate the restaurant and bookstore, but I'll leave it to others to decide if and how to pare it down. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, who expanded and nominated the article (but with a hook different from the extra long one), has taken care of it per the suggestion, and it's now an acceptable length. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Walter Fink

The "today" in his hook in q3 is nice, but I don't understand the comma in "the 80th birthday of Walter Fink, is celebrated". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I. Removed. Materialscientist (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

other?

Picky again: reading once more in q6 "... that Bach used the music of the opening chorus of his Siehe zu, daß deine Gottesfurcht nicht Heuchelei sei, BWV 179, a cantata written for the eleventh Sunday after Trinity, in two other masses?" (the hook was not my idea, but ALT1.), I don't think "other" is correct because that would imply that the cantata is a mass which it isn't. Possible: "in two masses" or "in two of his masses" or "in two short masses". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed, already on the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue 2 picture error

For some reason, the picture for Queue 2 (1995 Airstan incident) appears above the hook, rather than alongside and below it as lead pictures normally do. 71.79.87.249 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/2, for admin's convenience. 71.79.87.249 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Backlog

The noms page has a large backlog. Two ways to help:

1) reviewers focus more on the days in pink and red -- this is always a problem as people focus on the newer noms

2) we had a 9th hook til the backlog is cleared up. A few have already started doing this

— Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A 9th hook is certainly a good thing. If it affects balance, OTD can easily be lengthened. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Add my support for 9th hook. Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been adding a 9th hook to updates scheduled for days with a shorter than average TFA blurb. Looking forward through scheduled TFAs shows August 6 (already added) and 9 as good candidates for this treatment, with August 7 a borderline case. With this tone of this discussion, I will be making additions for dates with borderline cases over the next week or two. --Allen3 ^talk 23:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, the number of noms has gone up lately, which is part of the reason for this. If reviewers could focus on pink and red hooks that'd help a lot too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that having too many hooks on DYK per update is messing up the layout on MainPage. This is making POTD too far down the page. Adding more SA/OTD items is an easy way out and good for temporary relief, but it's against the policy there. Our backlog is our problem. We need another way to clear the backlog without messing with our neighbouring projects on MainPage. How about more frequent updates? Demand longer articles and better formatting and referencing? Shorter hooks if we are indeed having more hooks per update? I don't know what is the best solution, but we really should not keep marching 10 long hooks on MainPage. Right now DYK is taking up too much space on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a stat for "average number of hooks per day"? I figure it to be in the mid-to-low 30's but lets say we switch to 4 hour hour rotations, we get 48 hooks a day. If we switched to 6 hooks per 4 hours, we'd get 36 a day. I agree with the better referencing and formatting as well. Occasionally, hooks by creators/nominators could clearly be better written and the article could be in better shape. Sometimes, hooks are buried in the text, manipulated from the original reference or cited with bare urls. I understand there are new users getting motivated to edit, so it is expected to a degree. Some users make it easy to verify though by by providing comments to assist a verifier. And some hooks just aren't hooks but make it to the front page after a stale discussion. For regulars, there is room to take advantage of the fact that just about every hook makes it on the front page.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did 10 hooks come from? I've only seen 9 discussed and used that I noticed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, there's 10 on the main page right now, but I don't know where that came from and on my screen's resolution it's not out of balance with the rest of the main page. Suggest still staying with 9 for a few days. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also 10 hooks in Queue 3 now. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Only 5–6 events are posted at a time" on SA/OTD per rules there. There were 8 till I removed one a few minutes ago. The extras were added to maintain left-right balance on MainPage to match the long DYK update. ITN was also lengthened with previously removed stale, old news. This should not be done every day. POTD got push further and further down because multiple sections on MainPage got longer and longer. --PFHLai (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a simple solution to help trim the backlog: Get tighter on approving. If someone posts a hook 7 days after article creation, deny it; that's too late. If someone posts a hook for an article that's 1501 bytes of prose, tell them to expand it. Just doing that would start bringing the backlog back down to reasonable levels. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Denying 7 day-old nominations is fine, althugh a little bureaucratic. I do have to wonder if denying hooks that technically meet all criteria, albeit barely, would consume more time and energy than the few hooks shorter it would make the backlog would be worth. If we want slightly longer articles, let's make the minimum 1,750 characters. Courcelles 18:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree in tightening rules but denying a 1501 char article is inventing a rule not enforcing one. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is enforcing one per selection criteria #2: "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators." Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a self-defeating rule. Either the minimum is 1500 or it's not. We can't have you telling people 1500 isn't enough and everyone else telling people it is. The two clauses need synch'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've always interpreted that rule as a way to weed out articles that are obviously incomplete (i.e. lots of empty sections). I don't think trying to enforce tighter standards than written-how much over 1,500 would be denied?- will lead to anything but drama, when just raising the number some would set objective criteria. Courcelles 18:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been asking nominators of articles at just over 1500 characters to expand -- mostly they have, so it hasn't reduced the backlog, though it has improved the articles in question. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a DYK much (in an admin/reviewing sense) but I do have some suggestions. Firsly, I agree with declining articles posted late (that would definately help). The other thing is that every single verified hook seems to make the main page. The rules actually state the hook should be "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article." Perhaps it is nostalgia messing with my recollection, but didn't DYK used to be more interesting (in a QI type style). Perhaps, there should be more flexibility to remove/reject dull hooks. The other question is how long should be give editors to respond to questions/comments. Does it need to be from the time it was made right to the bottom of the backlog. Perhaps this is just my incessant rambling but it might be worthy of posting and, if so, I'd be interested in others opinions. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As I am looking at the hook statistics right now, 63 of the newer hooks have already been verified, while 62 of the older hooks are still waiting to be verified. It seems logical that we should somehow "force" reviewers to take care of the older nominations first. I'm wondering if there's any way you could lock the nominations page so that reviewers can only edit the older hooks? Or you could create two pages, one for all nominations and one which contains only "older" hooks for review (this could be updated manually each day). Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than the sheer number of noms, this is the biggest problem, I - and an all too few others - spend massive amounts of time trying to get these cleaned up. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To go back to an idea mentioned above, I'd actually get more dramatic, and require 2500 characters for noms. Raising it to 1750 is not going to do much to address the problem (as we'd say in economics, the elasticity of nominations with respect to character count is too low).radek (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Declining noms that are submitted "too late" is one obvious measure that could help resolve this. Another is to become somewhat brutal in rejecting noms that have serious problems -- and hooks that are not very interesting. Additionally, however, it's worth remembering that the volume of nominations is highest when universities in North America and the UK are on holiday, and that the volume of submissions typically drops drastically during university examination periods. Accordingly, the current backlog might "magically" dissipate a few weeks from now, when students are back at school. --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but there's trade offs here, which is why I think it's better to up the required standards for the noms (like increasing the character req to 2500, making sure every para has a inline source etc.) rather than to be pedantic about nomination date. Also, being a stickler on the vintage date could also decrease article quality as editors rush - and compromise quality - in order to meet the deadline. I would rather see a 7 day old nomination of a good article approved than a 1 day old nomination of a crappy one. (In interest of full disclosure, I freely admit that several of my favorite DYKs I nominated late). Up it to 2500 characters.radek (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree on tougher standards and as I stated above, I believe some editors could do a better job on their noms/articles. Some would probably not put dull hooks on the page if they knew the standards were tighter. I have been working in this space for just a month and when I review hooks, I start at the bottom. Problem is that there are stale discussion where it seems that sometimes the nominator/creator doesn't make the effort to repair the issue. Also, there are times that hooks just look precarious or uninteresting so I pass over them. I try to hard to repair some with the nominator/creator and although it is usually successful, it becomes a timely process that could be avoided with simple effort. Maybe after a NOM is reviewed and comments provided, the nominator/creator has 7 days to fix the problem or it gets deleted? Or maybe even a separate page for "old discussions" can be created for these specific hooks as well, sort of like a nom for deletion (NFD).--NortyNort (Holla) 01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the firm deadline, if your nom isn't fixed within say 5 days after it enters the pink zone (2nd day it's red is okay but when it turns 3rd red day), it's auto deleted. I think this best of all ideas so far. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of imposing repair deadlines, and insisting that no nominations may be made more than 5 days after the article was created/expanded. But I think what would also help reduce the backlog is if we could reject "dull" hooks. The problem of course is that what is dull to one reviewer may be very interesting to another. I know this topic has been discussed here before, but perhaps it needs to be revisited. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree: Dull hooks are making reviewers pass over them in favor of newer, more interesting hooks. Moreover, too many hooks read like topic sentences or summaries of the article. Perhaps we should lower the character count to 175 and see what people come up with?

I also agree with radek that minimum article character count should be raised to 2500. It's too easy to cobble together three paragraphs to reach the 1500-character threshold and call it an article. Yoninah (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Rejecting dull hooks is way too subjective and will lead to massive inconsistencies. I think 2500 char is too high. Agree on late noms and firm repair deadlines. Looks like we have a consensus on this, or at least one forming. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Imposing a repair deadline seems entirely fair and reasonable, but being strict about the nomination deadline seems to me somewhat problematic. Firstly, the guides do indicate that late isn't usually a disqualifying bright line. Secondly, isn't there a quality issue that's important here? Looking at my current nomination of Hans Freeman (which I readily admit gives me a bias here), I could have nominated this 7,329 byte version inside the 5 days and satisfied the 5x expansion from its 604 byte stub origin; instead, I waited until I had expanded it to this 22,770 byte article, that I consider a reasonably comprehensive biography. Which version is it the goals of the DYK process to encourage? Please don't take this as pleading for my nomination, but I suggest that the quality aim is better served by increasing the 1500 character requirement than it is by strictly enforcing the nomination timeframe. EdChem (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple solution to nominating before it's ready -- don't post to mainspace til it's ready, keep it in your sandbox til then. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For a new article, yes -- but this was an expansion of an existing stub. EdChem (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy the stub to your sandbox then move it back when done. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, you know far more about it than I do. I wouldn't have copied and pasted like that because I thought it raised licence issues, and I wouldn't have moved something I didn't create out of article space to my sandbox because it seems unseemly to me. No matter what, my basic point was that surely a higher quality and well-developed article that is a couple of days late in nomination is better than an in-time nomination of something of lesser quality. Further, I would imagine you wouldn't want editors to make a nomination and then use the few days of processing to expand and re-write, so a proper assessment only really becomes viable by the time the nomination is in the red zone. I know I am new to the DYK process (only two nominations, etc) but I really do think that the increased character requirement (possibly disregarding the lede as well, as suggested below) is a wiser approach to improving the quality of articles passed and simultaneously reducing the backlog. EdChem (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of neat hooks in shorter articles and as already mentioned, discounting the lead doesn't work for many articles as they aren't in sections. Towit, Edward_L._Rowan is less than 2500, and yet it was chock fully of juicy hooks. I'm not supporting 2500 char, but will repair deadline and nom deadlines. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to impose a repair deadline (should probably be 5 days, no less) and to increase the frequency of the updates. Frequency of updates is entirely within the purview of DYK, and doesn't require other projects (e.g., OTD) to change what they're doing. Frequency of the updates also doesn't leave us with a permanent rules change that may or may not be desirable in the long term; it's easy to change back at any time as needed. cmadler (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Cmadler above. We can temporarily increase the update frequency to every four hours instead of every six hours. I would not favor regularly increasing the number of hooks per update beyond eight, because at a certain point the section becomes unreadable with too many hooks. I also don't think it's a good idea to increase the minimum number of characters required per article, at least unless this backlog continues and grows for a few more months. –Grondemar 16:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's going to be a repair deadline, then it should be required that the reviewer notifies the author/nominator of the problem. I don't think a very short deadline (<3 days) would work well because people often don't edit for a couple of days. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

More reason reviewers need to focus on the older noms. Some get to the red zone and haven't been reviewed - not the time to find a problem and wait several days. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But it's not reasonable to penalise the creator becuase of delayed reviewing. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of how old a submission is, the nominator always should get a certain amount of time (say, 3-5 days) to respond to issues raised by a reviewer, unless there's absolutely no way an problem can be resolved. cmadler (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. We need to be careful not to make it even more difficult for those outside the usual suspects to contribute. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

← Additional rule D9 pretty much said that about eight days are really allowed. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I've added "However, the five day rule may be strictly enforced, especially if there is a large backlog of hooks." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Eight days" is great. I wikiedit mostly on weekends. The "five day rule" means I often can't nominate articles created on the previous weekend or the previous Monday. --PFHLai (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

14th August, 2010

Not sure if anyone noticed this: today's FA on MainPage is very short. If we want 10 hooks (or 12!), today is the day. If anyone is interested, you may want to add more hooks to Q6, Q1 & Q2. Feel free to undo this edit at OTD/SA at 6:00 UTC to maintain the left-right balance on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I really think we're placing too many hooks in the Did you know updates. The density of the section makes it hard for users to read any individual entry, especially those in the middle. At a certain point the entire section becomes unreadable, and it fact dominates the entire Main Page. I really think that, no matter how bad the backlog becomes, we need to limit DYK to a maximum of eight articles per template. –Grondemar 04:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That's what I want to hear. I like 6 to 8 hooks at a time. I thought I was in the minority.... --PFHLai (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Six hour updates

• This backlog is getting absolutely ridiculous. We need to speed up the process to about 4 hours each. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And/or clamp down on the quality of hooks, but even more of a problem is people not reviewing the older hooks, letting them languish. Right now there six days in the "red" zone, three days in the "pink" zone, plus the normal zone. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be clarified and made more obvious to people submitting hooks that they have to be interesting or else they risk rejection due to the current size of the backlog. Is there a way we could make a note of that on the suggestions page? Nomader ^(Talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification for "real-world context" in DYK rules

I recently put an article I created, Urban Yeti!, up for a DYK nom. The hook reads, "... that in Urban Yeti!, the player controls a yeti who must get a job in order to pay a toll to cross a bridge?" User:DS objected that the hook did not have a real-world context and therefore, the hook was unacceptable ([9]). I noticed that this was not the only hook he objected to, and many of these objections were placed after the approval of another member of the community:

• Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness [10] Objected to the first alt hook, because it talked about in-universe details that had no real-world context.
• The Simpsons: Bart & the Beanstalk [11] Objected because the hook, which talked about the plot of a video game, had no real-world context.
• Bart Simpson's Escape from Camp Deadly [12] Objected because the hook compared two works of fiction to another and lacked real-world context.
• Glass Joe [13] Objected because the video game character's hook lacked real-world context.
• Soda Popinski [14] Objected because the video game character's hook lacked real-world context.
• Bartman Meets Radioactive Man [15] Objected because the article was about something fictional and lacked real-world context.

I think this sets a horrifying precedent, that fictional worlds cannot be discussed or mentioned in hooks. I think the point of the rule is to block people from saying things such as "Did you know that Bart Simpson flew over the Empire State Building?", as such a statement is misleading and untrue-- Bart Simpson is a fictional character and could not have flown over the Empire State Building. But as long as the hook indicates that the subject is fictional, such as "Did you know that Bart Simpson flew over the Empire State Building in the Simpsons episode Look How He Flew?" The latter obviously demonstrates that the Bart Simpson did it in an episode of a TV series and not in reality. The "real-world context" in the rule desperately needs clarification if we ever expect to allow another fictional hook. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion yet, but the original version of the rule is C6. The rule on WP:DYK was recently added by DS. Shubinator (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nomader. I already brought this up with DS but he's not responded, see: User_talk:DragonflySixtyseven#Hmmm. I also did not realize this occurred so often. I think DS's implementation of this rule is out of synch with the rest of us. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to C6 pending consensus. For neutrality I won't express an opinion on the matter, except to say that I think it's good that it has resulted in a discussion. --WFC-- 14:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

At what point to do overlook these objections and pass the hooks for DYK? I too think that DS is out of synch with the rest here. Dincher (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DS notified on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with Nomader's comment above - the clause was really only designed to prevent people from presenting fictional events as if they were real, there's no good reason why plot details and so on should not be used in a hook so long as it's made clear they are not real-world events. Gatoclass (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. If the reader can easily understand the context, there is no reason to make the hooks less interesting just because they do not contain a clear indication of the context. Also, I think it does not look very good if you change the rules first and then start declining nominations based on the change you recently made. He really should have discussed the change first, no matter what consensus we may reach regarding it. Regards SoWhy 20:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that these are not actual facts. These are things that were made up by someone. They were invented, not discovered or established. They don't exist outside of their fictional context. There's a reason we have {{in-universe}}. DS (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of "inuniverse" is articles that "need to differentiate between fact and fiction" as when if someone says something like "Pikachu loves Obama". One of the approved hooks you removed from a queue specifically said it was a short story, clearly not pretending it true. The way you're interpreting it Shakespeare's "Hamlet" would not qualify for DYK. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Shakespeare's Hamlet"? What about Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'? You have to come up with a hook. DYK that... Rosencrantz and Guildenstern get murdered? That is not acceptable, because it's wholly internal. DYK that... Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, bit characters from Hamlet, are used as the basis for Tom Stoppard's play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"? That's acceptable, because it goes beyond something that someone made up. DS (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is clear in context that they are fictional I see no problem. In all the examples given it is obvious that they are fictional. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. with Josh and Rlevse. Dincher (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@DS "... that in the platform game Bartman Meets Radioactive Man, Bart Simpson ventures into a comic book universe to rescue his kidnapped idol, superhero Radioactive Man?" clearly says it's fictional (game and comic book) and you said it was unacceptable, just like in all the other cases cited above. Face it, you're taking this to an extreme and you're in a group of one. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DS's comment on Hamlet doesn't make sense to me. I think that the first hook about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would be perfectly acceptable to DYK with the addition of in the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Dincher (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we clarify what "the hook must involve the real world in some way" means? I think it'd be better if we could word it instead as, "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must demonstrate that its subject is fictional" or something to the like. That way there could be no confusion over its meaning. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, that's better. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• The more I've thought about this, the more I agree with DragonflySixtyseven's interpretation of the rule, though I think the implementation has been a bit off. I agree that a hook that takes the general form "... that in XXXX game/movie/book, YYYY happens?" should be avoided. Although it makes it clear that the YYYY event is fictional, it doesn't tie it back to the real world in any way. On the other hand, a hook that presents some analysis of fiction, or compares fictional works that are not directly related (e.g., comparing Harry Potter to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is OK; comparing Harry Potter to Barry Trotter is probably not OK) is fine. cmadler (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think any game, book, etc can make an extraordinary hook because it can be based off of imagination and ultimately fiction. We indulge in this stuff because it is interesting so I see no reason why a hook can't be just as interesting. If it is in a hook, it is most likely on a notable work as well. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly why a hook about a fictional element is not good, because it's based purely on imagination, not reality. Did you know that in the novel Tau Zero, the universe comes to an end? Did you know that in the novel Breaking Dawn, Bella gives birth to a vampire-human crossbreed? So what? Simply stating that it's within a work of fiction does not tie it to the real world. cmadler (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've thought this over and find myself agreeing with Cmadler & DragonflySixtyseven. Things that take place in fiction are by nature "hooky", that is the nature of fiction -- it doesn't make them in any way extraordinary. Most works of fiction have some form of plot, and including a hook wholly based on this seems to me akin to saying "Barack Obama was born in 1961". There's also the problem of independent referencing -- most plot summaries are referenced to the work itself.

As a separate point, how did the hook on Wolf of Kabul currently at queue 1 get to read "that Chung, the Wolf of Kabul's sidekick, cracked heads with a cricket bat which he called "clicky-ba"?"? I thought the approved version included the source text. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a misunderstanding. When I verified it, I didn't put the check next to ALT1 which may have caused confusion. It should read "... that Chung, the Wolf of Kabul's sidekick in British story papers and comics, cracked heads with a cricket bat which he called "clicky-ba"?"

Per the above comments; they make sense and I tend to agree. But hooks are on Wikipedia articles, so I don't know why DYK shouldn't represent all Wikipedia material. Within reason of tastefulness of course. If the character or work is notable and an author created or expanded an article, they should be eligible to nominate a hook that applies real-world context along with conveying that it is fiction. --NortyNort (Holla) 14:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason why articles on fiction shouldn't appear on DYK. However, the articles are held to WP:FICTION which states that "Coverage of fiction on Wikipedia needs to be more than a plot summary of the work. Notability of fictional works and elements within should be based on their impact in the real world as opposed to what occurs within the work." and I'm beginning to think that the hooks should represent this. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that WP:FICTION is a proposed guideline; articles are not currently held to all its details. But the prohibition on plot-only descriptions is enshrined as policy in WP:NOT, under WP:PLOT, which says, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage." cmadler (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Espresso and cmadler also have a good point, in fact I was going to suggest earlier that even if we accept hooks describing fictional events, they should still be discouraged because otherwise we will probably be encouraging substandard hooks. I'm not sure which way to jump on this, I'm not totally opposed to hooks about plotlines but I can also see it becoming problematic if we allow open slather. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My main concern with banning fictional hooks is that some works of fiction that don't garner much attention such as smaller video games and films will have extremely boring hooks without fictional ones. How would an article like Moto Racer 3 be able to have a hook in DYK? It would have to discuss its critical reception, because almost no development information exists. So the hook would read, "did you know that GameSpot's Gord Gable criticized Moto Racer 3 for its low frame rate, but praised the variety of events?" I understand everyone's concern, but I don't think DYK should be blocking interesting hooks from articles simply based on the fact that an article is mostly about something fictional. As long as the hook is neatly referenced and the hook makes it clear that the events are fictional, I think it should be allowed. Nomader ^(Talk) 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I very much doubt there is anything unusual about the plot of a game called "Moto Racer 3", so the hook you suggest would probably be an improvement in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be showcasing interesting new/expanded articles at DYK -- if there's no interesting hook then we shouldn't feature it. DYK is not a trophy for every >=1500 character new article, it's fundamentally intended to attract readers to interesting articles. I've created lots of articles I haven't bothered to suggest here because, while notable, referenced & significantly above the threshold length, there just wasn't anything particularly attention-grabbing to say about them. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good point, being 1500+ chars does not auto qualify a hook. We may need to clamp down on boring hooks. This would also noticeably help the backlog. The problem is going to be, what I think is boring is not what you think is boring. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, we did used to decline hooks as boring more frequently, a year or two back. It did lead to some disagreements, but if reviewer A labels a hook as dull & reviewer B disagrees, then reviewer C is at liberty to select it, if s/he finds it of interest. It does mean that people have to avoid reviewing classes of hooks that they find inherently dull -- very little will interest me in American sport, I fear, and I'm sure others are equally zoned out by English listed buildings. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please include DYK's regarding religion in this discussion. I find the subject exceedingly boring and it is my understanding that it is entirely fictitious. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is where a big problem is going to come up. Religion is strictly a personal belief. To say that it is fact or fiction is totally based on the belief of the reader/user. Works like Hamlet and Nintendo games are clearly fictional. I believe that they have value on wikipedia and should not be excluded from inclusion on DYK. The series of hooks about video games are, to me, perfectly acceptable. Although the context of the video games is fictional and not real, the video games themselves are most certainly real as is the playing of the games. This goes for the plot of books, movies etc. It seems to me that there should not be a "rule" against including fiction based hooks on DYK. We should just filter out the "boring" hooks regardless of whether or not the subject is real or fiction. Dincher (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Would someone who's a bit more neutral than I am to the discussion like to notify relevant WikiProjects about this discussion? I feel as though this could have a large impact on a wide variety of fictional hooks and they should probably be notified. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If hooks based on fictional events aren't contextualized then certainly the hook ultimately is less interesting. The definition of boring is subjective but there are a few standards that define what isn't boring. A hook that doesn't describe common events or deals with extraordinary events isn't boring. Based on such empirical criteria I think a policy could be created that would limit the number of uninteresting DYKs, increase the time of the main page publication of truly interesting ones and decrease the reviewers' work load and the backlog.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved content from this discussion into Meta under the request for comments section, here - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What does meta have to do with a en.wiki dyk issue? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved it here - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed to seeing what the wider Wikipedia community has to say about this issue, but the RfC process has always kind of baffled me and I've never worked with it before... what happened to the request you posted? Nomader ^(Talk) 04:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE - I had posted this in an area which was deleted, I've opened up an RfC for this here:

I apologize if my initial comment was not helpful, and I'm going to give an example for clarification:

• ...that Jesus Christ was crucified and came back from the dead?

or

• ...that God created everything?

I am not trying to argue beliefs. Beliefs are not fact. As supported by the article name "creation myth", this is in an encyclopedic context, not factual, and tacitly, fictional. That, I believe cannot be argued. And where can we stop then? Some people believe in withcraft, UFO's, Yeti's... I do not think I need to go further. We could say that no one disputes the existence of Hamlet, but what about Shakespeare? What about a fairly recent popular incarnation per Stephanie Myers.. vampires? My point is that the correct way to remedy this would be to make a simple addition to the hooks:

• ...that in Christianity, Jesus Christ was crucified and came back from the dead?

where the formula is loosely:

• ...that in this fictional thing, this happened?

And in that sense, we would keep the requirement of stating where the fiction is from, which I don't think anyone would dispute doing.

Regarding "boring" hooks, I think that this is of course subjective. I think the discussion regarding that has arose only because of the surge, and once this passes (and I'm hoping it does) we won't have to filter out "boring" hooks. Besides, I thought that another purpose of DYK was to give motivation to new users for writing articles, and a way to give a sense of accomplishment to them? I have a two proposals for this, if the surge becomes permanent:

1. Increasing required length for regular contributors, something like:
   1. 0-24 Hooks: 1500
   2. 25-49 Hooks: 2500
   3. 50-100 Hooks: 3500
   4. etc.
2. Raising the bar for everyone except for the new self noms. We could create an area for a new user, with higher tolerance for "boringness". I do not want to take away that reward for newcomers, and if we are going to be strict on hooks, lets be strict to those of us who are regulars. - Theornamentalist 01:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I had thought before that increasing the standards for regulars would be a good idea. Here are the problems I forsee though:

1) A reviewer has another step to take when reviewing the hook; confirming how many DYKs the person has. As it is, some reviewers don't notify the editor if they commented on the nomination already.

2) It creates a "watershed" moment where the DYK records are then skewed.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how it would play out, but if some type of incremental character count based off of previous noms were to be put in place, it could possibly work on the honor system. Maybe as a suggestion for regular contributors. Although I don't think that it would play out well. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

AGF should not apply to references

I think we need to rethink this practice of accepting foreign-language and offline sources without looking at them on the basis of assuming good faith. It's not that we ask for references because we don't trust users or because we think they're making the info up; we insist on sources because it's necessary for having a reliable encyclopedia. You're not assuming bad faith by insisting on sources--there are plenty of ways a person can have an inaccuracy in an article while editing with good faith. And this stuff is going on the Main Page, so it makes sense to be extra careful. I think if you're checking these off you should find someone who can read it (for foreign language sources you can find someone using the language userspace templates) or you should not check it off as though you've verified it. At the very least, we can ask users to quote the passage they're using from an offline source, that way we can at least see if anything's been misinterpreted from that. delldot ∇. 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should step beyond the Verifiability policy here. What you're asking would mean that in at least one regard, it's more difficult to get an article on Did You Know than as Today's Featured Article, which not only *allows* but *encourages* offline sources. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but somebody presumably checks those sources, to get the thing through FAC, or that's at least what should be happening, don't you think? delldot ∇. 13:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can view the book on Amazon. You can find more information and often better information in an offline reference for an article. The only pure offline reference I would be concerned with is one cited to an extraordinary claim. The problem that I think is somewhat unique to DYK is that author's may tweak wording from an offline source to make a hook sound better. I try to look up the ISBN to make sure the book exists, check Amazon or search the web to try and confirm with a web source.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Any material which is challenged, and has only an offline source, requires the user adding the material to provide a quote and page number from the source, if requested by the challenging editor(s). If it's foreign, a translation of the quote is also required upon request. This may be done on the talk page, or in the footnotes, or both. Crum375 (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Norty and Crum, pretty much what I'm suggesting is something along those lines: we should be trying harder to verify these hooks, either by doing extra homework ourselves or by asking the authors to provide more to back up the statements. I think it should not be common practice to accept a fact without doing what we can to check it, anyway. We could maybe start encouraging people to include quotes from the refs ahead of time, which would make it easier for those who go to check them and not that much harder for the contributors. If there's an online foreign language source, it probably wouldn't be that hard to find someone here who speaks that language, or someone at that wiki who speaks English who would be willing to quickly verify it, if the contributor here indicates the relevant part. delldot ∇. 14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS does not require that refs be in English nor online. Doing so would gut a lot of solid info on wiki and be a disaster. The point is that someone can go verify them if they wanted to and they are reliable (not blogs, youtube home videos, not gossipy, etc). We need to stick to our current practice. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, refs are not required to be in English or online. But any material which is challenged requires a reliable source, and if the source is offline the editor adding or restoring it should provide a quote from the source and page number, if the challenging editor requests them. If it's foreign, and being challenged, a translated quote should be provided upon request. In other words, we don't mandate it a priori, just like don't mandate sources in general, but if challenged and requested, a source and a quote must be provided. It is up to the challenger, using his own common sense, to decide whether to request such evidence. Crum375 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to use offline or foreign sources. But if we're bothering to verify the references for other sources, we should ask for a quote from offline ones and get someone to check foreign language ones. Because if someone has info they know is sketchy, they're just going to say it's in an offline or foreign source if they know we don't check those. delldot ∇. 21:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We are not obliged to AGF hook refs; it's simply an option. We should use our best judgment and common sense when deciding. If things seem fishy or just questionable, we can always ask for a quote from the offline source (and/or a translation), and virtually all DYK submitters will be happy to provide it. If things seem legit, we can AGF. After all, the hook ref may be just one of many in the article, so again, we use common sense as to when to ask for sources or quotes, and in how much detail. Crum375 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate hook

Did you know Queue 5 has two hooks for Cordoba House? Art LaPella (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Replaced one of the occurrences. Courcelles 23:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The extra one appeared because NuclearWarfare was swapping it per Epeefleche's request, but forgot to remove the old one. Unfortunately, the old one is the one that remains, and there are now ten hooks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Swapped hooks again. Courcelles 01:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless my counting's wrong, it looks like there's still ten hooks there. Nomader ^(Talk) 02:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You math matched mine. Extra hook moved from queue to prep area. --Allen3 ^talk 12:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue 1 hook 4

Article in the hook #4 from Template:Did you know/Queue/1, the List of National Basketball Association head coaches, was moved to List of National Basketball Association head coaches with 400 games coached a week after it was nominated for DYK. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Prep 1, Winchester Hoard

I noticed that the reviewer and the nominator agreed on ALT1 for the first hook about the Winchester Hoard, but the original hook wasn't struck and therefore sneaked in. Yoninah (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I promoted this hook, and had to decide between using the "quirky" ALT1 at the end of the list without the picture, or the original, less "quirky" hook with the picture as the lead hook. I chose the latter. But it's easy enough to replace it with ALT1 if that is what is prefered. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you should switch it. All hooks should be catchy! Yoninah (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced it with the prefered ALT1 hook. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3 typo

In the sixth hook of Queue 3, "premeire" should be "premiere". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Courcelles 18:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem with DYKUpdateBot

Today's 18:00 (UTC) update came a little late and is proceeding at a very slow rate of speed (in 13 minutes only 5 article talk pages have been updated and no user talk page notifications have yet been performed). I have already left a note for Shubinator, but we should keep an eye on things in case manual efforts are needed. --Allen3 ^talk 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Triathlon at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys'

This may be the wrong place to raise this, but the Template Talk page for DYK didn't seem the right place.

The following proposed hook "that the gold medal winner of boys' triathlon at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics had never participated in a race outside Oceania before the event?" is currently here [16].

I question whether this hook is interesting in any way. Obviously any international competition for young athletes, that attracts competitors from across the world, will have some competitors - perhaps many competitors - for whom it is their first event outside their region. (Oceania is a rather big region!) For one of those competitors to win is a great achievement, but really not that surprising or unusual in itself.

There must be a lot more enticing hooks related to these events. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue 4, last hook

A sukkah is a "structure", not a "building". It's more accurate to say: ... that entrants in the Sukkah City design competition are allowed to erect their structures atop a live camel? Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 ^talk 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Timing

Many articles are most relevant to one particular country, and it's a bit of a shame if a DYK for them has been and gone during the night in that country. (One of the 4 time slots is from midnight to 6 a.m. in the UK, and my 2 recent articles about UK organisations both hit that time slot.) As there are 6 queues for 4 slots, could nominators state "Prefer even-numbered queue" (or odd) to avoid the night-time slot in their countries? (If so, we could add a note on the Suggestions page explaining the effect.) As a less transparent alternative, would it be acceptable for a nominator to swap two entries between queues to secure a preferred time slot for one of them? - Fayenatic (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with an editor requesting a preference in the nomination. Trying to place a lot or all UK, AUS, etc hooks in their timezone may not be applicable in a backlog though. Filling the preps can be a pain as it is, at least 50% of the hooks are supposed to be U.S. and someone would likely be interested in countries other than their own as well. As far as swaps, if it is in a queue, you'd need to request an administrator here on the talk page to do it.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Quantifying the backlog

I have seen many comments above on the severity of the current backlog and that action is needed in order to promptly reduce it. I think this conversation, and the decision as to the correct response to the backlog, needs some quantitative data in order for the best response to be selected. Specifically, I'd like to see the following:

• Number of articles nominated per day
• Number of articles placed in a queue vs. articles rejected
• Mean days for a nomination to reach the Main Page

I think with this data we can make better decisions as to how to respond to the backlog. For instance, if we knew that we had an average of 50 nominations per day, and on average 80% of the articles are eventually approved, we would know we would need to be placing about 40 articles per day on the Main Page to break even. If we ran four updates per day (six hours on the Main Page) with eight hooks each, we would process 32 articles daily and a backlog would build up of eight articles per day. If we ran six updates per day (four hours on the Main Page) with eight hooks each, we would process 48 articles daily and would reduce the backlog by eight articles per day. We need to maintain a certain level of hook inventory to ensure we have a diverse selection of hooks to meet the subject-matter diversity requirements; by knowing how many articles are coming in on a daily basis we could plan accordingly, and quickly adjust the update schedule based on fluctuations in the number of submitted articles.

Is this something someone could develop a bot to compile? –Grondemar 12:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a lot of point, because the number of nominations fluctuates from one month to the next. It's not so long ago we only had about 120 noms on the Suggestions page, then we had a spate of noms for the wikicup thing and we haven't made much of an inroad into the backlog since.

I admit I'm a little concerned that noms might pick up toward the end of the year before we have gotten rid of the current backlog but I think we can probably deal with that if and when it happens. The backlog has shrunk by about 30 noms since it peaked so we do seem to be going in the right direction, albeit slowly. Gatoclass (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area

Please have a look at August 22, to avoid having the Sunday hook on Monday as last week. - I suggest to have the hooks there sorted the other way round, not January 2011 on top for months to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Reordered. Mjroots (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Wittman

I submitted Ryan Wittman to DYK two weeks ago and it is not even in the queue. Everything checks out, one editor had a concern about the blank college section, which I have expanded a bit. Come on, guys, this is ridiculous. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to help us out in reviewing nominations. Shubinator (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the several sections above (and in recent archives), DYK currently has a significant backlog. We're aware of the problem, and are working on solutions. For now, you're more than welcome to help out by reviewing older nominations, as Shubinator mentioned. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I had also looked over the article yesterday and still saw a few blank subsections so I figured you were still in the process of expanding it. You can't expect a fast review if you submit incomplete articles (as far as blank sections tell) at DYK. He didn't exactly have a lackluster college career deserving of two sentences as well. A significant portion of the backlog is working out issues. Communication on the entry is important as well. If you say you are expanding it, then that is what is means but if you stated the expansion was over, it would better attract a reviewers attention. --NortyNort (Holla) 02:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Negative articles, a rule change, and Howard Martin

A couple of days ago my 5x expansion of Howard Martin was rejected for DYK due to it being perceived as negative. Now, the exact wording in the rules is: "Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided". This begs the question, when shouldn't it be avoided? The Martin article is about a doctor who was recently struck off for hastening the deaths of 18 patients. In the words of the BMA, "Dr Martin's actions were indicative of an autocratic attitude, in that he seemed always to consider that he was right and rejected, or did not seek, the views of others. He repeatedly broke the trust to which patients are entitled; this is unjustifiable." Martin has also admitted hastening the deaths of two patients, potentially illegally. Now, surely a NPOV article would naturally end up with a negative tone. Yet it would still be objectively neutral. Why shouldn't it be included in DYK? Surely such official sanctioning of a living person is acceptable in an article up for DYK? Why should it be rejected?

Lastly, if DYK exists to encourage editors to create and expand, do we want to remove any incentive to create and expand articles about living people whose biographies may include criticism? (I'm not suggesting WP exists to punish, of course not, but being NPOV means writing about every aspect of life. DYK should encourage editors to write about everything.) Surely it's time to stop automatically rejecting negative DYK nominations, or at least reject only in obviously POV cases. Views would be welcome. As would putting Howard Martin back up for a DYK if it's deemed appropriate by other editors. Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh .. there is so much positive to write about. Smile :-D .. Everybody will have their own answer why. One could be that wikipedia should not meddle with a legal battle which is inevitably associated with criminal claims and living people. No, DYK does not promote any topic, and it is not about censorship - articles are not censored - but about WP image. For example, we do not poke a nation in mourning and do not put graphical depictions of violence (against children), be it in images or words. Materialscientist (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for you response but I don't follow the relevance of it. I guess it was just light-hearted. I would like to hear some proper reasons for the rule and to get a consistent rule for what is and isn't allowed. I spent time on an article hoping people would read it and it was ruled out in a rather arbitrary way. Please try to understand my wish for clarity. Malick78 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the key is the "Do no harm" principle of WP:BLP. By featuring negative BLP articles on the Main Page, we are giving exposure to those negative articles, and thereby harming real people. Perhaps that is legitimate because these people really are notable only for the bad things they have done, but I don't find that argument altogether convincing. We are still potentially doing harm, after all, and it's better to be on the safe side. (Though note that the rule used to say that articles that focus unduly on negative aspects of BLPs were unnacceptable–don't know where that piece got lost. That formulation of the rule may not have led to the rejection of your article, though I haven't reviewed it in detail.)

DYK doesn't (and can't) provide an incentive for any form of content creation or improvement. I don't dispute that you have done good work on this article, and I commend you for that, but in general I dislike arguments of the form "someone has done good work on this, so it should be featured on DYK". What counts, to me at least, is whether policy and common sense suggests it is a good idea to feature an article on the Main Page. I believe we shouldn't put negative BLP hooks on the Main Page because of our BLP policy. Another consideration, which you also mention, is giving the right incentives to editors, and although I agree that is important, I think it should be secondary to core policies like BLP. On the other hand, I would favor a rule change allowing thoroughly cleaned up unreferenced or otherwise bad articles to be featured on DYK, if such a rule could be unambiguously formulated, since I think it would be a good incentive. Ucucha 20:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@Malick (i) we can't set DYK rules for all possible cases, and can't set a plank for, say, what level of violence is acceptable on the main page - this is decided by consensus during the review. (ii) It is nice to get a reward as a surprise, isn't it. Most regulars look at rewards philosophically, i.e. thinking of the project rather than personal goals. In other words, the image of an editor on wikipedia, their attitude to editing, is more important than the number of stars. Materialscientist (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ucucha - thank you for your response. a) "Do no harm" is surely inappropriate here since the subject gave newspaper interviews in June knowing full well the public's response. He was admitting and highlighting his potentially illegal activity. He was therefore inviting attention, and, in fact wanted to start a debate on the subject of death and medicine. He sought publicity and the article does little more than give this to him, while including the facts of his life. If there is an exception to the "negative article" DYK rule, this is arguably it. b)DYK only uses newly improved articles, hence it is a direct incentive to creation. Otherwise it would quote information from any article at all. Would it not? c) At the moment the rule I'm discussing is vague and arbitrarily applied, with the creator/expander unable to predict the response. This is inefficient, wastes time, and is unfair.
• Materialscientist a) I'm trying to be constructive here, so I don't appreciate your patronising tone. I'm not looking for stars as such (and indeed, someone with a page like this should hardly insinuate such a thing), just I would like what I write to be read. Every single editor here does. DYK is great for getting people to read an article. That is the only reason I seek this 'star' for the article I wrote. b) We can set accurate, easily followable rules for DYK. If you feel unable to suggest any, I hope someone else can be more helpful. Malick78 (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

  My sincere apologies for "mentoring" and award insinuations. Yes, having your page read by many is great (BTW, that is a common technical procedure to track past DYKs erased from a talk page, I don't care, but don't bite others on that). One problem with your comment above is that we may not judge that "he was inviting attention" unless he explicitly states so, and even then, he would hardly state that about the WP main page. Materialscientist (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Of course he didn't have WP in mind, but he did "speak out to call for reform of a system of care, which – he claims – takes the “soft” option of confining the terminally ill to hospitals and hospices rather than allowing them the “dignity” of dying at home with their loved ones". In the interviews he gave he admitted that "in two cases, he hastened the deaths of patients without their permission" and that this "confession put him at risk of “spending the rest of my life in prison”". He's therefore not trying to avoid publicity, even negative publicity. Why then should DYK avoid him in this case? Is the "Do know harm" policy really quite so relevant in the instance of a man courting publicity in this manner? Malick78 (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why not just make the hook more positive? "Did you know that Dr. Howard Martin claimed that there was a police vendetta against him?" Not as interesting but should go with the rule against negative hooks. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, that's an option if others accept it. So are you suggesting making the rule positive hooks even if the article has negative coverage?? We still need a clear rule :) Malick78 (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think there is a potential hook in the quoted posted above: "... that Dr. Howard Martin believes that terminally ill patients should be allowed the "dignity" of dying at home with their loved ones?" His admissions could be covered too: "... that Dr. Howard Martin, who advocates allowing terminally ill patients the "dignity" of dying at home, has admitted hastening the deaths of two patients but denies having practiced euthanasia?" EdChem (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think if you're going to go with the dignity hook, you should remove the quotes. To answer Malick, I think it's perfectly acceptable for a mostly negative BLP article to appear in DYK hooks as long as the hook that appears on the main page is either neutral or positive about the subject. Some people are horrible people, and there's no denying that, but we shouldn't post stuff which condemns them on the main page. There's always at least one thing which you can find which is at least neutral and still interesting... it can be tough, but I think it can be done in almost all situations. Nomader ^(Talk) 16:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I use the quotation marks around 'dignity' because I was quoting the word Martin used, rather than as scare quotes - but I can see how it was unclear. EdChem (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I understood what you meant. I was just afraid that if Malick posted your suggestion verbatim it could come across that way to an average reader. Luckily, that confusion will never come to pass. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your input, it's been very helpful. I'll resubmit the hook "... that Dr Howard Martin believes that terminally ill patients should be allowed the dignity of dying at home with their loved ones?" if no one objects. And I'd strongly recommend clarifying the rule, rewording it as "Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals are to be avoided even if the article as a whole has an NPOV yet negative tone." How does that sound? Workable and fair? Malick78 (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds fine by me-- I'd make a comment below your suggestion linking to this discussion to explain the background and/or the late nomination. With regards to the rule, I'd link the beginning of it, the phrase "Articles on living individuals", to WP:BLP so people could understand the reasoning behind it. I think there needs to be input from other active DYK contributors though before that rule gets set in stone or anything. Nomader ^(Talk) 20:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, awaiting further comments regarding the rule. Malick78 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I tried to change the rule to "Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals are to be avoided even if the article as a whole has an NPOV yet negative tone." but Materialscientist undid it because he didn't like the wording. Could he please be constructive and suggest a better wording here since others have agreed with my suggestion that the original wording (to which he reverted) is not clear? Others' views would be appreciated to. I myself think that the wording I used isn't too bad at all. Malick78 (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My DYK never appeared on the front page...

I was given credit for The Simpsons: Bart & the Beanstalk, but it never appeared on the main page. Can someone explain what in the world happened here? Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's... odd. I checked and it certainly hasn't appeared today. Perhaps someone removed the hook before it hit the MP but forgot to remove the instructions to the bot that sends it off delivering templates. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The removal appears to have occurred here. A quick search found no indication of the removed article being removed to the suggestions page or any notification of the problem prompting the removal being made. --Allen3 ^talk 19:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Theleftorium, I removed it for the same reason as I tagged the others; you and I had a chat on IRC about that sort of thing, remember? You said you understood? DS (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We also had a chat about this sort of thing on this very talk page and you, DS, were in the distinct minority; obviously that chat did not good whatsoever. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

When the item was queued, it used a hook relating to the (trivial but real world) link between the game and the fairy story, whereas the discussion on the talk page focused around the eligibility of items with purely in-frame hooks. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DS, this hook is not written in an in-universe perspective like the others. It doesn't even mention what happens in the plot. Can someone re-add the article to one of the queues? Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the other problem is that it's not actually very interesting. But if you insist on re-inserting this boring substandard hook, go ahead. DS (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that DragonflySixtyseven has also removed two other hooks (Slow Sculpture & Club Can't Handle Me) from the queue for being in-universe and for being boring, respectively.[17] I don't think that unilateral action on hooks which have already been placed in the queue is helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not, this is not getting to the point of disruptive and DS is not in sync with consensus. The problem with using boring as a removal excuse is that what one person thinks is boring is another's fiesta. I'm readding it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)That hook is indeed boring or at least most users would describe it as boring, but because we don't have a concise policy regarding that aspect of DYK sometimes users nominate an article that may pass the technical criteria but isn't hooky. I believe that we should work towards creating such a policy.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus IS the DYK process for deciding whether we take a hook or not. (Also unimpressed to see a ref to an offline conversation. As far as I remember this is the first time I have seen this on this page. Not a good sign.) DYK is intended to make the wiki's new articles look interesting. Its not to create interesting stuff per se. We/you are doing a good job. Sure, we can improve, but I doubt we will ever appoint a user to use his/her interpretation of boring to remove hooks. Victuallers (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside to the issues of boringness, in-universe writing, etc., regardless of how boring or otherwise problematic they might be hooks should never be removed from a queue without restoring them to the nominations page. That gives the DYK community the opportunity to continue to discuss the hook. cmadler (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Per cmadler. I might also add in relation to this particular hook, I don't have a problem with it, as I think it's unusual enough to meet the criterion. It's certainly better than some of the other video game hooks which recently made it to the front page (which probably shouldn't have, but that's another story). Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And when hooks are removed from queues, they should be replaced with a different hook. This is something else DS hasn't been doing. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And when a hook is removed from or added to a queue, the corresponding credit templates, {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}}, also should be removed or added. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but additionally I don't think hooks should be removed from the queue (as opposed to the prep areas) at all without a very strong reason (such as BLP concerns) unless there's been a discussion on this talk page first. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose such an approach. The fact is that inappropriate articles are promoted through lack of oversight quite frequently. There is nothing wrong with removing a hook from the queue as long as it goes back to the Suggestions page for further discussion, no harm is ever done by exercising a little caution. Gatoclass (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I missed that comment by Espresso Addict. Off course a hook can be withdrawn from the queues, preps or main page for various reasons unrelated to BLP, such as incorrect fact which can't easily be rephrased, an AFD nomination, missed NPOV issues, article already featured, etc., etc. Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think as long as the reasoning for removing a hook from the queue is given somewhere, either on this talk page or below its nomination once it's back on the suggestion page, it's acceptable-- as long as it's posted back into the suggestions page. If articles are just deleted from their hooks with no apparent reason and not moved elsewhere, there needs to be a good reason posted on this page. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To Materialscientist & Gatoclass: My "such as BLP concerns" was intended as an example -- removing hooks whose articles are at AfD or which had previously been featured would seem pretty uncontroversial. But for most issues we should really be trying to catch them before they are queued. No admin should be removing hooks from queues just because they don't like them; it strikes me as an abuse of admin privileges. Perhaps the real issue is that hooks are getting through (1) to the prep areas & (2) to the queue with insufficient scrutiny? Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the point. Hooks make it to the queue that shouldn't be there precisely because of insufficient manpower. If we had a more thorough process, it would never happen, but it's because of the lack of manpower that it's important for admins to be able to exercise their discretion in removing inappropriate hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The talk page has a notice that it appeared on DYK. Was it placed back into a queue, or is this still the incorrect notification on its talk page? Nomader ^(Talk) 01:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the incorrect one. Just the hook was removed from Prep 1, but the {{DYKmake}} was not, so erroneous notices were placed on the talk pages of the article and the user. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure if an admin had gone ahead and added it back into another queue. I'm not totally familiar with the inner workings of the DYKupdatebot-- if we remove the notice on the article's talk page, will the bot re-add it? Either way though, this fictional business really needs to be addressed. DS can't unilaterally begin to remove hooks from queues without discussing it on this talk page first-- I'm all in favor of WP:BOLD, but this is a bit too extreme for my tastes. We all agree that boring hooks need to be cracked down, but we should allow hooks that are rejected based on their boringness to be brought up on this talk page for review or something. I'm not comfortable with one editor just killing hooks that are perfectly acceptable. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion should be happening on the suggestions page, before the hooks are queued. Perhaps we need to be more ruthless in pruning at that stage? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel very mixed on this subject. What's always been so beautiful about DYK to me is that it's accessible for people to showcase the hard work they've put into articles. And after you've put in that effort, to call someone's hook "boring" is a terrible way of making sure that they'll contribute to DYK again. I think a better way of clearing the backlog would be to remove any articles that haven't had their issues addressed within five days of the review, or something along those lines. This way, we could tell someone that their hook is boring and they would be given a chance to improve it... seems more fair and less subjective. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We should definitely allow plenty of time for discussion, rewriting, better hooks to be proposed &c&c, but eventually -- if we are to put more emphasis on hook & article quality -- some submissions that meet the minimum standards will need to be rejected. I don't know what proportion of submissions is currently rejected, but I'd estimate only 0–1 per day (~1%), and some of these come back on appeal. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, rejections are definitely rare. I think if we're going to finally go ahead and increase these standards though and really crack down on dull hooks, we should probably give notice on the top of the suggestions page that "hooks deemed unexciting or boring by DYK reviewers may be rejected immediately due to the size of the backlog" and then link to the rule. It might be controversial but I agree, if we're going to raise the standards it should be done. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There's long been a consensus that rejecting articles on subjective grounds like hook or article interest is going to be problematic in all sorts of ways. If it turns out that we are going to continue getting more hooks than we can promote, it might be better to just tighten the criteria for eligibility instead - for example, by increasing the length requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But since we're on the subject, I really don't know how this hook made it to the queue:

• ... that former Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) administrator Prisco Nilo entered the agency in 1984 as a meteorologist?

Meteorologist gets a job as .... a meteorologist. No, I think by any standard there is nothing remotely unusual or interesting about that. Gatoclass (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Returned to T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Like above, I think a hook should not state the obvious or the normal. We can add a note on the suggestion page that hooks need to be something significant, unusual, surprising, etc. Like ... did you know that Dan Marino, one of the NFL's greatest QBs, never won a Super Bowl? not ... did you know that Dan Marino played football in college and in the NFL? We could even put examples to help out readers. Also, I don't think some nominators even read the rules, a saw one the other day admitting to being unaware of the rules. Maybe they aren't clear enough.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it might indeed be time to tighten the DYK rules a bit, but in any event, hooks should not be removed without discussion or as a result of discussion that has occurred elsewhere such as IRC or wherever. The place to raise objections to the promotion of a particular entry is at T:TDYK, and that is where consensus regarding a given entry has to be achieved. Nsk92 (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the correct place for discussion is T:TDYK or this page, and hooks are removed precisely to ensure that an adequate discussion takes place. The problem with proposing that discussion take place before a hook is removed is that there is not necessarily anyone available to participate in that discussion. Some topics also require extended debate and cannot be quickly resolved. It's also important in my view that decisions are made in a considered way, not hastily and under pressure from the clock. Apart from which, there simply isn't any tangible benefit from having discussions about removal, on the contrary it would just create more difficulties for already overworked admins. Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Granted, there are situations (hopefully not too frequent) where an entry needs to be removed from a prep area and maybe even from the queue and indeed, time may be a critical consideration when there is no time for an extended discussion before a hook is removed. However, I feel that when something like that happens, whomever removed the hook needs to bring the matter here, to WP:DYK, where a more extended discussion about the issue and about what to do next can take place. It is also important, both for transparency and to allow for full participation, that the discussions and decisions on how to proceed in such cases (after the hook is removed and, if time allows, before that) be taken on wiki, and not on IRC or some other off-wiki venue. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's absolutely necessary to leave a note on this page in every case, but on at least some occasions I think it makes sense to do so. Of course, when a hook is returned, a note should always be left to the effect that it has been done, but it's not imperative it be done on this page in every case as some removals are pretty straightforward and it can just as well be done at T:TDYK. For removals likely to create some controversy, obviously it makes sense to start a thread here, but actions which create controversy will almost inevitably end up being discussed here in any case. I very much agree though with regards to on-wiki discussion, off-wiki is not acceptable at all in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers needed

I have reviewed a ton of hooks the last two days. Won't somebody please join me so we can get this backlog out of the way? Dincher (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Credit for late addition

There was a late addition to T:DYK and neither the article's nor the user's talk pages got the DYK templates. I guess anybody can issue these, but I think it looks more official coming from an admin.

•   Russia–Zambia relations – Russavia (give) (tag)

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue 5, Hook 7

There is a typo in the hook about Family 1739. Currently it says "coulds represent". I think it should say "codex represents", but I'm not sure, which is why I kept passing on reviewing the nomination. Yoninah (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Returned to T:TDYK for copyedit and fixing references. Materialscientist (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue 5, the lead

.. that the only life-tariff prisoner in the UK protesting his innocence is Jeremy Bamber—jailed for five murders in White House Farm (pictured)? is a classical example of a BLP hook to be avoided. I'll wait for comments, but if an admin feels like to replace it, please go ahead. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it make it more neutral if we got the "jailed for..." part at the end? It couldn't be a lead hook then but it seems a lot more neutral. Nomader ^(Talk) 13:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree about removing that clause. And this shouldn't be a lead hook. With a backlog including so many good, relevant pictures, why use an incidental photo of the place where the murders occurred? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Swapped and reworded. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Tarebia granifera

I figure I should bring this up on the talk page-- large parts of the article Tarebia granifera are copied from this source: [18]. The author of the article notes that the article is CC-BY (you can see the CC-BY template on the journal's main page). I rejected the hook because the DYK rules apparently state "Try to pick articles that are original to Wikipedia (not inclusions of free data sources)", and as we have a backlog, I felt I couldn't be lenient on this sort of thing. The author objected to my rejection based on that criteria, so I felt I should bring it up here for larger discussion. Nomader ^(Talk) 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=380495729#Tarebia_granifera

I have taken a look at gastropod related DYK hook articles that were on the main page this year 2010.

• 5 articles were so called "original" = they have no inclusion of free text in the article.
• 14 articles have included some part of free text. (Originality was briefly discussed in about 3 of them during DYK hook review.)

If the mentioned rule would be applied strictly, then gastropod related DYK hooks would be highly reduced which is against "Make sure to choose a varied selection" (rule J2). I would like to appeal on reviewers to be quite tolerant in this, because some themes has much higher inclusions of free texts than other ones. Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-04-26/WikiProject report: "20% of non-stub gastropod related articles contains incorporated some free text." that is highest known ammount on wikipedia. Feel free to add to DYK rules the notice that "Articles about gastropods gain sometimes exception against originality, because there are very few people that are writing "original" articles about this theme". --Snek01 (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Snek brings up the good point that free data sources have been used in countless hooks lately, but I'm uncomfortable approving it myself with the size of the backlog. I'd really like some outside opinions to weigh in on the outside source issue, I think it'd be good if we could clear this up. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have expanded more than a dozen of animal-related articles from PD sources last month and simply did not nominate any of them for DYK. If I were to nominate them, I would rewrite the prose, which often did need rewriting to be more encyclopedic. I usually don't apply my standards to others, but here I would. Certainly gastropods are important, and certainly, there are hundreds of topics which are underrepresented on DYK. Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the current backlog, I guess there is an argument to be made for disqualifying PD-based articles, at least while the backlog persists. Gatoclass (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That was sort of my reasoning-- judging by the size of the backlog I rejected it. Under normal circumstances I would've approved the hook. Nomader ^(Talk) 04:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection of Template:DYKbox

{{adminhelp}} I'm planning work on restructuring or repurposing Template:Mprotected2. Template:DYKbox transcludes this template, which is what brought it to my attention. Template:DYKbox was fully protected in 2006 with the justification that it appears on the main page. This is actually not the case, at least presently. It's also not a highly transcluded template. I cannot identify any need for full protection of the template. The template itself appears to be used for navigation within DYK. It's never been subject to vandalism, and seems to be an unlikely target. Because of this, it's also unlikely to need semiprotection. I requested unprotection at WP:RFPP, but was refused there and directed to request on this page. Could an administrator please unprotect Template:DYKbox? Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to unprotect, given your entirely reasonable explanation of why protection is not needed, but in the circumstances will wait to hear what others think, in case I'm missing something. Bencherlite^Talk 19:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

  Agree with bencherlite. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unprotected Bencherlite^Talk 01:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

If an article appears on ITN can it appear on DYK? Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Materialscientist (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not on ITN anymore so is it eligible to be displayed over here? Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 02:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No. See the bottom of point 1 in the DYK rules. Materialscientist (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

How strict is the 5-day requirement?

How strict is the 5-day requirement for DYK? I've expanded Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center over 5x in the last six days instead of five... Offliner (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In general the larger the backlog the stricter the enfourcement of the 5-day rule (See Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Additional_rules#D9 for the formal rule on this situation). Current backlogs are high but falling, so being a couple hours late with the submission should not be a problem. Recently it has been submissions coming in 5 to 10 days late that have been rejected. As a side note, submissions should be submitted under the date the article was created or the expansion begun and not under the current date. --Allen3 ^talk 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) DYKcheck it says that you're just fine-- it looks like you started it on a different half of a day and somehow you're still within five days. I'd just go ahead and nominate it, should be fine. Nomader ^(Talk) 16:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry about posting the nomination under the wrong heading. Offliner (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 Hook 6

This hook currently reads "... that the gold medal winner of boys' triathlon at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics had never previously raced outside Oceania?" The subject of the hook, Aaron Barclay, now has his own article, and I believe meets DYK criteria. Can the hook be modified to read "... that the gold medal winner of boys' triathlon at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, Aaron Barclay, had never previously raced outside Oceania? Or should I enter a new nomination with some other hook for Barclay's article? Strange Passerby (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed. IMO, Aaron Barclay meets the DYK criteria (date, size, notability, referencing). Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3 hook 1

... is missing a "(pictured)". —Bruce1ee^talk 05:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Better backlog management by coordinating with SA and ITN

The DYK backlogs could be improved by lengthening the amount of decent articles available on SA, and using them on the RHS, and then padding up the DYK with the backlog. Yesterday there was an unusual amount of decent (b-class or better) SAs (7) but not all of them were used because the DYK was not coordinated with it (and the default tactic for some reason is to not use all the SA and exacerabte the DYK blacklog) and was short (but it was too late for the first set). I moved some more into the queues for Aug 23 (2 per update) and then added 2 on the RHS. I think more needs to be done to check both sides of the page so that decent articles don't miss out on the odd occasion because of an organisational imbalance. And as DYK has more hands and is shuffled about more frequently due to the heavy traffic, it is more efficient and mistakes/missed opportunities are less likely if the DYK preparation is done keeping in mind possible lengthening of SA. I don't update DYK anymore regularly, but in the old days I found the tactic of using all possible SAs to be very effective in cutting down the backlog, which isn't being done at the moment YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with your proposal is when ITN is changed. Remember, changes to ITN can happen at anytime. In my observations, the first thing that those that maintain ITN do to re-balance the Main Page is to modify OTD first, or re-add old events to ITN, before even touching DYK. And it is very hard to anticipate whether a week is going to be a slow news week, or you wake up one day and numerous current events are happening at once, and all have an article ready to go on ITN. You can keep on adding to DYK and OTD all you want, but there will be a certain limit until there will be complaints that the Main Page is way too long. IMO, better long-term solutions, as mentioned above, would be to decrease the period from 6 hours to 4, or change the qualification rules of DYK so it is more stricter. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be making inroads into the backlog in any case. It's down from 370 to 270 ATM, and that's come down fairly quickly, so I don't think we need to start lengthening the DYK section unduly. Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nine-hook updates combined with a reduced number of daily submissions has been combining to bring the backlog down to a more manageable level. I am tempted to return to eight hook updates once we reach the 180-200 backlog level. Points of concern however are the start of school years in many locations over the next few weeks and the next WP:WikiCup round starting on September 1. --Allen3 ^talk 14:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the Wikicup starting that early? Looking at the Wikipedia:WikiCup page, I don't think it starts until January of next year. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the final "round" of the current WikiCup, not the start of the next one. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. Nomader ^(Talk) 18:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What is SA? Geschichte (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries which displays on the Main Page under the "On this day..." header. --Allen3 ^talk 12:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)