Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 93

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

→

Archive 100

Queue 5 William de Warenne

The Honour of Gloucester refers to a place, and so is a proper noun and should be capitalised as such. Kevin McE (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a day of 67th Tony Awards nominee DYK hooks

• The following 67th Tony Awards nominee articles are already listed at T:TDYK: Lucky Guy (play) (6 nominations, created 4/27) and Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike (6 noms, 4/27)
• The following 67th Tony Awards nominee articles have been recently created:The Assembled Parties (3 noms, created 5/1), A Christmas Story, The Musical (3 noms, 5/2), Lauren Ward, (Featured Actress in a Musical, 5/2), Keala Settle, (Featured Actress in a Musical, 5/3), The Trip to Bountiful (play) (4 noms, 5/5)
• I think it is fair to expect articles for Hands on a Hardbody (musical) (3 noms, 5/6) and The Testament of Mary (play) (3 noms) and probably some other nominees between now and the awards soon.

The 67th Tony Awards are scheduled for June 10 at 0:00 UTC. What do people think of having either a whole queue or a whole day of Tony Awards hooks?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob McClure (Actor in a Musical, 5/7)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We did it for the Olympics, with three hooks in each set for a month, and we might do it again, but I don't think we should do it for the Tony Award. I think one hook about the Tony Award per set is enough, even it will take us several weeks to get through all of the hooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentoz86 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 May 2013(UTC)

I agree with Mentoz86, though it should only take several days to run through the hooks if they go out one per set even with occasional non-award sets: the Tony Awards—an annual event and a US-centric one—shouldn't get that kind of specialized attention in DYK. I think we had something similar to a "dribble out over several days" holding area for Olympics articles that we needed to run prior to the start of the games. If it's appropriate to set something up like this, it could specify a certain hook to be saved for the June 10 at 00:00 UTC slot, if desired. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

With multiple hooks we might be able to keep it to a total of six hooks. See multihook proposals at Template:Did you know nominations/Lauren Ward and Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties. What about two hooks per queue for a day if there are six or fewer hooks in total?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And if there are 7 or 8 in total you could put two in the last queue of the 9th.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed another multihook so I am now expecting 8 or fewer total DYKs, with possibly as few as six. I will summarize the current hook proposals:

1. Template:Did you know nominations/Lucky Guy - Lucky Guy (play) (6 nominations, created 4/27), Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike (6 noms, 4/27), The Assembled Parties (3 noms, created 5/1), The Testament of Mary (play) (3 noms, 5/12)
2. Template:Did you know nominations/Lauren Ward - Lauren Ward, (Featured Actress in a Musical, 5/2), Keala Settle, (Featured Actress in a Musical, 5/3) and Hands on a Hardbody (musical) (3 noms, 5/6)
3. Template:Did you know nominations/A Christmas Story, The Musical - A Christmas Story, The Musical (3 noms, 5/2) and The Trip to Bountiful (play) (4 noms, 5/5)
4. Template:Did you know nominations/Rob McClure - Rob McClure (Actor in a Musical, 5/7).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Template:Did you know nominations/Rob Howell - Rob Howell (Scenic Design of a Musical and Costume Design of a Musical,5/14)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Prep 1 Wer da gläubet und getauft wird, BWV 37

In Prep 1 there is a very confusing final phrase on this hook: "that Bach's first cantata for the feast of the Ascension, Wer da gläubet und getauft wird, BWV 37, omits the topic of the Ascension and derives from the quoted Gospel (Mark 16:16) Lutheran thoughts?" I was going to promote this to the next queue but this is too hard to understand. Perhaps we could have "is derived from Lutheran teaching and quotes Mark 16:16?" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Too late now, as this is gone onto and off the main page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I missed this question until now, but saying it is derived from Lutheran teaching would say something you could be said about almost all of Bach's church cantatas, whereas this one (and a few others) concentrate on it, this one surprisingly so, because you would expect Ascension. If speaking about "derived", the Lutheran teaching is derived from the Gospel quotation, - that's what the hook tried to say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Prep area 4 - Gerd Kristiansen

I wrote and nominated this article. I have updated it slightly now with some new information I saw after I had nominated it. My intention was to also suggest a new hook that might be a bit more interesting: "Do you know that the leader of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions Gerd Kristiansen worked on board a fishing boat that shipwrecked?" Maybe it's too late now, and it's not important. Regardsless of the hook, it would be fine if somebody grammar checked my small expansion. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your new suggestion to hook is supported by two sources, I just rephrased the sentance in the article. Given that the hook already got the last spot, where the "quirky" hook belongs and your suggestion is a little more quirky, I'm changing it I encourage someone else to change it. I don't think I should do it, as I also speak NorwEnglish and might not discover any grammar-mistakes. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This is presently in Queue 4; I have just removed the 'stub' classifications from it but it also has two paragraphs with no inline citations. Please could these be inserted. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry for the mistakes. I have added refs now. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for rectifying this so promptly. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Prep 1 Harvey

There is nothing on the linked page Birmingham & Solihull R.F.C. about the former name Pertemps Bees, which would rather confuse the reader following the link there from the MP. I have left a note on the talk page there asking that someone who is knowledgable on the club history clarify. I wonder whether it would be more helpful to put the blurb on ice until the non-bolded link target explains its relevance to the hook. Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No I don't think so. If you check the refs on the Harvey page you'll see that that is the name of the team. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the Harvey page. I clearly stated that the Birmingham & Solihull R.F.C. article is the one that failed to help the reader. Is you were obviously aware, given your subsequent edit. Kevin McE (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:DYK top

IMHO there were excessive links and confusing punctuation within the header of e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Cuthbert Christy, so I have edited {{DYK top}}. The trimmed version will show on nomination pages when you pass or reject a nomination. If I messed up, please revert {{DYK top}} and let me know. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how your edit did much to resolve the overlinking and weird formatting issues there. But I agree it's a mess; apparently in February someone made a bunch of changes to it. There were some code-related changes in there that I don't understand the purpose for because they weren't explained in an edit summary, and in addition a bunch of weird color/formatting and tons of unnecessary links were added. I've reverted to the original version, which is actually legible. If there were functional changes which I have thrown away, we can talk about how to restore them without making the header illegible. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

New England Female Medical College

Would anyone like to help nominate this subject? I thought it was interesting and worth putting out to a wider readership. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the referencing needs sorting out. Who or what are the "arabs"? Secretlondon (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Somebody moved a nom template

Template:Did you know nominations/Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption, Mata-Utu is where it is now. It looks like it was moved by the reviewer today. And for some reason, the old one shows up as a red link at the bottom of Guy Fulton nomination on May 8. — Maile (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why the nominations page specifically says, under how to move a subpage: "Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page." What happened was the reviewer moved the template, and the old one showed up as a red link (and the new one not at all). I've fixed it, and also the DYKmake in the article that would have prevented one of the article creators from getting DYK credit on their talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Queue 4 Magnanime

Boats are not born, and personal pronouns should not be used to mislead the reader.

There is only one day a year on which deliberately misleading hooks are allowed, and it is not 11 May.

Pull, and rewrite hook to inform, not to mislead. Kevin McE (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Rewritten to "origin". She is an acceptable term for a ship. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Still borderline misleading, but certainly better. Kevin McE (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Queue 5 Sitka Cathedral

The source makes it clear that Davis tried to restrain the pillaging manner of his forces: it in no way says that he personally burgled the cathedral.

A rewrite should also seek a MoS appropriate phrase rather than burglarized. Kevin McE (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

good work Kevin McE (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Queue 5 McGregor

The source for the claim is the subject's own comments in an interview: can that be regarded a reliable source? And even then, he only says that "as far as I am concerned", so there seems to be no more than "McGregor says that he thinks he might have been the first..." It might well be true: it is not verified to an encyclopaedic standard. Kevin McE (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Crisco - could you perhaps change this to read 'considered himself as......' Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Main issue dealt with: I'd marginally prefer 'considered himself to be......' Kevin McE (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's what I get for multitasking. Used Kevin's wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Queue 5 Roberts and co

Is there any evidence that the appropriate verb for steam engines operating is that the engines are steamed? Not a use at Wiktionary or my copy of Concise OED. Kevin McE (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There are hits in Google books on "engine is steamed", "engines are steamed", "steamed engine", etc. Sounds somewhat archaic, but acceptable to my ear. Materialscientist (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work: sounds odd, but if it is used then can't really object. Kevin McE (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A different issue for this hook: the credit has an incorrect subpage parameter. The credit should be:

* {{DYKmake|William Roberts & Co of Nelson|Bcripple|subpage=William Roberts & Co of Burnley}}

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Queue 5 Shivajirao Girdhar Patil

The approved hook at the nomination was the alt that actually gives the name of the subject of the article, rather than the one currently in the queue.

Tense is wrong: should be and was presented with the Padma Bhushan Kevin McE (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work. Nice to see this morning that this page can work for the improvement of DYK. Kevin McE (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Birmingham crisis - time sensitive

I just passed Template:Did you know nominations/Birmingham crisis for DYK, this is a time sensitive nom with today being the 50th anniversary of the bombings - if someone could push it to the next update that would be good. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's going to have to wait, since it's already the 12th in Birmingham. Perhaps someone could determine "another relevant date" for it to be saved for, and move it to a special holding area for that date. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The person only nominated it one day before the supposed deadline; DYK editors shouldn't have to accomodate special requests in such a short time. Isn't there something on the rules page saying that X days' advance notice is needed? rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read it's got to be at least 5 days notice.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what it says in the header of the Special Occasion Holding Area on T:TDYK: nominated "between five days and six weeks before the occasion". BlueMoonset (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment: Shades of gray

Sometimes a reviewer points out an issue with copying or close paraphrasing. Unless it is fixed, the nomination gets rejected. But the reviewer may not always then follow the WP:CPI process. The problem article has been rejected from DYK but the problem has not been fixed. Is there a gray zone? Is there a degree of closeness in paraphrasing that makes an article unacceptable on the main page, but that is not so close as to be a copyright concern? Or is it black and white: all articles where a possible copyright issue is identified should automatically have offending text replaced by {{subst:copyvio}} and reported for follow-up. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplication detector at Labs

Please see Village Pump: DYK_tools. Looks like Duplication detector has migrated to Labs. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Date-autoformatting?

Who is the "admin" who approved Queue 6, with "December 8" autoformatted? This was dumped by the community in 2009. Can someone please fix it? Tony (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• definitely the date ought not to be linked. -- Ohc ^{digame / ¿que pasa?} 02:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nikki got that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Please see above, "... that Hong Kong's Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (pictured) was founded, officially opened, consecrated and bombed by the Japanese on December 8?" has inadequate sourcing for most of the hook. Please immediately fix the issue or replace it (and the image). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the hook, but I'm not really happy with "December 8ths". If someone has a better wording, please change it! Also, this reinforces my post above about substandard reviewing of items that will be hitting our most visible page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, Ed. I probably would have approved that hook. It's hooky, all those things happening on the same calendar day. There's a fine line between factual and hooky, and it's hard to hit. The Interior (Talk) 23:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I would have too, but with some changes. ;-) "Founded" isn't really clear enough, even with the EGGy link to cornerstone, so I took it out. December 8th was meant to be a compromise, but feel free to change that part back. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK problems

Is no one scrutinizing hooks nowadays? Why aren't hooks like these being given a critical look before being put on the main page? Why is something like Satpura being approved and promoted to the lead when it has basic spacing and formatting problems, along with a stunningly boring hook of "...that Satpura (pictured) participated in the Malabar 2012 exercise with the United States Navy?" Really? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you been active in promoting a set of hooks? If not, feel free to jump right in. Expertise like yours is always a welcome addition. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm is always lovingly appreciated! I was active at DYK several years ago, but stopped participating around the time of quid pro quo. All I'm saying is that standards, which were never very high, should at least be upheld when it comes to grammar and reader interest. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't sarcasm. I was serious. I don't promote hooks myself, so I can't attest to anything about putting them out there. It would seem that DYK doesn't have any goof-proof volunteers, just the kind that are willing to step in and help. But you do seem to have a fine eye for detail. That's all I was saying. — Maile (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, text isn't always the best medium for determining emotive intent. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No offense taken. Don't worry about it. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The ed17 how does one objectively define "interesting" when it comes to hook review? What is interesting to me (see Template:Did you know nominations/Sphecomyrminae) quite possibly will not be interesting to someone editing in the area of politics or entertainment. Should my preferences take precedent, or should those editors preferences over mine?--Kevmin § 00:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be surprised if anyone thinks that "dyk ... Satpura (pictured) participated in the Malabar 2012 exercise with the United States Navy?" is interesting. It's a simple statement of fact, with nothing special to qualify it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And your basis for that statement is what though? Why wold that not be interesting to people into the US navy, the Indian Navy, or international relations/cooperation? Clearly it was interesting to the nominator at least. Plus hooks are not to be anything but a verified fact from the article, so naturally its a statement of fact.--Kevmin § 01:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that it would be interesting to any of them, actually. I can't for the life of me understand why you don't think that DYK should be for unusual statements of fact, rather than bland statements of fact. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's mundane. There's nothing remotely attention-grabbing about that fact. Naval boats participate in exercises just like soldiers go to war. It's about as 'interesting' as saying "Bradley Manning was assigned to an army unit based near Baghdad" or "water boils at 100 degrees C". -- Ohc ^{digame / ¿que pasa?} 03:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  If it said that the ship is Indian (and that it is unusual for Indian ships to take part in this event?) then that could be a hook, but actually the article on Exercise Malibar says that it's an annual exercise with the US navy and Indian boats. The article says that the ship has a "mixture of Russian, Indian and Western weapon systems" - that might be hooky. Ship takes part in annual exercise - not news. We need more than 'thing behaving as expected'. Secretlondon (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Queries

After the recent finding of plagiarism and poor attribution practice, could someone tell me why a current article on the main page, Confessions_(Lecrae_song), starts by telling us that the album was released on September 4, 2013?

In addition, I had a number of qualms about Nandan, which was exposed yesterday. We learned in the second sentence that it's “an impressively architectured building”. Apart from the linguistic howler, why is a breach of editorialising policy not flagged by whoever put it in the queue?

In what was virtually a stub, we had:

• "screening of controversial films are often shunned here on political pressure” (weird grammar)
• “Till 201o the film festival used to be inaugurated at Nandan.” (the zero? and the wrong tense?)
• “Little magazine publishers from outside India (like Bangladesh) have also joined this festival”

Who is checking through for obvious mistakes? Tony (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Error in Prep area 1 (now Queue 4)

"... that the Grotta di Lourdes complex of Vatican City contains the tomb of Pope John Paul II?"

This is false. According to his article, Pope John Paul II's remains were transferred to a chapel in St. Peter's Basilica after his beatification. And even if you were to change it to "previously contained," the statement would still be false, since the grotto where he was buried is beneath the basilica, not in the Vatican Gardens. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Now in Queue 4: this is going to require an admin to fix, probably by removing the hook so a new hook can be created and approved. We have a little over eight hours before the queue hits the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removed. Do you have a suggestion for a replacement? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Bot offline?

It says DYK was last updated 12 hours ago. There are two full queues, so I'm guessing the bot is broken. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Help has been requested.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Manual update performed. --Allen3 ^talk 23:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Prometheus (1998 film) DYK hook error on Q4

Please correct the hook. It currently reads:

that Tony Harrison's 1998 film-poem features a giant golden statue of Prometheus travelling though Eastern Europe at the back of a truck and nicknamed Goldenballs

But it is supposed to read: through Eastern Europe. So please correct though-->through. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar

I think we should not license one Gibraltar hook per 24 hour period. This micronation is tiny and deserves only so much attention on the main page, otherwise Wikipedia looks weirdly beholden to special interests. The fact that there's been a campaign to promote Gibraltar through Wikipedia has consequences; one of them is that we are a lot more skeptical about these DYKs. That said, I like the current construction "not excessively frequent", rather than "one per 24 hours". If we go six months with no Gibraltar hooks, and then get two in one day, that would be fine. If we go day after day with one per day, that would be way too many. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how articles like Neanderthals of Gibraltar are promotional. And Gibraltar isn't any different than the tons of other specific subjects that get a bunch of DYK nominations all the time. Way, way more nominations than Gibraltar has been getting. Silverseren^C 22:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You, sir, are apparently not a marketing professional. Simply having the world "Gibraltar" appear on the home page of Wikipedia is valuable because it creates an impression (online media) that makes the reader think about Gibraltar. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The same is true for any other topic appearing on DYK. But since nobody is incentivising anyone to write anything about any topic for DYK, what difference does it make? Prioryman (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We routinely feature hooks (and TFA/TFP/TFL entries) for actual purchasable products, yet a small country is somehow considered to be the problem when it comes to advertising? There is absolutely no way that this complaint falls under anything other than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rant. GRAPPLE X 22:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I see absolutely zero reason to further restrict these articles. Gibraltar as a subject (even the overly-loose definition of the subject seen by opponents of the project) has consistently been running at a much lower level in DYK than pretty much any of the subject areas with dedicated editors. The time has long since passed for this to be considered a controversial subject, and it's already bad enough that we still have any restriction at all on a subject which continues to do no harm. Further restriction is as medieval an idea as possible right now. GRAPPLE X 22:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I wretch every time I see another Gibraltar article on the home page. We've had way, way, way, way, way too many. For the record, what was your personal involvement, if any, if the Gibraltar paid editing affair? Your highly agressive defense of the status quo (e.g. Gibraltar using Wikipedia's home page for daily advertising) is unnatural. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely zero. I don't believe I've even edited a single article in the topic's scope. I just find it abhorrent that we still seek to unduly punish volunteers for providing us with free labour, just because they once had the sheer gall to enter a contest, especially when "way way too many" is still far far less than any one of a dozen or more subjects, a point you've conveniently ignored every time it's been mentioned. GRAPPLE X 22:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, we have had two articles about Gibraltar this month, three in April and one DYK which mentioned Gibraltar (but wasn't about it) in March, out of more than 1,500 DYKs that have run in that time. If you consider that is "too many" then you're off your meds, frankly. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This whole Gibraltargate thing is intriguing. Please could either of you provide figures to back your assertions? Jehochman, how many Gibraltar-related articles have featured in the last week, month, year? Grapple X, which subjects are getting too much coverage in your opinion? Appreciate any information anyone has on this topic, as it relates to DYK. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Prioryman Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't feel anything is getting "too much" coverage—I just find it risible that a topic which features much less prominently than many others is considered to be appearing too much. For example, just keying off Prioryman's figures above, I have written as many hooks about one four-person musical group this year as the entire wikipedia community has about Gibraltar; and those hooks directly advertise albums which may or may not have received additional sales due to appearing on the page. Is this a problem for the complaining editor her? Apparently not, yet when the g-word appears, suddenly it's an issue of advertising. GRAPPLE X 22:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To go into a bit more detail about the figures, since the start of this year the number of DYKs about Gibraltar have been as follows:

• Jan 2013 - 10
• Feb 2013 - 5
• Mar 2013 - 0
• Apr 2013 - 3
• May 2013 - 2

The figures for Jan/Feb are unusually high because the nominations were held up for a long time (up to three months) due to a flawed review process which, fortunately, has now been improved - this resulted in articles piling up in a holding area. There was a concerted effort to clear the backlog which resulted in a relatively large number of articles running in January. Since the backlog was finally cleared in February we've been running at an average of approximately one Gibraltar-related article every two weeks. For comparison's sake, we are running nearly 150 DYKs on other topics every week. Prioryman (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What appears in DYK depends on what new articles the editors are working on at a given time. It is quite normal for there to be a sudden spate of articles about one-legged ball players, Polish mushrooms, or main roads in Idaho. There are also some editors who are so prolific on their subject area that I sort of expect to set aside a slot in each prep area for them. So I see no reason for there to be an exception in this regard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There was an increase in Gibraltar-related articles appearing on DYK because of an article-writing content that was run during the last half of 2012. It ended around Christmas 2012. There's no ongoing contest and nobody coordinating article-writing in this topic area. There are just different random individuals filling in red links and suchlike. Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. The problem doesn't seem as bad as stated. But Grapple, your claim of direct advertising? Really? I don't like the sound of that at all. I saw one hook for a new J-Lo single not released yet, apparently deemed this summer's next big smash or some such bollox. That one was a wrong'un and no mistake. If any kind of commercial interest starts to influence this beautiful venture, it will cause WP's eventual death in my opinion. A million times no. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

For my part, I think it's fine to write articles on commercial products – for example, earlier today we ran List of songs recorded by Dido, which might well have inspired some people to go out and buy some of her songs on iTunes. Anything we write about pop culture or business may have some commercial impact, but that's inevitable. I think the real issue is whether the article has actually been written with the intention of having a commercial impact. Absent very clear evidence of commercially-minded editing, such as an editor being paid by a company to edit Wikipedia, I think it's a bad idea and counter-productive to try to second-guess why someone has written an article on a particular topic. They may be a fan, or they may have written it out of personal interest, or as part of a project, or just to fill in a red link. The motive actually doesn't really matter as long as the resulting article is decently written, neutral and well-sourced. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's all fine, naturally. I was concerned with the "direct advertising" quote. No doubt it wasn't meant in that way. I don't doubt anyones intentions here. The J-Lo thing really bugged me though. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

All I meant by it is that we often feature hooks on subjects with a physically purchasable product associated with them (for example, I've done quite a few film, television and music articles), and the added interest in an item created by a DYK hook is much more akin to an actual advert (not that it is an actual advert) than the more indirect approach implied by hooks about geographical regions. If reading a hook, and then an article, about Sette note in nero or Laborintus II inspires you to go out and pick them up in shops, that's a directly related effect, but it's not the original intention of the author (that author being me so I'm not just playing devil's advocate); it's much less direct to see a hook about a lighthouse or a castle and think "that looks interesting. I'll spend money to visit it and indirectly benefit the government there through the slow upward trickle of my money into their tax system"—you can see how it seems odd to be okay with hooks about popular media which are more likely to inspire a transaction while being opposed to hooks about places which are much less likely to directly translate into money spent. I wasn't saying we advertise products so much as demonstrating that the original complaint applies more strongly to hooks which aren't actually being complained about. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Gibraltar started a wiki marketing campaign and is still reaping the benefits. We should take stronger measures to counter this unnatural influence. Such a minor topics should not be appearing on the home page so often. I have no issue with editors writing about commercial topics on their own initiative. I do have a problem when they act a dupes or shills for clever PR operators. Jehochman ^Talk 10:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How does that work exactly? Are they "dupes or shills" just from the mere fact that some corporate or governmental entity wants articles on itself and then someone feels like making an article on the topic? Does corporate interest in any topic mean that any article made from that point on in that topic then means that person is working as a shill for the company, even if they have nothing to do with them? Silverseren^C 18:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Jehochman, you just completely ignored everything that everyone has posted above. We should take a screenshot of your post and add it to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as a textbook example. Seriously, when people have taken the trouble to reply at length to your comments it's both rude and obnoxious to simply ignore them – it shows no respect for others and it wastes everyone's time. If you're going to behave like that, please do it somewhere else. Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Did we ever get to the bottom of your connection to the Gibraltar PR exercise? You care deeply about this rather disreputable marketing project. Every time it is mentioned you are there, defending it! Secretlondon (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So am I and I have nothing to do with Gibraltar. Silverseren^C 21:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman's connection? He founded WikiProject Gibraltar, six years ago, which has had its reputation ruined by this competition. He's not defending the competition, he's defending his right to write articles for a WikiProject he founded without harassment.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That's it exactly. Silverseren^C 21:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right. I didn't even find out about Gibraltarpedia's existence until just before I actually visited the place last year. What I find particularly infuriating is the way that Secretlondon, Jehochman and others are so completely oblivious to basic facts and show so little regard for their fellow editors. The competition ended five months ago. This has been pointed out above and ignored. Nobody is writing articles in this topic area for PR purposes or to help anyone's PR efforts. Jehochman's claims that article writers are "dupes" and "shills" is deeply offensive. That's not even bothering to assume good faith - it's starting with shockingly bad faith and with no evidence for the claim whatsoever. The kindest thing I'd say about it is that it shows wilful ignorance. Personally, I'm fed up with the continued harassment of contributors to this topic area. Some day the people responsible will look back on their part in this episode and be ashamed of themselves. I certainly hope so, anyway. Prioryman (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well you have your chums at WMUK to blame for that. The wikipedia community made it perfectly clear. Repeatedly. In multiple venues. That it considers the behaviour that resulted in the special restrictions for Gib-based DYK's not in the interest of the encyclopedia. That the Gib-Project predates this and is caught in the firing line is no fault of anyone but those involved with Gibraltarpedia. Your quoting of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT above is amazing given that its mainly you who is keeping the issue alive. Had you just left it alone for a few months no one would have batted an eyelid at putting it behind them. Its your refusal to drop the stick that best illustrates that policy. Want to get angry and blame someone? Blame Gibraltarpedia and its supporters. They caused the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is currently no problem with Gibraltar articles. I find it far more annoying that two reviews are demanded for each article, thus wasting reviewer time, than some alleged promotion that arose from a competition that is rapidly fading into the past. There was even a third review demanded for the perfectly harmless Neanderthals of Gibraltar which two reviewers had already indicated to be promotion free. Please stop this nonsense now, reviewers time could be far better spent on other articles. SpinningSpark 21:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your commonsense comments. I will just add a couple more observations of my own. None of these articles is causing any controversy and some are attracting considerable interest – Neanderthals of Gibraltar had over 24,000 page views and was only a few hundred off getting into the WP:DYKSTATS list of all-time most-read DYKs. The community has repeatedly rejected any suggestion that Gibraltar-related articles should be banned from the Main Page - the last time such a ban was proposed, it was rejected by 28 votes to 2. The only reason why this issue keeps coming up is because a handful of individuals won't let go of it. The community doesn't support their position; they need to recognise this and move on. Prioryman (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. To be honest, if you see "Gibraltar" articles as promotional, especially about various things that happened hundreds of years ago, you should probably be more concerned about the hooks that read " ... that X, by some well-known singer, was described as "wonderful"?" or "... that some book was recommended on the Oprah Winfrey show?" - these are far more commercial and there may actually be soe legitimate concerns about promotional editing.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Prep areas empty.....

Just noting - gotta run or I'd load some myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Prep 4 done--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Empty again, and the one filled queue will be promoted in a few minutes. The cupboard is completely bare! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you think having some GA nominations would help give us a few more? ;-) I loaded prep set one, can an administrator check and approve it? There are still no queues with hooks.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, the problem is that the nominations that we have aren't being reviewed quickly enough, not that we need more unreviewed nominations. If people aren't reviewing, though, it might make sense to temporarily reduce to six slots per set until reviews pick up. I've been away quite a bit (and will be mostly away for at least another week and a half), so I don't have an up-to-date read of the situation, and I haven't been able to build sets myself. Having the DYKHousekeepingBot out of commission—the one that shows on the queue and nomination pages how many are reviewed and which dates they're listed under—isn't helping, because the lack of available hooks isn't as apparent as it might be. But another problem is also that people aren't building that many sets either. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Have just passed a few to help things along. I got a nom that just needs another quick look at. Hint hint.. ;) Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Right, I have created 5 sets, that should keep us going for a bit. If anyone else fancies creating one feel free as I have a COI in all the remaining approved hooks :/ --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Pentecost

Approaching Pentecost, I nominated BWV 68 composed for Monday. As Martin Krumbiegel was reviewed but the hook questioned, I suggested two others, suitable for Sunday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Gerda, the nomination template says it's for 20 June; I'm guessing you mean 20 May? Special occasions are supposed to have a minimum of five days for review and scheduling, and better longer; this is a hair under four if you're going for 20 May, and since Pentecost is this Sunday, 19 May, I imagine you are. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right about May, sorry about that. I know BWV 68 was nominated to late for 20 May (it was written for Pentecost Monday!), I was on vacation, lost the sense for time ;) Ignore a rule perhaps? - Krumbiegel was nominated long ago, the hook was questioned, I came up with with two hooks for Pentecost instead, 19 May, because now is not the time for the Passions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

BWV 68 found a reviewer, thank you, Smerus! - Please move it to prep for tomorrow if there's room, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I did a bit of shuffling so it is now in prep 1, which should run tomorrow evening (Europe)/afternoon (North America). Hope this is alright, if not I'll move it somewhere else.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the extra effort! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Now to Krumbiegel. He is in prep with the hook that I said has to wait at least until tomorrow. I will take the liberty to replace it by the Pentecost one for now. If you don't like that please move it to later. Germany and other countries still celebrates Pentecost today, not the time for the Passions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Mister bot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing issues with DYKs on the main page

Following my post above, I got curious as to the actual quality of DYKs on the main page and made interesting discoveries. I chose two articles and looked for phrases that looked out of place or out of the style. On Ipigott's Corinne Mentzelopoulos, I found this in about thirty seconds:

• Article: "Under his leadership, a new cellar was added, drainage was improved and a second underground cellar was created to accommodate second-year barrels."
• Source: "Under her late father's leadership, a new cellar was built, drainage added and a long-term investment strategy made to secure the property's future. Ms. Mentzelopoulos and Mr. Pontallier added a second underground cellar for second-year barrels."
• Article: "The British architect Norman Foster has been commissioned to redesign the cellars as well as to build a winemaking hall and a library of vintages, to be completed by 2015."
• Source: "British architect Norman Foster has been commissioned to redesign its cellars, create a new winemaking hall, as well as a subterranean bottle library of previous vintages to be completed by 2015."

Note that the original version of the article is even worse, and while it has been made better, it's far from perfect.

Rock Drill (Jacob Epstein) was even stranger, as the close paraphrasing isn't from a cited source in the article. Still, it's clearly derivative. This was not the creator's fault: the problematic text was added later by an experienced user.

• Article: "In September 2006, Tate Modern invited various groups and songwriters to choose a work that inspired them from the gallery's collection of modern art and then write a track about it, a project branded Tate Tracks. The Chemical Brothers' submission, "Rock Drill", was inspired by Torso..., and could be heard on headphones in front of the work in the gallery."
• "Source": "For this project Tate Modern invited various groups and songwriters to choose a work that inspired them from the gallery's collection of modern art and then write a track about it. The Chemical Brothers' submission, "Rock Drill", was inspired by the Jacob Epstein sculpture 'Torso in Metal from The Rock Drill', and can be heard on headphones in front of the work in the gallery."

This source has been around since 2007, so it can't be copying from our article, which was created this month. Note that this is replied to in the collapsed section below.

From a cursory check of the other articles, there's also a simple quality issue. Why is MasterOfHisOwnDomain's "The Paddock and the Mouse" being shown on the main page despite consisting of only a plot summary? (cf. the relevant policy: WP:NOTPLOT; note that this article does not have any problems with close paraphrasing) Note: this is replied to in the collapsed section below.

Last, while I mean no malice to any of the users involved here, I do think they should look into WP:Close paraphrasing and this Signpost dispatch to avoid such issues in the future.

My main point is that this is a systemic failure on the part of the DYK process and an urgent problem. This isn't confined to just close paraphrasing concerns; the number of sections above pointing out serious problems (in hooks that were approved by both a reviewer and an administrator) attest to that.

We have to be extra vigilant with articles that are being placed on our most visible page, and DYK is not providing that vigilance, despite the many plagiarism-related discussions in 2011. DYK needs to tighten its overall standards—and certainly in the area of plagiarism, where training people in reviewing articles through on-wiki tutorials, or requiring copyright spotchecks on articles from newer users, could go a long way. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Moved in-line comments to the end of my post so it is readable to others. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

[interjection] But it is "borrowing" from The Chemical Brothers, to which that text was added on 27 Sept 2006. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Per WP:COPYWITHIN, if your edits were copied from elsewhere in Wikipedia, there should have been a note to that effect in the edit summary. This is a requirement of the GFDL. (Unless the original contribution was also your work, but even then the guideline suggests referencing the original which makes sense to avoid confusion like what's happened here).  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you, Amakuru. Had that been followed, we wouldn't have this problem. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I don't believe that it is fair to bring this up in a discussion about plagarism. Especially considering that it's contained within a broader work and therefore a "context". MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC) That's probably true; I apologize, and have added a note to that effect above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Taking what you're saying in Good Faith, without blame towards any individual editor past or present, do you have a suggestion how needed and workable improvements might be put in place? Others have been genuinely concerned about content on the main page. Talk page archives attest to how dialogue quickly segues into a donnybrook fueled by troublemakers who have no goal but wanting to destroy DYK, with one or more claiming a variation of, "Jimbo Wales is on board with this..." Usually somewhere in the mix are special interest individuals insisting the only solution is to replace DYK (or combine it) with their pet project that doesn't have main page space. Add to that, the pettiness of anyone trying to get editors topic banned because their efforts weren't perfect enough. Nobody is on a payroll here. We can't fire anybody. The entire world is invited to participate in DYK . Editors who enjoy DYK are either forced to defend the process on this talk page, or back away because the blood-letting dialogue is too intense. And in the end, nothing happens but squabbling.

Checking for copyvio is already a requirement, and we have Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector and Duplication detector . But how can it be enforced without both the promoter and approving Admin also running those tools? And how do you enforce that the approving Admin did their job? From my point of view DYK is a good thing, but can use some structural overhaul to improve what you and others see as legitimate issues. ed17, you have a good eye and legitimate issues. Could you also provide some kind of bullet-point structural suggestions on how to make this better? — Maile (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've provided two suggestions above. On-wiki tutorials on what to look for could go a long way. Changing the culture to make sure every article is at least spotchecked would be a bit harder. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Why have these hooks not been removed from main-page exposure? They violate fundamental policies. Tony (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed them, and invite onlookers to take any further steps (tagging, notifying, etc) they feel are warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Maile66, I would suggest thats probably a waste of time, at this location anyway. Its unlikely that with the Main-page RFC going on that DYK will survive in the same format as is now. I would suggest that as part of the main-page overhaul, there are some hefty changes due to the governance and oversight of what appears on the main page. DYK included. So it may be best to instigate some tightening up regarding quality as well as the content itself as part of the RFC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are referring to 2013 main page redesign proposal/RFC. Yes? And, BTW, what I'm reading over there, is a milder version of things that have been suggested here last year. All of it. Except everyone is more civilized there. But I agree with what you say about the hefty changes due. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone clarify why my name is mentioned regarding the Corinne Mentzelopoulos article when the its history clearly shows the problematic sentences were added by other contributors before I began editing the article? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I mixed the two names when looking at the history. I've changed the name above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The people complaining about paraphrasing, with due respect, do you put in anywhere near the effort across a broad range of articles that I and others I work with here put in to this project? When you produce as much material as we do together, occasionally you'll get some sentences which are too close for comfort and occasionally errors might creep in which go unspotted but do you think we do this intentionally? We do our best to try to produce decent articles which are free of issues which "violate fundamental policies". And where does one draw the line with paraphrasing? If one is writing an article based on sources which document certain events, especially if only one source mentions a certain event or fact, in order to provide that information as fact, isn't it inevitable that some sentences will resemble the source more than others? Our encyclopedia is based upon fact and other sources, to expect every sentence to be radically different is a tall order, you'll always get some sentences which read more similar to the original sources than others, that's a natural thing in writing an encyclopedia. What I hate above all is the way such posts are brought up moaning about the issue here that we are grossly negligent contributors, treating the editors who bother to write articles here with contempt almost as if they are offensive vandals. Given how much material goes through DYK, it is impossible to identify every sentence which might be a little too closely paraphrased. I don't see people suing wikipedia over it do you? If you want to reduce the problem and improve the overall quality of DYKs then a limit would need to be imposed on daily showcasing and a vigorous check system which checks every sentence and every source officially before articles go through DYK. Given the size of wikipedia and lack of dedicated contributors it isn't practical. Is that good enough? Probably not, but then again name me a part of wikipedia which is truly as good as we'd like. Paraphrasing happens in encyclopedias which draw upon other sources to write the text, and certain solid facts it is often very difficult to make sentences read radically different from the source just for the sake of it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Some objections based on "close paraphrasing" are groundless. As described in WP:Close paraphrasing, similarity between an article and a source is not necessarily a copyright issue (and lack of similarity does not necessarily mean there is no problem). A good rule of thumb I saw somewhere, the "Golden Rule", is something like: "Look at it from the point of view of the author of the source. If they may think their creative work is being used unfairly, there probably is a problem." The converse obviously applies ... What concerns me is lack of follow-up. If there really is a copyright violation, it is incumbent on us to remove it from WP, not just to reject it from DYK. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we need to scrutinize every sentence; I'm saying that spotchecks need to be done. It took me a grand total of maybe five minutes to find the two problematic articles above. While one actually copied from another Wikipedia article—something I tried to check by looking through the history to find where the text was added, but [[WP:COPYWITHIN] was not followed—this could have been brought up long before in the nomination. Moving on, Blofeld, did I try to demonize the users involved here? No. I realize that we've all made plagiarism-related mistakes before; I certainly have. No one is suing Wikipedia or the Foundation over it, but we have these policies for a reason. Limiting the amount of articles isn't the worst idea—it would allow you all to show only the best hooks (no more exceedingly boring "did you know ... that article did this at this time?") and ensure that each article has been spotchecked (not thoroughly scrutinized, spotchecked). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not daemonizing no, but I don't like seeing editors like Rosiestep and Ipigott who I have the greatest of respect for (and who wikipedia is incredibly lucky to have editing on here) complained about in this manner. If you browse through the sum of their work you'll see what I mean. They generally represent the very best in article writing here and the amount of work they've done without problems towards systematic bias is exemplary. I'd clone them if I could a-la Dr. Evil, several thousand times over, as wikipedia would be infinitely better off as a resource. So painting them with the same brush as those more shoddy generic DYK entries full of multiple errors and seriously paraphrasing I think is a bit off. Yes, DYK has issues, and I've long called for reform, but I always found I never got anywhere, but believe you me, we want wikipedia to be as good as you do, we're on the same boat.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As evidenced above, the text in Rock Drill was not a copyvio. The source got it from us. Please ensure that it is re-run as soon as possible. Also, as my edits are questioned here, why wasn't I notified? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple mistake; I added the names last, and therefore messed one up and missed yours entirely. My apologies. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean that for me? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. After drafting the post, I decided to add names, and if you noticed, I messed one up and missed yours. Again, you have my apologies for that.Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Outrageously, my earlier comment has been hidden in a collapsed section, while the false accusation it refutes is still prominently displayed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because interrupting my comments with yours is considered good practice? I've struck the comments and added a note that they are replied to beneath. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes; unlike hiding others comments in a collapsed section; it very much is. Please restore them - and move your hidden apology - to visibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In some cases. As soon as that became a conversation, that became way too confusing to read the initial post. It's not hidden, it's clearly delineated. Move on. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion of process improvement

I have a practical suggestion. FA and GA review pages have a toolbox that contains useful tools for checking the article. If such a toolbox with copyvio tools was automatically placed on DYK review pages when they were created there would be a far greater chance that they would get used. It would at least serve as a reminder that we are supposed to be doing that check. Other useful tools could also be included, such as a page size tool. SpinningSpark 22:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea, Spinning Spark. I lack the coding skills to make it happen (or even to know how difficult it would be to code into the template), but I agree that having links to duplication tools, and a reminder to use them, would be very beneficial. The Interior (Talk) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be an excellent idea. Do we know who the current maintainer of the DYK templates is? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Rjanag set it up initially.[1] The Interior (Talk) 23:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Page size tool", I assume is the DYK Check, which is maintained by Shubinator, And you would have to bring Shubinator into this, if for no other reason, the DYK Check is a user toolbox feature that would have to be adapted to be on the DYK template. The copyvio tools are: Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector and Duplication detector . Another DYK tool is Snottywong's check for the nominator's prior number of DYKs (for QPQ). Putting all of these on the DYK template is good. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We could always copy the base aspects of Template:Featured article tools and add them automatically to the nomination pages. Also, for prose size don't forget that we have User:Dr pda/prosesize.js as well. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This would be very nice. The Interior (Talk) 02:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have created this toolbox. Comments, additions, subtractions please. It is currently pointing at Frog battery, but will automatically pick up the right article if inserted in a DYK subpage. Once everone is happy with it, it can be added to the DYK template and transcluded into all reviews. The page size tool will need to be put on the toolserver before it can be put in the toolbox. I will talk to Dr PDA about that. By the way, does anyone know what {{DYK tools}} does? That would be the ideal name for this box but there is something there already and I can't work out what its function is. SpinningSpark 08:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, Dr pda isn't active much any more. It's a script that can be added to a user's .js page though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, I run it myself, but it can't be put in the toolbox 'as is' because javascript is not allowed to be run directly from Wikipedia pages, except, as you say, from <user>.js. SpinningSpark 09:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks great, SpinningSpark. I would like to see the Duplication Detector in there, mostly beacuse it allows PDF uploads - more and more references are in that form, and many are long documents not easy to scan by eye. I don't think the earwig tool lets you check anything but URLs. The Interior (Talk) 15:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok done. But I can't get the tool to preload the target page. It will take both urls as parameters, but is not happy with just one and, of course, there is no way to tell in advance what page it is desired to compare to. SpinningSpark 16:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, if an editor can't copypaste a URL, they're a lost cause anyways ;) The Interior (Talk) 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Dr pda hasn't been active on WP in a pretty long time. If you guys get a working toolbox together and need help adding it to the DYK header, feel free to shoot me a message. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I e-mailed him rather than rely on him looking at his talk page. I am waiting to see if other volunteers think this is a good idea before transcluding it. It is going to affect a lot of pages. SpinningSpark 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Spinningspark, is it possible for you to also communicate with Shubinator and see if he can code DYK Check to also be put on the template? Other than that, I think the additions are good for the process.— Maile (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Look on Shubinator's talkpage, I have already left a message there. Basically, we need them to put the tool on the toolserver (or someone else with a toolserver account to do it). Shubinator does no seem to have been active on Wikipedia for a few days so still waiting for a reply. SpinningSpark 16:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see you were ahead of me there in asking Shubinator. Even better if it could work on Labs, since Toolserver is going away. — Maile (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Shubinator has now replied. This is not going to happen in the short term, but we may get it eventually. SpinningSpark 07:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to wait for that, then. There's this tool (Cut & Paste Character count) which could work for now. We haven't heard any contrary opinions on adding the toolbox so far, probably the best way to get more feedback is to boldly implement it. The Interior (Talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with implementing it now. This doesn't seem like it would be one of those things that could stir a lot of debate, so let's go with it. Adjust it later if need be. — Maile (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the proposal is to add this to each nomination subpage. This would result in a very undesirable situation of having a very large number of copies of it appear on the main nomination page, unless code is added to suppress it there. In any case, a much better and more logical place for it would be Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations, which is displayed whenever a subpage is edited. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

From my understanding of what's being proposed, the toolbox would be similar to the FAC toolbox, which doesn't show up on WP:FAC. And not to be the contrarian, but I would assume the best and most logical place is also the most visible, which in this case is surely not an edit notice. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Mandarax, I like your suggestion. That's where I'd look for these tools if I was editing a nomination template. Right there in front of my nose when I'm editing. If I wanted to flip back and forth to somewhere else, I'd do what I do now, which is click DYK Check on my personal toolbox, and the other tools on a user sub page I have. But either way, there probably should be some prominent permanent mention of this on the DYK page(s). — Maile (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to me it does seem the most logical and visible place for the toolbox: right at the top next to the list of criteria which reviewers are consulting. But it doesn't matter too much to me, as long as it's <noinclude>d so we don't clutter up T:TDYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I assume the FAC template is just <noinclude></noinclude>ed. So if you want, you could have it both ways: both have a template in the editnotice, and have a template in the subpage itself that shows up when you're on the subpage but does not get transcluded to T:TDYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for making these tools as visible as possible, and like your suggestion. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The template is now live in the editnotice. The subpage transclusion is currently being tested in sandbox (with the help of My76Strat). Hopefully, it will be available in new nominations soon. SpinningSpark 21:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done some tests of this template and from what I see it can go live whenever you are ready. I'd be happy to plug it in for you. My76Strat (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. I think everyone is agreed that it is wanted. SpinningSpark 21:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done It is present in all existing nominations now. My76Strat (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been making use of these tools in the template, and I find them very helpful there. Thanks for making it happen. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Rock Drill

Ed has now apologised (albeit in a hidden section) for his false accusation of plagiarism with regard to Rock Drill, which was summarily removed from the main page part way through its run yesterday. When will it be re-run? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Boy, I'm happy that you didn't try to stir up any extra drama with this post by pointedly pointing out my apology or my mistake (or your mistake in not correctly attributing your addition). Anyway, it was on the main page for five hours; I don't think it needs to be re-run for another six. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) Well I was just about to say, where's the apology for not attributing your direct copying of CC-by-SA material, as required by WP:COPYWITHIN? If you don't properly attribute, please don't complain when someone checking makes that kind of error. We need to be making it more straightforward to check for plagiarism and poor paste-in practices, not more difficult. Tony (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In those five hours, over 3,600 people saw it; by removing it inappropriately and prematurely, it's likely, we can extrapolate, that around 720 interested people per hour were denied the opportunity to learn of its existence. That's not fair to them, and not fair to the creator of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It was there for five hours? Fine. That's an hour more than DYKs were getting only months ago. People "denied the opportunity" will simply go somewhere else on the main page, which is all too crowded for its own good. Tony (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I can't recall DYK running a 4-hour cycle. Last time we had 6-hour cycle was ca. 2 years ago; it was 8-12 h since then. Materialscientist (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, you have obviously not checked your facts before posting. As shown by the edit history for User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates, the last change in the time between updates occurred on January 5 when the time between updates was shortened from 12 hours to 8 (the two updates in February 2013 are discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 90#DYKbot off by twelve minutes and did not affect the actual timing of any updates). As the revision history shows, there have been periods when DYKUpdateBot has performed updates once every 6 hours, but never at a more frequent rate. DYKadminBot, the current bot's predecessor was hard coded for 6 hour updates. Before DYKadminBot, updates were performed manually and there was no hope of finding available and willing admins capable of performing more than 4 updates per day. --Allen3 ^talk 13:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not Rock Drill—though I'm hardly going to make a new section for it—but I believe my DYK (The Paddock and the Mouse) was unfairly removed from being displayed on the Main Page, for really not a serious violation of policy at all (WP:NOTPLOT, but... not really because it's a part of a collection, which serves as its own "context"). I appreciate Ed's concerns for DYK, and I'm not after drama, but I just want to see the artice have a proper run. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea whether this is a problem for DYK, but collection or no collection, the article should follow the basic rules including WP:NOTPLOT on its own account. The Paddock and the Mouse is certainly an interesting read so far, but also it is by no means a complete article. The body contains no information outside of the plot summary, for example history of composition, critical reception, or even a more distant "out of universe" third party analysis of the meaning behind the poem.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I accept all of that, and appreciate the comments; in fact, another article for the same collection that I submitted for DYK has all of those sections you mention. However, it doesn't contravene DYK rules, which says an article should follow "core policies": Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright. WP:NOTPOT is most certainly not a core policy, so to have the article removed from the Main Page because of it just isn't right. Sorry, if this seems a storm in a teacup, but it's just a matter of principle. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand the frustration. It's quite nice to get that slot on the main page and annoying to have it cut short!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Tony's Cronies

I think that the hook for this nomination, currently in Prep 1, breaches NPOV. The article is careful to say that "they were viewed as being given positions of power because of their personal friendships with the Prime Minister" while the hook states that they were given positions of power because of their personal friendships with the Prime Minister. it's a libellous statement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, so I have corrected it.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There was an alt nominated but for some reason the original was promoted instead. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mea culpa.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Boy howdy, shit would have hit the fan if the original hook had made the mainpage. Blair's got another powerful mate who might not have approved.. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

At least it has been changed to stop any libel (which I should have forseen when I wrote it, a mistake on my part). If word does get out that Blair got ticked off about his old allegation being on DYK, I will be most amused! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done, but the queues and prep areas are woefully empty; I've got to head out for most of the afternoon and evening, so could someone have a look at this: if another prep or two is ready, I can probably get them promoted to the queues later. Harrias ^talk 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Malolactic fermentation for May 23

Malolactic fermentation has a request for May 23. It looks to me like it was approved on May 15, without the tick. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Birmingham DYK currently in Prep 2

CC of my note to PumpkinSky, who doesn't seem to be active.

Hey PumpkinSky, hope you're doing well. I see you've promoted the Birmingham crisis DYK into prep 2. That's cool, and I don't mean to be too nitpicky, but I am kind of into this rolling 50 year anniversary thing... and we missed the opportunity to run the original hook on 11 May.

If you look at the template, you'll see that I wrote an Alt1 to run on 18 May, relating to a different part of the "Birmingham crisis". I think this is the hook that reviewer Simon Burchell meant to approve, since they modified the text of it slightly to improve the link to Birmingham.

So, if you would be so kind as to demote the current hook... and place Alt1 into holding for 18 May (2013)... I would really appreciate it! Happy (rolling) 50th anniversary of (this particular part of the) US Civil Rights Movement!

<3 groupuscule (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pumpkinsky has removed it.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

 !! Cool. Stay tuned for the next big 50 year marker :-) groupuscule (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We've now missed both days for "Birmingham crisis" -- oh well. Next up: Template:Did you know nominations/Baldwin–Kennedy meeting. Anyone want to review it for a possible run on May 24? groupuscule (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviews needed

We have only 8 approved nominations that aren't being held out of over 150 waiting. Please could you review the following articles, all of which have not yet received a review and have been created at least two weeks ago. Reviews would be most useful of the older articles, and can you strike through articles which have been done. Many thanks.

• April 26 - Template:Did you know nominations/James Chadwick - Passed by two reviewers already, but held up because someone needs to pass a new hook.
• April 29 - Template:Did you know nominations/Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Cocking Lime Works (double nomination)
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Mass in B minor
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Pinguk River
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Vance Peterson
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Murray Hill, Christmas Island
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Authoring Instructional Materials
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Brazilian Dreams
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Wibault 9
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties (4-article hook)
• April 30 - Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Moore (American football)
• May 2 - Template:Did you know nominations/Duchess Marie of Württemberg (translated article, needs determination re citations) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• May 2 - Template:Did you know nominations/Montgomery Knight
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/Siri Engberg
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Perez (double nomination)
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/Preston Claiborne
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/Imoro Yakubu Kakpagu
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/Tony's Cronies
• May 3 - Template:Did you know nominations/San Marco (Jacksonville)
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/Protected areas of Namibia
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/Mondeuse noire
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/Diamond Trust of London
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/Noemi Marone Cinzano
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/What Remains
• May 4 - Template:Did you know nominations/Asa Lansford Foster (now only needs independent hook approval).
• May 5 - Template:Did you know nominations/Rōdō Sanka
• May 5 - Template:Did you know nominations/Vaillancourt Fountain

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have some free time from Wednesday next week. I could have a go at reviewing some of the older ones if it would help? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Source visibility question

I've just had Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Cross (rugby union) kindly reviewed but the reviewer raised a concern that because the source is not visible outside the UK, he thinks it should have a more accessable source. I'd like to check, is a partially viewable source permitted for DYK? I'm only checking as I know HighBeam sources have been allowed in the past. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK has never supported FUTON bias. As Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources indicates, sources need to be available for independent confirmation but there is no requirement that such access be easy or without cost. The situation in question is analogous to when a book with limited accessibility (say a dozen university and research libraries) is used as a source. As we routinely accept books with limited availability, there is no reason no to do the same here. --Allen3 ^talk 13:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. If we had a blanket rule against offline or difficult to access sources I'd never have gotten most of these articles to DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done, Mr. Bot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Late queues and low participation?

When will the next round of the Cup happen? I saw delays mainly due to almost empty queues and prep area. I know that I must wait to discuss this for months, but where are reviewers? I guess the college final exams are interfering activity of Wikipedia. Any other reasons? --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• As long as the bot is working DYK seems to be puttering on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• The next round of the cup is 1 July. I think there just needs to be more admins to promote. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• If no one objects, I will reduce the hooks to six per set. Also, the queues are now empty. We can't wait for 43 days until the Cup. When the date is near the Cup, then we can change the set from six to seven. Sounds cool? --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reduced a number of sets to six in prep areas. You can revert if you strongly object. --George Ho (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The solution is review more. There are hooks from April that haven't been touched. I can't fill even one set lately because not enough hooks are approved, but there are plenty of noms.PumpkinSky talk 13:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To further complicate matters, the bot hasn't updated the nom-page hook counts in over 17 hours. The hook counts you see aren't correct. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have requested at the bot operator's talk page that we reduce three queues per day into two for now until the Cup comes. Sounds good? --George Ho (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't sound good to me. The issue isn't lack of nomination production, but rather lack of review activity. There are more than enough noms to justify the usual rate of main-page publication -- the problem is that there's a backlog of noms waiting for review. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Scratched request. I did not realize that I could not read dates and time well and assumed that the bot is broken. I'm a klutz. --George Ho (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There are now about a dozen approved hooks on the noms page. :-) --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There are now 45 or so. No more 6 hook sets, That wasn't the answer in the first place. PumpkinSky talk 23:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikipediocracy

Formerly entitled "Hive_of_knuckle-dragging_malice"

External Wikipedia criticism website

• Wikipediocracy nomination

This has been a slightly contentious nomination so far, and it seems to have aroused some strong feelings. Many WP editors are contributors to the forums at Wikipediocracy, while others here at WP don't have a very high opinion of the website. Anyone care to offer an opinion, hookline, or another review? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Have any of the contributors to the article, or the review itself, COI? And if any of them are contributing to Wikipediocracy under another name, would we know it? A portion of the DYK talk page wars that have happened within the last year had posts that Wikipediocracy was fueling the flames. Given the antipathy towards Gibraltar that keeps showing up here, with certain editors demanding a full confession of COI from given individuals, I think it is fair game to ask if anyone connected with the article, nomination, or review has COI with the Wikipediocracy, or COI with any of the DYK talk page issues that were allegedly connected to Wikipediocracy. — Maile (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

At this time, I don't think the article qualifies for DYK under guideline D6, due to unresolved edit warring. (Actually, it hasn't been the scene of classic edit warring, but it's unstable.) --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a case of COI, but I see a certain lack of NPOV from some of the sites critics. The Wikipediocracy forum (as WP) is home to many editors with conflicting opinions, but the article is about the blog not the forum. I don't see any evidence of "warring" in recent days, just a reference that has been reverted a couple of times. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, Hillbillyholiday. So, I followed you here from the link you left at my talkpage and couldn't help but be curious about this site and our article. And here I am rather rudely inserting myself into your conversation about it. Sorry about that. Before I say anything else, I should clarify my position with regard to the site: I'm neither a contributor to it nor do I have an opinion of it either way. From what I can tell, however, contributors to this discussion are looking at this from the wrong angle. Rather than talk about whether it should be at DYK, or what the hook should be, I think there are grounds to look at its overall notability, which I don't think has yet been established to the satisfaction of WP:N. I just carried out a quick exercise that involved stripping out any links and references that wouldn't ordinarily be used to help establish notability. Some were primary sources or links to the site itself, others didn't mention it at all, and the rest amounted to nothing more than "hat tips" or trivial mentions in articles that were almost wholly about other subjects. That's not to say that they wouldn't be included in the article in order to report on the site's activities (as they currently are), just that on their own they shouldn't be used to give the appearance that the site has been the subject of significant coverage, as the guideline requires. As it stands, only the Salon article could be said to even approach this standard. Before jumping the gun and putting this article on the front page, perhaps editors should focus their attention on this aspect first. What do you think? Steve ^T • C 20:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Steve. It is a fascinating place, no? "Don't bite the newcomers" sure doesn't apply over there! It is quite possible that some of the contributors to the site do not think it warrants inclusion at WP, forum contributors have provided hooks and different views already. However, I believe the notability questions have been settled by consensus at the article's AfD here. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thus far, the following Wikipediocracy contributors have edited the article; IRWolfie-, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, The Devil's Advocate, Hillbillyholiday81, Reaper Eternal, Alison, Tarc, Volunteer Marek. One or more of these are also Wikipediocracy staff members. There are also one or more former Wikipediocracy contributors who have edited the article, plus any that I'm not aware of or have missed. Full disclosure: I haven't edited the article nor am I a Wikipediocracy contributor, but the contributors are kind enough to quote me there on a regular basis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It is important to make the distinction betwen forum contributors, and blog contributors. I believe that User:Prioryman is banned from Wikipediocracy. He has demonstrated a lack of NPOV throughout the discussion so far, with attacks on WP editors that are akin to the uncontrolled outbursts of someone with Tourette's. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The topic's notability, such as it is, seems to hinge upon the activities of the forum contributors, not specifically things that appear on the blog. Either way, it's clear enough that staff members at Wikipediocracy count as "involved" by Wikipedia's standards. I've redacted what appears to be a personal attack that found its way into your comment. As for being banned at Wikipediocracy, quite a lot of people seem to be - funny, that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not banned from there; I've never posted there, nor would I want to, given that I'd probably have to disinfect my hands afterwards every time I did so. Prioryman (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Prioryman. I've been reading so much recently, I must have got confused. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the common folk of Wikipediocracy Landing would hail Prioryman as a young king of the House of Lannister if he made a surprise appearance there. I feel sure of it. He's not banned there by any stretch, so far as I'm aware.. Carrite (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Posting links to off-wiki personal attacks by banned users isn't clever. Don't do it again, please. Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the article in discussion is also full of such "attacks" (as you so incorrectly described that link), I thought you wouldn't mind. You clearly read the forum posts there, or are you just hypothesizing when you say that it is a den of maggots, full of fuckwit mothers doing strange things to vegetables? p.s. I nearly went over my download limit just clicking the diffs in that Arbcom case revealed by the link you just reverted! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Apologies; I should have realised it would have had an AfD by now. I remain unconvinced, but the consensus is otherwise. Fair enough. ;-) Steve ^T • C 20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Both Prioryman and Demiurge1000 have a long history here, as exemplified by their extreme, offensive and persistent personal attacks upon editors in good standing who happen to participate in discussions on Wikipediocracy. For a taste of Prioryman's way of expression look at the DYK nom or just the title of this thread. And of course his golden comment: "Mothers doing strange things with vegetables do probably explain the disposition of Wikipediocracy's contributors" - which under any other circumstances would get him blocked and topic banned.

Demiurge1000 is more of the same though he's been warned several times, blocked and has toned it down a bit.

In any case, neither of them should really be taken seriously when it comes to this topics and their opinions should be entirely discounted. To zero (or negative, if you're doing the new math).Volunteer Marek 22:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Under other circumstances".... That is, if administrators reading his personal attacks were not two-faced cowards. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth focusing on the issue being discussed, rather than on contributors. Much though I might question some of the above rant ;) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Focus on the issue rather than the contributors"? As in "Hive of knuckle-dragging malice", "Den of maggots", "Fuckwit Forum", "Mothers doing strange things with vegetables do probably explain the disposition of Wikipediocracy's contributors". Or your own "boxcutter brigade"? Are you trying to be funny? People who go around saying stuff like that have given up their right to demand of others to "focus on the issue rather than the contributors". They've also given up any faux pretense of neutrality and any claim to have their statements taken seriously.

And that'd be you and Prioryman.Volunteer Marek 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Do remember that "boxcutter brigade" is a reference to a statement made by a Wikipediocracy member that he wanted to use a boxcutter to slit the throats of Wikimedia UK members. Silverseren^C 05:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, Demiurge said this about Wikipediocracy: ..to me they will always be "the boxcutter crew". Prioryman has also described the site as a "sociopathic freak show". -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Prioryman, i'm talking about Demiurge. And saying that they will always be "the boxcutter crew" to him means that they will always be the group in his mind that made the aforementioned statement about wanting to cut Wikimedia UK peoples' throats with a boxcutter. And, at least for the Wikipediocracy person that made that statement, he will always be that in my mind as well. Because there is a definite line and he crossed it. Silverseren^C 07:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

But you and Demiurge1000 continue to smear Wikipediocracy contributors with that "box cutter" comment, which was hyperbole and quickly removed---unlike a WP editor fantasizing about killing administrator TP*r*s, which was dismissed as "not serious". If you were conistent, you would dismiss WP editors as a "murdering crew", but perhaps you do have limits discussing WP editors on Wikipedia. Why the discrepancy? Do you want to get blocked like Demiurge1000 for smearing editors here? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That kind of hyperbole or joking isn't appropriate at all. There is a line and that is past it. I would consider a WP editor saying anything similar to also be over the line and feel that sanctions should be made. But I don't know what incident (if you're quoting a real one) you're referring to. Furthermore, it is not smearing to directly discuss statements made by another person. I am not smearing him, I am stating a fact. That his joke was over the line. And the sad fact is that while the jokes or hyperbole at Wikipediocracy may not always reach the level of death threats like that, they do often reach the level of severe verbal abuse about people's lives, their appearance, and a number of other things. It is what makes their "criticism site" unprofessional. Silverseren^C 07:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop being obtuse. You are smearing Wikipediocracy contributors with an off-hand, quickly removed, and often apologized for asinine remark. You and Demiurge1000 have not been using that remark to smear only the contributor who made and quickly apologized for it.

Your failure to distance yourself from Prioryman and Demiurge1000 tells us, alas, how badly your judgement has fallen, with Wikipediocracy. Where is your sense of justice? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you seriously just read the beginning of my comment and not the rest? My judgement has long remained the same and has only grown firmer with each incidence of abuse by Wikipediocracy's members against Wikipedia editors, including harassment and threats. There is entirely a way to try to address the problems on Wikipedia without such things, but it is already clear that it is impossible for the long-term members of Wikipediocracy to actually try to do so in an appropriate way. It would seem from situations like the "Qworty saga" that they have the capacity to actually help with abuses on Wikipedia. However, at the same time, there are incidents such as the doxing of Gwickwire because they had made statements or opinions at odds with the opinions of the members there. In fact, it is because they spend so much time going after editors that they dislike for their statements or opinions, rather than people that are actually abusing Wikipedia, that it is clear to see that they can never act properly when Wikipedia is the subject at hand.

Where is my sense of justice? You assume I condone the statements made by Prioryman, which I do not. He, himself, cannot properly handle it when Wikipediocracy is the topic at hand, after the long term harassment campaign they've had against him. I think he needs to divorce himself from discussing them at all and not enter into any topics about them. Silverseren^C 08:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Doxing" (sic.) of gwickwire shows the wisdom of WP's suggestions for safe editing by minors and also safe choice of usernames. The most severe violation of the privacy policy was Demiurge1000's disclosure of his minority, apparently drawn from private chats with the young man. After that on-Wiki disclosure of his age, about which you all have been silent, discussion of Gwickwire's personal life was shutdown at Wikipediocracy. (And Gwickwire's behavior was the focus on criticism, not his personal details. See his admissions on his talk page.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"That kind of hyperbole or joking isn't appropriate at all. There is a line and that is past it. I would consider a WP editor saying anything similar to also be over the line and feel that sanctions should be made." - Oh! You mean like "Mothers doing strange things with vegetables do probably explain the disposition of Wikipediocracy's contributors". I mean, that's talking about somebody's momma right there. Where I come from, you can say all kinds of mean things to people, but you leave their mommas out of it. So are you gonna bring Prioryman up on ANI and propose a Wikipediocracy-topic ban for him or you gonna sit there sniveling and lying like the little hypocrite you probably are? If the latter, then please shut the fuck up Seren.Volunteer Marek 07:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing that to death threats? Do note that that statement was made after Hillbillyholiday linked this and said that Prioryman upholds 4 and 12, the latter of which you may also want to try to stop following as well. But, regardless, no, I do not support his statements like that at all. If you wish to bring him up at ANI for his statements, go right ahead, I will not oppose it at all. However, don't you think you should also be topic-banned from speaking with him, considering the number of insulting things you have stated, both on and off-wiki? Silverseren^C 08:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing that to death threats? - Are you seriously THAT stupid? There were no death threats. There was an off hand remark which only expressed frustration. And it was promptly removed - which is way way way more than can be said for how things are done on Wikipedia these days. You are either being purposefully daft or are... THAT stupid.

And no. I want YOU to bring it to ANI and propose the topic ban. I (and others) have been trying to shrug off these attacks for sometime now. YOU are the one prancing around and claiming some kind of moral high ground here. Which has slipped from your feet long time ago. Either put up or shut up. Either you mean what you say, or you don't. Otherwise... just quit the topic Seren.Volunteer Marek 08:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 has complained to Administrator Fram about my comments. Perhaps Fram will block his buddy Prioryman? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think if editors commenting on this topic are starting to insult other people's mothers, then they might be getting a little too emotionally involved. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that an AFD (Potential COI note: I did vote "delete" at the AFD) on this subject is in effect and the current back-and-forth on this very page is getting heated, I would agree with User:Orlady above that adding this article to DYK at this time would not be productive due to instability. Honestly, I'm surprised an army of administrators hasn't swooped in yet with what I'm seeing here. This is very unfortunate behavior for a purported educational encyclopedia. Ripberger (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hook removed from main page

I have removed the first hook from the current DYKs on the main page, as it was not supported by the article. I have reopened the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Chinaman (porcelain). The hook was only on the main page for ten minutes, but shouldn't have gotten this far. Fram (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for catching that, but couldn't you have just changed apprentice to journeyman? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer that it gets a thorough review again (and perhaps a different hook: "only" is POV, who decides that £25 (plus board) is "only" instead of "as much as"?). I was unable to verify the hook so far, since the source isn't available online at first glance, and it is not clear from the article which of the two sources by the same author is intended anyway. It was clear that the hook on the main page wsa wrong (as in unsupported by the Wikipedia article); it wasn't entirely clear that the word replavement would make the hook right though. Fram (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Apparently, in 18th century England, soldiers made £14 a year, a chaplain made £35 a year, a wet nurse £25 a year[2]; note that wages at the end of the century were already a lot higher (inflation? prosperity?), while the £25 wage discussed here was for the middle of the century. But this is of course a discussion for the nomination page, I only wanted to illustrate why I didn't simply correct the hook as it was. Fram (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, point well made. Thank you for keeping an eye out — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I was wondering what had happened to this - the bot gave me a message but then I couldn't find it. Anyway, I have struck the disputed hook. There is already an ALT1 hook and suggest that that be considered instead. Warden (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Any admins watching

There are 5 notices about DYK being overdue on this page. Could admins be more watchful?PumpkinSky talk 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Quirky's

The supply of good quirkys has been very weak lately.PumpkinSky talk 00:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Very much so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • At least one should appear soon from thataway --> User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#Calling_quirkys PumpkinSky talk 00:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

QPQ checker

Why doesn't the QPQ checker work anymore? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess you mean SnottyWong's tool on the review template itself? When I click it, it brings up The tool with a blank for the name. If you were to input a user name, it would bring up results. Since I'd never used it from the template, I don't know if that was what it was doing before, or if it was supposed to bring up results without the reviewer having to input a name. Other than that, it's still on Toolserver, and Toolserver has had some reliability issues of late. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The reviewer did have to manually enter the user's name. The toolbox was initially set up to count a user's edits to T:TDYK. I changed it to instead use my original specifications, as I suggested in January 2012, to count DYKUpdateBot's edits to a user's talk page. See the discussion at User talk:Mandarax#QPQ check. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Two hooks about fire currently in Prep 2

As a first-time nominator, I don't want to criticize the judgement of any long-standing administrator involved in the DYK process, but is it really wise to group Wawel Dragon (statue) and Düsseldorf Airport fire together? Both hooks end with the word "fire".--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see this before separating them, but glad you pointed it out in case I hadn't noticed the problem: they really should not have been together, and it's why I had moved your hook to Prep 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hook shortage

Currently only 123 hooks listed, should we be thinking about reducing the number of updates?

Also, why has the "List of DYK hooks by date" been removed from the nominations page? I found it very useful. Gatoclass (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's 123 hooks because some 30 were moved to prep and queues about 10 hours ago. Not sure about your second question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• You mean Queue "List of DYK hooks by date"? — Maile (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• It was also transcluded at T:TDYK, which is what Gato was asking about. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Right now, I have updated counts to 137 hooks, including 32 verified. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I mean this list, it used to be on the nominations page itself.

Also, regardless of whether 30 hooks were just moved to the queue, 123 is still not many hooks, we wouldn't want that number to get any smaller. Gatoclass (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Arlington Memorial Amphitheater

Someone forgot about the American holiday, Memorial Day (May 27). What can we do about Prep 1? --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's done now. --George Ho (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Local times

I was just wondering why there are two US cities in the timings. Could one of these be replaced by another capital\large city in another country but in the same time zone e.g. Los Angeles with Vancouver or New York with Bogotá? Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 10:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I feel a mountain springing from where this mole hill was... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And how would we decide this? Population? Time zones spanned by a country (UK wouldn't warrant a listing based on that, but Russia would get several)? GDP? I agree with what Crisco seems to be saying...leave it alone.PumpkinSky talk 10:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Stuart Campbell

May I request that the DYK for Stuart Campbell (games journalist) be moved from Queue 3 to the more UK-friendly Queue 4, as the figure is more of note in Scotland than the US. Cheers. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hook wordings

• What's with the recent anal retentiveness over hook wordings? Reviewers can fix it and get the nomination over with, rather than hold up nominations for weeks because of wording concerns over hooks which are grammatical and accurate. For instance, Template:Did you know nominations/Art Lassiter has:

Sorry! The hook is phrased in a way that it emphasizes Turner more than Lassiter. Please rephrase it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That article is still unreviewed, almost three weeks later. Template:Did you know nominations/Birmingham crisis is another, although at least in this case the reviewer added a possible ALT:

I have to say, I don't like the diction in the hook. Crises can't really escalate--better to say something like caused a crisis in the city that culminated in an unprecedented military operation? "Begin" and "bombings" isn't a real happy combination either. One more thing: this is Alabama. The involvement of federalistas is a HUGE thing, still (we're kind of moronic that way), and that would make for a catchier and more appropriate hook than the rather neutral "military operation". So let me put all that together. ... Drmies (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we please just fix fairly minor grammatical issues without derailing nominations? This isn't FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Another, unrelated issue is hook interest. If we're already running low on hooks, do we really want to burden ourselves by fighting to the death about the relative interest of a hook? Offer ALTs, please, if you don't like what's there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disable User:DYKHousekeepingBot?

Administrators, I am updating Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count manually, but it depends on queues and prep areas. In other words, at least 12 hours. I want to contact the bot operator, but I haven't seen his latest activity since several days ago. Could you disable the bot? Therefore, any of us can notify each other about the queues and the scheduling and can manually update the hook count. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. You can turn it off any time by reverting my edit to User:DYKHousekeepingBot/Switch. NW (Talk) 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. How does disabling the bot help anything? Even if you and the bot are both editing the page, the two of you won't conflict unless you're editing it at exactly the same time (highly unlikely). Shubinator (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In my view, we want the bot doing the updates as soon as it's able to do so in proper format. I think it's great that George is doing manual updates while the bot is down, but when it can give us twice-hourly updates, we should get them. (Like Shubinator, I'm confused: if the bot isn't working, then it won't do updates; if it is, the frequent automatic updates are what we want.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard from George or NW about why the bot was disabled, so I've re-enabled it. I also took a look at the innards and fixed a few things, so it should run smoothly now. Shubinator (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

All I saw was a request by a Wikipedian in good faith who attempted to do things through the right channels but was unable to do so, so I gave him a hand. I'm fine with you reenabling the bot. NW (Talk) 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Slaps or slabs?

A hook currently in Queue 1 mentions "smouldering polystyrene slaps in a ceiling". Should this be "slabs", or something else? The cited source in Düsseldorf Airport fire uses neither word. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

- thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination template protected?

I just tried to make a nomination, and when I clicked the nomination button, it said the page could be edited only by admins. I nominate infrequently, so it's possible I'm doing something dumb … but clicking a button is usually not beyond my technical grasp. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting ... which page did you try to nominate? It works for me. If the article has been nomm'ed in the past, I could imagine the button would count as deleting and re-creating a page.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait: I see what I did wrong. Forgot to type in the title. If you click without typing in the title, it takes you t the protected template. How idiotic of me. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sue Sarafian Jehl image question

Someone who is knowledgeable about imagse, please offer some guidance on Sue Sarafian Jehl — Maile (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless it can be proven that it was taken by a member of the US armed forces in an official capacity (Army Signal Corps, Navy, etc.), the family (Jehl's heirs) needs to release the rights to the photo through OTRS. That's assuming the photographer is unknown and the heirs have the right to release the image (could turn into a quagmire). It looks like a scan from a print source. It was not published prior to 1923 so PD rules do not apply. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 02:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Tony Award Hooks needing reviews

There are still 4 DYK hooks that need to be approved for the Tony Award June 10 date, which is now less than two weeks away:

1. Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties
2. Template:Did you know nominations/Cinderella (2013 Broadway production)
3. Template:Did you know nominations/Rob Howell
4. Template:Did you know nominations/Valisia LeKae

The latter two seem to be having trouble getting approved and if they don't I don't really care. I am an uninvolved editor in both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

DYKSG A4

There has been a discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Business tourism about changing rule DYKSG A4:

A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it was up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article. Twofold expansion for newly sourced BLPs similarly means from the version prior to the expansion and addition of sources.

The discussion on Business Tourism is more complex and involved several other issues, but the core spin-off question is: Can and should DYKSG A4 be changed to have not only copyright violations as exceptions but also unverifiable and/or unreferenced and/or unencyclopedic content? --Pgallert (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Provided that content is removed. We already require that all of DYK's content is referenced. If an editor finds that s/he cannot find references, and/or that the content is irrelevant, I think it only stands to reason that such content is removed, and should not be held against the editor who is expanding the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. Articles (not DYKs) are permitted to have unsourced content, so removing it is a negative for the article. So the original size has to be counted. If the expander removes any text we have to count the size before they start working on it. The idea is after all to have more text added, rather than removed. It is getting too much a matter of opinion whether text is unverifyable or unencyclopedic, so best not to have to let some one make a judgment on whether it is really or not. Counting the characters is much more clear cut. It is no big loss not to have a DYK approved. We already give a chance for more expansion to take place if the article is not expanded enough. Sometimes we also get poepl claiming text was a copyvio, when only part of it was too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme. Another issue, is that with older articles, a lot of times "references" are provided in the External links section or in some other fashion. So while there aren't inline references supporting the information, there is an actual reference, but people often don't notice that. It also makes it hard to tell what is and isn't supported by that reference, (hence the move to inline references.) So as Graeme says, it would make it an easy system to "game" and would also somewhat defeat the point of DYK, which is to facilitate the addition of more information to the encyclopaedia. Harrias ^talk 09:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

However when we get large articles is becomes very hard to expand 5 times, so perhaps we could have a rule 2 times expansion and 20000 readable characters added. Then expansion becomes possible for DYK. However I think I like GA appearance better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

William Post notability

The William Post article has a notability tag on it, and as such, the nomination can't really be promoted. I've suggested a way forward; can others please have a look and assist? Schwede66 23:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved - thanks. Schwede66 18:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

12 hour 2 a days

I have been hearing about a hook shortage. Any chance we will be going to 12 hour 2-a-days?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

43 hooks are verified, so... chance would be not likely. But, to make it "unlikely", you must promote the hooks. As for me, I have to take a wikibreak for a while, even though I've promoted some hooks previously. Otherwise, chances will be slightly likely. Right now, three prep areas are almost empty. --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Approving ALTs

I've seen a few cases recently where an ALT has been approved, rather than the main hook, but then the editor creating the queues fails to notice this, and we end up running the original hook (in fact, there is one on the main page at the moment, Dejanović noble family.) To help make this clearer, could reviewers possibly try and get in the habit of striking out the original hook so that the hook or hooks that they have approved are the only ones that can be read? Harrias ^talk 06:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Six hooks or seven?

There seems to be confusion at the moment as to whether we should be using six hooks or seven hooks in a prep set. We appear to have gone to six hooks starting on the first set to be archived on May 20, and stayed there until the current set, which follows six days later, and now we have two queues with seven hooks and one with six.

Given that we're averaging well under 21 new hooks per day, maintaining seven per set (21 per day) to the main page seems dicey, given a total of 137 nominated hooks. But six or seven, what we should be is consistent from set to set. So which is it? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seven. Six looks bad on the main page and if people would review more instead of arguing so much about whether it should be 6 or 7 we wouldn't have a problem. There are plenty of older noms to work through, which would resolve this issue.PumpkinSky talk 23:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well as I see it the only way to compromise would be to have 6-and-a-half.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Two-and-a-half sets of six-and-a-half hooks sounds like a truly fair way to go... BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Right now we have a total of 129 hooks, including 22 verified. If you say six-and-a-half, do you mean 18 to 20 hooks per day? I think right now 21 per day would be too much after prep areas are cleared. Two sets of six-per-queue and one set of seven-per-queue would suffice; maybe two sets of seven-per-queue and one set of six. Otherwise, three sets of six-per-queue. --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• George, I think Blue was using dry humour here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Very true, but I do agree with both Gatoclass and George, and disagree with PumpkinSky: we need to reduce, whether to six per set or two sets per day. It's one thing to say "go review more", but at the rate we're burning hooks, eventually there will be too few. 120 noms seems like a reasonable line in the sand. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I suggest that if the number of noms goes below 120, we either go to six hooks per set or two sets per day until the numbers build back up again. 120 is about the minimum practical number one can work with to create balanced sets, below that it gets much more difficult. I note for example that someone is already complaining of a shortage of quirky hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand what people are saying, but again, the root of the problem is lack of reviews. Go review more and we won't have this problem. And yes, that was me that brought the paucity of good quirky hooks. All of this is one of multiple symptoms of nosediving wiki participation. I'm sure I don't need to go into why on that.PumpkinSky talk 10:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, most of them seem to be reviewed already, the reviews simply haven't been finalized because of outstanding problems. This is another reason we generally need a bigger pool of noms IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• That and reviewers giving comments, claiming QPQ, then not returning once their comments have been addressed. Gaming, much> — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe we could follow the lead from the GA project and say you're not allowed to nominate if you start a review and then abandon it (barring exceptional circumstances).--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK candidate in queue - Zorotypus impolitus.

The language of the hook that I wrote in DYK is accurate but the wording of the hook in the queue is incorrect. It is the spermatophore that is the among the smallest in the insect world, not the insect itself.

The hook written by me :

• ... that the spermatophore of Zorotypus impolitus, despite being one of the smallest in the insect world, contains a single giant sperm cell that is almost as long as the insect itself?

The hook as appearing in Prep are 1 :

• ... that Zorotypus impolitus, despite being one of the smallest in the insect world, has a spermatophore containing a single giant sperm cell that is almost as long as the insect itself?

The easiest way to resolve this is to reproduce the hook as I wrote it, alternatively, the hook needs to be rewritten accurately.

AshLin (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the original wording. If anyone feels it would benefit from rewording, go for it (carefully). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks for catching that. I was reading that as the insect being one of the smallest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed "despite being". If the spermatophore really is among the smallest, then the single sperm cell is not necessarily "despite" its size. If it were among the largest, then we'd be going somewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is unique as the only known insect in the world to feature a giant single spermatazoon.(vide "Divergent mating patterns and a unique mode of external sperm transfer in Zoraptera: an enigmatic group of pterygote insects". Naturwissenschaften (May 2013). Springer-Verlag: 1–14. 2013. doi:10.1007/s00114-013-1055-0. Retrieved 22 May 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)).

If you feel that's a better hook, I have no objection! AshLin (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, it's not the fact, it's the wording (the logic of the sentence, if you will... readers may think it similar to "despite weighing 500 kilograms (1,100 lb), Arthur was immensely fat" in terms of how "despite" is used) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Idiom dictionary

It's probably too late to do anything about it now but Idiom dictionary is currently on the main page in the quirky slot and it has no references in the majority of paragraphs. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, this whole paragraph is unreferenced, yet presents quite specific claims: "The second category of reader is any citizen of the world today who, whether a student or not, finds himself more and more often in the situation of having to speak a language other than his mother tongue. And this person will find a dictionary with illustrations, words and phrases - a modern engravings of technological society; a book which he wants to carry with him (hence it must have a compact format), to leaf through and also to read, dipping into it less to verify a word than to become impregnated with a culture."

And just a small point—has anyone checked the gender-neutral guideline? And could we please have a dash, not a crappy hyphen, as the interruptor, as insisted on by CMOS, Oxford, and en.WP's very own house style. Who let this onto the main page??? Tony (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And that whole paragraph, word for word, is a straight copyvio, is it? (Including the grammatical blooper "engravings".) Tony (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Inserted with this edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• When I got the DYK notification, I asked User:Drmies to take a look - see here. Being quite busy with other matters, I was wanting further review and improvement and it is good to see this happening. Warden (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• No comment on whether it is good to see this happening, but the parts which were written by Warden instead of rescued from the history seem okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• The webpage which Tony links to above, itself links to our article bilingual dictionary and all its blue-links seem to be wikilinks. My impression is that this might be a case of backwards copying, i.e. they got it from us. Our article has been around since 2003 and the text in question was mostly started by user:Aristolaos in 2009. See also User:Aristolaos/Bilingual Dictionary of Idioms. Warden (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. Am removing the copyvio tag from the article, it seems such a tag is not needed.... although the referencing issues remain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, apologies if that's the case. It is often so hard to tell the vector; but I took their own home page as being not a mirror-site of WP: how strange that they should take WP text for it. Could we, then, fix the grammar, the punctuation, the repeated generic male pronoun, and maybe clean up and tighten the general prose? I take it the copyvio tag is no longer needed (ah, it's been removed, fine); please advise if otherwise. Tony (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't exactly say it's strange. I've seen many sites which are not wikipedia mirrors but use text which seems to clearly be from wikipedia to define something. While this particular site is non compliant if they did copy from us, they did keep the wikipedia links. In some cases there's no clear sign at all it came from wikipedia beyond the fact that the text matches exactly some intermediate version of our article that has been developed over time. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The potential copyvio is relevant for DYK (if it is an issue; judging from the above it looks like you guys have decided there's not copyvio); the other stuff is not. Last I checked, the DYK guidelines only require inline citations on the fact that's going in the hook, not through the whole article. (Guideline #4, "within policy", is I guess a bit open to interpretation anymore.) I'm not saying this is in any way a good article; I'm just saying things like lack of FA/GA-quality inline citations and lack of MoS-compliant punctuation do not in of themselves make an article not qualify for DYK. If there is a consensus that those things should disqualify an article from DYK, then the DYK guidelines should be changed to reflect that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason I made the initial comment, which seems to have stirred up this hornets nest, is because the DYK supplementary rules require "as a rule of thumb" one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro etc - see D2 here, so it was a requirement, and not something I 'just made up' and irrelevant 'other stuff'. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rjanag, those matters I pointed out are just plain, simple quality issues for any text. I think you need to stop banging MOS and FA rules and start thinking about generic quality for DYK. Short and recent does not equal sloppy and unprofessional; this confusion has been at the heart of much tension about DYK for quite a few years. Tony (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I did not say the article was of high quality. I said that those things are not listed in the DYK rules, and so they can't be haphazardly enforced on whatever DYKs happen to come under your line of fire; if you want to change the rules then go work on changing the rules. I agree that crappy writing is crappy writing, but DYK (at least the last time I looked at the rules) does not require the same level of quality as some other parts of the encyclopedia. Again, if you think DYK should require the same level of quality, then you're welcome to drum up consensus and get the rules changed. This is a really simple concept, I don't know how after so many years you still don't understand it.

Sagacious: thanks for pointing out D2, I had forgotten about that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@rj: Think about it.... The problems seem to be of a rather fundamental nature. I hope you don't mean that because the DYK rules say only the hook needs to be properly sourced, whereas any other claim elsewhere in the article, however potentially contentious, doesn't need to be because there's nothing in the rules about it. That "there only needs to be one citation for a DYK article" seems to be the takeaway here. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Serious problems like that are covered elsewhere in the rules (e.g., if an unsourced controversial claim is in there, it will run afoul of NPOV and therefore of the DYK guideline relating to "within policy"). As far as I can tell the OP didn't mention anything about controversial claims. I have not read the article so I don't know the details; all I'm saying is that DYK reviewers should not haphazardly apply 'criteria' that aren't listed in the criteria. The example you just gave is covered by the criteria; the examples I was responding to above are not (at least the MoS thing; the one citation per paragraph is, as Sagacious pointed out, covered at least by an 'unofficial' criterion). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

While there are some obvious rules to follow, it's not a given that they are observed. Unfortunately for articles of this type/topic area, it's all too common to see what often resembles original research, so sourcing/citations in this subject area would appear to me to need more attention. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Queue

All prep areas are full, and all queues are empty. Can an admin approve some sets please? Thanks --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate hook

The hook for Baisikeli Ugunduzi is currently in slot 3 of Prep 2 and then duplicated in slot 2 of Prep 3. Could someone sort this please? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I removed it from prep 3. Crisco 1492 added it to prep 2 with this edit, but didn't promote the nomination subpage, so when I built prep 3, I then promoted it (again) to another prep area.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cap ATTENTION

I keep going back and forth in my mind, whether that one hook in the queue should read "British Queen" or "British queen"? Can someone pass on that before it gets to the main page? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC). At presnet there is only one queue (5) but here is the link: [3]

I believe it should be British queen, as "queen" is not a proper noun.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in queue

In the queue, in Prep 4, Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat, it says: "Singapore's first Malayminister"? There should probably be a space between Malay and Minister. As it is also like that in the article. Crispulop (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Corrected.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Queue 6 is a hook short?

How come Queue 6 has only 6 hooks, but there are 7 hooks in Queue 1 & in Queue 2? --142.1.32.35 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• We seem to be alternating between seven and six hooks whilst we decide which is better given our current rate of article production and approval.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Please consider being more consistent throughout each day. --142.1.32.35 (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem...the current consensus seems to be that we should run seven so from now on we are running seven each time.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we haven't agreed yet. There are hooks with issues, like Wikipediocracy. Also, we have twelve verified hooks out of 140 total nominations. Even people realized that they were too late to reverse the promotion of idiom dictionary. --George Ho (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A new proposal for "stale" old articles

In my opinion, one of the project priorities should be to get articles on really notable topics which have been unedited in years and are severely lacking up to a decent status. But at present we lack a mechanism to do so. I wondered if anybody would be interested in introducing a new scheme for DYK in which "stale old articles", e.g those which have not been significantly expanded beyond 1kb in the last two years, have lower expansion requirements for DYK. I'd propose something rather like a x2 expansion like for BLPs or a 3 kb requirement for stubs which are under 1kb of prose which would give editors an incentive to focus on improving what we have. I'd also propose that a number of people get together and decide say a bank of 1000 or so articles which all parties can agree on as "core" which are very important but badly in need of expansion and do a similar thing. We badly need to attract people to expand them, I;ve proposed an monthly award system but given the foundation's stance on such things DYK seems the only way to try to get more editors expanding them, What do you think?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement, or something like it? And, BTW, what happened with TAFI going on the main page beneath DYK? It was there one day, and now it's not. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, I now see under the section "Failure" on that page, that being on the main page didn't help the project, and they yanked it. — Maile (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, because in my experience people rarely fall for that. I'm simply talking about lowering the requirement for articles which haven't been expanded over 1kb within the last 2 years and reduce x5 to x2 expansion for them to encourage more editors to expand "stale" articles.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Bring it up to GA, and then make it a DYK. Sorry if I seem to be pushing my proposal too much, I'm waiting for the Main Page RfC to close.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As you can see by the lack of response and decision making over such things, not many at DYK really care about improving quality of wikipedia or DYK.... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Be bold, add it as an option, and wait for someone willing to revert and discuss it. Idealistic I may be, naïve even, but it's worth a try, and I've seen it work before.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I thought about this for quite a while, and went back and forth a little, but I don't think there is a need to change the rules for this sort of article. If the article is below 1,000 characters, then a 5x expansion shouldn't be an unreasonable proposition. My worry is that if we allow a significantly smaller expansion, (particularly a 2x) then we will see lots of "padded" articles appearing at DYK. It works for unreferenced BLPs, because not only is information being added, but references are as well, which in most cases requires a complete rewrite of the article. I would be more likely to support a 2 or 3x expansion rule for similarly stale articles between 1,000 and 2,000 characters, but I don't know if we are getting beyond "DYK-style" articles there. Harrias ^talk 07:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

QPQ proposal

There has been much discussion recently about a lack of reviews for DYK noms and whilst reviewing and promoting hooks I have noticed that there are frequently nominations made by someone otherwise not involved in the article. I propose that there be a minor change to our rules so that the person who nominated an article must give a QPQ if they have more than 5 credits. Otherwise we risk being overwhelmed by articles which haven't had another article reviewed and so increasing the backlog. Reviewing an article isn't that hard, so this would only be a minor inconvenience to those who could otherwise pick up hundreds of DYK credits for little or no effort.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Nominating other people's work for DYK is an important contribution to the DYK process that should not be discouraged. It recruits new contributors to get involved in DYK (I'm one of many frequent participants who first got involved after someone else nominated an article of mine) and it tends to add to the diversity of the subject matter here. Moreover, it's often a lot of work to nominate someone else's work -- a lot harder than reviewing a nomination. It requires screening new articles for basic eligibility, looking for possible hooks, and reading the cited sources to make sure they support the hook and haven't been plagiarized. It's usually necessary to do some editing to an article before nominating it. Then, after the nomination, the nominator needs to address the issues that come up during review -- and it's harder to do that with somebody else's work than for one's own work. QPQ was intended to elicit participation from people who would otherwise only use DYK to showcase their work; don't make it an extra hoop for people who are already going far beyond that. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, I agree that nominating is important, and that sometimes it is a great deal of work (assuming the nominator is doing those things you list, which is not always the case), but what about those situations where the article's creator (or at least one of them) has more than five DYK creator credits already? In that case, either could give the QPQ, but I think it's worth considering the possibility that someone is expected to, if a particular author or authors have been tapped for DYK that many times. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That was going to be the alternative to my proposal, because I saw that if my original proposal was rejected, it leaves open a loophole for gaming, where two users, or even a larger group of users, could have most of the group expand an article, and one other nominate without a QPQ, and take in turns with each other's articles.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Instead of creating a new rule that could prove to be problematic for good-faith nominators (such as a contributor who regularly nominates the work of someone whose English is good enough to translate articles, but isn't good enough to write effective hooks or evaluate other people's hooks -- and whose articles likely require some cleanup before they can be nominated), I suggest case-by-case "handling" for people who are gaming the system. If somebody seems to be gaming DYK, the DYK regulars can tell them something like this: "Look, you aren't violating the formal DYK guidelines, but we think you are gaming DYK -- and creating work for the regular volunteers without shouldering a share of the workload. Because you aren't being fair to the rest of us, we're not going to review or promote your recent nominations until you do some QPQ reviews." --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Prep 4 Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat

The current hook reads; ... that Singaporean politician Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat is cited as "Singapore's first Malay minister"? Why is it "is cited as" and why not simply "is Singapore's first"? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "... Jumat was "Singapore's..." Harrias ^talk 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Texas gubernatorial election, 1998

Since George Ho has reverted my adding Texas gubernatorial election, 1998 to the "unreviewed" with a note "unreviewed ONLY", then I will say it here. I did not review that nomination, but George might see that otherwise. What I did, was state that the hook itself was factually incorrect. The editor responded with what he "could say", but never offered a new hook. What he had suggested was a word-for-word lift from a source in the article. I ran Earwig just to see what it would bring up, and then ticked it for a new reviewer. I did not review the article. Personally, I feel the editor may be manipulating things to push a political myth without looking like they're having a POV. Given how much that rankles me, it would be better if the article was actually reviewed by someone else. I am not going to review it. It can stay out there until the longhorns mosey along home, but the article remains unreviewed. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... I'm reviewing it now.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations that are constantly stable and is ready for re-review

I don't list nominations that have not been "stable", even if they are right now. The ones that do not count as "stable" are nominations whose:

• one of hooks may be hugely inaccurate or misleading or outdated cited by a source, reliable or not
• articles may have major issues that would be resolved too long or impossible to resolve (inadequate expansion doesn't count as "major", even if not minor)
• articles are/were nominated for deletion and then resulted as something other than "speedy keep" or "keep" without close rationale
• amount of reviews is too many

For example, Wikipediocracy is/was nominated as AFD, so I don't find its DYK nomination stable enough to be listed here. Also, I do not include ones that were promoted by one editor and then unpromoted by someone else, especially when they appeared on the main page for a short time, like chinaman (porcelain). If the nomination is listed for too long and is not constantly stable, perhaps the best to address the nomination would be separately addressing it rather than merely listing it. You can list whatever you feel necessary, but I'll remove ones that are not constantly stable. If I accidentally inserted one that is either constantly unstable or not constantly stable, then feel free to remove it (and then address it separately). --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I only list ones that need re-review. Even unapproved active ones don't need a re-review too soon. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• April 30: template:did you know nominations/Wibault 9 (green-checked)
• May 3: template:did you know nominations/Chris Perez (red-tagged)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Preston Claiborne
• May 4: template:did you know nominations/Protected areas of Namibia (blue-checked)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Noemi Marone Cinzano
• —: template:did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by Sugababes
• May 6: template:did you know nominations/Helmin Wiels (green-checked)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Roberto Carnaghi (questioned)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Slotted line (green-checked)
• May 9: template:did you know nominations/Fredrikke Marie Qvam (green-checked)
• May 10: template:did you know nominations/Birmingham crisis
• —: template:did you know nominations/A Million Ways to Die in the West (blue-slashed)
• May 12: template:did you know nominations/Coffee production in Venezuela (green-checked)
• —: Template:Did you know nominations/Melvin Bliss/Synthetic Substitution
• —: Template:Did you know nominations/Chhota Bheem and the throne of Bali
• May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Chua Soo Bin (green-checked)
• May 14: template:did you know nominations/Ranjit Sinha (blue checked)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Cathreim Thoirdhealbhaigh
• —: template:did you know nominations/Rob Howell
• May 16: template:did you know nominations/Golden Eagle Regional Park
• May 17: template:did you know nominations/Francisco Esteban Gómez
• May 18: template:did you know nominations/María Gómez Carbonell

Older unreviewed nominations

The following are older and unreviewed; the rest may have issues, have been approved, or needs another review. I won't list others that need another review; perhaps someone willin this section, but I'll do so in another section. --George Ho (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Approved or not, I will strike out nominations that are already reviewed. --George Ho (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• May 17: template:did you know nominations/The Joy Luck Club (film)
• May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties (four-article hook)
• May 9: template:did you know nominations/Bachata Romántica: 1's
• May 7: template:did you know nominations/Larry Itliong
• May 9: template:did you know nominations/Birthplace of Simón Bolívar
• May 15: template:did you know nominations/2005 Dickies 500
• May 16: template:did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by Romeo Santos
• —: template:did you know nominations/Old Nassau
• —: template:did you know nominations/Theodore Garman
• May 17: template:did you know nominations/Palacio de la Legislatura de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires
• —: Template:Did you know nominations/Francisco Esteban Gómez (two-article hook; only Battle of Matasiete needs a review)
• May 19: template:did you know nominations/Dirty Laundry (Kelly Rowland song)
• —: template:did you know nominations/Cinderella (2013 Broadway production)
• May 20: template:did you know nominations/Thonningia
• —: template:did you know nominations/T-Dog (The Walking Dead)
• May 21: template:did you know nominations/Transdev Melbourne
• May 22: template:did you know nominations/Zarafshan Range

Queues empty, preps full

Plus we had two requests for 2June and we only have one in preps and the remaining would make a good lead pic. Admins, pitch in! PumpkinSky talk 20:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but that was only one. More need moved.PumpkinSky talk 21:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin help needed to officially merge/close noms

Resolved

Now that Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties has passed as a multiple hook, I would like to close Template:Did you know nominations/Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike and Template:Did you know nominations/Lucky Guy in a way that the QPQs are properly transferred and all hooks are still documented as being new. Who knows the proper "paperwork" to merge noms into a multiple nomination?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I closed those two, but there's no magical process for transferring QPQs. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well no one is challenging my QPQs at Template:Did you know nominations/The Assembled Parties. Everthing seems fine. Thanks for closing those out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

67th Tony Awards scheduling

We have merged 12 new articles into a total of 6 hooks to avoid hook congestion. Now there are 5 approved hooks and a pending hook, meaning that it is likely that there will be 6 hooks for this Template:Did you know nominations#67th Tony Awards June 9 and 10 date request. I have requested that the four hooks that feature works be scheduled in the 4 primary positions (3rd queue on the 9th through the 3rd queue on the 10th). There are two other hooks that are likely to draw far fewer viewers. They would benefit from being on the main page at their newsiness peak during the 9th and 10th. Could we allow 1 or 2 of the 4 targeted queues to have two Tony Award hooks?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this, as I commented in the previous discussion. But my opinion is still the same: the Tony Award is not something that we want to bend our rules for, having one per set for two straight days is more than enough. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As was I, and my opinion is also unchanged. I agree with Mentoz86: no more than one per set. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK approved but has not appeared?

This DYK discussion was approved by User:Harrias with this edit. It was then moved to prep 4 by User:Bobamnertiopsis with this edit. Though shortly, Harrias undid the edit and promoted the hook with this edit on June 1. On June 2, I received the notification from User:Graeme Bartlett that the hook was added to the DYK, however it doesn't include the fact that was approved at the nomination. According to "Pages that link to "List of awards and nominations received by Romeo Santos" the hook is not in any prep or queue area. Is there something specific that happened here or am I confused? — DivaKnockouts 02:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There is this edit to Prep4 with the summary "swap for timing" where the coronation appeared at the loss of the Qvam and Santos hooks. However, the "give credit" template for Santos was not removed (which is probably why it was added to your talk page). Chris857 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I've placed the hook in prep area 3 with this edit. Thanks for the heads up! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 03:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for sorting it out! — DivaKnockouts 03:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we accept x4 expansions?

I've expanded RCSI-Bahrain by 4 folds (if you count from 1 June), but it can be 5 folds if we count from 26 May. I don't think I'll be able to expand it further (unless I rely heavily on primary sources). Do you think this has a snow chance in hell? Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that this article should be treated as eligible for DYK. If you compare the current version with this version from 15 April 2013, the expansion that began on 26 May still falls slightly below the 5x threshold. However, considering the amount of new content that has been added and the dramatic improvement in quality, I'd be inclined to say it's "about 5x", and the fact that the expansion started not 5 days ago, but 8 days ago, doesn't bother me -- that's still very recent. --Orlady (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Orlady. It's very close and, overall, the article is very well done so I think a little WP:IAR can be invoked here. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

On an article of that size, there's nothing wrong with a little IAR. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This seems like a good reason to use a bit of IAR. Silverseren^C 01:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Allow it. PumpkinSky talk 02:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's very generous, thanks guys! P.S. I'm in love with IAR :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• This ×5 rule has been a terrible failure and should be dumped forthwith. Tony (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sudirman, Albertus Soegijapranata, Loetoeng Kasaroeng... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should expansion over a certain number of characters as well? Or a 10-day period of expansion, although I think that one was shot down relatively recently.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The 5x rule was initially meant for existing stubs, so such a limit would go against the initial spirit of the rule. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't have a problem with the 5x expansion rule. It's a good rule that allows expanded stubs to be at a good length. It's just that in this current case, it is so close to 5x and is of such a length that it makes sense to allow it through. Silverseren^C 02:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion sought

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I declined Template:Did you know nominations/Hartland Moor‎, suggesting that the author may like to seek a second opinion. Quite reasonably, that is now the case. Could someone else please have a look at the article and see what they think? --Stemonitis (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sale — Cheap!

Primary discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#DYK for Sale — Cheap! - please make comments as it serves no useful purpose to have competing discussions on this concern
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cross-posting from Jimbo-Talk, since this is actually the appropriate venue for the discussion. This article was brought to attention on Wikipediocracy.com by Wikipedian Jayen466: Tony Ahn & Co. Puts Daphne Osena-Paez on the Wikipedia Main Page . . . “I reached a market I never thought I could,” wrote Ms. Oseña-Paez in an entry on her blog entitled My Wikipedia. “You could only imagine what kind of readership you’ll get once you appear on the Wikipedia main page. It was overwhelming.” In six hours, Daphne’s entry racked up over 17,000 views, giving her a new kind of international exposure she has never had before. Her entry was the 4th most viewed “Did You Know?” section article in the month of June, viewed more than 955 other articles that also were featured in the same section. To date, Tony Ahn has been successful at every attempt to place a client on the Wikipedia main page. “We don’t charge extra for this, nor do we guarantee placement. I write high-quality articles that naturally lend themselves to main page placement. Getting my clients on the Wikipedia main page is just an added bonus both for me and my clients.” . . . It is time to get serious about shutting down the abuse of DYK, which has been brewing for a long time... Carrite (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Carrite conveniently omits that Daphne Oseña-Paez appeared on DYK on 17 June 2011, two years ago. This is stale and then some. But there's something that puzzles me about it - looking at the "what links here" page, I can't see any link to a DYK review which one would normally expect. Who reviewed this and when? Prioryman (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Facepalm Okay, seriously. Even the URL says that this post was in June 2011. @Prioryman: at the time we didn't have the subpage system (it was implemented early August 2011, I believe), so any review of this article will be in the history of T:TDYK (and thus a good waste of several hours to find). That was one of the reasons we implemented this system. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Addendum: Apparently this is the review, found by 78.149.172.10 at Jimbo's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Notwithstanding the old-ness of this issue, paid editing is not a DYK-specific problem, so I don't know why anyone would look for a DYK-specific solution. Note that the editor, User:Noraft, is paid to write PR articles. Seems clearly problematic from the perspective of WP:COI and WP:NOPR to me, although he has counterarguments (User:I'm Tony Ahn/Public relations professionals editing Wikipedia) (and from a quick glance at his contribs it looks like he also does constructive things that aren't PRing). The solution is to deal with the editor, not to attack DYK again. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I quite agree, but this is something that's come from Wikipediocracy, so the attack is quite predictable. Might I suggest that we close this discussion and focus on it on Jimbo's user talk page where it was first posted rather than duplicating it unnecessarily? Prioryman (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Prep 4 Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

The promoted hook on Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India should be rescheduled till the article is cleared of NPOV issues. Discussion started on talk page of article. Also split discussion happening at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_4#Category:Anti-Muslim_pogroms_in_India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Better hook needed

At Template:Did you know nominations/Gender inequality in the United States. Reviewers think my hook is too boring (with which I agree), but they propose alt hooks which are factually incorrect or otherwise problematic, I am afraid. Perhaps somebody new can come up with a better hook? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Singapore; frequent DYKs lah

We are seeing many hooks related to Singapore recently. I guess not much fuss has been made yet on Talk:Main Page about this. (Birds are still being attacked there.) Before people start doing that i think we should avoid second Gibraltar episode. I am sure the admins who promote hooks take care that no two Singaporean hooks are showcased in same set. But i don't know if each consecutive set is scanned that way or not. Admins should take care that this doesn't happen. Maybe we can have a hold down area for Singapore also. Double review like Gibraltar is unnecessary. The main concern is that almost all hooks have "Singapore" or "Singaporean" in them and that be alarming. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, they are almost all the work of two editors, and neither of them (to the best of my knowledge) are getting paid to place information about Singapore on the front page. One is a university professor who has his students write articles, using their own user names, about Singapore's law and legal climate, while Bonkers The Clown is just a very productive editor. The main issue with Gibraltarpedia was the fact that the government had helped pay for the program and was offering some incentives. Nothing like that here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the Gibraltar issue. That's why i did not propose double reviews. Articles are not a problem here. (You see, birds also most probably don't pay editors to feature their snaps. But still they attract criticism.) We simply need to space out these hooks properly. Hence a special standby area for them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• See, in my opinion "second Gibraltar" is scaremongering. DYK always gets people complaining about the frequency of certain topics. Last year it was horses and paralympians, right now it's Bach cantatas. Gibraltar was... something else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Have changed the name of the topic if you think its being used by me to scare people. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• AGF for Dharmadhyaksha, but agree with Crisco 1492 that this is nothing to be alarmed about. DYK tends to have runs on topics. I think the Gibraltar dual-review and sectioning out (and I'm the one who did the RFC that created it) proved nothing, except that DYK has its own closet of anxieties that can be easily rattled by a few whose motives are in question. We should not repeat that mistake ever again with any topic. Where do we draw the line? How many promoters and admins want to spend their time flipping up and down on the nomination page to make sure they included something from the appropriate sections? We should stop worrying about topics and concentrate on the qualifications of the individual noms. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh how did I know this would transpire sooner or later. No scandal here, sorry. The SG gov. would never do things like that. Singapore is already popular enough. (COI) I admit though that I love Singapore deeply. :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And thanks Crisco. Appreciated. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Too many articles on Singapore lah! That can't be possible, ah. :-) Prioryman (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• You've gotten the hang of the slang, eh? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Apologies to those who've already seen this quip elsewhere, but a reliable source already stated that it's very rare for any topic to appear on DYK "more than once", so we must all just be imagining it :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I must be faking all my trophies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• For editors who think this is an urban legend, some examples are given below.

Some examples of #Singapore and #Singaporean.

May 2013 ... that the Singaporean Satay Club re-sold leftover sticks of satay? ... that stingrays are eaten in Singapore with raw peanuts and sugar? ... that Singaporean rocker Ramli Sarip was banned from performing in Malaysia for seven years because he had long hair? ... that Singaporean rapper Shigga Shay has been hailed as "Singapore's Kanye West?" ... that former chef Aziza Ali is credited with establishing Singapore's first Malay restaurant? ... that Chia Thye Poh, formerly detained under Singapore's Internal Security Act, has been called "the world's second longest serving prisoner-of-conscience after South Africa's Nelson Mandela"? So far in June 2013 ... that Bukit Timah Nature Reserve (pictured) is the first biosphere reserve in Singapore? ... that Singapore has lost 90% of its natural forests? ... that Singaporean businessman Lien Ying Chow was the first non-American recipient of the American Academy of Achievement's Golden Plate Award? ... that agriculture in Singapore accounted for only 0.5% of the country's GDP in 2010? ... that English botanist Richard Eric Holttum wrote the first book on gardening in Singapore? (Maybe not this one) ... that photographer Chua Soo Bin has been called "one of the most sought-after commercial photographers" in Singapore? ... that Singaporean politician Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat was "Singapore's first Malay minister"? ... that businessman Hoo Ah Kay is considered "one of the most influential Chinese (Cantonese) tycoons in Singapore"? ... that Singaporean politician Chew Swee Kee got robbed of his trousers while on a family holiday? Upcoming ... that in 1989 the Singapore Parliament reversed the effect of a 1988 Court of Appeal case holding that the Internal Security Act did not exclude judicial review of decisions to detain without trial? ... that fish heads are eaten (dish pictured) in Singapore with a range of ingredients including milk, brandy, and fried noodles? ... that Singaporean community leader Song Hoot Kiam could speak excellent English? ... that the oil industry in Singapore (Jurong Island pictured) generates five percent of the country's gross domestic product? ... that Singaporean make-up artist Clarence Lee has done make-up for Zhang Ziyi (pictured), Stefanie Sun, The Spice Girls, and Chris Isaak? ... that with their combined wealth estimated at $1.6 billion, Singaporean couple Ong Beng Seng and Christina Ong are among the richest people in Singapore? ... that Singaporean businesswoman Margaret Heng has a Master's degree from the George Washington University? ... that Singaporeans commemorate the Birthday of the Monkey God (Monkey God pictured) by writing in blood?

For editors who assumed my proposal was in good faith, thanks a lot. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

To put this in context, we run about 2,000 DYKs a month. You're raising concerns about running 6 or 7 in the course of a single month. That's about 0.3% of the total. I hardly think it's overrepresented given the number of DYKs on other topics. Prioryman (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere about the "too much Bach" claims, the DYK process runs those nominations that are (1) submitted, and (2) pass the criteria for inclusion. If you submit valid nominations about topics that are not to do with Singapore, then they will appear in DYK - thus bringing a lower proportion of Singapore-related DYKs. If you do not do so, then nothing will change. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I simply pointed out a possible future commotion which could be avoided by a simple scattering strategy. In case you find it unnecessary, its okay. But when someone comes complaining on Talk:Main Page, do remember this. Sorry for wasting your time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not worry, I have lots of it. My memory is like a goldfish, but even that will be sufficient to remember this until the next time someone comes complaining on Talk:Main Page - because that happens at least twice a week. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, goldfish do have relatively good memory ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You even took the effort to make a table... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

7 DYKs for June 2013 as of 7 June 2013! New worl (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Heck, there are times where I kept up two articles on Indonesia per day... been over a year though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Above, Prioryman claims that we run about 2,000 DYK's a month. In reality, we run now 7 per batch, 3 batches a day (= 21), max 31 days a month, is 651 DYKs a month only. Even with 4 batches of 8 (did we ever have that rhythm?), we only come close to 1,000 a month. Fram (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's embarassing. :-( I was thinking of the total over three months, which was under discussion elsewhere. You're quite right about the monthly totals (3 x 651 = 1,953). Prioryman (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Queues empty and no preps built

... PumpkinSky talk 12:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could you build one so I can move it to a queue? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I did not have time at that point, but someone has filled two preps and I'll now try to fill the other two preps, approved hooks allowing.PumpkinSky talk 21:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that there are three approved hooks ready for prepping at T:TDYK#Gibraltar-related articles that have been reviewed twice, and approved for main page. Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm being interrupted by other users, I'm done for today.PumpkinSky talk 21:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong hook

Why isn't the hook for Bancroft Shed, currently on the main page, the one that was agreed at Template:Did you know nominations/Bancroft Shed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Moved from Template talk:Did you know by Gilderien (talk • contribs)

It was altered while in Prep 2. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hook MIA

PumpkinSky appears to have promoted Tarmina to queue 2, but it appears that after an edit conflict or two the hook never made it. Could someone please promote this to a prep? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

2nd reviewer request

At Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Sand. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Larger-than-usual image

As per request I have made the picture in prep 2 wider than usual to accomodate it being a panorama. I have tested it to make sure it does not interfere with the formatting of the main page (compare this to today's), and will be in balance with the other sections tomorrow (tomorrow's main page).--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a copy of your test plan? Most important is how you checked to make sure things work properly on older computers with limited resolution (800x600) along with smart phones and other mobile devices (many of which have even lower resolution than old PCs). --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that I've reverted Allen3 for the purpose of this discussion, so we can see what it will actually look like. If we're worried about mobile users' experience, why aren't we using upright or something similar? Another alternative is {{wide image}}. The images we have now are too small as it is; you can't see any detail. A panorama at that size is, quite frankly, utterly useless. Last, Allen, there's no reason to be sarcastic about this. We're all here in good faith. Thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I doubt we can expect a perfect main page balance on handheld devices. The issue with image scrolling was a large gap appearing on desktops and laptops using Internet Explorer - the scrolling markup was failing when combined with the nesting used for the main page (maybe this has been fixed though). Materialscientist (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I tested it on IE, Chrome, and Firefox, on a relatively small laptop screen. I have alse converted it to a Wide Image using the template suggested, although I may change it back if it does not give the intended effect - when tested in 800x600 it widened the section so I shall investigate that.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, but DYKUpdateBot will not update if the image format doesn't comply with its rules. You can trick the bot by setting a regular image with a 100x100px size and then change it on the main page, but the markup should not disbalance the page, or some admin will remove it. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just read through the bot's code to refresh my memory. While the bot will report a warning if a size other than 100x100px is used, this does not appear to prevent the bot from performing an update. My search for instances where this has occurred in the past has so far failed to find a hit, but if memory serves this has happened before with the bot successfully performing the update. --Allen3 ^talk 23:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Has this ever been done on the MP before? PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

We did feature scrollable images (before DYKUpdateBot started checking the image markup though), but were getting regular complaints in WP:ERRORS from IE users. Some popular IE versions showed a large gap under the image. Materialscientist (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

IE users are born to suffer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Like Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and uploaded a cropped image that features the main geologic feature of the panoramic image. I think featuring the panorama is a bad idea for the technical reasons mentioned above, as well as to maintain consistency in the application of the DYK rules. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Rereview needed for June 10 date request

Template:Did you know nominations/Lauren Ward needs to be rereviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

There are only 10 of 132 nominations approved, not even one-and-a-half prep sets worth. Since there are always older hooks that need attention, here are a batch of them to work on. Thank you for your continuing assistance.

• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinaman (porcelain)
• May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Perez (two articles)
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Noemi Marone Cinzano
• May 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Kastrati (tribe)
• May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/2005 Dickies 500
• May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/The Joy Luck Club (film)
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/María Gómez Carbonell
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Gene Venzke
• May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Men's parking space
• May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Fish soup bee hoon
• May 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Khrushchev: The Man and His Era
• May 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Fortifications of Gibraltar (second review needed)
• May 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Viva Móvil by Jennifer Lopez
• May 25: Template:Did you know nominations/En Canot, Im Boot (Metzinger)
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Jirayr Ohanyan Çakır
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Das neugeborne Kindelein, BWV 122
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Sue Sarafian Jehl
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Zostera noltii, Plasmodiophora bicaudata (two articles)
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Sand
• May 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Howard Lindzon (two articles)
• May 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Biochemical Predestination
• May 30: Template:Did you know nominations/John Mitchell (footballer born 1800s)
• May 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Adèle van der Pluijm-Vrede
• May 30: Template:Did you know nominations/What Now (Rihanna song)
• May 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Dekha, Na-Dekhay
• May 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Johan Ankerstjerne
• May 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Jerningham (ALT1 hook and image)
• May 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Eagle MkIII
• May 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Little Nescopeck Creek

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The Hall of Lame

It's back again. Today's winner is:

"Did you know ... that the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 38 Squadron was equipped with DHC-4 Caribou transport aircraft for 45 years?"

Well no, I didn't know that. Wow.

Runner up: "... that Michelle Nunn, CEO of Points of Light, the largest organization in the U.S. devoted to volunteer service, is considering running for the U.S. Senate, where her father once served?"

The runner up borders on being political spam. Who approved it? Tony (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, for the RAAF hook at least, that is at the very least somewhat interesting for those familiar with military matters. Can you imagine the USAF using Thunderbolts (WWII) in Operation Desert Storm (1990-91)? That's how out of date those planes were when they were finally taken out of service in that squadron. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'd guess that Tony isn't particularly conversant with military matters because as someone who is, I can say that fact definitely is surprising. I'll go and have a look at the article now to find out the story behind this... Prioryman (talk)

• WP's main page doesn't aim exclusively at military experts. If the hook can't convey a surprising aspect to normal readers, I think it shouldn't be displayed. Tony (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• In which case you should suggest a change to the DYK rules, as the currently written ones do not specify a general audience. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I approved the Nunn hook. Given that the election in question isn't until November 2014, I figured it wasn't an issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I moved the RAAF hook to the prep area. I didn't know anything about the airplane and I wouldn't have visited the article if I hadn't been checking it for promotability, but I recognized that there are people who are very interested in military aircraft and that 45 years is a long to use any one airplane model. If DYK limited itself to topics known to be of widespread interest among people who visit Wikipedia articles, it probably would only feature current topics like reality TV, popular music, hot video games, and the latest iPhone model. Let's not go there! --Orlady (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• No, all that is required is that the point of the surprise or interest be clear from the hook to main-page readers. This should have been weeded out long before it got to the main page if no better alternative hook could be conceived; but I'm guessing that no one even bothered to improve it. Tony (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  Tony, if you wanted a stray poll, "45 years" is enough to draw attention of non-specialist. Move on. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  What is notable about 45 years? If this is the best you can come up with, DYK should be terminated, or at least drastically reformed so that GAs can at last gain a little exposure, with much better material. Tony (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  Several editors are trying to convince you that it is a pretty long term for a military piece of equipment, especially an aircraft. Hooks are not about "better material" - you'd have to shift your criticism to the article for that. Materialscientist (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  Tony, that you do not find it interesting or unusual does not mean nobody does, or even that barely anyone does. I yawn a little bit wider every time I see a sports hook, but there are a significant number of readers who go berserk for them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's not the topic: it's the hook. Tony (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• And most of the hooks for sports-related articles are... sports related, and at times barely penetrable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Today's winner: There are so many candidates it was hard to choose. I settled for "Did you know that Ravi Shankar, the world-renowned Indian sitar player, was a musician from Varanasi?" Errr ... it's a fact, yes, but is it a suitable DYK hook?

  Runners-up: again abstruseness abounds for anyone who isn't already an insider for the topic—this seems to be increasingly prevalent. So we have "... that Zainal Abidin acted in over 150 films but won only two Citra Awards?" ... Um ... OK.

  And "Did you know that Tom Collins resigned the presidency of RCSI-Bahrain over the alleged government cancellation of an ethics conference?"—Wake me up when it's finished.

  May I ask why prehistoric "hill complexes" feature twice in the current shift? This is very bad control of theme. Tony (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Sigh. And that's why there are links, for those who are not "insiders". If rules required, for instance, "... that Zainal Abidin acted in over 150 films but won only two Citra Awards, Indonesian film awards which have been likened to the Oscars?", then I (and most active DYK editors, I should think) would rather just not go through DYK. Requiring every term to be familiar to Anglosphere readers is just ensuring that Anglosphere topics are even more dominant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • "Requiring every term to be familiar to Anglosphere readers is just ensuring that Anglosphere topics are even more dominant."—you're going down a rabbit hole there. "Did you know ... that Zainal Abidin acted in more than 150 Indonesian films, but won only two of the coveted Citra Awards?" – that would be a tiny bit better, at least providing a cultural anchor and pointing to the reason for the irony. And no, visitors to the main page should not have to click forward and click back, once or even twice, to get it. Bad idea. Tony (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Citation for "coveted", Tony, per the DYK criteria? I agree that it's true, but verifiability is not truth. I don't think I said readers need to "click forward and click back, once or even twice, to get it". If they get it, good. If they don't get it but are interested, even better—they've learned something. If they don't get it and don't click, no biggie. Very few DYKs get the same level of attention as a TFA or POTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What Tony's complaint boils down to, I think, is that a fair number of DYKs are of specialist interest - mushrooms or Bach cantatas, for instance. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. Many editors are specialists too, but there's no requirement that DYK topics should be "populist", nor should there be. I think the range of topics - including those which are perhaps rather esoteric - is a good thing, in that it exposes readers to subjects that they probably would never come across from their usual daily reading. Prioryman (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Crisco and Prioryman: Um ... no, actually. See rule 3(a): "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." (my underlining) This rule is being flagrantly disregarded by both nominators and the promoting admins. Tony (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, "broad" is not the same thing as "universal". Just because you do not like something is no reason to declare that nobody else likes it. Looking at your first two cherry picked examples, are you really claiming that there are not sizeable populations interested in either military aviation or charity work? --Allen3 ^talk 10:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

So who says anything about universal? I'm interested in military history, and I think I'm still listed as a member of MilHist. But I don't have a clue about the point, grammatical news if you like, in the DHC-4 Caribou transport aircraft hook. Why not have reframed the hook so that it points to the interest, the surprise? That much is demanded by rule 3.

Right now, all hooks on the main page are excellent, presenting a rude contrast with the shift I inspected when prompted to open this thread. Tony (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Phew! Well, that's a relief. Just as well you didn't look a few hours ago, your head would probably have exploded... Prioryman (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony Award date request covers next four available prep areas.

I would just like to remind all the DYK schedulers that the Tony Award date request is targetting the next four available queues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is one left for prep 2, but I cannot add it as I have a COI. I left a note in the prep area to stop admins promoting it.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Triple nomination syntax check request

I submitted a triple nomination earlier (Template:Did you know nominations/King's Lines) - I think this is the first I've ever done. I'm not entirely sure that I got the syntax right to add a third article; could someone please check that the template is working as it should be? (And if anyone feels like doing a review, that would be appreciated too.) Prioryman (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gibbet of Montfaucon

This ran on May 19, but DYKbot has just told me the nom is still open. I'd better let someone who knows what they are doing close it. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre.... the history clearly shows I passed it.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you forgot to enter "yes" when you passed it, so it wasn't showing up as properly closed. (I've now taken care of it.) The bot notification appeared now, because the section on the nominations page containing it was just removed yesterday, so it looked to the bot like an active, untranscluded nomination. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

C/O sir

Queue 6; hook about C/O Sir: Shouldn't the hook involve the real world in some way? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't at all well-written; its grammar needs to be reviewed and corrected. I'd suggest pulling it from the queue. As it stands, it's not exactly a good advertisement for DYK and frankly I'm surprised it passed a review. Prioryman (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is also a Stub, which isn't supposed to make it on DYK.— Maile (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really, but it is listed as one. Pull it out for now! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it also has copyvio issues in my opinion, despite being passed explicitly for that, compare "The character of a blind professor played by Saswata Chatterjee in the film was previously offered to Prasenjit Chatterjee. When asked about it, Kaushik explained," in the article with "The character of a blind professor played by Saswata Chatterjee in the film was previously offered to Prosenjit Chatterjee, we heard. When quizzed about it, Kaushik explained" in source 1. Mikenorton (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Why has nobody done anything about this article in queue 6? It was reported 10 hours ago and it's still in the queue, which is next up for the Main Page. Can someone please pull it asap? Prioryman (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I can delete it from the queue based on these concerns, but I'm not comfortable with replacing it from another queue. Would that suffice? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I've removed it per the above concerns, I'm not convinced that the direct quote was a copyvio, but the article quality is weak, and I'm surprised the DYK standards (a) sanctioned this and that (b) an admin posted it to the queue without double-checking. Worse still is the fact we have this "error" report sitting here for nearly ten hours. In future, though, I'd suggest using WP:ERRORS as that's visited by active main page-concerned admins all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The two relevant {{DYKmake}}s still need to be removed from the queue. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This was not taken care of, but I removed the three erroneous DYK templates which the bot placed, on the talk pages of the article and the two users. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, my personal experience of WP:ERRORS is that it's usually ignored until someone goes onto IRC to complain. Prioryman (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/C/O Sir a) ALT1 was suggested b) re-assessed c) this was more or less a teamwork, I have found the problematic copyvio edit, I'll talk to the editor --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 05:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• There are two more DYKs where I worked with the same editor Template:Did you know nominations/Dekha, Na-Dekhay, Template:Did you know nominations/Chupkatha, I did not check copyvio before nominating! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 05:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not very prudent... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK Make credit adjustment

Please add Paul Barlow (talk · contribs) to the DYK makes in Queue 1 for Woman with Flowered Hat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Where are the admins for this quickie.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There are less than three hours left. Can someone add a DYK template before this hits the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This did not get done, but I manually issued a credit. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mandarax for your belated help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Queue 1 is short one hook; admin needed before 08:00 UTC

One of the hooks in Queue 1 was removed a few hours ago because it was too short; unfortunately, it was not replaced.

As all four prep areas are full, there's a plentiful supply of hooks available. Since the queue already has a full quota of bios and a Tony Award hook, avoiding those prep hooks would be best.

Note that the queue also needs the addition of a DYKmake as noted by TonyTheTiger above. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The queue went to the main page with just 6 hooks. The main page is currently in balance, so it's probably best to leave well enough alone at this point. The 'bot presumably already issued the credits, so if Tony didn't get one, we can give him one by hand. --Orlady (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Queues empty and issues with hook of Mahila Atma Raksha Samiti

First of all: all queues are currently empty. Even though the next update is still a couple of hours away, it would be nice to see the queues filled, just in case. Secondly, in Prep 2 this article is present Mahila Atma Raksha Samiti. I'm new to DYK, but this article seems to have some issues: it has an orphan tag, it is in need of some copy-editing, the paragraphs of 'Founding' and 'After partition' do not seem logical as the chronological order is reversed, I don't know if anyone agrees, but at this point in time this article does not seem fit to be posted on the Main page. Crispulop (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay to empty Prep 1?

It's just a repetition of Queue 1. Thanks, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Queue 1

Queue 1 (I think) should have been on the Main Page some 1 hour and 30 minutes ago!! What's happening? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot seems to be stalled. There is a very long process documented in the queue file for administrators who think they can handle it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, we are doomed! The end is coming... The template is red, and Johnny Depp has gotten more show time than he deserves!!! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Manual update performed. --Allen3 ^talk 11:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Bless you :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking in hooks: talk about shooting your DYK articles in the foot

Now that I'm scrutinising DYK for embarrassments on a daily basis, I'm asking myself why our rules on overlinking are being regularly spurned in hooks. Right now, I see:

• "... that the talk show Ra'is el-Tahrir ("Editor in Chief") hosted by Hamdi Qandil was one of the most popular and respected television programs in Egypt before it was discontinued in 2003?"

  Why is Television in Egypt and the rather too unfocused Egypt both linked within a quarter of a second? It's a pity Television in Egypt is piped; and isn't it linked explicitly in the article itself??? "Editor in Chief" should not be capitalised.

• "... that with the development of Tropical Storm Andrea on June 5, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season became the fourth consecutive season with a named storm in the month of June?"

  Why flood the hook with links—mostly deceptively piped? Each secondary link draws visitors away from the actual DYK article. Or are DYK articles just so bad, and so undeserving of clicks by potential editors who might work on them, that you actually try to minimise visits? It's very weird strategy. Tony (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Editor in Chief" should not be capitalised. - Erm, it's a translation of the talk-show's title. Agree about the overlinking though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, and yes, my mistake about the caps. Tony (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)