Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 98

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Mandarax in topic Queue 6 issues
Archive 95 Archive 96 Archive 97 Archive 98 Archive 99 Archive 100 → Archive 105

215 characters on the current hook?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What is going on?! The current hook "...that in 1967 Wim T. Schippers, with Gied Jaspars and Wim van der Linden, wrote and directed Hoepla, the first Dutch TV show to display full nudity, leading to questions in parliament and censure for the broadcaster?" has 215 characters. How was this not checked?! Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering there are four article titles in there, which with spaces and commas, makes up about 60 of those characters, I think the 200 character limit can be given some leeway in this circumstance. I suppose the last phrase there about parliament and such could have been cut, but I don't really think this is a big deal. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#C3 for the rule on how to handle hooks with multiple articles. --Allen3 talk 08:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 14:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Namespace for DYK nominations

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move "Did you know" nomination discussions to an appropriate namespace for discussions.. The proposal (it's not mine, I'm just informing about it) is to reformulate the layout of this process, so nominations take place at a talk or wikipedia namespace instead of the template namespace. Please do not answer here, do it there, to keep the discussion centralized at a single place. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hook length

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are mark up characters ('brackets' for links and the 'link root') in the hook counted towards the maximum length of 200 characters? i.e. [[Joseph Smith (song writer)|Joe Smith]] is 40 characters long in edit mode, but only shows itself on the page as 9 characters. Is it counted as 9 for purposes of the hook length? 107.215.12.158 (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Markup isn't counted so yes it would be 9 characters. violet/riga [talk] 22:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Boss hook

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the queue at the moment:

... that the upcoming film Boss will mark actor Ronit Roy's first role as an antagonist and second consecutive one as that of a cop after Shootout at Wadala?

"Cop"? A bit of a slang term, I'd say. What's the opinion of others? violet/riga [talk] 22:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 06:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot, you never tire of hassling us! Anyhow, I've done as you suggested. Gatoclass (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Experienced reviewer needed

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At Template:Did you know nominations/Twilight Zone tragedy. Unexperienced reviewers seem to have derailed this for months complaining about notability (through they never took me up on the offer to AfD it, and I think it is clearly notable) or the fact that it is a subarticle (but content was not reused from the parent article, as it was poorly referenced and hard to verify I wrote the new article from scratch). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a problem that it is actually shorter than the section in the film article, for which it is the "main article". I appreciate what you say about referencing. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
As I said, the main article is a piece of poorly referenced crap, so I had to write a new article from scratch. For the n-th time, I don't understand what the quality of the main article has to do with this nom, as I don't reuse next to no content from it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The last list is mostly completed, so I've compiled a new set of 38 nominations from the first four weeks of September that need reviewing. We have 258 total nominations, of which 34 are approved, but those aren't sufficient to fill the four queues and two preps currently empty. Thank you for your reviews.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

List contents counting toward prose

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've just  -tagged {{Did you know nominations/List of baseball deaths}}: it's well written without problems, and it has nearly 2000 characters of prose, but virtually all of the prose is in lists. May we make an exception to the "don't count list content" rule here? Unlike most lists, this has a few huge entries: following each one- or two-word entry is a substantial amount of text. Unlike your typical list contents, this could presumably be reformatted into normal prose without much difficulty. As I understand it, the point of the criterion is to exclude pages consisting almost entirely of tables or unannotated lists, and excluding this page for that reason would completely miss the point. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I've seen past nominations similar to that where the prose in the bulleted lists counts as actual prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hook wording in Queue 4?

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The 5th hook, the nomination for Meeting at Night, currently in Queue 4 and due to be moved to the main page in a couple of hours, doesn't seem to read correctly? It reads: that in 1845 Robert Browning met Elizabeth Barrett and wrote "Meeting at Night", the most sensual poem he has ever written before? Allen3, Gatoclass or Crisco don't seem to be around at the moment, so hopefully another Admin could have a look? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yuck. Reworded. Some other changes made to the article itself. BencherliteTalk 13:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Brilliant - thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Good catch. This is an example of why we have a rule (WP:DYKSG#H2) that reviewers should not approve hooks that they themselves suggest. Another reviewer would have caught the awkward wording and fixed it before it was promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

New wording for DYK tagline

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

The previous discussion (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 97#Eligibility criteria) stalled slightly when deciding what the best tagline for the DYK template should be. Options expressed were:

  • From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content
  • From Wikipedia's newest content or newest good articles

To my mind the first sounds better and it seemed to have more support in the previous discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If those are the two options, then definitely the first; the latter sounds stilted and unprofessional. Harrias talk 17:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes number 1 is the best of the 2. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Currently, "newest content" is wikilinked to WP:recent additions; since that's just the DYK archive page, I'm assuming that the text after "Wikipedia's", whatever it is, will continue to link to the same recent additions page? There are already a few GAs that could be promoted at any time, so making a decision on the wording soon would be helpful. More opinions, please? (Mine is that I'm not fond of either choice, but the first seems less bad; if we go with the second, consider "and" rather than "or".) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

In line with the discussion above can someone change ''From Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Recent additions|newest content]]:'' at the dyk template to ''From Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Recent additions|new and recently improved content]]:''. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made the change, although I suspect the bot may overwrite this at the next update. If so, you'll need to consult the bot's operator. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Also the edit notice at Template:Did you know nominations will need updating to include Good articles. Something like
  • Articles designated as Good articles within the past five days are also eligible.
It can be a new bulletpoint under #1 "new" in the edit notice. AIRcorn (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I suspect you are referring to Template:DYK review criteria, which is not protected, so I'll leave this one for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Martin, if you could also make the change at Queue 4, that would take care of the one remaining set heading to the main page that only an admin can edit. I've just updated all the other places where sets are built. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem with subst template

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all! I tried to create a DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Sava, but I must have messed up something with the substing of the template. Could someone have a quick look please? I tried to fix the nomination page, but did not manage. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. There was a missing square bracket. Not sure why that broke it, but there you go. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

I am concerned that Gibraltar articles are still receiving far more than their fair share of attention at this venue. What can be done to ensure that all topics on Wikipedia have fair access to DYK? Jehochman Talk 13:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What indication is there that topics brought to DYK are not getting "fair access"? Resolute 13:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
That I keep seeing Gibraltar content, and it looks very strange to have a section of the home page dedicated to Gibraltar and some other stuff. If the Gibraltar items weren't there, other things would be there a little longer. Jehochman Talk 13:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The hooks all get their eight hours in the sun. To say "other things would be there a little longer" shows a lack of understanding how DYK works. In September, 2 of 90 sets sent to the main page had Gibraltar hooks in them; that's 2 of 540 hooks on Gibraltar. All hooks that are submitted to DYK have fair access to DYK: if you have concerns that nominated hooks are not receiving such in the review process, or being rejected for the main page unfairly, I'd be interested to hear your evidence. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
That did not answer my question. What indication is there that other worthy entries are being denied fair access because of the few Gibraltar articles that are promoted? Resolute 13:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
2 of 90. Does Gibraltar represent 2/90ths of human endeavors, or 2/90ths the world's land area, or is this really just an economic/political campaign to promote Gibraltar tourism and to promote Gibraltar's continuing independence from Spain. These are misuses of Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 14:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If you want different human endeavors to be promoted on DYK, just go and write/expand the articles on these yourself. If there is an interest by editors on Gibraltar, this leads to Gibraltar-related articles go on DYK. That is it. The only misuse of Wikipedia I see here is creating these useless whining threads. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that Jehochman is once again grinding an ax here, as amply demonstrating by dropping the "fair access" point (since it clearly wasn't backed up by facts) and using the wrong figure from my post to inflate his latest post. Since the argument is not a validly made one, there is no point in continuing to respond. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I recently nominated a couple newly created articles, but they failed because of arbitrary criteria. I think we ought to be less wonkish, and try to do a better editorial job. Rather than counting sentences or days, we should ask, "Which articles would be best for our readers to see?" Do we want to engage more people to read and edit Wikipedia, or do we want to satisfy the small number of people who've staked claims to ownership of this process and become experts are navigating the bureaucracy? Jehochman Talk 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Who gets to decide "Which articles would be best for our readers to see?" Sasata (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The DYK reviewers...a discussion and consensus. Could we add to the criteria (1) diversity of topics, (2) no over-abundance of particular topics, analogous to WP:UNDUE. Jehochman Talk 17:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Not without guaranteeing a diversity of nominations. DYK can only put out what others put in. As to your new complaint (which is obviously completely unrelated to Gibraltar), one was rejected because it was already on the main page. So in that case, I'm not sure how a claim of unfair access works there. The second, please correct me if I am wrong, failed due to insufficient expansion. Unfortunate, but it does happen. And with respect, I fail to see how a random Chinese airport has any greater claim to being an article that is best for our readers to see than anything else. If it had met the expansion criteria, it would have been worthy, and a discussion on the of the criteria should always be welcomed, but if that is your current intention, perhaps a new section focusing on this should be considered? Resolute 17:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've seen two Gibrlatar articles appearing in DYKS within a few days, first I've seen in yonks. My first thought was why the hell is an article created on June 30 appearing three months later as a DYK. If anything I'd argue just the opposite and say that there seems to still be some sort of discrimination against Gibraltar articles, why else would an article take 3 months to go through?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize how small and insignificant Gibraltar is? It gets vastly more attention than other locales that are much larger and more significant. If we had a policy to encourage a diversity of topics editors might be encourage to look around and work on other parts of the encyclopedia. Jehochman Talk 17:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If I saw another Gibraltar article tomorrow and the day after, yeah I'd then start to think somebody is up to something, but two articles in a few weeks I don't see any reason to be alarmed. As for insignificant, I mean how many DYKs going through are really pretty insignificant in the wider sense? Most of them in reality. But every article is a mere piece in the jigsaw puzzle. It's not that you really care that people are writing about Gibraltar, it's because you hate to think that somebody is apparently using us for their own gain and are gaining from writing about Gibraltar and using the main page which irks you off. You see five times more articles about US sports personalities and things like mushrooms than you do on Gibraltar. There'll always be an undue weight on certain topics which hold people's interest at DYK and who produce many on the same topic, but you don't like it being about Gibraltar because of the scandal which is understandable, but it doesn't mean you're right to really feel alarmed at how many Gibraltar articles are going through. I doubt you'd batter an eyelid if one of us created 10 articles on slugs or something which all went through in a 72 hour period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we have too many mushroom features. I think we need a home page policy that encourages diversity. Editors will always have their favorite subjects. We don't want our home page editorial content to be skewed systematically by the personal favorite topics of a handful of prolific editors. You are right that this conversation shouldn't only be about Gibraltar. We ought to look at all topics that are given more than their fair share of attention. Jehochman Talk 17:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I complained a few weeks ago about every article' except one being on the US and 3/4 of them about sports or entertainment. Given how much is missing on here from all over the world it's quite frustrating to not see a nicer mix counteracting systematic bias, but I got shot down from the main page talk page for having the audacity to complain and was told to "go do something about it, you're to blame". There is certainly a case to be made for ensuring a better mix of DYKs appearing at the same time. In Gibraltar's case like with a lot of articles, I don't really think it's truly an excessive amount of articles going through, rather the problem is often the timing of them, and given the Gibraltar scandal, 2 articles in 2 days might seem sus to you and some on here, which given that one of them was created on June 30 anyway is pretty bad timing. If one of them had been shown a few weeks ago and another one now, it wouldn't look half so bad. It really is more a case of bad timing showing two articles within a short period rather than there being a sudden alarming uncontrollable onslaught of the Gibraltar advertisers abusing us. If you come back next week and show me that half a dozen or more have appeared in a single week then I'd be the first to support you and say it's excessive. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we could put together an RFC on home page content to establish a guideline that we strive for diversity. Providing variety will create more interest and help us recruit and retain more editors then if we let narrow interests predominate. I don't think we need to infer bad motives either. Over-representation of certain topics is just a natural reflection of the interests of groups of editors and that some topics are easier to write about than others. Jehochman Talk 18:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
We already strive for diversity at DYK, but ultimately we are limited to the subjects that contributors choose to write about. Yes, some topic areas are over-represented at DYK, but the same can be said of the encyclopedia as a whole, where, for example, items on popular culture, warfare, architecture and species are over-represented compared to subjects like the sciences that often take a considerable amount of research and expertise to write about. In short, DYK probably does provide a representative sample of what Wikipedians actually write about and there's an argument in favour of that. But the high turnover at DYK and the fact that virtually all eligible articles get promoted means that there is already maximum diversity over time in any case. There are other arguments that can be made in opposition to a diversity test but ultimately, DYK simply doesn't have the manpower or resources to impose one. Gatoclass (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Old Nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here are older nominations that need reviewing: three are from July, over two months old, and another 21 are from August. The list could have been much longer, but 37 seemed enough for now. We have 282 total nominations at the moment, of which 61 are approved, but 48 of those are needed to fill the four queues and four preps that are empty. Thank you for your reviews.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

New nominations template page - seems a little broken

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi

I just went to add a DYK for today, and it looks like the page is a little messed up. I have added as I think it should have been, but mine and the one previous to mine are not showing. It seems that the French Toast one has an error in there. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's fixed already! Chaosdruid (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

School is back in session

FYI, the above issue as well as a group of nominations that, in my experience, have almost no hope of success all appear related to a class being led by User:LeshedInstructor. Have dropped a note on the instructor's talk page but we may have a day or two of problematic nominations before word can spread to the majority of the students. --Allen3 talk 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Time-sensitive review request for 1963 Honduras coup

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 
Appreciate you!

Does anyone want to take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/1963 Honduran coup d'état? It's been sitting there since 16 September, but it should be a rather straightforward review, and the 50th anniversary is coming up on 3 October. Aloha, groupuscule (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

  Done Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupuscule (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 October 2013‎
  • Promoted to Prep 1; should run during Honduran daytime on October 3. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Eligibility query

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can Fairy Meadows (DYK nom) be considered a "new" article? It was created in 2006, then turned into a redirect by Darkness Shines on 22 August 2013. Smsarmad replaced the redirect with a stub on 26 August, and expanded it from there. The article as it stands isn't a 5x expansion of the old one, but the old article had (effectively) ceased to exist before Smsarmad started working on the new one. So does that make the article eligible? DoctorKubla (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I would call that a legitimate nom as the original article was not only completely unsourced (probably a legitimate reason alone for discounting the original text) but also strongly promotional and smacking heavily of copyvio. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Nom transcluded late

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I created Lotte Brand Philip on 28 September. Because I'm a DYK newbie, I asked another editor to nom it at DYK for me. He created Template:Did you know nominations/Lotte Brand Philip on 29 September.

It was pointed out to me today that we neglected to transclude the nom page at T:TDYK, so I added it to 29 September as instructed. I just realized it actually belongs under 28 September, but that's now in "Older nominations", so I don't know what to do. Has the article missed its chance at DYK because the nom wasn't transcluded in time? Maralia (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No, all nominations on the nom page are still "in play" - some of them go back months and are still waiting for final approval or rejection. It's unlikely you will have to wait that long though provided your nom doesn't turn out to be problematic in some way. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD candidate

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Daniel Gauntlett, currently listed in Prep area 1, is now a candidate at AfD. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hook has been removed from prep and put on hold until AfD concludes. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nvvchar, Rosiestep et al

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

When reviewing Maurice Yvain I noticed that @Rosiestep: was credited with working on the article but there had been little to no contribution from that user. A quick check shows similar problems with the following nominations, all from @Nvvchar::

I don't wish to cause any problems with this and simply raise it as a reminder that everybody needs to be double-checking user contributions for nominations. I'll leave it to Nvvchar to adjust the nominations. violet/riga [talk] 08:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

AGF! Do we really want to check claims? I don't think its a useful investigation. Lets not go there. Victuallers (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, as violet/riga states, Rosiestep has made no contributions at all to the Malören article. An assumption of good faith is fine where there is minimal involvement, but no edits to the article? That's beyond turning a blind eye. Harrias talk 10:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
So? If one editor wants to credit another then that is a nice thing. Do you know that one did not dend info by email or to have merely inspired an article. Sure you cannot always AGF (easily) .... thats why we have to do it. Victuallers (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Rosiestpe, Dr. Blofeld and self have been working in collaboration on almost every article (we have done more than 700 DYK articles together of which 500 of them in the last one year) that we post on DYK. Some times, the contributions may look small due the user's inability to give large inputs due to work pressure or for health reasons. I suppose that should not deter us from giving credit to each other in our collaboration efforts. I would appreciate if this is appreciated and attributions are retained even if the contribtuions are very limited. Thanks you.--Nvvchar. 11:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Although "contributions may look small" is often valid there are some (such as Malören) where Rosiestep hasn't made any contributions whatsoever. violet/riga [talk] 11:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Folks... My editing was curtailed this week due to a bad sinus infection and I told Nvvchar just that on his talkpage. He assumed that I would get better and return to collaborative editing. For example, he asked me on Thursday if I would work on Gitega Province as he was going to nom it. I didn't see his message until Friday, and he had nomed it by then without crediting me. I jumped in and expanded/improved the article. And then I added my name to the nom. You can bet I'll be working on Malören, etc. this morning after I finish my first cup of coffee! And, did you know... that at least once, I've been credited on a dyk nom and removed my name from the credits when I determined that my contribution was small (bit of c/e); and at least once, I've worked on an article and didn't get credited at all. The fact is, we don't make a big deal out of either circumstance. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No comment on this particular situation, but I certainly don't think anyone should be credited who has not worked on an article, that just makes a total farce of the credit system. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that no edits = no credit. Manxruler (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Gatoclass and Manxruler. The DYK project records the credits, not the DYK nominators. The DYK project shouldn't credit people for creating or expanding articles they haven't ever edited.
Having said that, it looks like the current issue is resolved. Nvvchar added Rosiestep's name in good faith on the expectation that she would work on the article, and Rosiestep's comment indicates her recognition that credits are only supposed to be given for actual substantive contributions. --Orlady (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ramsaygate/Swamigate?

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Has anyone noticed the arrarently rather large DYK flow of articles relating to Gordon Ramsay and Swami Vivekananda of late? -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Swami Vivekananda's 150th birth anniversary celebration initiatives for the Wikiproject coordinating efforts to create content related to the Swami. --Allen3 talk 02:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Four Ramsay related hooks since 27 September and a further one nominated. I finally got around to reading his second autobiography which was mostly about his restaurant empire (and the occasion bizarre chapter about choosing the right plates for restaurants) and it inspired me to write several articles. Not anticipating doing many more right now - although there might be a few more other restaurants coming as they only just published some of next year's Michelin Guides. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It was a very minor attempt at countering systematic bias - when I first started on restaurants there were quite a few stubs created and The Banner had done some fine work at Michelin star restaurants in the Netherlands - but the UK was pretty much lacking. To the extent that I ended up creating the article on Albert Roux, one of the godfathers of Michelin style cooking in the UK and several of the three star restaurants in the UK. I've still not created all of them, but I now have Marco Pierre White's autobiography too - so I finally feel able to do his three star restaraurant. Ideally I'd like to get all of those to GA, but I suspect that Nico's will be difficult as it is probably the least known out of the lot and Le Gavroche will be hard simply because it has so much history (you'd be hard pressed to name five Michelin style chefs in the UK who either didn't work there or wern't trained by someone who did). But don't worry - there might be a lot of red links in that Gordon Ramsay list currently nominated, but I have no wish to go and create DYK worthy articles of them all at once. It's October, which means that in a months time I'll start thinking about Christmas related hooks and that'll distract me sufficiently from the restaurants. :) Miyagawa (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • As with many topics, I think you'll find many elements are intertwined. Research on Ramsay might turn you up interesting details on the Roux's restarurants... Good luck, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Should Good Articles be allowed in DYK?

The RFC closed with a consensus to include newly passed GAs in DYK, starting from the end of September 2013. For more details, see Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC


German translation requested

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I need someone to translate a short German passage at Template:Did you know nominations/Lotte Brand Philip so I can complete the review. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  Resolved
Thank you to William Avery for his assistance. Gatoclass (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 06:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

  Done Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


Proposal: Did you know... -> Nice to know...

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I know that the sentence Did you know that… ? is widely used (also outside WP), but I think the sentence Nice to know that… would be better because:

  • The Did you know sentence is a question, so it pushes you to think whether you know it. But because people won’t know >99.9% of the hooks, it may feel that you’re stupid. Nice to know on the other hand says that it’s nice to know a fact that you probably won’t know.
  • Nice to know, says indirectly that it is nice that the content is added to Wikipedia.
  • Minor reason: There is no need for a '?' at the end of every sentence.

Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that this would be a helpful change. "Nice" doesn't draw the reader in or engage her or him at all, while "Did you know" gets the user thinking, and possibly curious about the answer to the question or the bold link. Minor reason: while "Did you know" starts a complete sentence, "Nice to know" would result in a sentence fragment. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the "stupid" bit at all. If people felt stupid because they didn't know an intriguing fact, then nobody would ever purchase Guinness World Records books. So yeah, Did you know? is fine as it is. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. "Did you know?" won't make me feel stupid. "You didn't know?" would. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Time to increase the size of prep sets

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

We're up to 324 submitted hooks, which is a huge number. At the moment we're promoting 3 set of 6 per day, or 18 daily, for 126 per week: it would take us 18 full days to promote 324 hooks. At a minimum, I think we should go to 7 per set/21 per day/147 per week; it would still take us over 15 full days to promote the current load of hooks, with more coming every day. The only question in my mind is whether to go to 7 or 8 per set (147 or 168 per week). Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking of going to 7 per set for a while - I doubt we need to go to 8, unless the recent uptick in noms is sustained, which seems unlikely. I would like to know though where all the recent noms are coming from. Gatoclass (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to note that the WikiCup ends in a weeks time - so there might be a slight downturn in the number of hooks submitted then. I know that I am certainly taking a bit of a Wikibreak so I'm sure that others will be feeling the same way. Miyagawa (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's time for 7 hooks in a set. Production rates are up. Recently I checked several days' worth of nominations, and counted ranges of 17 to 24 hooks per day; I guesstimated the average daily production as 21+. --Orlady (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be for 7 per set, so I've upped all the preps to 7 (and the "clear" page as well), and moved one of the hooks from P2 to P1 so it has 7, and is ready to be moved to the queue with that many. (The last 6-hook set goes to the main page in under half an hour.) When the WikiCup slowdown does occur, it will help us cut down the number of hooks back to the low-to-mid 200s again... BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/5

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

For the lead hook here, can we please have something or anything remotely more interesting than " ... that the North and South State Street Historic Districts (pictured) in Belvidere, Illinois were intended to form one large historic district, but had to be split?" This is the showcase slot of DYK. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  • You mean that of all the things that the article could discuss about those historic districts, nothing about a building's architecture, or famous person, or famous event...the DYK hook is essentially about the paperwork process..."hey, this application is big...let's make it two applications!" --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, exactly. Of course, this is on the main page right now anyway, despite our concerns. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • We should keep it as a reminder that "ALT1" is always available. I saw that in the nominations lineup when I was nominating one of my own and said to myself "WTF?" I was surprised to see it get far enough to cause an issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Problematic hook

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Can someone else check Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Bates? It is currently in the prep areas already, but as far as I can tell, the hook is not supported by the source. The hook claims that she was the only women allowed to do something, while the source claims that it was normally intended for men, and that she had to petition to be allowed to follow the course, but not that she was the only one to do so that year. For all we know, she may have had frien(s) who made the same petition and were granted the same exception, so that they together could follow the men's course. Fram (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

More broadly, I'm getting complaints from several editors about DYKs and hooks. Is there a shortage of admins who are familiar with the task? Tony (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Can't speak for other admins, but the abuse you sometimes get when you dare to claim that an article or hook are not front-page ready makes me think twice before reporting them here. Fram (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook due to the apparent discrepancy between source and article/hook. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue has been addressed and so the nomination needs re-review, please. Andrew Davidson (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 14:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

More nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The last list of older nominations is almost entirely completed, so I've compiled a new set of 35 nominations from the last week of September and first week of October that need reviewing. We have 305 total nominations, of which 43 are approved, but those aren't sufficient to fill the five queues and two preps currently empty. Thank you for your reviews.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

For DYK: Women in Albania

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone please suggest this for DYKship: Women in Albania - Albanian women can become head of a family after an oath of virginity. Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

  • You can nominate your own article for DYK. Please see the instructions at the top of the T:TDYK page. The nomination needs to be completed by the fifth day after you created the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be pleased to nominate the article. Stand by Victuallers (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Victuallers. I appreciate that. - AnakngAraw (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The original hook for the lead hook in this series did not include an image; one was added after the reviewer indicated that the image (in the article) was public domain. However, the choice of image could lead to a misunderstanding, as the ashes of Jews from Treblinka are not buried in the cemetery proper, but under a special memorial in the cemetery. Would you like to substitute this copyright-free image and new hook instead?

 

    • Alternatively, considering that the cemetery image does look good in the small size, the ALT hook does not lead to misunderstanding:

 

  • As this post has not been replied to, I added some text to the hook in Prep 4. (I still prefer ALT1). Yoninah (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  Just to let you know, Treblinka article was just promoted to Good article status after a long review process, and therefore I intend to nominate it for DYK as well according to our new rules. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Addendum. We could also combine them as one double-hook in here. What do you think? Poeticbent talk 22:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Fine with me. Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, we can include Treblinka article in the brand new Dr. Berek Lajcher nomination which is still open. I'm going to do it now if you agree... which basically means two DYK nominations approved side by side, instead of one. Poeticbent talk 22:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
OK. Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hidden text

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

There's some hidden text in the prep areas that seems to date from a time when DYK entries didn't have to go through a nomination process. It's completely redundant nowadays, and potentially confusing – should it be removed? DoctorKubla (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are are referring to the following text in Prep 1:

STOP! BEFORE YOU ADD A NEW ITEM, PLEASE READ THESE NOTES:

  • This is NOT a general trivia section.
  • This section is only for items that have been listed on "NEW PAGES" in the last 120 hours
  • The title of the new article should be BOLD and placed on TOP as the FIRST ITEM.
  • Generally limited to eight items, but whatever the case – just make sure it fits whatever else is on the page at that time. Use your common sense.
  • NO STUBS (moreover, try to find new articles that are 1,500+ bytes in size)
  • Try to pick articles that are ORIGINAL to Wikipedia (not 1911 or other data sources) and that are INTERESTING.
  • The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article.
  • Images should be sized to 100px or SMALLER.
  • Do not use fair-use images. Instead, find a related free image (PD, GFDL, CC etc.) as an alternative.
I agree that it's outdated! Rather than completing deleting it, though, I suggest that we replace it with an edit notice containing new text that describes the current protocol (so clueless people won't innocently add hooks to prep areas). Do you have some text in mind? --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if an edit notice is necessary – has there ever been a problem with clueless people adding unapproved hooks? I suspect it's quite hard to find your way to a prep area if you're ignorant of the process. (The text is in all four prep areas, by the way, not just Prep 1.) DoctorKubla (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, clueless people have added their own hooks to a prep area, or added hooks they just reviewed to a prep area. Honest mistakes, and rare, but I think it would be worth it to have some sort of warning to help prevent such occurrences. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
More common seems to be people adding the originally nominated hook, when the approved hook is different. Defiitely worth encouraging people to check (since the tick is generally followed by "approve alt2", it should be simple). MChesterMC (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'll remove the hidden text, since I think we're in agreement about that. Whether there should be an edit notice, and what it should say, is a separate issue. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I created a strawman edit notice to replace this text. See it at Prep 4 (if you open that prep in the edit window, you will see the notice). Comments, anyone??? --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. I'd make the font a bit bigger, and add something like "To submit an item for review, see T:TDYK#Instructions for nominators." DoctorKubla (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Good suggestions. I revised the edit notice and placed it on all 4 prep areas. --Orlady (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wildlife of Chad

Latest comment: 10 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

Having attracted this rather devastating critique on a blogsite, this nom, currently lead in Queue 4, should be held back until the problems are sorted. Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Chad - a Blofeld/Rosiestep etc effort. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Replaced with the lead from P2; I refuse to use the lead from P1, which has the jaw-droppingly boring "* ... that the North and South State Street Historic Districts (pictured) in Belvidere, Illinois were intended to form one large historic district, but had to be split?" That's a lead hook?
And as for the Wildlife in Chad article, how in the world did this get passed? How many "x of country" articles written by this team have these problems? They have over 1000 DYK credits.
Soul-searching needed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have anything to do with the DYK process. Have long stated that it isn't essential but a number of reviewers started wondering why I'd stopped being credited for them when the others were nominating them. Rather, I encourage collaboration as a group on topics which I believe are poorly covered and need a lot of work even if they're not DYKs. I still think the work we do together is important but occasionally they may not be ready for DYK because of the fact that it is a collaborative effort and almost impossible to keep track of what content and sources have been added. I'm well aware that sometimes problems may creep in, but there's no need to be so snotty Ed about it. Some people just love to moan and take swipes at others on wikipedia, otherwise the author of that blog would have helped correct the article... It's pointless moaning about the lack of scientific expertise wikipedia has to offer when wikipedia offers nothing to experts to write them. I actually do have a Bachelor of Science degree in geography, and one of the other authors is an experienced river management professional of some 50 years experience, but has he considered that editors don't have the time to check each and every source everybody adds to wikipedia? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  • There have been a number of problematic nominations from this editing team in the past. It's getting to the stage that I'm thinking of proposing an extra level of scrutiny, such as for double reviews as we did with the Gibraltar noms. All three of these editors are highly experienced and there can be no excuse whatever for sourcing article content to a project by "sixth graders". This is just the kind of thing that brings the DYK project into disrepute. I think it's time we started taking a harder line with this group of nominators. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think people would still bother with DYK if that was the case?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, fine, don't bother if you can't be bothered doing due diligence on your submissions. It would certainly mean less work and worry for everyone else. Gatoclass (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well they're not my submissions anyway. I guess it's up to the others to decide whether they still think it's worth running the gauntlet for. I could pick holes in 90% of the articles which go through DYK, even if I generally appreciate the effort people have made in writing them. The process will always be flawed and editors will always create errors regardless of DYK.. That you think that we're the sole cause of problems and somehow detrimental to DYK's reputation (as if anybody ever took it seriously aside from you lot anyway) shows your own personal bias on the issue. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is your submission if you put your name down for a credit, as you appear to have done here. You don't take DYK seriously? Well, why are you bothering to participate here? Why put your name down for a DYK credit if DYK is just a joke? No, I don't think you really mean that. Regardless, comments of this kind are hardly likely to inspire the confidence of reviewers. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean do I think DYK is a seriously flawed process which has long been in need of reform, do I think it is run by certain people who take themselves too seriously and seem unwilling to accept the flaws that the process has, and do I think that the majority of wikipedia readers/editors ignore DYK or consider the hooks appearing in them uninteresting or even a joke that they're meant to be interesting"? Absolutely I mean that. There is a difference between taking DYK seriously and taking article content/accuracy seriously. But I often thank article creators for articles on the front page hitting the thank button for articles which I think are decent because they're editing in the spirit of wikipedia, even if I found the hook uninspiring. I bet a lot of people reading this now have been thanked by me and probably have by few others for their work. It's the people who put in the effort to write decent content I respect, not the fact that it happened to be a DYK.

I'd rather the articles which I write or even collaborate on were free of errors but wikipedia being a collaborative project we can't be held responsible for content in every article each one of us happens to edit. Unless one editor is an expert and seriously puts a lot of time into one article double checking everything you're always going to get errors creeping in occasionally. And some sources aren't always obviously "sixth grade work". There is a reason why our group collaborate, and it's central to what the spirit of editing is supposed to be about. We don't have to nominate articles for DYK, but if you did have a close monitoring system of content and sources for each one and the articles that anybody produces, then perhaps this would be a positive thing as it would mean more errors get identified, providing that it isn't too anti-editor and picky.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I accept that on an article on which you've collaborated with others, you can't expect to be held responsible for every mistake in it, as nobody has the time to check every single fact. But when you get a situation when a particular collaboration is resulting in frequent errors and substandard content, then obviously those articles are going to need closer scrutiny. I've been bothered by the standard of some of these articles for a long time and intend to be giving them closer scrutiny in future, and whether my suggestion for adopting the double review system for these noms gets support or not, I will certainly be encouraging other reviewers to take a similar approach. Gatoclass (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that I often don't have time to even read the articles going through before they are nommed, perhaps a process which involves the checking of every source of our articles which go through would be a productive thing and help prevent too many errors creeping in. I'm sure you'll agree that the content being added is done in good faith and you appreciate at least why they are being produced but you're not happy to see misrepresentations of sourcing and bad sources used. The only way I guess to eliminate this would be to set a limit on how many articles we produce and for each one to be strictly monitored. None of us deserve a hard time over errors and to have to deal with petty reviews, but if there are genuine errors and problems with articles I would strongly hope that they could be identified before an article hits the main page. That is, if editors feel that strongly about the quality of our work going through to put in the effort to check the sourcing and content. I think it largely comes down to sheer number of articles though, a limit might at least give us more time to check over our articles ourselves. But it is unfair of you all to assume that all of our work is bad because of errors such as this, and I doubt we're responsible for more errors than several of the other contributors here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  • The blog is scathing, and identifies dumb errors in two articles. But it is hard to think that a team of very experienced editors would repeatedly make mistakes, as Gatoclass suggests. If there is a systemic problem, I am not sure that a double review is the answer. But is there evidence of a systemic problem? Diffs? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I've proposed something which might help the problem here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Gatoclass. Orlady and co, we've begun a new auditing process in light of the concerns at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rosblofnari/Audit. We hope to eventually go through all of our DYKs and ensure that they're up to scratch and won't nominate any articles for DYK now unless they've gone through the auditing process. It will be done gradually. Hope this answers your concerns. The reality is that Rosie and myself often don't have time to make the edits and checks and even additions which are needed because articles were always nominated after 5 days because of the deadline. The Wildlife of Chad article I put enough time into it just condensing to the relevant points and copyediting and naturally didn't have the time to check each source, trusting that the information written was correct. The only way we can keep track of things is to significantly reduce group output and a vigorous auditing process in sandboxes. Hope you're pleased with the effort we're making.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm very pleased with it, indeed your response has gone well beyond my expectations, thank you for taking our concerns seriously. I'm looking forward to seeing the results in practice. Gatoclass (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry much further what this blogger has to say. From what I gather she's upset with how she's been treated on wikipedia which if she was a good editor it's understandable that she walked away from the project in disgust and is using the blog as a way to vent her frustration. I see she's picked on Mourdi Depression which if you actually read it and check the sources it is fine. If the source mentioning the barchans only says they exist in the depression how can you possibly elaborate without going into original research? The article says its a depression in the desert of northern Chad and depression is clearly defined in that article, not my fault she doesn't realize what it is. You can see the feature on the last notch of google maps, that's how important the feature is. I wrote most of the article and it's a decent starter article, whatever she thinks of it. I'm sure others here cannot see anything seriously wrong with it either. The flaws with the others are surely exaggerated too, but it's the articles I didn't write and do actually have problems I'm more concerned with, so it has at least made us reconsider how we edit on here and show more responsiblity for our own work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin needed

As part of the above replacement, the hook moved from Prep 2 to Queue 4 was moved without its DYKmake template. Will an admin please insert the following template into Q4? (Or, since there's about 35 minutes left to do so, take care of the DYK credit if the template isn't added in time?)

Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Alex ShihTalk 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Byrd Spilman Dewey

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Why is Byrd Spilman Dewey not listed at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September in accordance with the DYK notice on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)‎

  • Because this was the final set in September, and was removed at 00:00 on October 1. The removal date/time is what counts when it's archived, so Byrd S. Dewey appears with October hooks, not September ones, and all the way down in the bottom set on the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You can find her at the bottom of Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/October. Chris857 (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for these replies. Is it a bug that we can fix which caused the incorrect link to post on the article's talk page?—John Cline (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's fixable. The problem would be that the link on the article's talk page is posted when the hook is placed on the main page, but the destination isn't actually determined until it the hook is removed to the archive. Indeed, for hooks that get pulled from the main page due to errors, they never are archived, so they won't be at the link regardless. It also isn't possible to predict unexpected events, like a set staying on the main page past its usual six, eight, or twelve hours, for long enough that it lasts until the next month even though it wasn't scheduled to. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
BlueMoonset. You are very well informed in your counsel; greatly benefiting this discussion—as with so many other discussions where I have observed your insight. I asked Shubinator[1] to consider this thread; as perhaps a bot tasking will be a possible fix; even perhaps categorization parsed into {{DYK talk}} to show articles where a statement doesn't match an #ifexists or #ifeq condition. I did look at the template's code and recognized its complexity—I feel it's worth the price of an endeavor to consider if a solution exists. Above all; Thank you for considering this question so well as to append such a thoughtful reply. —John Cline (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a known oddity of DYKUpdateBot; as BlueMoonset referred to, it's because talk pages are tagged when the DYK is posted to the Main Page, but the hooks are archived when they come off of the Main Page. Three solutions come to mind. The first is to archive hooks when they're posted. The archive then wouldn't reflect tweaks made while the hooks were on the Main Page. The second is to update the talk page postings when the hooks come off the Main Page. This would result in a lot of noise, and folks wouldn't be happy about the extra edits to their talk page. The third is to place the archive based on when the hooks were placed on the Main Page. This is the best option, but it would make our "new" archives inconsistent with the "old" archives. It's also technically difficult since there are plenty of edge cases. Shubinator (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User notifications are not generated for edits in Template space

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've noticed that a lot of links to user pages are being included in replies, queries, and other communications on nominations pages, apparently attempting to trigger the user notification system. But everyone should be aware that notifications are not generated by edits in Template space, even though nomination pages are transcluded to a Template talk page. If you want to specifically notify someone that you've responded, or are waiting for their response, or whatever, you'll have to leave a note on their user talk page.

Taking a quick look at the main nominations page, I found many instances, taking various forms such as: <userpage>, User:<userpage>, @<userpage>, and <userpage> (talk · contribs). In most cases, the specified user edited after the mention (probably because they'd watchlisted the page). But I did come across some in which they didn't:

There certainly may be others that I missed. Some users may have already seen these and chosen not to respond; I'm just carrying out the spirit of the attempted notification, not trying to elicit any action. Also, I only checked for subsequent user response and didn't read through these, so some may not require further user input. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Count me among those who had reasons for not responding. Thanks for checking, though. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 #4 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) 14:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unreviewed Halloween noms

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are several hooks (one of which, to be honest, is a nomination of mine) that have been suggested for Halloween that no one has reviewed yet, and we've only got a couple of days to go:

Together with what's already been approved this would make about 15 hooks total; enough, perhaps, for two full sets. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

uBLP

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Would this come under the definition of unreferenced BLP? If so, I've done a 2x expansion. Schwede66 18:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The old version had some external links. I think those qualified as references, but others may disagree. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. External links are not inline citations. I would be happy to nominate this for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
We have had more than one occasion when the matter has been raised here; for the most recent one I can remember, the conclusion was that an External link was sufficient to disqualify the 2x expansion exception, and the nomination was rejected. 5x is always a possibility, of course (it's at just under 2.5x now, 861 to 1963). BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I won't bother with further extension, unless others here are keen and want to make it a joint project. Just start editing and I'll chip in; the article is on my watchlist. Schwede66 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Just for the next time this question pops up, I'll add that I agree with Orlady and BlueMoonset. This is the standard used for BLPPROD, and it's reasonable to apply it here, especially since the 2x rule is really quite a generous exception for specific circumstances. According to WP:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, "the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a close call, which I would personally give the benefit of the doubt in the interest of improving BLPs. I wouldn't find external links to be disqualifying if they were unreliable sources. The sources in question are self-published and so they fall into the grey area of self-published sources which provide information about the person or organization who is publishing them (WP:SELFSOURCE). While these self-published sources can be used to verify some information about the publisher, the guideline points out that they shouldn't be the sole source for an article. One of my articles (Justina Vail Evans) got approved as a 2x BLP expansion having an unreliable external link (IMDB), but the external link wasn't published by the subject. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Should Copyvio Check be in the DYK toolbox

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I have become increasingly convinced that the Copyvio Check should not be in the DYK toolbox. It's listed first, which makes it look like a primary tool, and the checks it does clearly ignore the actual sources used in the article, since it hasn't yet highlighted close paraphrasing from them in my experience.

The tool of choice for copyvios and close paraphrasing is Duplication Detector; it isn't perfect, but it points out long and short identical strings of words, which is a useful indication that further investigation may be warranted.

I've recently run across DYK and GA reviews where the reviewer's presumption was that due diligence had been satisfied with a Copyvio Check, yet very severe close paraphrasing and copying was found. I believe we need to call a halt to this misguided application of Copyvio Check's capabilities. If this tool has been useful in DYK reviews because it has found copyvios on pages other than cited sources, I'd like to know about it—maybe it should be a supplemental check. But it seems to be used to check something it is not capable of checking, and it's compromising the DYK review process. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the Copyvio Detector. In fact, the problem was serious enough for me to try to get earwig@toolserver.org to fix it, but to no avail. Sometimes our new Wikipedia article is copy-pasted after the fact by another fan website. The mirror then gets picked up by the Detector unintentionally as a copyvio "in reverse". I thought, by excluding that one URL address, I could than repeat the search again. But earwig@toolserver.org declined my offer and refused to include an exclusion box in their layout.
Please see it for yourself. No such option there. Poeticbent talk 22:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I've had the opposite result actually - I've had some very useful results from copyviocheck, while I've found duplication detector to be almost useless. Having said that, the last few times I've tried to use copyviocheck it hasn't been working, but that may just be coincidental. Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Removing potentially useful tools because there is a small chance they could be misused or they because don't perform every possible task seems counterproductive. IronGargoyle (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
A general comment about Copyvio Check. In DYK nominations I did in the past, and non-DYK work I edit, I have become increasingly concerned about the accuracy of that tool. The Davy Crockett copyvio check is the most recent example I can give you. It is my opinion that most of the prose in this article is lifted from one source or another. I ran this tool on the article earlier in the month before I cleaned up the Ancestry section, and it said there was no copyvio. As I checked my own sources, not those that were listed in the article, that entire section was copyvio from one place or another. And as I'm starting to check the other sections against my own sources, I keep finding copyvio. And, yet, Copyvio Check says there is no issue. — Maile (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This has been my experience; it claims to check for Copyvios, so by its very name the expectation is that you've done due diligence for DYK article copyvios by running it. It's presented first in the list of tools that DYK nomination template editors see, which gives it an imprimatur and preference I don't think is warranted by its placement. My point to IronGargoyle would be that the tool currently misrepresents itself, so it's more likely to be a false assurance than anything else. Do you know what it checks? So far as I know, there is nowhere that DYK explains what the various tools do and how they should be used, except possibly Duplication Detector. When it's an undefined beta tool like Copyvio Check, misuse seems inevitable because there's no information on what it does check and what its limitations are. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see a couple of my posts in July: Here, and Here. I was having my misgivings when I was more active on DYK - seems too good to be true, in a way - but I guess I thought if I brought it up here at Talk, it might be discussed, but nothing would happen, either. On Sept 11, 2013, I posted that Copyvio check moved to labs, yet the nom template has not been corrected - it still directs to Toolserver. Not that it makes a difference in accuracy. For the Davy Crockett article, I was using the Labs version of Copyvio Check. Right now, I would say that I could run this on many articles I work on, and they would come up clean of copyvio. I've never known what it checks for, and it never occurred to me to ask. But now that you mention it...I think it's valid to ask what it checks for. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The Copyvio lab version does have the following explanation (and it uses the EarwigBot).— Maile (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
"This tool attempts to detect copyright violations in articles. Simply give the title of the page or ID of the revision you want to check and hit Submit. The tool will search for similar content elsewhere on the web and display a report if a match is found. If you also provide a URL, it will not query any search engines and instead display a report comparing the article to that particular webpage, like the Duplication Detector. Check out the FAQ for more information and technical details. Note: The tool is still in beta. You are completely welcome to use it and provide feedback, but be aware that it may produce strange or broken results."
User:EarwigBot/Copyvios/FAQ is light on technical details of how the tool operates, but does specify that it uses Yahoo! Search BOSS for its backend search engine. There was a change to the Google terms of service several years ago that forced a copyright violation detection bot that used to scan all newly created articles to cease operation. Choice of search engines is thus limited. While a Yahoo! backend should be fine for someone checking to see if a new article was copied from some other website as part of new page patrol, it is less useful for areas of Wikipedia requiring more rigorous checks. The reason for this is that the Yahoo! backend appears to not search the Google Books archive, a commonly used resource for Wikipedians that create articles containing basic referencing. --Allen3 talk 22:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the bottom line here is that nobody should be relying exclusively on either copyvio check or duplication detector to check articles. I personally have found duplication detector to be surprisingly useless when confronted with even the most obvious examples of close paraphrasing, so I only use them as a quick method of looking for issues, if they find none I continue with a manual check. Gatoclass (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Saeltzer

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, this is a new article. It does include a lot of material from existing articles on the architect's work. I think it would make an interesting DYK if someone wants to nominate it. His work includes what is described as the oldest existing synagogue in NYC, in a building actually designed as a synagogue. And he has several other surviving buildings that are quite ntoable and historic. I would also appreciate any help editing the article. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it contains too much text from existing articles. It needs at least 1500 characters of original prose to be eligible for DYK. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for having a look. Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As to the first hook in Prep 2 -- that suggests that street food vendors are restaurants. Which I don't think is the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Fat Duck is a restaurant. Burger King is a restaurant. Street food stalls are restaurants too. Don't skew your mindset into thinking of just high end restaurants. That is shallow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonkers The Clown (talk • contribs) 14:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hook change

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It has been a while since I submitted an article here, but I was surprised to see that the hook that was approved at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomás Menéndez Márquez was changed when it was moved to the queue without any notice to me or any comment on the nomination. I would have expected that if there were any objection to the wording of the hook, that it would have been brought up at the nomination. I had specifically chosen to use "Indians" in the hook because of the stereotype-bending of "Indians rescue rancher". I feel that the change ('Indians' -> 'Native Americans') lessened the impact of the hook. -- Donald Albury 13:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That was changed sometime after it moved to the prep areas. I saw the "Indians" wording when it was in the prep area. --Orlady (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria changed that wording while the hook was in the prep area. Perhaps she can explain her thinking. Mandarax also edited it. --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Indian is understood by most worldwide to refer to people from India; many of those who do apply it in the American context see it as a pejorative term, and one that was unnecessary in this case. Native American is the term preferred for that population on Wikipedia. Now that you've explained it I get where you were going with the stereotype-bending, but it was not at all clear from just looking at the hook, was not neutral, and was far more likely to cause confusion and/or offence. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for speeding up DYK error correction and process generally

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Whilst reading Wikipedia:Template editor, I noticed that the criteria of implementing changes on protected templates would apply to the DYK queues, which often need to be changed quickly but due to lack of available administrators either aren't or are changed by someone unfamiliar with the process, making mistakes (typically, missing or duplicate credit giving templates). Therefore I would propose that the DYK queues be changed to "template-protected" and DYK regulars apply for the template editor right on this basis. This will allow more oversight on the hooks we put on the main page, and allow errors to be corrected much more quickly.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing of the fairly simple templates (like the DYK templates) wasn't the primary reason for creating the template editor permission. The permission, which is described at Wikipedia:Template editor, was intended for coders. Having said that, I agree that it could be helpful for some capable non-admin DYK regulars to have permissions to edit the queues to fix errors, etc., and this proposal would do that. However, a change in the level of protection for the DYK queues would make it possible for non-admins to "approve" a set of hooks for promotion to the main page, thus reducing the level of protection (whether real or perceived) for the content of main page. IMO, since this proposal would have the effect of allowing non-admin editing of main-page content, it would need to be discussed and approved on a central community noticeboard (not just WT:DYK). --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 #4 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) 14:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Urgent: Queue 4 hook needs to be swapped out

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is currently a hook in Queue 4 about Dan Cohen that will go up on the Main Page very soon. However, at the nomination page, it was agreed that this hook should wait until after November 5 to run because Cohen is currently a candidate in the 2013 Minneapolis mayoral election which is to occur on November 5. If anyone sees this before it hits the Main Page, would you mind swapping the Cohen hook out and reverting the promotion edit at the nom page? Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 15:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

*October 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Comet Ping Pong

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Queue 1 problem

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's a problem with a hook in Queue 1: one hook ends in ?M (remove the errant 'M'). Chris857 (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 talk 14:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Another plea for review and accountability

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Allen3: @BDD: @Jinkinson: @Gatoclass: and Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Ashwood

I appreciate that this issue came to attention because of DYK, as the problems might have otherwise gone unnoticed. That is the good news. But ...

I have many times asked, begged, cajoled, implored reviewers here to please take care when reviewing BLPs, and please take care when reviewing medical topics, and asked that there be some accountability for the admins who are responsible for BLP or faulty medical information going on Wikipedia's mainpage. The particular combination of our policies and guidelines on BLPs and sourcing of medical content require considerable care and expertise in creating content, and many editors at Wikiproject Medicine are available to help-- you only need ask. Please do!

These two discussions illustrate the concern, that is, that DYK in one article put on our mainpage dubious medical sources, a hook about a medical claim based on a press release from the subject's employer (not independent and not MEDRS), and potentially impugned a man who possibly has done nothing but be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Discussion at BDD talk and discussion at the Medicine Project.

I would be interested in hearing feedback from Allen3, as that editor passed this hook to the mainpage, and BDD, as he reviewed this article and even mentioned the Wakefield connection in the DYK review, and I hope everyone active at DYK will review the links above to understand the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, the vast majority of the WP:VOLUNTEERs helping at DYK are not subject matter experts in the topic of the articles nominated. As a result, it is not surprising that people here are unfamiliar with various individuals within the medical profession or how the PR practices within the medical field differ from those practiced in academia or other industries. These volunteers also have limited time and resources available to dedicate to Wikipedia. As a result, your offer of specialists able to provide timely assistance on medical related topics is a wonderful offer and an initial list of nominations needing a review is available at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Calling a bluff. I am looking forward to finally seeing some assistance in achieving the standards to which you wish to hold DYK instead of just the asking, begging, cajoling, imploring, and pillorying of the past. --Allen3 talk 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Even if that is the case, the reviewer in this case is an admin, and we are not talking about medical specialty content. We are talking about core policies of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and using primary sources to create a WP:BLP problem. If DYK is too busy to check for core policies, then DYK might need to slow down submissions by changing the rules.

I've gone through all of the list you provided (thanks), except I'm not touching Sex-selective abortion. (Abortion is a contentious topic, that one should be thoroughly checked by someone more knowledgeable than I, and I hope someone else does so.)

I am sorry if the "cajoling, begging" etc troubles folks here, but this is the first and best place to educate new (and some established, even some admins) editors on core policies before the bad habits become entrenched. I will continue to raise the issue if I continue to encounter it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Should the hook on Template:Did you know nominations/The Marshall Mathers LP 2 be promoted on Prep 3 today?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I worry about giving the appearance that someone is using Wikipedia's MainPage for "frontpage advertising" to promote commercial products, esp. on the first day the product is available for purchase. My bedtime is approaching. I'll let someone finish the hook set on P3. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I do a book, movie, or TV show the same concern arises. WP:DYK attempts to be in keeping with pop culture by including content that is current. If the hook advertises the pop culture thing like "...that today you can go buy the new Eminem album "The Marshall Mathers LP 2" that you may have seen advertised over the last six weeks?" or something that is blatant advertising it should not go on the main page. However, if it is in interesting fact that gives no indication that there is some current event making the hook date relevant, it is suppose to be O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Spinning off articles from sections of existing articles

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm seeking some input from other users about spinning off articles from sections of existing articles.

This issue came up in Template:Did you know nominations/Twilight Zone tragedy. Only one person, who approved the nomination, commented in agreement with the nominator on this issue, while the dissenting opinions of User:FormerIP, User:George Ho, User:Johnbod, and myself were basically dismissed.

It's possible that users were reluctant to comment in opposition because they were intimidated by the belligerence, bullying, and belittling by User:Piotrus, but I hope some users are brave enough to speak up now.

That this was allowed to pass through and appear on the front page as a "new" article made a mockery of DYK and could set an undesirable precedent, whereby any topic, regardless of how long the topic has already been covered in an existing article, could be spun off into a "new" article eligible for DYK.

Piotrus talked about "a simple logic that expansion requires previously existing text to be expanded from; when content is new, there's no expansion". This is very obviously false. If it were true, anyone could take any article, rewrite it as a "new" 1500-character article, and claim it as a new article acceptable for DYK.

At Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 98#Experienced reviewer needed, Johnbod pointed out that the new article "is actually shorter than the section in the film article". (This is no longer the case.) Piotrus responded to Johnbod, who did not mention the quality of the existing article, by bringing up the quality of the existing article, then complaining "For the n-th time" that he doesn't "understand what the quality of the main article has to do with this nom". Piotrus is the only one who brought up the subject of quality, but he is correct that the quality of the original material doesn't matter.

Piotrus acknowledged that "little content was directly moved", but even if he hadn't copied any, this should have still have been considered an expansion.

Supplementary guideline A4 says: "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".

This rule in the very strictest sense may not technically address this exact specific situation, but that's because when the rules were written, no one anticipated that someone would take an existing section of an article, rewrite it, and try to pass it off as a new article for DYK. The intention of the rule is very clear. Some common sense is required in the application of existing rules to new situations. If a topic is covered in a previously existing article, then any "new" article should be treated as an expansion of the section(s) covering that topic, whether any of the existing prose was used or not.

I would like to get the opinions of other users. Since the opinions of four people were ignored in favor of the one person agreeing with the nominator, it would be good to get consensus here to prevent this from happening again. Agolib 22:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it can fairly be said that "the opinions of four people were ignored" in the DYK debate, because most of those users did not outright oppose promotion. However, I've had similar issues with noms in the past and I agree this is an issue that may need clarification. On the face of it, your proposal to treat a section of an existing article as the original text requiring fivefold expansion in a spin-off article sounds consistent with the overall principle of the DYK expansion rule. Gatoclass (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
"belligerence, bullying, and belittling"... somebody's here like personal attacks, and I daresay it's the editor who lost an argument before and failed to torpedo a certain DYK. Anyway, on to the discussion of the issue, rather than editors.
1) "no matter whether you kept any of it" is a bad rule, and should be removed. If an article was to be deleted, we would not require that a new content counts the previously deleted garbage. If a content is removed during a rewrite, it's the same logic. If somebody adds a bunch of garbage of so low quality it cannot be rescued, holding future editors responsible for this is simply unfair. Out of curiosity, if an existing article was twice the current length some time ago, but was shortened before the expansion, should be use the old, larger size for 5x? Should we add the clause "reviewers should check whether the expanded article was larger at any point in the past, and use the largest possible revision history for 5x calculations"? Of course not. It's an idiotic, through logical, extension of the current rule (if I cannot remove garbage from the article I am expanding for a DYK without it counting for a 5x, why shouldn't the garbage someone else removed few days earlier not count?). I therefore suggest we remove the phrase from DYK rules, it's poorly thought out, and unfair.
2) "If a topic is covered in a previously existing article, then any "new" article should be treated as an expansion of the section(s) covering that topic, whether any of the existing prose was used or not." I find it really hard to comment on this without comments that could be personal attacks... sigh, I'll try. There are so many things wrong with this, I am not sure where to start. First, four and half millions of Wikipedia articles cover, in some degree, millions of other non-yet-written-about topics. We are not, I hope suggesting that a reviewer has to hunt through all, linked or unlinked, mentions of the content, add (?) the lenght or relevant sections/paragraphs/sentences together to calculate something for 5x? Right... So, are we talking only about when a clearly marked section or pragraph is split from an article? Well, in that case the 5x rule applies... if any content was copied. That's called rewriting and expanding. If the original content was of such poor quality that it wasn't reusable, again, holding an editor who created the new article, without reusing previous garbage content, responsible for it, would be unfair. In this situation we are clearly dealing with a new article; existence of prior garbage should not be a factor here. "Some common sense is required in the application of existing rules to new situations." Here, I totally agree with Agolib... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 23:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Time is tight. Can some admin check on the hook-set on Prep 2 and load it on queue, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Moved - preps now empty. have alot on my plate. If some folks chack and load some preps I can move later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 11:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done But we need someone to put together some more updates. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of *mp

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The documentation at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#The_hook still asks for the template {{*mp}}, although the documentation for that template says it has been deprecated. Should the instruction be removed? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It should probably be modified to note that the line with the hook needs to start with an asterisk so it will start with bullet on the main page, rather than deleted entirely. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. The wording can be edited if it isn't sufficiently clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How to get a DYK for a 2x expansion of a very short article

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You can still get a DYK for only a 2x expansion of a very short article. Why is this? Well, the DYK rules still say that 'Former unsourced BLPs that have been thoroughly sourced and in which the prose portion has been expanded twofold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles'.

And the category in question is apparently up to over 1300! So needs some attention!

So you have lots to choose from... if you're lost for thought on what would make a good DYK, why not give it a try?

I did one of these, expanding this into this. Why not try it, you might have fun and also help out a problem area! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Lend a hand!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As I write this there are 275 articles nominated for DYK and just 16 approved hooks. If everyone who reads this posting did one or two extra reviews, it would help reduce the backlog a little. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Katherine Ritvo is approved but no one has promoted it yet. (my article, so I can't promote...) Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 12:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

What just happened?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I raised 2 issues on my review of Template:Did you know nominations/Amplify Tablet. Neither one was addressed by the nominator; another editor just approved the new hook and off it went to Prep 4. I suggest that the nomination be returned to the queue until the issues are resolved. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Done, sorry for not noticing that your issues hadn't been adressed. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 21:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Error, or misleading wording anyway, in Prep 1

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reviewed and ticked Did_you_know_nominations/Nell_Truman earlier, and it's now in Prep 1. Its first reviewer had expressed concern about the subject really being first winners of an open tennis event, but I clearly missed their point: that "an open tennis event" isn't the same thing as "a tennis event in the Open Era", which is what it's supposed to mean.

In the article, the word "open" is wikilinked to the Open Era article section, but in the hook it isn't. Suggest changing the hook wording for clarity and precision, either to "a tennis event in the Open Era", or at least to wikilink the word "open" to History of tennis#Open Era as it is in the article. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The last list is now way up the page, so I've compiled a new set of three dozen nominations that need reviewing. We have 273 total nominations, of which only 33 are approved. Thank you for your reviews.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, what do we do with some of these old nominations that seem to have languishing or inactive reviews? Do they get failed and removed or just sit forever? (I'll try to help here a little...) Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Montanabw. I've just done the appropriate pinging for the oldest ones (September and early October) to try to move things along. Sometimes it takes a lot of iterations before a nomination is finally ready, or to get to the point where it's very clear it can't be improved sufficiently. Nothing sits forever, although I have seen a couple go for over three months before being resolved. Things aren't quite that bad at the moment, though far from great. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ayakannu Marithamuthu DYK

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see the thread I've started at WP:ANI: [2] The DYK is asserting as fact matters which have never been determined in court - and accordingly, the DYK needs removing from the list as a matter of urgency. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 #4 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) 22:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Execution of Gary Glitter

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The blurb, "that after The Execution of Gary Glitter, a 2009 mockumentary showing Gary Glitter being hanged, the subject's complaint to Ofcom was turned down? seems to have word(s) missing: after it aired? after it was shown? after a complaint was made? As it stands, "after" is left dangling. Awien (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Awien (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've deactiveated the request, as the DYK hook in question isn't being shown on the main page any more. Sorry we couldn't get to it in time. For next time, you will probably get a quicker response if you use WP:ERRORS. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Mr S. Awien (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

This article, currently in prep 2, has come to notice at the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Blpn#Murder_of_Ayakannu_Marithamuthu. AndyTheGrump believes the hook is in violation of the BLP rule. Should it be pulled until the issue is resolved? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

See above (we seem to have been posting at the same time). We have no choice but to pull the DYK as a gross WP:BLP violation. We cannot possibly assert as fact something entirely reliant on the supposed word of a single suspect, where not only has there been no conviction, but those suspected of the crime have been released on grounds of lack of evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I also came across this article through the lurid hook at Prep 2. I'm shocked that the page was approved in the condition it's in. It reads like a news release, not an encyclopedia entry. I tagged the article. Yoninah (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Moishe Rosenbaum has now done a fair bit of work on the article - though there are still problems with accessing sources. The 'curry' claim was being cited to what seems to be a food blog in Yahoo! entertainment [3] which certainly isn't an appropriate source, even for an allegation. Which leaves the DYK not only violating WP:BLP as it stands, but lacking a credible source for the hook, even if we were to reword it. There almost certainly are better sources making the same claim, but for now, we can't find them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The DKY has now been deleted from Prep area 2. Kablammo (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


The DYK was correctly pulled from the prep area, and both the nominator and reviewer should probably take a good look at what went wrong. But there is another angle here which hasn't so far been discussed (AFAIK). Just imagine for a moment that the article was correctly sourced and that the hook was factually acceptable and ran on the main page. Then try to imagine that you are the wife, parents, children... of Ayakannu Marithamuthu, and that this tragic case graces the main page of Wikipedia in the most sensationalist and callous way possible, years after it made headlines as "news": "that Ayakannu Marithamuthu was butchered at a church, made into curry, and distributed into waste bins around Singapore in plastic bags". That we aren't censored means that we don't hide information because it may be shocking, distasteful, offensive; it doesn't mean that we can't use some dignity and humanity on what we decide to put on the main page, and especially how we do this. Using such a hook doesn't make Wikipedia any better, more complete, more neutral, ..., it only turns it into the tabloid version of an encyclopedia. Please consider not suing such hooks and codifying that in the DYK rules somehow. Fram (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well put. I wholeheartedly agree. -Zanhe (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Yup. I seem to recall having to kick up a stink previously about a sensationalist DYK concerning a murder. I'll see if I can locate it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Found it. Someone decided that it was appropriate to post a DYK about Gemma McCluskie's body being found in a canal - three weeks after she was killed. See the ANI thread: [4] That one got onto the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It was me. In hindsight, an incredibly stupid thing to do. Miyagawa (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove DYK alltogether

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DYK_removed_entirely Beerest355 Talk 00:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Discussion was closed there as being in the wrong place. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The last list has been nicely whittled down, so I've compiled a new set of 38 nominations that need reviewing. As of yesterday, we had 254 total nominations, of which only 36 were approved. Thank you for your reviews.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Queue 6

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

World Trade Center Portland becomes World Trade Center, Portland. Stats will be affected, so is minor change necessary? George Ho (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to changing it in the hook, the credit should be changed, to:

* {{DYKmake|World Trade Center, Portland|Aboutmovies|subpage=World Trade Center Portland}}

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The redirect was taken care of, but the credit was not, so I manually fixed the entry on the article's talk page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Good Articles

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was surprised to see Charlie Chaplin at DYK today, since it is obviously not a new article, nor has it been 5x expanded. In checking on it I found out that newly-listed Good Articles are now eligible for DYK. I suspect the new eligibility rule is not widely known. It does say so on this Project Page under the Eligibility Criteria, but not under the DYK Rules at the top. Those rules now read

DYK is not a general trivia section. DYK is only for articles that, within the past five days, have been either

  • created
  • expanded at least fivefold
  • newly sourced and expanded at least twofold (only if the article was an unsourced BLP)

I think we should add

  • newly designated as a Good Article

to the DYK Rules section. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added it - seems to have been an oversight rather than a deliberate omission.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting [sic] hooks

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can anyone enlighten me as to in what way the following hook could be considered "interesting" – I have to confess I just don't see it:

-- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the fact that it is supported by a multinational soft drinks company, a major national telecommunications company and a state central bank all support the same charity is rather interesting. But then what is interesting to one person might not interest another and vice versa. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Just had to amend a hook

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I apologise but I've just had to amend my hook. I'm hoping that I am ok to do this. It seems that the original source didn't completely put the quotation in context and thus I've also just had to amend the article. I'm confident that this is now correct. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 #4 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) 22:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

QPQ check

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, the QPQ checker doesn't seem to be counting DYKs after 27 October, it has 6 5 less than it has given me, which could lead (if it's not just me) to QPQ problems. Thanks, Matty.007 19:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

(Note: the checker is at this page, and for me shows 28.) Matty.007 19:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I've checked a few other accounts, and I can confirm it's not just you. DYKUpdateBot is operated by User:Shubinator, so I guess he's the guy to ask. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem has nothing to do with DYKUpdateBot. The user contributions search tool doesn't provide any results past 3 November for any user on any page. Without knowing any technical details, I suspect it's something like an updated database not being available to Toolserver. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
See User talk:Scottywong#Your tools and WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 120#Toolserver replication lag. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Do we have any idea when it will be back up? Thanks, Matty.007 12:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
In the interim, if the number is under five, reviewers should look at the self-nominator's talk page (and, if necessary, recent archives) to see if there are recent DYKs credited there. In fact, it's a good idea to do this anyway, since DYKUpdateBot is sometimes broken, and updates then must be done by hand: these don't show up in the tool, so it sometimes gives an undercount. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Retain image in promoted hook?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I wonder if it would be possible to move the hook regarding the rower in Prep area 1 to a queue where its image can be used. The image is especially good to have with this hook, IMHO, because the rower's apparently vibrantly healthy image contrasts sharply with the content of the hook (that he is not healthy) -- making it especially hooky. And I think the image is fine quality in reflecting his healthy appearance, though I understand not all will agree. I've submitted many DYKs, and I expect this is the first time I've ever asked for reconsideration at DYK of image inclusion. Thanks for your consideration.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

6 hooks in current set

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there a reason why the current set has only 6 hooks? The main-page columns are out of balance. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Naresh Gaur

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Naresh Gaur DYK hook has been reported as misleading on main-page errors because the quotation a "weaker bet" appears to be from Times of India, not the party. I've reviewed it and I agree with the concern. I'm not sure how this got through what appears to have been a fairly thorough review by experienced reviewers. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Rcats needed

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

­This redirect needs Rcats (redirect category templates) added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this...
#REDIRECT [[Template talk:Did you know]] {{R to other namespace}} {{r from shortcut}} [[Category:Wikipedia Did you know redirects]]
  • to this...
#REDIRECT [[Template talk:Did you know]]

{{Redr|to template namespace|from template shortcut|protected}}

[[Category:Wikipedia Did you know redirects]]
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE TWO INNER LINES BLANK FOR READABILITY.

Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. S, and good night. I cannot believe how tired I am. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 14:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

New reviewer needed

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/U.S. Route 27 in Michigan was initially reviewed by Ritchie333, but per his responses on his talk page, it appears that he no longer wants to continue the review he started. Additionally, his review implies factual errors in the article based on a misreading of the source for the hook. Would someone be willing to take over the review lest this nomination remain for weeks or months containing refuted suggestions of impropriety? Imzadi 1979 → 05:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Update needed

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The queue/prep area is empty and the next update is in three hours, so if someone could throw an update together that would be very helpful. Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 06:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have put together an update but we could use a couple more. Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Britten centenary

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Britten's centenary will be on 22 November. In order to complement the TFA, I wrote an article on a composition, it is reserved for the day, Template:Did you know nominations/Te Deum in C. In the meantime, I wrote another one, even more festive, which is in a double nom with a new church (Template:Did you know nominations/St Mark's Church, Swindon). I think if it can be only one that day (but why), that latter one should be the one, and pictured if possible. It still needs a review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll review it but it needs 2 QPQs done. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for new DYK control page

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With the number of nominations at T:TDYK these days, it is becoming increasingly difficult to track down the approved noms in order to put an update together. A while back, one user wrote a bot that copied approved nominations to a separate page where updaters could select nominations, but it broke when nomination discussions went to their own separate pages and were only transcluded onto the main nominations page.

I'm still inclined to the view that a page for approved nominations would be useful, not only because it would make the job easier for updaters, but also because it would centralize all approved nominations in one place for administrators and other users interested in quality control to check these noms before they went to prep. Anyone have an opinion on this? Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Logical and efficient. Especially if such a bot didn't just copy an approved nom to a separate page, but completely moved it to a separate page, thereby cleaning up the unapproved nominations that any potential reviewer has to scroll through. — Maile (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 #4 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) 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Christmas DYK Task Force Assemble!

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

You know me, I love a DYK theme. Next year should be interesting because it's Olympics time again, and we have the WWI Centenary. But before we get to that, we are approaching the Christmas start time for DYK once again. Normally I'd post a couple of days before the 25th November, but I've given some extra leeway this time because we have the potential for taking articles to GA and have them qualify for DYK that way. So previously out of touch articles - say for instance, Santa Claus - could yet be possible for DYK.

So use this section to suggest Christmas themed articles both for the usual expansion/creation for DYK, and potentially for tidying up and taking through GA to qualify for DYK that way. I'll start my yearly trawl for expansions now and post ideas for them as I come across them. Miyagawa (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's a few suggestions to get people started:
Expansion: A Christmas Carol (1908 film), Christmas (The Middle), Christmas beer, Christmas beetle, Christmas Canon, Christmas Frigatebird, Christmas Imperial Pigeon, Christmas Island (Tasmania), Christmas Island shrew, Christmas Memories, Church of la Natividad de Nuestra Señora (San Martín de la Vega), Church of la Natividad de Nuestra Señora, Valdetorres de Jarama, Church of the Nativity, Tiraspol, Episcopal Church of the Nativity (Rosedale, Louisiana), Episcopal Church of the Nativity (Union, South Carolina), Nativity Church, Căuşeni, Santa Claus Is Coming to Town, Holy Family and donors (Carpaccio), Home Alone (2006 video game), Santa Claus (1898 film), What Child Is This?, We Wish You a Merry Christmas, We Three Kings, Once in Royal David's City
Creation: Santa's List - a 2003 Cliff Richard song (it isn't Christmas without Cliff Richard)
Good article expansion: Alfred Anderson (veteran), Angraecum sesquipedale, The Christmas Invasion, Merry Xmas Everybody, Moroccan Christmas.
Feel free to add any as you go along and find them! Miyagawa (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm planning to get either Santa Claus Conquers the Martians or Santa Claus (1959 film) to GA because of my MST3K love. So those could be a good start. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd quite like to give Merry Xmas Everybody a go, since the song is more or less as old as me. The article is a former FA nom, but looking at the sources I wouldn't even pass it through GA at present.
Expansion : Bernard and the Genie, Mikulás
Retrofit with sources and take to GA : Dongzhi Festival, Saint Nicholas Day, Sinterklaas (I'm thinking of Drmies specifically for that last one) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll see if I get the time and motivation to write an article or more related to Christmas in Norway. A suggestion for others, with knowledge in German/music interest: the song Ich steh' an deiner Krippen hier by Paul Gerhardt and J.S. Bach. Possible sources: one, two. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Miyagawa - I like your enthusiasm. Annual DYK special occasion projects should have a dedicated DYK project subpage, like Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. You can find many Christmas ones via this search. In view of Wikipedia:Did you know/Christmas 2012, perhaps a Wikipedia:Did you know/Christmas 2013 can be started and modeled after Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Perhaps it might be a good idea to set up an index page. Because right now we have the April Fools one, then we also have the WW1 one at the moment, and Christmas would make three. Mind you - I wouldn't be seeking to extend the one month prior to the date rule for Christmas as I think it'd be unlikely that Christmas articles would get created throughout the rest of the year - with the exception of Christmas in July, of course. It might also be helpful to arrange to specific sporting events, such as the bi-annual Olympics rush. I'll think up a proposal and set it out in a new section. Miyagawa (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I may attempt to DYK some of the smaller articles. Thanks, Matty.007 12:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes we do need a temporary project page divided into the obvious 3 days of xmas. We need to decide if this one month before rule is strict as I have 2 or 3 already in the list that are identified as xmas'y. Is someone going to kick this off? Thanks to @Miyagawa for raising the subject Victuallers (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who DYK

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I've nominated a recently passed GA – the Doctor Who episode City of Death. I realize this is short notice, but could anyone review this quickly so it could be inserted in tomorrow's queue in time for the 50th anniversary? The nomination page is here. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  • It's now in a prep area for tomorrow morning. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • That's good, two Who DYKs tomorrow; I nominated one too... Thanks, Matty.007 22:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 07:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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) 06:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have put together an update, but it was two hours late, where is everybody these days? We could still use a couple of additional updates BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Cwmhiraeth for stepping up to the plate with a couple of updates, that's roughly the next 20 hours or so accounted for. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Since I am having nominations appear, would it be a COI for me to move them to the queue? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You mean there's an article you wrote or nominated in prep and you want to move it to the queue? I don't think that would be considered a COI, unless you were moving it to a more prominent position in the update or something. It wouldn't be considered best practice, because admins moving updates to the queue are supposed to quickly review them and you may not be entirely objective about your own nom, but I've probably done the same myself on occasion and I don't think there is anything in the rules which specifically disallow it. Gatoclass (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
well now the next prep area is not ready. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Validity of my 5x expansion

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

On 10 November 2013 I removed a large portion of unreferenced (and possibly cut-and-paste) material from India Buildings, then re-wrote the article almost completely, using a variety of reliable sources. It was well over a 5x expansion from what had been left, and I considered that this would reasonably satisfy the rules for DYK. With my nomination on 11 November I explained what had happened. The correctness of this has been questioned (but also supported) here, and it was suggested that I raised the question in this forum. IMO my nomination is valid as a 5x expansion. Does it fit the rules? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've found the source of the unreferenced material ... it's lifted straight from a blog post (see here) dated November 2010, and so would count as a copyvio as well as merely being unreferenced. On this basis, according to Supplementary article length rule A4, I believe this is a valid expansion. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this edit removed copyvio, so this is a valid expansion. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reassurance - I had not spotted it was a copyvio. As it is this 5x is within our existing practices. Thanks Peter (et al) Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The rule appear very clear that the only exception from the five-fold expansion rule is material that has been removed as copyvio. Has it ever been considered to also make an exception for material that is removed as confirmed sockpuppet edits? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The last list has been almost used up, so I've compiled a new set of three dozen nominations that need reviewing. At the moment, we have 224 total nominations, of which only 34 are approved. Thanks as always for your reviews.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Queen Victoria and Edward VII

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

PFHLai, would it be possible to change "Queen Victoria and Edward VII" into "Queen Victoria and King Edward VII" in Preparation area 2? It seems more natural. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
BTW, Surtsicna, please feel free to edit in the prep areas. Hooks are not locked until they get moved onto the queue templates. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the advice! I forgot I could do that myself. Surtsicna (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 22:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Allow template editors to edit queues?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

That way, we won't be facing further overdue messages. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times, because queues are automatically shipped to the main page, it's a bad idea to let anyone other than an admin edit queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Once, I believe. Template editors have a stringent set of requirements to be granted the right, and misusing the right will lead to serious consequences. "If you use this right for anything even vaguely resembling vandalism, you will be blocked immediately.", "Even if it's all a misunderstanding, you may lose your template-editor privileges nonetheless, if you're found to have behaved recklessly or erratically." and "any administrator reserves the right to remove your template-editing access summarily and without warning, even for a first offense" seem to give adequate warning.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wellington Suspension Bridge in Prep 4

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The nomination for Wellington Suspension Bridge is the last hook in Prep 4; if I've worked it out correctly, it would be on the main page at midnight, UK time. Would it be at all possible to move it as it will be throughout the night and I wouldn't be able to see it on the main page or address any queries (although, hopefully there won't be any). I do appreciate this might not be possible. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Crisco has moved it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Too many overdues?

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

What gives? If we can't do typical 00:00, 08:00, and 16:00 on time, and if we can't lower down from three sets to two, perhaps we already have a list of older nominations above. And we can advertise a need of more reviewers. --George Ho (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe everyone is out doing Xmas shopping or something....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It only takes a single late queue to put the queue times out of whack for days, since they move back to the proper time at the rate of 15 minutes per promotion to the main page. Four more promotions and we'll be back to the typical timing. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I've started loading preps but have RL chores to run off to. If someone can finish that'd be great. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Will there be any more overdues on Thanskgiving week? George Ho (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I've done another couple of sets, if a friendly admin can move them to the queues? Quirky hooks are needed for the last items.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There are 200+ nominations remaining, including 15 verified. George Ho (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 06:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Reduce to two sets for Thanskgiving weekend?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We are having overdues lately. The fact that we have 200+ nominations and 15+ verified doesn't affect how slow the project is getting. Shall we lower to two sets per day until things pack up tremendously? --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Or 6 hooks per set? Need to make sure there are some wordy hooks in each shorter set. --PFHLai (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 22:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Prep 2 ready to go. Any admins around to load this set on queue, please? --PFHLai (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A Boy was Born

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A Boy was Born is meant for Christmas but is in Prep 3! (Also it will be expanded, and there's a pending move request.) Please return, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted promotion and moved it to Dec 25. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Prep 4 ready to go. Any admins around to review and load this set on queue, please? --PFHLai (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Failed joint nomination

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  • DYK nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Slave-making ant; Trophobiosis
  • Background: I created the article Slave-making ant based on multiple open access articles, and the nom failed because my article did not have attribution templates (which has been fixed since) and it did not have enough original material. I have no problem with this, but the other article (Trophobiosis) was expanded from scratch by Kevmin and was rejected because of my mistakes. I messed up and feel terrible about it, but Kevmin did not do anything wrong.
  • Question: can the Trophobiosis article be renominated (without the Slave-making article)?

jonkerz ♠talk 17:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not. There's nothing wrong with Trophobiosis as far as I can see. -Zanhe (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Shall I renominate Trophobiosis for Nov 11th then?--Kevmin § 03:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure, just link to this thread in the comment section of the nomination template, so the reviewer will see why it's nominated "late". -Zanhe (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 #4 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) 06:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Prep 1

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The last hook in the set, Template:Did you know nominations/Eduard Pernkopf, is 208 characters long. Yoninah (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As we have temporarily reduced from 7 to 6 hooks per set and half the set is composed of hooks with 101 or fewer characters, this one hook being a few characters over the normal limit is not a real problem. --Allen3 talk 02:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Why has the number of hooks been reduced to six when there are over 200 nominations including some 35 current approvals? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria is probably the best person to answer your question as she is the one who implemented the change to the prep areas ([5], [6], [7], [8]). My best guess is that the change was made due to a comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Reduce to two sets for Thanskgiving weekend?. The title for that discussion is also the reason I believe the change is meant to be short-term. --Allen3 talk 13:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Oops, sorry; I didn't see that in my review. Iselilja (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Dayana Kirillova in Prep 1

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it possible to slightly change the hook about Dayana Kirillova (in preparation area 1). Cause the hook will be on the main page later than I initially expected.
These are the changes:

  1. Add the word "today" to the hook. I think it makes the sentence more clear for readers cause it is already November 30 everywhere.
  2. (Maybe) "is representing" is better cause at somewhere around 19:00 UTC she will already finish her song. First I thought about changing "will represent" to "has represented" as soon as he finishes her song but there will be voting going on for another hour, and possibly a winner reprise...

The hook would become "... that 11-year-old Dayana Kirillova (pictured) is representing Russia in the 2013 Junior Eurovision Song Contest in Kiev today, on November 30?". I think, it is better like this.
Also: I will be watching the contest and if you let me, I can change "will represent" or "has represented" either when she finishes her song or when the contest ends. Tell me when it would be appropriate to make the change (after she finishes her song or after the contest ends?). --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the hook as requested. I don't think it will need to be updated to "has represented" however as "is representing ... today" will IMO be accurate enough regardless. Gatoclass (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Stats

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, was my addition to the DYK stats page correct? Thanks, Matty.007 09:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is because it doesn't take account the average daily views, which appears to be roughly 10,000 for each of these articles or 20k per article over two days. At least, it used to be that average daily views were taken into account, I don't know if that's still the case. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I subtracted the mean of the day before and the day after for each article, as per rule 3. Thanks, Matty.007 09:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I didn't check your sums thoroughly enough. I'm not sure if it's right as I'm not familiar with the standard algorithm, but at first glance it looks okay. Gatoclass (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Matty.007 10:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Tim Yap in Prep 2

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Where in the article does it say "Lost in Yonkers"? --192.75.165.28 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. This should be pulled from Prep. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I pulled it from the prep area, since we seem to be short-handed this holiday weekend. I've never pulled a hook from prep before, so I'm hoping someone will check that I did it correctly. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The nominator left a message on my talk page that they added "Lost in Yonkers" to the text. And another editor added the nomination to a different prep area . Two inline sources at the end of that lengthy sentence, both of which come up "Page Not Found" when I tried to pull them up. I am pulling it once again. The hook needs to be reviewed again on the nom template before it goes into another prep. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Raise the minimum length of DYK articles

Latest comment: 10 years ago25 comments22 people in discussion

I've noticed that 1500 characters (the current minimum readable prose count) is really not enough. 1500 characters is barely two or three good paragraphs, in other words, kind of a stub. See User:King jakob c 2/1500 characters of readable prose if you don't believe me. Thus, I propose that the minimum length be raised to 2000 or 2500 characters, but I suppose all currently proposed hooks can be grandfathered in if this proposal is accepted. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 17:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Support raising length threshold to 2000 characters

Support raising length threshold to 2500 characters

  • This is what I'd personally recommend. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 17:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I think the "quality over quantity" opposes are actually taking the opposite view -- they're assuming that the quantity of brevity=quality and that somehow more in-depth coverage =/= quality. It is a valid point that most new users don't write larger articles and thus would be "turned off" but, then again, most new editors don't write articles that comply with the litany of "unwritten rules" that DYKs have to comply with either. And we're kidding ourselves if we think DYK is still being used as a recruiting tool for new users. That boat started to pass us a couple years back with the rule creep and the GA invasion has only further pushed DYK away from its original ideals of rewarding new users for producing new content. The fact is that most DYKs are written by experience users and experience users should be able to write a fully referenced and well developed article on a topic of at least 2500 characters. AgneCheese/Wine 16:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Support raising length threshold to some other amount (please specify)

  • Perhaps we can formally state in the rules that a more richly developed article is very much preferred as the lead hook. Each hook set should at least start with a couple of strong candidates, so as to give people something to read after clicking the bolded links on DYK. And we don't want readers from MainPage to think that any article can cut the mustard. 1500 characters is a minimum cut-off to get onto DYK, but a higher standard, may be 3000 characters, is needed for an article to get to the picture slot, maybe 2500 is acceptable/tolerable if the picture is really nice, imho. --PFHLai (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

  • 1500 characters can definitely be a non-stub article. Raising the limit will just encourage article bloat. Succinct, clear writing is something we should encourage not discourage. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • IronGargoyle said that well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with IronGargoyle, in that it would not only encourage waffling in articles; but it would also put new editors off, just looking at the new pages feed, not one relatively recent page would qualify for DYK; it may not sound like a massive increase, but it is still 30%/60% more than currently. Matty.007 19:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not a problem that needs solving. The current number is fine. But what is hard is getting the 5 times expansion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It isn't broken, don't try to fix it. Manxruler (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything wrong with the current length. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There are issues with DYK that need to be addressed, but I don't think this is one of them. Also, concur with IronGargoyle's comment. Gamaliel (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. But I would support adjusting the 5x rule for articles that are already relatively long, by adding a chars/words/bytesize element (eg say x5 or the addition of 15,000 characters). Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose a new topic can be adequately introduced in 1500 characters. Think of how many print encyclopedia entries are less than 1500 characters. We are quite spoiled by the depth that many articles achieve online.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – quality over quantity. It's better to have 1,500 characters of solid writing than adding an extra 1,000 characters just to meet the new minimum. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The example of 1500 given by the OP fills the screen of my tablet nicely without scrolling and so is a good size for internet use. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so we prefer a terse, summary style. Less is more. Warden (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 1500 is sufficient, plus there are several topics that are entitled to an article but because of limited sources it is a struggle to get them to 1500 as it is. Raising the threshold takes a lot of articles out of the chance to be seen on DYK and this is unfair in my view, especially for the new editors for whom DYK is initially intended for. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've written what I think are some pretty Damn good start-class articles in the range of 1700-2000 characters. Sometimes you can't reach 2500 on a newly notable subject within 5 days of creation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - IronGargoyle sums it up well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the key is quality, not quantity of text. 1500 is well enough. --Soman (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 1500 characters of well written prose is worth more than 3000 of bloat. Not to mention that making the minimum 2500 characters would, effectively, block most lists from DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: An exception could be made for lists. I assume that DYK reviewers will identify people who are gaming the system and stuffing hundreds of extra characters of prose into articles. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • That would still make the rules much more complicated than they need to be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It ain't broke, so why try to fix it? Edwardx (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I would be inclined to support this. I would also support to reduce the criteria for expansion to four-fold, with a minimum length. The articles that are expanded often cover more notable topics than new articles, and much of the old stuff tend to be rooted out in the expansion because it may be a mess, unsourced or similar. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I would have supported this once but I'm not sure now. What I probably would support would be a reduction in the expansion requirement - I think x5 is way too much for larger articles, I think x3 is more than enough beyond a certain article size, I'm just not sure where exactly to set the limit. Gatoclass (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK Freies Volk

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a heads up for anyone qualified to review sourcing in the German language. Template:Did you know nominations/Freies Volk seems to be fine, but some of the sourcing, including the hook sourcing, is in the German language. I felt this particular one would be best passed if someone fluent in the language had a look at the hook sourcing. Thanks for your time. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Question re tools in the nomination template

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Two of the tools in the nomination template are "External links" and "Disambig links", both of which check the article not the hook on the template. Since nobody mentions those two items in a review, I'm guessing nobody runs a check. My question: What practical purpose do they serve, and does a nomination get rejected if a nominator doen't take care of a dab or an external link with a suspicious connection? — Maile (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK late

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

It's five hours late - IMO might as well wait a couple more hours and it will be more or less aligned with the usual update time. Gatoclass (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that DYKupdatebot ignores comment code, so the update got executed anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, DYKUpdateBot's "parser" was hand-written, so markup like comments sometimes doesn't work the way you'd expect. Ideally it would use MediaWiki's parse engine, but the API wasn't flexible enough to support that before (and I believe it still isn't). You can control next update timing through Template:Did you know/Next update/Time. Shubinator (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not going to play with that as I don't want to screw anything up. You are welcome to align the next update to the usual time if you want though. Gatoclass (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I think I fixed it :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Can article be in DYK twice?

Latest comment: 10 years ago21 comments13 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Rose (Doctor Who) has been nominated. The article has already appear in DYK. Is this allowed? Beerest 2 talk 21:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such prohibition, but perhaps there should be if the DYK appearance is recent, like within the last year. Since this one peared way back in 2005, I don't see any harm in a second appearance. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I probably should have asked here, but I could see nothing in the rules about it. I think the article was in DYK in 2005, so a fair time ago. Thanks, Matty.007 21:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Supplementary rule D1 would say not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Can we just change the rule? These rules were created before it was decided that GA articles would appear on DYK. Perhaps we can get a consensus for allowing a second appearance once a reasonably long time has passed. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I would support a rule change. Do you think we should start a RfC, or just propose it? Thanks, Matty.007 21:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I probably would oppose such a change to the rules. The fact that GAs have been allowed has already opened up enough new possibilities for articles; we don't need to start recycling DYKs as we clearly aren't running out of any. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I also oppose any changes. The rule we have is simple and doesn't need a change, if it's been on DYK once, it cannot again. Plus GA has already been bulldozed (albeit democratically) onto DYK, this is another unnessecary change because we could end up with a situation of an article having 3 DYKs for being made, expanded and then made a GA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose any rule changes per Taylor and C of E. The new GAs→DYK rule was instituted to allow articles that were too big to be 5× expanded to still have the chance to appear on the main page. Allowing multiple DYK appearances for a single article will lead to gaming and promotion not seen since the Gibraltarpedia fiasco, since this would allow a DYK in at least 3 stages: (1) 1,500 characters (creation); (2) 7,500 characters (5× expansion); and (3) Promotion to GA. No thanks. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't a lengthy time period in between appearances prevent such gaming? It's been eight years since the above article appeared on the front page. I doubt anyone is playing the long game with DYK. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I still don't see any good justification to recycle. DYK is clearly not running low on articles. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • A lengthy time period in between doesn't prevent promotion. One crosses the line of advertising by placing an article up more than once. That's why DYK rule 1E prevents articles that appeared on ITN to appear on DYK, regardless how much time has elapsed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose changing the rules, per Bloom6132. Manxruler (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • How about if there had to be a time gap, say of three years? Thanks, Matty.007 08:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • See my comment above regarding ITN→DYK. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Good idea ! We need more hooks. Having a few dozens of approved hooks on T:TDYK does not mean we have a lot. Quite often, approved hooks with good picture potential are left for future sets. Each hook set needs variety. Once a hook about a church is taken, the other approved hooks about churches cannot be used till the next set. Ditto for skyscrapers, snails, fungus, ships, films, ... And there really should be more than 3 or 4 biographies per set. Also, hook set builders are not supposed to pick hooks reviewed by him/herself. Even if we disregard time zone concerns, there are not really that many approved hooks to choose from these days. So, if there is a way to increase the number of noms without compromising quality (must be both 5x expansion and GA!), let's do it. I think 5 years of moratorium is long enough. We also need reviewers. Let's make the nominators of such candidates do 5 reviews. --PFHLai (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No we don't. We only need more reviewers because there are enough being nominated, it is just a lack of reviewers that gives the illusion that there aren't enough hooks when there are enough. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I think articles should be eligible for DYK every time they have a 5x expansion. An article that appears at 1500 characters should be eligible a second time if it 7500 characters and a 7500 character DYK should be eligible at 37500. In each case, another 5x expansion presents mostly new content. Maybe there should also be a 4 year rule that 2nd and 3rd appearances have to wait a certain amount of time. This would encourage editors to keep developing articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As much as I would love another Doctor Who DYK, and as much as I would love to be able to re-post some of my old DYKs, this is a bad idea. Once on the main page as a bold link is a simple and straightforward rule and one we should stick with. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Each article gets its one chance to shine on the main page through DYK or ITN, and that's plenty. When the GA expansion came through, it was made clear by the proposers that the only change was that this additional eligibility was only for articles that hadn't previously qualified. We don't allow new 5x expansions of very old DYKs to count; why should we move the goalposts now to allow a special exception for GAs? It makes a mockery of the very recent consensus that GAs should be subject to all other DYK requirements, except for five-day creation or expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination with a forward slash causes display error

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have just added Template:Did you know nominations/LS3/5A to the template talk page, but clicking on the 'review' button takes me to a page marked "5A". What to do? -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The most recent list has disappeared from this page, so I've compiled a new set of 39 nominations that need reviewing. At the moment, we have 198 total nominations, of which only 33 are approved. Thank you as always for your reviews.

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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, given that there is currently some stuff going on with foreign language refs, would a Chinese speaker be able to check out the sources here please? Thanks, Matty.007 21:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

About "old" articles and expansions

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have been working with an old GA that was aprox. 30,000b (with adequate reference formatting) and now sits at 90,000b. All of the added content is "new" to the article and taken from several new books (it is now sourced by twice as many books as it did before the overhaul), none of it was taken from other Wikipedia articles. Could this be considered as an exception to the rule based on the 3x expansion? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

From what I know, we usually wouldn't apply IAR to any expansion less than 4×. And the GA→DYK rule works only for new GA within 5 days of promotion. However, given the impressively comprehensive expansion you made, you could try getting it to Featured Article status, then TFA it so that it'll still be featured on the Main Page. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Carribbean H.Q., what you have done is admirable. Nice article. Just to clarify, DYK counts readable prose, and does not count the size of images, quotes, the infobox, bibliography, further reading or other lists. This is how DYK counts your recent edits that you began Nov 5, 2013:
  • Pre-expansion size, October 18, 2013 was 21625 characters of readable prose
  • Current size, 64089 characters of readable prose
It's about 3X expansion right now. — Maile (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. The reason that A/FA has not been pursued is because we are still trying to find a copy of an out-of-print book that would likely push the overall content to around 120,000b. I believe that we need to expand the "historical" part before advancing. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Queue 6 issues

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There are a number of issues with the hooks in Queue 6 that an admin will need to take care of:

  • There are two Andy Warhol hooks in this set, which is one too many. One of these needs to be moved to a different queue or prep.
  • The third hook should either have its date range formatted as "(1960–96)" per MOS:DATE, or the hook might be more effective if the date range was removed entirely.
  • The fourth hook could use a comma after "1718" at the least. I do wonder about reusing FN2's "one of the greatest catastrophes" in the hook and article without quoting, and I've asked Nikkimaria to take a look.
  • The fifth hook has an added comma after the first "that" that makes "in their nests" less integral than it was originally; perhaps "in their nests" could be displaced to after "outnumbered"?

Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've switched one Andy Warhol hook with Q5 and done the copyedits requested, but I've not done anything about "one of the greatest catastrophes". Let me know if there are anything else that needs to be fixed, and please let me know if I did anything wrong - after all that was my first edits to the edit-protected queues. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Issues with another Queue 6 hook

The Stekenjokk hook gives the "windspeed" as "47 m/s (170 km/h)".

  • First, I don't think "windspeed" is a word, and even if it is, it wouldn't hurt to change this to ""wind speed".
  • Also, I've never seen a DYK with an SI-SI conversion. I think it would be much more useful as "{{convert|170|km/h|abbr=on}}" or its output "170 km/h (110 mph)".
  • Finally, I would unlink Swedish, but some people don't seem to mind overlinking, so whatever. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The overlinking has been taken care, but that was the least important issue. The misspelled word and the not-very-helpful conversion remain. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  Done. Thanks to Mentoz86 for fixing the remaining issues. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_98&oldid=1187918657"