Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

DYK an hour overdue...but how do we protect a sound file??

DYK an hour overdue...but how do we protect a sound file?? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The sound file is now full-protected over at Commons for 12 hours. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
groo-vee. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No, there was one a couple of weeks ago I think (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It's the first time that one has *stuck* on the Main Page. I Want to Go Back to Michigan was originally put up with a sound file, but the code used broke the Main Page formatting in IE6, so it was pulled off. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up #whatever

I noted it was overdue, so flipped it again, but I have to rush off. Can someone do credits and slot in some hooks for next one? I may get some time to do this myself in 3-4 hours or so if no-one else does. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating! Regarding the credits, it was done ahead of time by Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) before the update was done. I've left a note on his talk page about it. -- RyRy (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

I just updated the Main Page for the first time since getting admin status, but I can't figure out how to reset the clock. Also, I don't yet know how to do the credits. If someone could fix these things for now, and then leave a note on my talk page with instruction to help me do it right the next time, that would be appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I figured out the first part. The next update has been cleared and reset, but I still could use help with the credits and a note on my talk page letting me know how to do that part. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I did the credits and will let you know how to next, congrats on your first DYK update, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, you'll get the hang of things with time. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 05:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Hello all, I have flipped the next bunch and started adding, but I need coffee, breakfast and have a few RL chores to attend to, so if some folks can check a few hooks and sling them in the next update it would be great. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Assume the assumption of good faith

When I had an article pass through DYK recently, I was bothered by the note saying "reference accepted on good faith." Not only was my article being reviewed, my intentions were being judge. The essay Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith explains "the very act of citing WP:AGF assumes that the opponent is assuming bad faith." I understand a need to distinguish actual confirmation of references vs. acceptance of references, but I don't think that DYK continually is an especially egregious situation where assuming good faith continually needs to be expressed in writing. It sees to me that the use of rather than is sufficient by itself to make such a distinction and there is no additional reason to expressly invoke WP:AGF. In view of this, I propose that at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Symbols,

Symbol Code Ready for DYK? Description
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Yes Article is ready for DYK, with a foreign-language or offline hook reference accepted in good faith

be change to read

Symbol Code Ready for DYK? Description
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK with the use of a foreign-language or offline hook reference.

I think this change will help to make DYK a more friendly place and yet maintain the / communication system to the admins picking up DYK suggestions. Please indicate below whether you agree so that this change may be implemented. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 14:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Support – this sounds entirely reasonable to me. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 14:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Support table change with question The template only inserts a symbol and it doesn't include an explanation. Do you want the template to insert this explanation along with the symbol? I never took comments about AGF as questioning the faithfulness of the contributor, just thoroughly explaining why it was accepted. If you were taking this as a potential insult, then others are probably too. Royalbroil 14:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Changing the text of the table may help limit the citations to AGF palced below the actual nominations. -- Suntag ☼ 07:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The essay WP:AAGF refers to a situation in which one editors tells another editor to assume good faith. Especially in defense of their own actions. It does not refer to a situation in which an editor says "I don't know, but I will assume good faith". Editors are supposed to assume good faith about others, and it's perfectly acceptable to acknowledge this. How could it possibly be an "assumption of bad faith" to say, I can't tell but I'm abiding by the principle of assuming good faith? Who is being accused of assuming bad faith in that scenario? Not at all the purpose of the essay being cited here. I'm leery of the need for this change. There's only so much we can do because some people are going to misinterpret any language that is used. To be frank, and I'm not saying this about Suntag who raised this very politely and I don't think it applies to him, but there are some people basically just looking for a chance to take umbrage about things. Also, the DYK project is under fairly constant fire for not checking hooks properly. An established editor tried to slip a hoax onto the Main Page by taking advantage of good faith just within the past month or so. We should continue to explicitly distinguish between offline hooks that have been double checked and offline hooks accepted in good faith. --JayHenry (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it can we change the template name to something easier to remember from the current CAPSsmallCAPS password style? If they all went to small throughout I for one would review more. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I set it up awhile ago so they all work lowercase as well. DYKtickAGF hadn't been set up this way initially, but it is now. The others have been all along. --JayHenry (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JayHenry's comment above: I don't see anything at all wrong with saying "I'm assuming good faith". And while the two colours of tick make the difference clear to a regular they don't necessarily to a stranger to the DYK process, who could easily look through the history, see a tick and think "This hoax/poorly sourced article was given a tick on T:TDYK! The DYK editors clearly aren't doing their job." Therefore making the assumption explicit is necessary, I think. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose mostly due to reference to non-binding essay. It's just a few guys opinion that probably coincides with yours; this does not make it any more valid. I don't agree with it, especially the last lines attempting to twist the official guideline and suppress its application. Personally, as a DYK writer with primarily non-English sources, mostly printed, I'm not offended at all with the present formula. It is, after all, a purely technical matter. NVO (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The "green" and "blue" ticks are hard to distinguish even for someone who does not suffer from green-blue colour vision deficiency. I don't think "reference accepted on good faith" in DYK is about an edit war, it's about the fact that the DYK "management" may not have access to journals articles cited by submitting editors. -- Philcha (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this is unnecessary. I do not assume that anyone is acting in bad faith when I rely upon them to validly reflect what an offline source says, just as I do not assume bad faith when I check sources. We all make mistakes, and any editor should be happy to have his or her work vetted. People should not read into a statement that their work is accepted "on good faith" a criticism of their intent-- please do not assume that a hook checker has bad intent himself or herself. When your reference is accepted on good faith it simply means the checker is trusting you-- nothing more. Kablammo (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Frog Legs Rag and Image:Frog Legs Rag 2.ogg

I spent 5 hours on that sound file. Why is it being thrown out without a word? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your entry hasn't been deleted, if that is what you mean. I've moved it to this page. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Wait, you mean why your entry hasn't been selected as the lead hook? I can pull it off and save it for later so it can be used as the lead, if you'd like. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Everyone that contributes hooks with images to DYK gets their image "thrown out without a word" sooner or later. Most just accept it, as there are a limited number of spaces for the lead. --NE2 17:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but most don't spend 5 hours creating a file from scratch for the hook. I'd rather it was delayed, if possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Think of it as spending 5 hours creating a file for the article. The hook, when you get it, is just a bonus. --NE2 17:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I complied this time, but do you expect that we use your entry as the lead hook everytime you submit it with a sound file? I am concerned because it is a bit of special treatment you are asking here. But, if the consensus agrees, that is fine by me. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't complained when they've been removed before, have I? I do think, though, that restoring sound files is often far more work than goes into finding illustrations for other things (not always, obviously), and, when talking about articles on songs and so on, they may well be more relevant to the article than the standard level of DYK illustrations. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
All you had to do was ask for it to held over, rather than imply that your time is more valuable than anyone else's and criticise other DYK illustrations as not being "relevant". I've added the article with the sound file to the Next Update (as it was the only article with an illustration/sound under expiring noms); I hope that is enough to sedate your ego. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say they were not relevant, I said they were less relevant: For instance, if the article's on a person, say, a picture is valuable, but one could learn most of the basic facts about a person without ever seeing a picture of them. But with an article on the song, however much text is provided, you cannot be said to have even a basic understanding the song without hearing it. Obviously, there are many cases where images are equally important - articles on a painting, say - but as DYK has a great mix of articles, some of the images are less crucial to understanding the subject of their relevant article than others. I do think there's a case for making sure that the illustrations that best illustrate the subject of their hooks make it onto DYK, and that if an image is dropped, it's one of the less-relevant ones. In this particular case, that sound file is my major contribution to that article, which was part of a 5 or 6 editor collaboration tha was recorded for one of Wikipedia's radio programmes. (hence the number of people listed.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edith Killgore Kirkpatrick

This article, now slated for the next update, has a hook cite to an apparently unpublished personal statement of the article's subject. (The source listed in footnote 2 reads: "Statement of Edith Killgore Kilpatrick, September 22, 2008".) That would not qualify as a reliable source. It would be good to correct this now (if it can be corrected) before an appearance on the main page. Kablammo (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

housekeeping

I was going to add Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to the DYKbox template as this page is really obscure to find otherwise. I am trying to think of ways of facilitating finding folks to update if one of the regulars ain't around. I was musing on pinging all on the list to get them back to update their interest, and maybe split the list into actively involved editors, and admins who can help out at a pinch or something like that. Thus two proposals:

  • Adding page to DYKbox
  • Splitting list into active and help out at a pinch
  • then alerting everyone on list to refresh interest.


I am thinking of this as I am getting the feeling (I maybe wrong on this) that there is a bit of editor (or more accurately admin) fatigue around (hopefully I am misguided on the last and will be more than happy to be proven wrong.) All input welcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Those all sound like reasonable plans - the final one in particular would be a good idea, I think. I don't think that's been done in the months I've been working on DYK - does anyone remember when it was last done, if at all? I'm happy to give a hand with any of these if wanted. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, these are all excellent ideas by Casliber (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall anyone updating the admins list on anything other than an ad hoc basis in the past year and a half. --JayHenry (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It had occurred to me that sorting an edit history for one of the key pages (eg the DYK template) would sort those who actually do update it from those who might do it one day. Sorry not volunteering for the task. One thing I am thinking of doing is including a help reminder when doing the credits. Something like "Well done you're doing a brilliant job ... did you know that anyone can give out the credits like this?" or .... "did you know that anyone cam load hooks into the next update?" As there may well be some fresh faces who just need to be welcomed. Victuallers (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so as to avoid confusion over who's renewed their interests and who hasn't (and to avoid confusing people who visit the admins list while replies are coming in), I've created User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins. I propose to:

  1. Contact all the admins on the list (except those who I know for certain are active) and ask them to add themselves to one of the lists;
  2. Wait for a reasonable amount of time, then assume everyone who hasn't responded is no longer active;
  3. Remove the third section of User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins and replace the current content of Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins with the other two.

Any objections/suggestions for different categories? Olaf Davis | Talk 18:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice algrithm Olaf, agree. OK, I am not fussed who notifies.You wanna do it or shsll I? No biggie either way :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't care either ('I propose to' was actually supposed to be 'I propose we'). I have to get to sleep now so feel free to go ahead - otherwise I'll do it in the morning if you don't get time. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, one thing though: might be nice to remind them to include information on their active times if they think it'll be helpful. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have notified all editors as well as WP:AN. Let's see what happens. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! And your change to the wording was a good one, too. Olaf Davis | Talk 07:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

housekeeping update

I figured popping a note in the signpost would be prudent to cover a wide as audience as possible, before updating the lsit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good plan, Casliber. Did you do that successfully?
The flow of admins responding seems to have dried up now, so I think it makes sense to update the proper list. I'll assume that those who didn't respond want to be removed, but I'll drop a final note on their talk pages letting them know that and that they can re-add themselves if necessary. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping Ral315 would drop a note in the next signpost, as I left a note on his userpage. I'd be keen to wait until after that, then see if anyone else signs up. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I've updated the list but will wait to give people a final reminder. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rise of Dravidian parties to power in Tamil Nadu

Not sure if this is the right place to post this. I had nominated the above article for DYK and now I can't find it there. It was confirmed that the lenght was fine as well as the reference to the hook AGFed as its a journal. Can I know what happened to it please? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry just now figured out what had happened. I'm so daft!! Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK crediting made easy

Anyone who regularly gives DYK credits may be interested in dykeasymode.js. It makes a tab to automatically fill the edit window with the article name. Details on how to install/use it can be found at User talk:Ameliorate!/dykeasymode.js. Feedback appreciated. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks handy. I'll check it out. Thanks, Ameliorate. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, works very well! (Or at least appears to... i haven't yet done the credits!) BG7even 14:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. -- RyRy (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Now used it and it works a treat ;) Well done. BG7even 10:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I have made some changes so that if the "tag article talkpage" link is followed, clicking the tab will automatically add the {{dyktalk}} template and fill the edit summary. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

heads up

I flipped the hooks but have burnt my dinner in the process -can someone do the creds etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Rest assured that your sacrifice is appreciated. I'm actually glad to get opportunities to do the credits so I can find the shortcomings of dykeasymode. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

heads up

I have flipped, credited and stocked up the next upload - not sure if there is a trick to protecting sounds. I will be asleep soon so cannot flip the next bunch. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The sound has to be either protected on commons (by a commons admin) or uploaded here and protected. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it was doen over tehre. I flipped, so anyone around, can you please do the credits Ameliorate you can practise yer tool again :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I was asleep so I missed it :( ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sound protection

Further on sound protection... As soon as the DYK is moved onto the main page; Sox Admin Bot should upload the file from commons and protect it. This isn't ideal as there is a chance that it could not work for whatever reason. I've tried to upload the sound files myself so an admin could protect them, but it seems you have to be an admin to upload a file that has the same name as a file on commons. So would be alright to upload it under a different name, or should I leave it to an admin to upload or should we just get the file protected on commons? ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can find an admin on Commons that is around at the time, that might be easiest, I have been protecting some as I notice them. Other than that as it is a temp file anyways on en.wiki it probably wouldn't be a big deal to upload it temporarily under a different name, if need be - so long as it is appropriately marked as a temp file. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

eadshay upay

Just checked in to find the update gone yellow, so flipped it. Busy off-keyboard so can someone do the creds and start piling in some hoox? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Can do. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Cirt beat me but in doing so made me realise a possible improvement ... ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done - credits done, someone else can fill in next update. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know

...Is a very undescriptive name for what the actual purpose of that page is. I think it should be moved to something along the lines of Wikipedia:Did you know/Suggestions. -- how do you turn this on 21:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion here. Art LaPella (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with having the suggestions page at Template talk:Did you know. Anyway, there wouldn't be much discussion about Template:Did you know anyway. If there was, it would be discussed here or at WP:ERRORS (for errors at T:DYK that needs fixing). – RyanCross (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Next updates and vetting

I shouldn't be complaining, I know; the DYK admins do a very good job at what they do, and they are very hard-working. I myself have intents to become more active there and help out more with the few who keep the process running so smoothly. But I'd request that articles that are added to the next update, and then, by extension, to the template itself at a later time, are really properly vetted. I just had to give this article on Hannikel a thorough copyedit; the person who wrote it seems to be more fluent in German and still learning sentence structure in English, and certain parts of the article did not make good sense. Furthermore, apostrophes, commas and other such punctuation articles were entirely omitted. The fact that the article was created is great, yes, but before we put things on the main page we want to make sure that the article is at least easy-to-read and generally well-written. I'm not sure if this is a recurring problem, I just thought I'd bring it up. But, again, the DYK admins and helpers are to be congratulated in general for the hard work they do. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a group of people dedicated to the really comprehensive reading through of the next Update articles would be a good idea? People who do a general copyedit and a good look-through before the article goes live. I'd personally be happy to help out with that. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I tried to clean up the Hannikel article just now. It may not be perfect but at least acceptable now, I hope. You are more than welcome to help out, of course. Thanks! --BorgQueen (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Well, you are welcomed to help with that. I haven't seen many articles like you said that had grammatical errors, wrong placements of periods, commas, etc., while reviewing suggestions and articles set at the next update, but knowing that many people view and read the articles in the DYK section on the Main Page, and having some not make sense to readers is a bit sad. DYKs should generally be well-written, but since these aren't FAs, they don't have to be all that great (but great would be better), they just have to be the start of a well-written article (if you get what I mean). – RyanCross (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
As I read this, here are my last 3 edits: [1] [2] [3] All 3 were to In The News items, which stay on the Main Page much longer than Did You Know articles. All 3 edits were easy, and all 3 had already been linked from the Main Page with those simple errors included. So I would call basic Main Page proofreading a recurring problem. However, there is of course no obvious solution, except to make it clear that volunteers are appreciated. Art LaPella (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Selection criteria: Interpretaion of "appeared on the main page"

One of the DYK-rules says "Articles that have appeared on the main page's In the News section are not eligible."

How is this to be interpreted? For instance, at some moment yesterday five main articles were featured: 2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2008 TC3, Nobel Prize in Physics, and Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine were featured. In addition, the hooks contained links to 20 other articles. Are these other linked articles still eligible for DYK, now or in the future, or are they not? Oceanh (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC).

This would only affect the bolded links, or "main articles" as you put it. I think if even a main article were expanded x5 after a lengthy interval it would be accepted - I don't know if this has happened before. Johnbod (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification! Oceanh (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

heads up

I just flipped the latest hooks a few hours late and cleared the credits - can someone check some hooks and place in the next update as I am a bit busy off-keyboard? If I am around I will try to flip promptly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just did that one :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Credits for the last 9 Oct batch haven't been done. Next update now overdue. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Which one? I just checked the archive and it seemed that credits have been done already. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I didn't get one for Bosom of Abraham Trinity last night, nor did Simon Vega's creator, though I see he did later. Nor can I see that batch in the archive, but both have the talk page tags, & were certainly on the main page. Have the archive timings gone awry? Johnbod (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Taken care of. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thxs! Johnbod (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably perennial, but...

Has the suggestion to include multiple images in DYK been given serious consideration? Now that T:DYK routinely includes 7 or 8 hooks, the single image in the top right is starting to look awfully lonely. Thoughts? the skomorokh 17:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one at the bottom would be good? It doesn't look that lonely. -- how do you turn this on 17:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
the DYK section takes up an entire screen on my third world internet cafe monitor :) the skomorokh 17:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
We've discussed this before. The consensus, if I recall correctly, was against it, and I would personally find it distracting as well. Besides, multiple images will require multiple uploadings for protection, which will make the update process way too complicated. We can barely run the current process on time; we simply cannot afford to make it more complex than it already is. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I suspected as much. Thanks for the confirmation, the skomorokh 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in DYK archive

While a DYK that I wrote was on the main page today, an editor gave some incorrect information on the article's talk page that resulted in the DYK being changed. This is in reference to the King of the Ring 1993 DYK, which now says that the camera "flashed" in Hogan's face. As both online sources show, however, the camera exploded. I would like the archived version to be correct, but I don't know if it would be stepping over a line to change the archive myself. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Problem solved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Main body prose include lead text?

Wikipedia:DYK#Selection_criteria reads Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables). The original wording of this rule was posted 29 December 2007 and modified 8 January 2008 One editor has been applying this to exclude the prose in the Wikipedia:Lead section from the 1,500 count.[4][5] Another editor thinks that the prose in the lead section should count towards the 1,500 character requirement.[6] Which way is correct? Should this be reworded to be clearer? Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, my interpretation was based on my first DYK which was rejected by User:Admrboltz because it didn't meet the 1500 character criteria, but did if the intro was counted. I'll happily change if this isn't correct, but this is the first DYK I've reviewed that has fallen into this grey area. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Precedent has always been to include the lede in the 1,500 count for as long as I've been here. By all means feel free to suggest/write a different wording, Suntag. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to change it to: "Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, tables etc.)". Should becomes must otherwise it contradicts the instructions on T:TDYK; "contain more than 1,500 characters ... This is a mandatory minimum", "main article" is removed as that's where the confusion stemmed from, I've left out "(around 1.5 kilobytes)" as DYK articles are never 1.5kb (given that the smallest a single {{cite web}} can be is over 46 characters) so it's an unnecessary instruction and added "etc." as the "Unwritten Rules" state that picture captions and blockquotes are ignored. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this rewording. I've gone ahead and changed the "should" to "must" since it's only a minor change to clarify an essentially non-bending requirement. Kilobyte estimations in relation to DYK have never really made sense to me, since so many other factors could add to size, as you mentioned (large infobox, long {{cite web}}s, etc); after all, for the most part we're just counting prose characters, not factoring in the article's technical size when it comes to an admin deciding a nomination's inclusion. Jamie☆S93 18:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that rewording cuts out possibilities for several potential misunderstandings. Good work! Olaf Davis | Talk 20:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of Mailing List Proposal

Please see #A Couple of Suggestions....

Thanks,

BG7even 16:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A Couple of Suggestions...

Ok, not been too active recently but here goes:

  1. A mailing list with the DYKs on it at each update. Would be semi automated possibly... Would be happy to set up and maintain.

#A tool similar to that of ACC for DYK requests. Could be best utilised for suggestions. Users review on wiki etc and then update status on tool, ie expired, ready etc.

Apologies if this makes no sense! Please ask. Ill try and get a demo copy of the tool at some stage.

Thanks,

BG7even-

You'd probably meant something like Daily-article-l (for WP:FA)? - Mailer Diablo 05:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's it. I suggested it a while ago and i think there was a bit of support... anyway, I dunno. If it was implemented, what would people want? Just the hooks with links, just the links, the articles? And would it be six hourly-ish, 12 hourly or daily?
Merci all,
BG7even 10:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


Ok, i've got an RfC and for now i've crossed out Number 2. Let's see if we can get one sorted first!
The proposal is:
Create a Mailing List which delivers either the DYK Hooks, new article links, the new articles themselves or any combination. Also, would it be every 6 hours-ish as and when it's updated (another job for the updating admin until I can get a bot running), every 12-hours (I can do this manually) or once a day (again, manually). Also, the list could possibly be used for other things, such as DYK discussions.
The main part is above, we should discuss exactly what we want on it.
Thanks,
BG7even 08:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking more of 12 or 24 hours option, and a slightly modified format to have the feel of a "magazine". - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, 12/24 actually works better for me as well ;) What sort of format where you thinking? A contents with the hooks perhaps and then the articles themselves?
Please let me know and encourage other discussion!
BG7even 19:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll ask the obvious: I already watchlist various phases of DYK, so what's the difference? Art LaPella (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It would be for those who do not watchlist the process mainly, for those that are interested in the actual hooks but not interested in the nitty gritty stuff, and sorting out the hooks etc. Also for people who miss the hooks on the Main Page.
Thanks,
BG7even 12:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with images

Just a heads up that there is currently a problem with newly uploaded images in that a thumbnail can't be generated for them (see the conversation here), so if an image is uploaded from commons to here, the 100x100 thumbnail on DYK won't display. Until this is fixed, the best bet is to try and get a commons admin to protect it over there. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, it has been fixed now (see here). ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

More reviewers needed please

Could more editors review some expiring nominations? There are only a few expiring ones verified currently, and we need more if we can fill older noms to the next update. More reviewers needed please. I'll try to review and verify as many as I can at the moment, but more help would be appreciated. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll lend a hand if I can. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 11:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK backlog

What's the max amount of hooks for every update? 7. .8. . 9? The 'expiring noms' in the suggestions sections is getting backlogged. May need decrease the amount of time between each update and increase the amount of hooks per update --Flewis(talk) 07:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The max primarily depends on the Main Page balance, and as long as the balance allows us we can have even 10 hooks. They already have 8 entries on ITN now, so I guess we have to add one more entry on OTD to maintain balance. And I don't think we are currently backlogged at an alarming level. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've updated 30 minutes earlier, and added one more entry on OTD. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It only takes a few late flips to set things back, 3 consecutive ones 2 hours late eliminates one for a day. I guess keeping a closer eye on this would be prudent. BorgQueen has done an absolutely amazing job with this but even s/he needs to sleep sometime I imagine; I try and flip when I can. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I flipped but have to slipt - can somoene do creds and load up the next lot please? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Translations from other wikis

Do these qualify as new articles for DYK, for example Yosef Lishansky? I see nothing in the rules about this. Thanks. --Bruce1eetalk 09:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

For such articles it would be appropriate to ask:
  1. Was the article translated by an expert, or just machine-translated?
  2. Were the original sources actually checked by who is versed in the language of those sources?
There were extensive discussions on these issues at a recent FAC. Other wikis are not reliable sources (as Art notes in Unwritten Rule D2), and those translating articles should be versed in the language and should have read and confirmed the sources used.
Otherwise we will end up with a glut of articles machine-translated from other wikis without the creator being able to vouch for the accuracy of the translation or those sources. Kablammo (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

heads up

I flipped and credited and began loading, but need to get some sleep and have some stuff to do - can someone keep filling and flip when it is time? Trying to keep on top of backlog. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I was away in the barracks. I've added a few more hooks. I think there is room for 8-9 hooks for the next flip as the FA is short today. We might take this chance to nip the backlog. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

New template

Dear all,

I have noticed that often people will nominate an article, but not watch the page. Since hooks and articles are often questioned, it would make sense for a template to exist for DYK clerks to use, to inform them they have an enquiry regarding their hook/article. Often, good articles will not make it to the main page, simply because the nominator didn't watch the page, and no one informed him or her.

So this is the template: Template:DYKusertalk. It works like so: {{subst:DYKusertalk|October 16}} October 16 being the date the article was nominated. You can see it in action here. What do people think? -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also User:Olaf Davis/DYKproblem, which I and at least one other person have been using for a while, and does this. Having one in template space certainly makes sense. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alice Springs Reptile Centre

I didn't get cred for nominating Alice Springs Reptile Centre.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 17:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Post to the talk page of whoever added it to the template then. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Or you could call the waambulance. Tiptoety talk 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
FIxed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

heads up

I suspect I will be AFK in a bit. Can someone flip promptily in about 20 minutes? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruffed lemur hook -- re-word?

I saw that there was interest in both potential hooks for Ruffed lemur before it was moved to the next update (the current page). Is there still an interest in either combining them or re-wording it? I'm fine with it either way. - Visionholder (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio and excessive quotations

The following message was posted on the talk page of GAN. I thought DYK should be notified to be on the alert (I edited the post.):

These two articles were on the main page as DYK's and then subsequently were found to have copyvio/excessive quotations problems. Louvre Abu Dhabi was at Peer Review after it was featured as a DYK: (see here); it was nearly all quotations. The same for Guggenheim Abu Dhabi which, after it's DYK was subsequently nominated for GA with similar problems (see here) after being cleansed (nearly) of copyvios by Moonriddengrl. Note: both of these articles had copyviolations and quotation attribution problems; and they both were featured on the main page as part of DYK. Then they came to GA. I am also concerned that these articles went through DYK without any source vetting.

Perhaps you can keep an eye out for this problem as we are finding it increasingly on GAN. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the orignal poster; I would add that the author (from what I can tell) meant nothing malicious. He just did not understand the process. I am concerned about this, and wonder if there is a better method to vetting articles that go through the process? Lazulilasher (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On a similar (but not identical) tack, I am a bit concerned about the similarity between Falkes de Breauté and William Tresham and their respective entries in the ODNB [7] [8]. Our articles are rewritten; but, if I may venture an opinion, very thinly rewritten. A reviewer will need online access (available by subscription or in many libraries) to see what I mean, but I'd be grateful for a second opinion. -- Testing times (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this had no impact, as William Tresham was featured on the main page shortly afterwards. I set out below the first paragraph from each article, so you can see what I mean. Is this acceptable? -- Testing times (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Testing, I'm not a copyright expert. I'm going to ask someone who knows more about the regulations; regardless, I feel that the general conversation needs to be had at a wider serious level. That is: what is the accepted standard of paraphrasing and quotations? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
ODNB Wikipedia
Tresham, William (d. 1450), lawyer and speaker of the House of Commons, was the son of Thomas Tresham, and was apparently a native of Northamptonshire, where he was to become an influential landowner. Elected one of the two knights of the shire for the county in 1423, he acted again in that capacity in another eleven parliaments (1427, 1429, 1432, 1433, 1435, 1439, 1442, 1445, 1447, and February and November 1449). From 1424 until his death, moreover, he was a Northamptonshire JP. For a man whose origins do not appear to have been particularly distinguished, advancement in his home county went hand in hand with, indeed probably depended upon, advancement at the centre of national affairs. Having trained as a lawyer Tresham was certainly intermittently in the king's service from at least 1415, when he was an auditor of the accounts of royal officials in south Wales. His Worship William Tresham JP (d. 23 September 1450) was a British lawyer and Speaker of the House of Commons. Born in Northamptonshire, the son of Thomas Tresham of Sywell, he went on to become a major landowner in the region. He was elected as one of the counties Knights of the Shire for the parliament of 1423, and again in 1427, 1429, 1432, 1433, 1435, 1439, 1442, 1445, 1447 and February and November 1449, serving in twelve successive parliaments overall.[1] In 1424 he was also appointed a Justice of the Peace for Northamptonshire; a man born of common stock relied on advancement in his home county for advancement nationally. Having trained as a lawyer Tresham spent intermittent periods in the service of the king, such as in 1415, when he audited the accounts of royal officials in southern Wales.
This discussion by a copyright expert bears on the question. There have been a number of DYKs which have text lifted verbatim from the source, or which closely track the source in phrasing and structure, and others which are little more than machine-generated translations of foreign language sources. As indicated by the discussion linked above, this does give rise to copyright concerns. It might be appropriate to give up the effort to allow all otherwise qualifying nominations to appear on the main page, in favor of a more thorough vetting of the nominations. And we should require reliable sources for the hook fact, not just any source. Kablammo (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. My proposal would be cutting the DYK update time down to say 8 or even 12 hours, to allow adequate time for sources to be thoroughly verified. It is not good to have attribution/copyvio problems popping up on the main page. The examples I showed above went on the main page with completely unattributed quotations (direct cut & paste). The problem is that verifying sources can take hours; thus, I think we need to slow down the DYK process to permit thorough vetting. Otherwise, it does not reflect well on an encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a copyright expert either, and the non-answer linked by Kablammo is a good example of why I ordinarily leave that issue to others. But does 12 hours mean the same number of hooks at a time (about 8), or double the number of hooks at a time (about 16)? If it's 8, then let's note that we're discarding half the hooks by some undescribed process. If it's 16, then the workload would be unchanged and there would be no extra time for extra vetting. Art LaPella (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking less noms might go to the main page. I'm not actively proposing changing the structure; but hoping to identify the problem (is there a problem?) and solution. The two articles I mentioned did include copyvio concerns; and did go to the main page. I notice from perusing this talk page that there already exists a problem of there not being enough time, anyway. Perhaps limiting the number of noms would both alleviate the pressure and permit our DYKs to be of a higher, confirmed quality. What do you think? Lazulilasher (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
As Art notes, even those familiar with copyright law often cannot give definite answers; often infrigement is measured in shades of gray. Wikipedia should not push too far into that gray area.
The problem here is people. Art does a great job in his area; BQ, Cas, and others handle a large volume of nominations, and probably could use more assistance. But more help is also needed in vetting, particulary if those who review nominations are expected to not only verify hooks, but also to confirm that the source is reliable and to note any problematic issues of copyright. Regular nominators of articles should be familiar with the standards and should assist, provided there is no explicit or implicit quid pro quo where vetting approvals of each other's articles are expected. But standards need to be enforced; where copyright violations appear on articles mentioned on the main page, and a hook can be passed even though it is sourced to an unpublished statement from the article's subject, then both nominators and those who vet the noms need to be reminded of those basic standards. Kablammo (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough. It sounds like you folks have it under control here. I wanted to bring the issue to attention; perhaps my scrapes with the affair were just isolated incidents. My involvement with DYK has never extended beyond simple nominations of articles on which I've worked. Very good then, kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have similar concerns about another another article by Ironholds currently on the DYK suggestions page - compare Alan Garrett Anderson to the ODNB entry . -- Testing times (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

For those without access to ODNB, could you please post the text somewhere? Thanks. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(from suggestions page)

At all similar? One is a pastiche of the other:
OBND Wikipedia
During the First World War Anderson's services to the government were manifold. Under Walter Runciman (1847–1937), president of the Board of Trade, he was involved with blockades and claims (while the USA was neutral) that arose from treating as contraband cargoes in American vessels consigned to the enemy. His next task, as vice-chairman of the royal commission for wheat supplies, was to set up a wheat executive to control the distribution of grain among the western allies; and as soon as the USA entered the war, he accompanied Arthur Balfour on a mission to Washington, DC, to help establish the marketing of wheat in the United States and Canada. His appointment as Admiralty controller, dealing with both the Royal Navy and the merchant navy, was the last of these important national and international engagements for which, in 1917, he was made a KBE and a chevalier of the Légion d'honneur, and received an honour from the Italian king. During the First World War Anderson served in a multitude of government positions. Under Walter Runciman he spent time dealing with the USA in matters of blockades and claims that arose from treating enemy cargo carried by American vessels as contraband. He was then appointed vice-chairman of the Royal Commission for wheat supplies, and was tasked with controlling the distribution of weat among the western allies. When the USA entered the war he and Arthur Balfour travelled to Washington, D.C., performing the same task over there, and Anderson was then assigned as an Admiralty controller, dealing with both the Royal and Merchant navies. In 1917 he was appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE), an Officer of the Légion d'honneur, and an Officer of the Order of the Crown of Italy in reward for his wartime services.
See what I mean? -- Testing times (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Thanks for that. I think that while a lot of it looks like it was plagiarized, it would be a shame for it to lose out as a DYK. With some serious work done on it, it should become eligible again.
I don't think Ironholds did this maliciously. He just needs to understand that simply rearranging text in a source is still essentially copying it. A source is that—a source— not a thing to copy from. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You said, "it would be a shame for it to lose out as a DYK." Yes, but would it not be more a shame for Wikipedia's integrity to be questioned? We cannot have works with attribution/sourcing concerns on the main page. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree. Unfortunately, I don't think this was the first case - see above. I am loath to condemn these articles as copyvios, but I fear that is what they essentially are. (I am also slightl uncomfortable at having copied the extracts above, but you need to see the words to understand the issue, and the ODNB is subscription-only. Perhaps they should be hidden or something?) -- Testing times (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The assertion should not be against any particular editors. I doubt malicious intent exists; however, we need to foster a culture of academic honesty. An encyclopedia is not a collection of quotes; and when a quote is used it must be attributed as the authors words. If parahprasing, we do not re-use authors' words. We must be more vigilant in protecting our integrity. And, yes, if an article copies or misrepresents ita source it should be vigorously removed; and the editor should be guided to proper practice.
To reiterate: I doubt this is due to malicious intent by anoyone; rather, I attribute these things to lack of knowledge regarding proper attribution. How can this be fixed? Again, perhaps we should consider that we don't have the resources to adequately vet nominations at the current rate. Then, those that are promoted would be demonstrating the quality of work our encyclopedia produces. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming holidays

With Halloween and All Saints Day coming up quickly, I am calling for help with creating and promoting appropriate hooks. Halloween hooks ideally cover monstrous, ghastly, or macabre subjects and events while saintly, divine, and religious themes are appropriate for All Saints Day. Normal timing and processing delays mean that articles supporting a Halloween based theme should be timed or major expansion began on October 25 or 26, with All Saints Day occurring one day later. Individuals promoting articles are in turn asked hold off selection of themed hooks until the appropriate date. With luck, we would be able to generate a discussion similar to this in response. --Allen3 talk 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'll see if I can conjure up an article... -- How do you turn this on (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Pity I've already written All Saints Church, Hove; but maybe there are some other All Saints churches in Sussex ... better dig out those local studies books ... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I just logged on quickly and flipped - it was nearly 2 hours late. I'll tweak so next one turns yellow a little early. Can someone do creds? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done them all (first time doing so, someone may wish to check!) :-) -- How do you turn this on (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Please remember to clear the page when credits are done. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up (again)

Hi all, I really need to sleep soon and have to finish a couple of chores elsewhere; I loaded up a few hooks and a nice relaxing pic of a lake. Can some folks check a few more expiring hooks and fill out the next update? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

14"/45 caliber hook

After concerns raised on the talk page, I'm wondering if this hook is better:

"... that the popular statement saying USS Arizona (BB-39)'s 14"/45 caliber guns were never fired in anger is a myth?"

Thanks guys, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 15:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a bunch of hooks have disappeared again.

I can't find Anne Margrethe Strømsheim and the hooks that was at the Main Page together with it on the Recent Additions list. Has someone forgotten to update the RAs? Manxruler (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Manxruler (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I've just flipped the template, about 2 hours late, but I'm at work, could someone do the credits. Thanks, ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many periods........

See this hook: ... that ... the Kennedy Administration positioned John R. Reilly on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial ready to cut off Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech if the rhetoric got too inflammatory?

Two sets of ellipsis'? :) Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 03:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Competition

OK, a moral prize to the most notable/vital/core/general article currently a stub (<150 words). List here and we can all attack and expand (NB: Supposed to be fun so have at it :)) I'll try to start the ball rolling in a few hours. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thus, list the stub here if you found it but haven't the time or resources to expand it, or even better just expand it and put on the suggestion page. I have listed some categories. I was musing on Una's thread above to see how much broad material is still stubbed. Feel free to add another category, this should all be in good fun :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea! This could encourage some high-quality collaborative effort. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Don't expand until ready for a 5-day push (or for someone else) - i.e. either go for it, or leave it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Halloweeny-type things

Biggest city/town/suburb/hamlet/village (by population)

It's a long time to since I looked into this but I would expect the winner to have a populationf of over 100K (which india, china and africa being the big targets).Geni 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Mbabane, 70000 people, 132 words. It also happens to be the capital of Swaziland. Moroni, Comoros is another capital city with a stub article. I thought of expanding of those a few months ago, but ran out of enthusiasm and forgot about it (and I couldn't find any sources for the Moroni article anyway). - Bobet 17:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Most prominent geographical feature

Most notable public figure

Most important literary work

Most widely eaten food or culinary-type thing



by:francesca vin

Most important plant

*Ageratina adenophora - big weed here in Oz --> only 123 word stub expanded

Most notable animal

Highest level biology rank

Question What about unranked levels of classification? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, if unranked is allowed, one of my entries would be Hyperoartia. There's also Anaspida, which according to Endeiolepis and Jamoytius kerwoodi is at the same rank and is a class. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hoho, I can see a DYK there "Did you know that Anaspida are...and Anapsida are..." hehehe.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right - that one is not particularly developed either. We should go for it. ^^ Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Over at Tree of Life you ask for stubs of high taxonomic rank. Your 150 word limit may not be suitable - a taxobox takes an article way over that. However if 0 is an acceptable value Corallochytrea must be a contender. (Wikipedia ES has a stub for this - Choanozoa has a redlink to corallochytrid).

Would it be more appropriate to instead create Corallochytrium limacisporum, since that is the only species, and additional, fossil protist species may not be so easy to reconstruct and classify? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox doesn't count as prose (cool, eh?)..Hesperian found Gracilicutes (unranked clade under domain...whoa..), Sphagnopsida (class), and Trimerophytophyta (division(!)). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a particularly high rank, but the stub I put in for order Pythiales to cut down on red links is still remarkably short. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Halloween .. we're breaking the rules!!

There is an article about a pumpkin race that should have gone to the main page today. I (with Lar's support have delayed this in the hope that it gets out on 31st Oct. It could do with expanding and some mates. Its marked with a vampire. Victuallers (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should start creating hooks for Halloween. The problem is that spooky topics tend to get a lot of attention from casual editors, it is hard to find stubs that can be expanded. Good suggestions, anyone? --BorgQueen (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to collect holiday hooks, e.g. try and get some together for Christmas starting now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would hold off until at least after Thanksgiving (USA), preferably December 1st, before doing that, although it's still a good idea.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, one effort at a time seems a better approach. Maybe one day we'll do an obscure theme, such as a April 27th DYK set for articles related only to the country Togo (having an April 27 independence day). (I'm game for any topic). -- Suntag ☼ 03:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


PS:...maybe something in Category:Paranormal stubs or Category:Occult stubs worth checking. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

OK, I tweaked the clock to go yellow 30 min early - can someone volunteer to flip promptly so we can keep 'em turning over? It will be at 5 am here and I will be asleep (I hope). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem

Hi guys,
A no-decision does not equal a tie game, but this is what this hook sounds like...

"... that Milwaukee Brewers starting pitcher Steve Woodard received a no-decision when a 2000 game against the Cincinnati Reds was called due to rain, making it the first Opening Day tie game since 1965?"

Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 05:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is for error reporting, not here. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
=/ OK then... :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 13:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for recognition

Could somebody take a momemnt and award DYK medals to editors I've nominated here? I've also explained there why I'd like somebody else to do so.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Early history of Turkmenistan from DYK template

Greetings all, I just removed Early history of Turkmenistan from the DYK template. The article was a cut & paste from the LOC Country info site. While LOC is in the public domain, I do not find it appropriate to place cut & paste articles on the main page. I do not find these articles to be consistent with encyclopedic work. While they may be fine as articles, I do not believe they should be featured on our main page. Kindest regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles, as a way of thanking the editors who create new content . . ." (emphasis added). The copying of work that appears elsewhere may result in a new article on Wikipedia, but is is not the creation of content. It seems that the competition for DYKs may be contributing to a culture where off-wiki content is paraphrased, machine-translated, or outright copied into new articles. Kablammo (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Additionally: "Try to pick articles that are original to Wikipedia (not 1911 or other data sources)." Lazulilasher (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I have notified the person who started the article in question.[12] We need to draw a bright line here, and if the rules need to be made more explicit we should do so. Kablammo (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was already obvious, but just for hte record, PD cut and pasting should not be allowed on the front page. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 02:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PD cut and paste has always been allowed on DYK, and I would be strongly opposed to any attempt to disallow it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you Gato, DYK is for the best new articles. I don't consider a PD cut and paste job to be new work. It may be the best old articles. Why give someone DYK credit for doing nothing? Royalbroil 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Disallowing cut and paste would mean that about two thirds of my own DYKs up to now were ineligible, since a large number came from Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships articles. I could of course have put the material into my own words, but it's simply a waste of time when you already have a perfectly good article to hand. And I rather resent your comment that creating an article from PD sources is tantamount to "doing nothing" - I have spent considerable time on some of my PD articles - as much or more time as I have on my original articles at times.
DYK is about rewarding new content, not original content, and if someone goes to the trouble of copying and formatting from one or more PD sources, or translates from another Wiki, or whatever, it is still new content creation that deserves recognition and encouragement. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I see no benefit in going over the past, nor do I criticize those who in good faith used content from elsewhere in new articles on Wikipedia. But if 1911 EB is not new content (as mentioned above), than neither is content copied from other PD sources. The fact that copying of public domain has occurred in the past is not the point; the question rather is whether articles which are substantially copied from other sources are eligible for DYK. The policies mentioned above indicate they should not. Kablammo (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The policy simply says original content is preferred, not that it is mandatory.
I wrote something like 160 articles based on DANFS. It was literally months of hard work. I see no reason whatever why my months of hard work on new content creation, which happened to be largely based on PD sources, is not just as valuable and just as deserving of recognition as somebody else's. Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nanobiotechnology

Nanobiotechnology is an emerging and nascent product of marriage between nanotechnology and biotechnology. Its uses are tremendous and very precise. With the more advancements in nanomaterial science and nanodevices genetic engineering, particularly of plants, will be transformed to deterministic from its present stoichiostic natutre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhkumaraswamy (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it you want to nominate this for the Did you know section on the Main Page. The place to do it is at Template talk:Did you know, but please read the instructions at the top of the page. --Bruce1eetalk 15:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Among those instructions is that Did You Know is intended only for new (or mostly new) articles, so Nanobiotechnology doesn't qualify. Art LaPella (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Adminbot proposal

Often when it comes time to update the template there's no DYK-capable admin around so it gets neglected, even though the Next Update was filled hours ago. I therefore propose an adminbot to update the template, the way it would work is thus: Once the next update has been completed, an admin copies and pastes the hooks to a new fully protected page (possibly Template:Did you know/Queue). Every 6 hours (0:00, 6:00, 12:00, 18:00) the bot will run and copy the content from the queue page to the main template. This way the template can be prepared at any admin's leisure and doesn't rely on an admin being around at specific periods of the day. The coding is (almost) done, I have the bot working on a test wiki, but it still needs some minor tweaks. I want to know if anyone has any thoughts, concerns or opinions about this before I try for approval. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A great, almost da Vinci-like idea. But I must wonder: if the queue page is not ready on time, the bot will recognize it and will not proceed to copy the empty thing onto the main page template? That will be a total disaster. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
We would want it to have to check against an update criteria, which might involve admins somehow tagging hooks as "finished", and once enough "finished" hooks were on the subpage, an admin would tag the whole page as "finished", and the bot would proceed. Hazy on the technicalities, but doable I imagine. the skomorokh 14:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a great idea. Sure there are some things that will need working out, but it's completely doable. No more late updates! – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
My test version only updates if {{DYKbotdo}} is included on the page, which is a blank template on my test wiki. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks, my next question is: You said "Every 6 hours (0:00, 6:00, 12:00, 18:00) the bot will run and copy the content from the queue page to the main template." So the bot calculates 6 hours from the most recent update time, I suppose? But let's assume the queue page is not ready after 6 hours, so the bot didn't update. Then do we have to wait for another 6 hours until the bot checks again? --BorgQueen (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
At the moment it updates at the times I mentioned, that way if it is late it's up to humans to figure out what to do (like bringing the update time back an hour etc.) but I could change it to work off the DYK clock. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem with an adminbot, or any other automated solution, is that it can potentially be used to enable vandalism. The most important function performed when an admin updates the DYK list is a basic sanity/appropriateness test. Currently there is little to no vandalism performed at Template:Did you know/Next update because anyone sophisticated enough to know about the page also knows that a human being with Wikipedia's best interests at heart will look at the page before moving the text to a location that will be seen by a large audience. An automated update scheme changes this schema to allow for a vandal to time his update to just before the bot runs, ensuring maximum disruption with minimal chance for manual prevention efforts to work.
The only way for an automated update scheme to be acceptable is to restrict updates to the Next Update page to administrators. If the community is willing to accept this limitation then there are simpler ways to automate updates than creating an adminbot. --Allen3 talk 15:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The queue page would be protected though. There would be at least one other page other than the one that appears on the front page that would be protected, so vandalism can be avoided. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
But if updating the queue page can only be done by admins, we're back to where we are now, dependant on the availability of admins. --Bruce1eetalk 15:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes it will still rely on an admin, but the admin won't need to be online at exactly the right time, just any time in the six hour gap to update the queue. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No, the difference is admins can update the queue page whenever they're available. The bot will do the update of the actual template. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The bot will definitely help, but I'm saying we're still dependant on admins in each 6-hour window, and if none are available, the main page won't be updated. --Bruce1eetalk 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
We're always going to be dependant on admins, as long as the main template is protected. This is merely a help, not a solution. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you could also get the bot to auto-archive the previous set of hooks when it posts the new set? That would be very useful too. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it would also be helpful if you could set the bot to update over time periods other than six hours, because sometimes when there is a backlog, we have to update more frequently. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been thinking about other tasks for a DYK bot, archiving the old hooks was one of them. Apart from that, I don't like going into details about what I might do, in case it doesn't eventuate or work out the way I intend. I think I might change it so it checks the DYK clock every 5 minutes (possibly?) and updates based on that but what would be even better is a page specifically designed for the bot where an admin (it would have to be fullly protected I'm afraid) could define a time for the next update. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
We can go semi-auto first. At least we get the image to auto-upload, auto-archive, auto time-reset. A bit like how Sandy is working at FAC. The admin just only needs to transfer the next update to the template. Does the editors want to keep manual crediting so as to retain the "personal touch" (as {{welcome}} does)? - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The credits should still be done by a human. A bot could tag the article talkpage though. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The bot now works by checking the next update timer every 5 minutes and if it is past the update time, the bot updates the template. What I need now is a consensus before I try for approval. Are there any other questions or concerns about this particular bot? (There is another bot coming that will archive hooks and do other requested tasks but it won't have admin rights). ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Test run: it copied the hooks from the queue, updated the template, cleared the queue and reset the clock. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(Comment to the proposal an to the test run)
I think the advantage of using a bot for this task would be that a queue of several batches can be prepared. If the "queue" only contains one batch, and the credits are even kept separate from the "queue", little is gained, and at the cost of an additional step (and extra complexity). So, here is a suggested workflow:
  • 1. Editors validate hooks and articles on the "Suggestions" page. (Just as now).
  • 2. Editors prepare several DYK sets on the "Next Update" page (moving entries from the "Suggestions"). (Almost as now, except allowing several sets).
  • 3. Admins validate and move ready sets, one set at a time, from the "Next Update" page to the "Queue" page, along with the credits for that set. (May be done any time, as long as there is a ready set. Validation and tweaking is done before moving.)
  • 4. Adminbot moves one set from the "Queue" to the "Main Template" (at specific time intervals). The credit list for that set is tagged for "ready to give out". The set itself is removed from the "Queue" page.
  • 5. Humans give credits, and remove credit entries from the "Queue" page accordingly.
Oceanh (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC).
That's not a bad suggestion and would be quite achievable. I'll code that change later on, the only difference is I will make it run off more than one queue page rather than having all the hooks on one page (easier to code and less potential for errors). Would mean that hooks need to validated more regularly though, pity a bot can't effectively do that, or can it...? ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. It now works off Template:Did you know/Queue/1, Template:Did you know/Queue/2, Template:Did you know/Queue/3, Template:Did you know/Queue/4 and Template:Did you know/Queue/5. I'll implement it so that the next queue page that will be used is displayed on the Next Update page. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Last test didn't quite work. It reset the clock, cleared the queue and updated the queue counter but never updated the template because the html comments <!--Hooks--> and <!--HooksEnd--> had been removed from the main template, probably when a batch of hooks was copied over manually, which is my fault for not checking, but I rolled all the edits back and ran it manually and it updated fine. If the next batch is added to the queue and done via the bot and it works I'll request a WP:BRFA for it. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This work flow and the concept makes sense to me. We've been waiting a long time for a workable bot solution for this problem. Royalbroil 06:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the last test worked the BRFA is here. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any of today's hooks in the archive. Does this test have something to do with it?SPNic (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Added them, let me know if I missed any. Can hardly wait to code a bot to do that automatically. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the bot do notifications as well? Would it be possible to have the signature of the administrator who moves it somewhere on the page, so that if the bot does do notifications, it uses that signature rather than "DYKBot" (like User:MediationBot1/Accepted case)? Daniel (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If you mean notifications as in the DYK credits on user's talkpage, then no it doesn't. There is another bot coming after everything with this bot is sorted out, it won't have admin privileges but I will be seeking opinions on what that bot will do when I'm ready to code it. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I've updated but can anyone do the credits please? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems RyanCross is doing it. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm done. Thanks for the note, BorgQueen. Now I've gotta run. – RyanCross (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

The FA group already has their Halloween article up on the Main Page. DYK's ready and the suggestions are ripe for the picking at Halloween DYKs. It looks like we'll have 22 articles to spread over the 24 hour period. Maybe we can skip from 00:00 to 06:00 since it seems unlikely that people in a 31 October date during 00:00 to 06:00 will be celebrating Halloween (unless I'm getting my time zones messed up). -- Suntag ☼ 00:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cerberus

The article Cerberus is not new and has not expanded fivefold recently . – Ilse@ 08:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has. This version on October 16 contained 962 characters, this version on October 21 (when it was nominated) contains 5192 characters. 962 x 5 = 4810 characters. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yup. I passed that hook, and it was fine. Please note that we ignored the date rule for the Halloween DYKs. Chamal talk 10:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
When I count the words in the article body, the article has been expanded from 352 words to 845 words. That is not even threefold... – Ilse@ 10:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The expansions are normally calculated by the number of characters in the prose. The character counts that Ameliorate! pointed out are correct, according to the prosesize tool. I have checked with an external application's word count tool as well, and they are the same. Chamal talk 10:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the original had 167 words of main article prose. The nominated version has 853 words. So it's more than a 5x expansion no matter how you look at it. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I flipped a bit early to play catch-up so everyone gets a go (there is quite a bunch of stuff on the suggestions page). I did the creds but can some folks go checking and stacking the next template as I have to do some other stuff. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I've updated but can anyone do the credits please? Thank you. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:MPUploadBot

I suppose we don't have to upload the {{C-uploaded}} copies anymore because the bot auto-uploads them as soon as any MP template gets updated? --BorgQueen (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Only problem with that is the delay before it uploads, sometimes it doesn't do it and other times it doesn't stop doing it. It's alright as a fallback but I personally wouldn't rely on it unless it's necessary. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I just updated, but can anyone do the credits please? Thank you. (I'm still half-asleep...) --BorgQueen (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done by Ameliorate! and Mifter. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Individual day pages

What we could do is break each day up into a subpage, so instead of having one talkpage with all the hooks we have Template talk:Did you know/October 17, Template talk:Did you know/October 18 etc. and then transclude each page onto the main Template talk:Did you know page. That way, when someone nominates a hook, they will be more inclined to watchlist the page as it will add a seventh of the edits to their watchlist that adding the whole page did. Opinions? ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. Like AFD, yes? The page is quite long and often difficult to navigate. Splitting it up seems sensible. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yip, like AFD. It may also help if each hook has a section header to keep everything more organised and make it easier to navigate to each article, example: User:Ameliorate!/test2 (doesn't have the subpages). The ToC can be removed and one can be hardcoded to prevent it becoming too cumbersome. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I was thinking just the same thing. So that each hook can be "officially" verified/questioned, without cluttering things up. Yes, I like this idea a lot. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. The other bonus is being able to section-edit, both for commenting on a hook and moving it to the next-update. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Separate pages for each day would complicate my job. My existing system is to proofread only changes to the page since my last edit, to avoid proofreading the same material over and over again. This is done on the edit history page, asking for everything since my last edit. Or if I make no changes, I record a timestamp, so next time I can ask for everything since that last timestamp. If each day had a separate edit history page, I would need a separate edit and a table of timestamps for each page, and I would need the timestamps much more often since many subpages would need no changes. Art LaPella (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There should be a way around that using Special:RecentChangesLinked. I'll set up an example implementation in my userspace later and see if it works. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See User:How do you turn this on/DYKtest for an example of individual pages in action. I've messed with the TOC to make it so it only shows level 3 headers or above. It would obviously be higher up, so wouldn't obscure the top day of the page. What do people think? -- How do you turn this on (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps just have sections for each article. That would work just as well. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created my own implementation; User:Ameliorate!/DYK/Template talk:Did you know. Art, take a look at this link and see if that works for what you need. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be slower. I believe what you mean is that I should click each of the 2 edits on the top of the list above my last edit, and review each of those 2 edits separately. In a more realistic example, there would be hundreds of edits per day. So I would have to click each edit separately to read it. My current practice is to use the history page, and click the circle that corresponds to my last edit (or the last timestamp on my list, if that is more recent). This gives me over a hundred edits all on one page. So I can proofread through over a hundred edits, reading only the highlighted parts of the page. Most hooks are fine, so I can read through them fairly quickly, until I come to a typo or something. But if I had to click each edit, and then click again to go back, that would take a lot more time, and that would have to be weighed against the benefits of such a change. Art LaPella (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean now. However, I still think the overall benefits of the change would be beneficial to everyone in terms of organisation and maintenance, but of course the work you do around DYK would have to be considered. Would it be that much more difficult to keep track of additional timestamps that you're completely opposed to it? If so it could be left how it is and instead just implement the section headers only, with no subpages. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy with sections. I really can't think of what could be bad about sections. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The main problem with the example page linked above isn't the time stamp table (I believe that option only requires one timestamp list like the one I use now). The main problem is clicking each edit one at a time. Wikipedia's servers don't always respond immediately, so on a slow day when you wait up to 15 seconds to get a page, that's 200 hooks or comments per day times 15 seconds equals almost an hour per day. For a more normal day, maybe 4 seconds to get a page and 1 second to click the back arrow when I'm done. No I'm not completely opposed, I just want to know that is considered. I would also have to make a separate edit for each minor change, although that might be a good thing because it would show up on a watchlist that way, assuming anyone really wants to know that I have added a space after an ellipsis for the millionth time. Also, a separate page for each hook would be part of – but not all of – what it would take for a program to distinguish hooks (including all ALT's) from comments, so it could automate edits such as the 200 character limit. The table of timestamps is what I would need if each day (not hook) were a separate page, but that wouldn't add more than a couple minutes per day. Art LaPella (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sections

So is anyone actually opposed to implementing section headers for each suggestion? – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm about ready to be WP:BOLD and do this. Any objections? ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Did the next one a bit early, lots to catch up on, can some folks check and stick some hooks in, I need to sleep...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK hoax article?

Resolved
 – Article speedied as a hoax --Flewis(talk) 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I reviewed the article John R. Smith, and I believe that it may be a hoax. This article is well crafted and looks authentic prima facie. None of the online external references make any mention of the subject whatsoever - (United States Colored Troops Resident in Baltimore at the time of the 1890 Census - nothing to do with the Civil war?? [13]), (Article alleges he was on station at Fort Sumter - also in the hook - once again no mention in the source [14]) (Book preview contains no mention etc. . [15]). Most disturbing however, is the allegation that John R. Smith was the "first soldier to receive the Silver Star" (apparently during the Civil War). However, the Silver Star was first awarded in 1932 (more than 31 years after the subject's death) as per these sources [16][17]. It turns out that the user deliberately inserted factual errors so that it corroborates with his own article. I've left a note on the article + user's talk page. Could someone more experienced with the US Civil war confirm/dispute these claims. If I'm wrong, then I apologize in advance, however I'd rather be whacked with a trout for false accusations than see a hoax appear on the main page. Peace --Flewis(talk) 09:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've copy/pasted this to AN/I. Hopefully a larger audience will be more capable of establishing the veracity of the article --Flewis(talk) 09:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Is anyone interested in writing a Signpost Dispatch, per this suggestion? Samples at {{FCDW}}. If so, time is of the essence: please weigh in at WT:FCDW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can do that if someone will hold my hand as I have little experience of the dispatch and its articles Victuallers (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Victuallers, I helped write an article on DYK for the Signpost, so let me know what help you need. Royalbroil 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Please weigh in at WT:FCDW: I don't follow this page. There are samples at {{FCDW}}, some are very short, some are very long, you can just put something in a temp file (for example, WP:FCDW/HalloweenDYK) and put it up at WT:FCDW and others will help. Many of them start out very rough, but others will help tweak it up to Signpost level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I have expressed interest in writing this already, on the Signpost newsroom page. I should be able to put something together tonight. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Just noting this has been written (User:How do you turn this on/Dispatch). – How do you turn this on (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:FCDW/October 27, 2008 is a start but still needs a lot more beef. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I've updated but can anyone do the credits, please? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC) ... All done. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)

Christmas??

I really enjoyed writing for the Halloween Did You Know. Will we have Christmas related articles over the Christmas period? There's tons of articles out there for that.

Also, some points of how to improve next time: the main one, is start it earlier. I don't think we were well-prepared enough. Also, the actual posting of the hooks to the main page was late to start and end. If we're working in UTC, it would make sense to keep the articles around that time. Obviously, if we have a "Christmas themed" DYK section, it may last a little longer since it tends to last like 2 weeks. Maybe 3 days, Xmas eve, day, and boxing day, but people might be sick of it by then. Ideas anyone? – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be a bit too early? I think it'd be best if we start somewhere around end of November or beginning of December. It'd look weird if we put up a load of one month old articles and expansions on the main page, won't it? We can do the planning from now though, because as you said we need to get it organized properly. Chamal talk 15:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was just suggesting it, so we aren't all rushing around a week before. Now is far too early. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, let's start this on December 1. We have both the 24th and 25th to run the articles; the problem is getting admins for the updates, as surely most will be busy. Let's hope the adminbot is good then.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that I missed the halloween, my ISP providor went difficult and Ive only just reconnected. The records look brilliant with so many articles! I tend to agree that the panic helped to create such a success. The General created quite a few (uk humour) and such good contributions from all. I think a last panic is probably right for all those with a Y chromosome :-) Victuallers (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Last year I think I promoted all 4 updates on Christmas and Gatoclass did an awesome job with loading the next update and I gave him a one of a kind barnstar as most of you probably saw. The updates luckily happened to work with my schedule that day. I won't promise so much for this year - hopeful the adminbot will be fully operational. Most admins will be busy like last year so planning early is the key. December 1 is a nice time to be working on it, with thinking happening right now. Royalbroil 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Halloween 2008 congrats

Belated congradulations to all those who contributed to DYK's Halloween 2008. We successfully generated 28 new/expanded Halloween themed articles, which lead to five sets of Halloween 2008 posts on the Main Page. The entire Main Page output is at Halloween 2008 Output on the Main Page. -- Suntag ☼ 07:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you created a page for the Halloween 2008 DYK. There's an area for the April Fool's Day Main pages at WP:AFMP. I think that all of these events/celebrations should be grouped together in name space and that there should be an infobox link. Please comment (or implement if you agree). Over the past year, there were some DYKs last Christmas, St. Patrick's Day, and Easter that should probably be added to. Royalbroil 16:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, something like Wikipedia:Themed Main Pages? – How do you turn this on (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I created a page for the Halloween 2008 DYK based on the requests in the discussion that originated that effort. WP:AFMP appears to have been a Main Page project whereas Halloween 2008 DYK was a DYK project. The General is planning on firing up a Christmas DYK effort on December 1, 2008, so what ever he decides is fine with me. -- Suntag ☼ 08:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mistake with credits

Hi, I just got this message. I did not create or expand the article Hanwei Group. I just passed the hook, and did a slight improvement to few sentences in the article, that's all. It seems the real creator of the article, User:Malick78 has not been credited. Can someone fix this mistake? Thanks. Chamal talk 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done, I credited the user now with a note about the notification delay. Cheers, Jamie☆S93 11:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Chamal talk 11:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it was my mistake. First time doing the credits the new way. Thanks for sorting! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I've updated but can anyone do the credits please? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Another problem: Transit of Venus

Further to the hoax above, the hook for this article - the first on in the template until recently - was a problem too.

See the discussion at Talk:Transit of Venus March for pretty convincing evidence that this was not the case. More worryingly, it managed to last for two hours after my post at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors . -- Testing times (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The Washington Post article[18] (reprint) on which the hook was based read, "Loras Schissel, who works in the music division of the Library of Congress, found the old sheet music for "Venus" languishing in the library's files." Found languishing means that the sheet music had languished in the library with few people looking for it. It wasn't lost; The Washington Post made it clear that there was little to no interest by library patrons in seeking out the sheet music. The word "rediscovered" and the words "believed lost" do not appear in the Washington Post article. Chamal N gave the {{DYKtick}} green light for the article, confirming that the hook reference was read and verified. -- Suntag ☼ 07:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the original error was clearly an honest mistake - see Talk:Transit of Venus March - the reprinted Washington Post article by Reilly Capps here clearly claims that "...the "Transit of Venus March" never caught on, and went unplayed for more than 100 years. Sousa's copies of the music were destroyed in a flood. ... fans of Sousa are resurrecting the forgotten march" Unfortunately, that is plainly incorrect. It could be made a bit clearer in the article (I know - {{sofixit}}).

My main concern was that the WP:ERRORS report was left untouched for so long. -- Testing times (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know Suggestion

Here's my suggestion: I'm kind of annoyed with the Criteria for DYK, so i propse the following: 1 of the DYK (only 1 is needed) should be criteria free, like an interesting fact from any article. Because i find alot of interesting stuff out there, but the right criteria never applies? Any ideas? - -The Spooky One (talk to me) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. It's for our new articles. If you want to propose a separate process, feel free. There's so many articles out there for potential creation/expansion. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
So Why not a separate DYK for non new articles? - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
long time ago, I proposed the idea of maybe allowing a hook from a Good Article into each update on the grounds that a) it'd be nice to give GA content some Main Page recognition and b) it'd be nice to get some, uh... shall we say, less obscure articles into DYK. Unfortunately, it's generally difficult enough to keep up with the flood of new articles and adding more eligible articles would be like breaking a dam during a flood. If the amount of new articles ever slowed down I think it'd be worth maybe revisiting the GA idea. --JayHenry (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Per How do you turn this on (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I like JayHenry's idea.. If branched off into a seperate project; i think it could be managable. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but not sure how practical it is. Rlendog (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Much as I like my idea, it's not practical. T:TDYK is near permanently swamped. Only through pretty Herculean efforts of a few editors is it able to keep going. So it's hard for me to imagine where the manpower would come from for a separate project. If there are more people with spare time we need them here :) Maybe as the Wiki grows the production here will eventually slow down, and we could pursue other ideas. But for now, it seems it's hard enough to keep up with the load we've already taken on. --JayHenry (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK is a reward for creating new content, not a general trivia section. I would support JayHenry's idea if it didn't result in 5,355 articles becoming automatically eligible. I completely oppose this proposal as it makes 2,611,519 articles eligible. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We could of course abandon new articles altogether and just feature GA's. It would probably cut the workload down quite a bit :p Gatoclass (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Would cut down the amount of new content being added as well. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you realize how many new articles are being created because of the DYK section? GAs etc. already have recognition in Wikipedia. Do we really need to stop the new articles getting noticed (and a chance for being improved) just so that we can get a bit of extra recognition for an already recognized article? There are a lot of people dedicated to creating or expanding articles for DYK. We shouldn't discourage that. I agree with Ameliorate. Chamal talk 12:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
GAs don't get any recognition at all, apart from a notice hidden away on the talk page. Did You Know articles not only have a notice, but the user gets "credit" and their work is linked from the main page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess so, but the DYK article gets noticed only for one day (a few hours actually). If you check with this tool, you'll see that after that the visits to the article drop down as it was before. GAs are listed here and recognised as some of Wikipedia's well made articles, and the recognition they received remain unless they are delisted. About the user, a user with a GA to his name is obviously regarded as a better editor next to one with a DYK (not saying DYK editors are rubbish - I fall into this category too, but this is the general understanding). Chamal talk 12:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that GA articles go unrecognized, I frankly don't think we have the room to include them at DYK which consistantly has a backload. If you look at Wikipedia:Good article statistics the project has had anywhere between 38-73 new GA articles added every month, a load that would frankly swamp DYK. A possible option would be to raise the bar on new articles, thereby opening up room for GA articles. However, given the past objection to raise DYK standards in the past I doubt that will garner much support. Nrswanson (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

One or two articles a day wouldn't swamp anything. Unfortunately you're looking at the number of new FAs, the average number of new GAs per month is well over 200. Still, there would have to be a nomination process, and I strongly doubt that all new GAs would be nominated. We're probably talking about a handful a day, or one or two per update. This is feasible if we tighten the DYK criteria a bit, as I've suggested below. Lampman (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The other problem is that I highly doubt authors of previously featured GAs are going to lie down while new GAs are featured on the main page. GAs need exposure, but I'm not not so sure DYK is the way to do it. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can add a part like from Wikipedia's newly promoted articles alongside from Wikipedia's newest articles? I guess this will require a lot of discussion though, since it's about changing the look of the main page. Chamal talk 13:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
That might be a better solution. If GA articles were to have there own section it would also make sense for that work to be done by the GA project itself. Another possibility would be a section From the best of Wikipedia which could also give face to old FA articles.Nrswanson (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I really like the above suggestion about adding the from wikipedia's newly promoted articles because i agree with an above poster that good articles don't get enough attention. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The main page is currently undergoing a redesign. The last I heard, it was down to 5 finalists. I don't think that any of them have a section for Good Articles. I don't remember where the discussion is located. As someone who has put significant work into 3 GAs, I would be upset if they couldn't be featured on the main page yet new ones would. I oppose allowing GAs in with DYK articles because DYK is already swamped. Royalbroil 05:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no problems with this scheme. We currently feature recently expanded articles as new articles, even though they're clearly not. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to also include one or two newly GA-promoted articles. After all, "quality, not quantity" has long been a Wikipedia principle.

As for the DYK backlog, I think we could reduce this a bit by introducing criterion 2b from the Good Article criteria to DYK. At the moment, a long, complex article can get on the main page with only one in-line citation. I've seen some of these (see e.g. the recent Li Zhengji), and I frankly don't think it would be a great loss to get rid of them. Lampman (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Royalbroil, we just don't have room for GA's and new articles, and in any case I'm not really convinced the GA process is stringent enough to ensure quality articles. Gatoclass (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
And the DYK process is? Also not sure what you mean by room for GAs and new articles; we obviously don't have room for the 1,500+ new articles created each day, but it's a communal process to decide how many of them we feature. Lampman (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Backlog note

For those who are unaware of it, we are trying to flip the hooks every four hours or so to get rid of the backlog. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rule change

I suggest we add to Rule 3 the requirement that the hook citation be to a reliable, verifiable, independent third party source, per WP:RS and WP:V.

The previous two sections, and prior discussion at this discussion page (including discussion about a hook for a biographical article was sourced to an unpublished statement by the subject herself), demonstrate the necessity of this change. Kablammo (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmm. I think the "third-party" bit may on occasion be overly restrictive exactly for academic subjects. E.g. a hook for an academic X might say something like "X published an article asserting that ...". In non-controversial cases I don't see a problem with a hook like that even if the source is primary (namely the paper itself). I think that being overly proscriptive here may not be a good thing. Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the key here is that a bit more research and review is needed before any DYK item is posted to the main page. Both the text of the snippit, and the sources used to support it, should reviewed before the DYK item is accepted. I realize that this may require a lot of time and effort, but we are talking about the front page of the entire project after all... it should reflect Wikipedia at its best. We require an extensive review before featuring an article... we should at least double check the facts review prior to accepting DYIs. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with limiting it to third-party sources. A history book published by the Federal Highway Administration may be the best source for a fact about the FHWA. --NE2 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the user who is verifying the hook be able to judge whether the reference used is appropriate for that article or not? Depending on the type of article, the reference type used can also differ. I mean, all articles can't get references from BBC or something like that, can they? Chamal talk 17:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea, and since we already require reliable sources, the nominations are at T:TDYK, the templates you need are {{DYKtick}}, {{DYKtickAGF}}, {{DYK?no}} and {{DYKno}}. Start from the bottom. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, I fail to see how the previous two sections demonstrate any necessity to change anything. The previous was the result of an error published in the Washington Post, we can't account for mistakes published in highly reputable sources, in fact an error in a publication such as that works contrary to this 'proposal'. The section above that is about a hoax that is now deleted because while Flewis was checking the third-party, reliable sources they found that they didn't support anything in the article, which if anything demonstrates that the current system works. This is not a change, reliable sources are already required, which renders this entire discussion arbitrary. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
With respect, the need for reliable sources needs repeating, particularly where there is often a rush to create and feature these articles on the main page in a very short time frame. It will not hurt to remind both nominators and reviewers of the need to cite to reliable sources, not sources with a conflict of interest, partisan sources, fansites, or whatever else can be found on the internet. Kablammo (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
That is certainly true, but I think that an explicit prohibition against using primary sources for DYK hooks may be counter-productive. Obviously, primary sources need to be treated with particular care (and WP:V already says that), but there are situations when their use is appropriate and sometimes necessary. I think rather than instituting a blanket proscription against using primary sources in DYK hooks, it is better to leave these things to be sorted on a case-by-case basis (although, of course, all references used in DYK hooks still need to pass WP:V). In cases of doubt there should be a discussion at the DYK nominations page (which I think already happens in practice) to see if there is consensus for using a particular source in a particular case. Nsk92 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Give an example of an article that featured in DYK that had its hook verified by a fansite or by a source with a COI. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This one was vetted and approved despite an objection to the sourcing on the suggestions page, and then chosen and placed on the next update template. Neither the author nor the person vetting it applied sourcing standards. (As the result of the linked notice, a new hook was chosen before the main page appearance; the inadequate sourcing still appears in the article for what was to have been the original hook.) Kablammo (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I asked for an example that was featured on the main page, not one that was intercepted before it got there. If you have a problem with the checking of hooks, then read my original comment. In regards to the inadequate sourcing on the article you reference; {{sofixit}} ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Kablammo was the one who spotted the error for the Edith Killgore Kirkpatrick, so I wouldn't be too hard on him. Kablammo, the rules are fine. Mistakes do happen and the way DYK addresses them is to review the error. User:Billy Hathorn self nominated the the Edith Killgore Kirkpatrick DYK with two suggested hooks. Daniel Case approved the second hook. However, Royalbroil mistakenly picked up the first hook. Kablammo then caught the mistake and a new hook then was chosen. A thread has been started on Billy Hathorn's user talk page about reliable sources. -- Suntag ☼ 09:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about picking up the wrong hook and causing problems. Looking back, Daniel Case was pretty clear that only the second hook was verified. Note that I started a thread saying that tv.com and imdb.com are not reliable sources and urging him to get some offline book sources. I'd support a much stronger sourcing requirement for the entire DYK article. More reliable sources and a much greater minimum number of sources should be required. Reliable sources wouldn't have to be at the Good Article level, but much not too much less. There at least needs to be a requirement in the written rules that says that a reliable source must be provided which is not user created. I frequently source the hook with a reliable source that would pass FA review! Royalbroil 20:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It was an honest mistake. We're all in this together. Adding 6+ new DYK hooks to the Main Page every six hours, every day, is alot of work and creates a situation where it is very easy to make a mistake. Feedback and not over reacting is how we can keep the DYK macherinery going. -- Suntag ☼ 01:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons I do not want to discuss individual examples is it could result in criticism of hard-working volunteers who handle a large part of the DYK volume. The point is that we have sourcing standards, and DYK is not an exception to them. These articles appear on the main page, after all-- we should want them to be well-sourced.

NE2's point about the reliability of certain first-party sources is a good one, and those same concerns are under discussion on the sourcing talk pages. (But even while this discussion was going on, a DYK hook for a biographical article appeared on the main page sourced to the subject person's website. There is a difference between sourcing to a governmental agency and a private website, and the personal website is not a reliable source.[19])

As there are however some circumstances where first-party sources can be used, the sourcing requirements are not in fact as rigid as my summary suggested. I propose therefore that we not attempt to summarize sourcing requirements, but instead add to rule 3 that the hook be sourced "to a reliable and verifiable source." That should be sufficient. Kablammo (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If the current DYK rules don't emphasize WP:V policy enough, they should. All Wiki articles should conform with WP:V, and since DYKs appear on the main page, it's even more important that they conform with policy. Understanding about reliability of sources and appropriate use of sources is surprisingly weak throughout Wiki (we have to weed through legions of non-reliable sources that make it all the way through many other content review processes before appearing at FAC), and the earlier we can reinforce the importance of this policy, the better. Specifically, there are some editors who engage in award-seeking behaviors on Wiki via DYKs, GANs etc., and don't understand the importance of good sourcing. I strongly encourage DYK to look at this issue and consider reinforcing WP:V at the level of new content displayed on the main page. For example, many DYKs may be translations from other Wikis (non-reliable sources), as was recently revealed by the time the articles began to hit FAC. You all are in an excellent position to help editors understand sourcing policy early on: please don't pass up the opportunity. BTW, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches is not only for FAC: it's for y'all too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_32&oldid=1140163314"