Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

Alternative hooks

Would anyone object if i created a template on alternative hooks? I have a quite quick idea. Simply south (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been tried before, and didn't catch on. Give me a moment and I'll dig it up. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
{{DYKalt}}. It was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_37#.7B.7BDYKalt.7D.7D. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of only slightly different coding.


ALT {{{1}}}
  • ... that {{{2}}}?

~~~~

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 44/alt

Simply south (talk)

Four Quartets

I am currently finishing up five pages on the Four Quartets in my user space. The current page is filled with original research and excessive citations from the text (it is still copyrighted). I was wondering if someone could please take an objective look at the page and put up a character count minus what is seen as excessive quotation and original research so I can find out about the five time expansion (please post below, multiple accounts would be good, and I will go from the highest). Since each of the individual poems are independently notable, I will be giving them their own page with a central page. If it is appropriate, I hope to count the 5x expansion between these five pages.

Here are the user pages (they are not complete, I just "finished" Burnt Norton so you can get a sense - they will all be expanded later but it would take more references than what I currently have access to):

I will be stopping on each of the individual poem pages from 10k-12k and the main Four Quartets page will be expanded to 20k before stopping for now. I am not finished (I expect to be finished tonight), but I wanted to get some opinions on the current Four Quartets size so I can measure appropriately what areas to emphasize now before the post-DYK expansion phase.

Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The prose size counted automatically is over 13,000 characters, ignoring all blockquotes. There are a few non-block quotes here and there, but not enough to make a significant difference; even if we leniently assumed that it's 10,000 characters if you don't count any inline quotes at all (that is certainly less than the actual count), that would require you to write 50k to get it up to 5x expansion. As for counting the 5x expansion "between all five pages," if I'm understanding your request right, then AFAIK that has never been done before and is not quite fair. A simpler solution seems to be that you would only submit the four individual poems as DYK articles (since they are new, and as long as the text there is not simply copied out from the current article—which I am confident will not happen, since the original article is OR junk—they will all qualify). The main article would just be linked in the hook as [[Four Quartets]] rather than '''[[Four Quartets]]''', and other than that there would be no difference (except that you would get 4 trinkets rather than 5, but you aren't a fan of trinket-collecting anyway).
You are free to look for a second opinion of you don't like this one, but I imagine everyone else's opinion will be similar. There's not really any reason to make a strange exception to the rule just to allow DYK credit for an article that would be more or less impossible to get DYK for under the current guidelines. You can always take it to GA once you've rewritten it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering you are doing a complete re-write turning an OR article into a well referenced one I think we could do a WP:IAR with this one; particularly if you are planning a five article multi-hook.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
In the past, this kind of exception has only been made for rewrites of articles that are entirely copyvio (see Wikipedia:Did you know/Fivefold F2). I don't know of any instances of DYK featuring an un-expanded article just because it's better than the old version. The goal of DYK is to feature articles that are new or mostly new, not articles that are improved. As for the multi-hook-ness...is a four-article multi-hook really much different from a five-article multi-hook? Four Quartets will be linked in the hook no matter what, the only difference is whether or not it's in bold. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
True. Its still likely to get a lot of hits with the other articles getting on the main page. My point was that since Four Quartets is likely to be in the hook on the main page anyway, bolding it doesn't really hurt us. Its not like it would be taking another article's spot. That's why I think an IAR would be fine here. But no worries either way.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Bad precident to set. The argument to bold "because it is already there" can be used for many articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to note that my counter states 13,581 character if you just remove the poetry and the list at the bottom. As of right now, my userspace Four Quartets page will be over 20k when I finish and the individual pages will be over 10k, which would have a total of over 60k. Right now, the current Four Quartets page hosts 4 other pages and nothing on the quartets as a series. The page has had a statement of it being filled with original research since 2007, and the pages I built were created independently of any content on the current page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
@ Ottava: I'm not complaining about cleaning up the OR and junk. That's a good thing, and something more people need to be doing. I'm just saying, there is not really any reason to give DYK for an article that wasn't expanded; if you write four new articles that total 40k or so, what you've done is write four new articles, not expand one. That doesn't mean what you're doing at Four Quartets is bad; it's just something you can work on getting a GA or FA out of, rather than a DYK. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Just some more background: well, if I was following the article's structure now, I could simply merge all of the individual pages articles into one big article and place it in for a 5x expansion. Anyway, what I posted a month ago was that I was thinking about splitting the individual articles from the main page because each were published separately and existed as individual notable poems for a while before being collected. The actual Four Quartets part of the page is approximately 5k. Now, what I originally suggested was to expand them all in user space and see what people thought - the concern was that people would say "there is already a section on Wiki, therefore you must have 5x that section" in the new article or something similar. Anyway, if anyone was interested, this is the original query: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 42#Question. The user space Four Quartets page is basically a new page, and the individual poem pages are connected to the four poems on the page (right now, there is 1 page basically hosting 4). Gatoclass's first statement is something that I am trying to settle (he settled it in his followup, but others may have that concern). Anyway, I would like people to come to an agreement (at least three or so) on -any- decision about this so I know how to proceed. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like the length of the 4 Quartets part only is slightly under 2000 chars, which would make 20k be a 5x expansion. The question, then, is how the "expansion" is affected by the fact that you're forking the rest of the content out, and whether the "original article" should be considered to be the entire article or only the non-forked portion. There are arguments for and against counting it as a 5x expansion; on the one hand, it is a 5x expansion of that particular part of the article; on the other hand, taking the whole article as the "original", it is just a change in focus. I don't know what the precedents are for this. My opinion is that it should not be considered a 5x expansion because it's not really a new article, but a splitting and narrowing of an existing one (so that the new article happens to be an expansion of one small portion of the original), but other people might disagree so they can speak up. I can't really say any more. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be the dilemma. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


  • I guess we could put a little poll together - 1 article, 4 articles, or 5 articles. Nothing big, nothing binding, I just want to see what people thought. The 5 article argument would be based on the overall size vs the overall size. The 4 articles would be based on the non-Four Quartets articles being deemed "new". The 1 article would be based on it being a 5 fold expansion, but since there was one page then it is counted as 1 article and the individual pages are not counted beyond the original. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue was brought up earlier, and as I said then, the existing Four Quartets article is almost totally unreferenced and a clear example of a personal essay. Yes we do have a policy about counting for DYK purposes from the original article "no matter how bad it is", but when an existing article clearly breaches Wiki policies I think we can exercise a little flexibility. That entire article, with the possible exception of the intro, could justifiably be deleted by anyone on policy grounds, in just the same way as would occur with a copyvio, so I see no reason why we would need to count it toward the expansion limit. Gatoclass (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles chock full with WP:OR, WP:POV, unreferenced and unverifiable info are also against Wikipedia policy just as much as essays and copy-vios (Wikipedia:Five pillars). You really can't blur that line between which violation of wikipedia policies that make an article "bad enough" to WP:IAR in a sub-5x DYK expansion. As Rjanag noted, this would set a precedent that would be applicable to other articles. That said...I always have believed that DYK is about new content creation and that completely re-written articles should be evaluated on the 5x expansion of new content created without the bad, deleted content weighing it down. (So an article with 2000 bytes that had 1500 bytes removed that was OR, POV and unreferenced should be evaluate on the 5x expansion of the remaining 500 bytes). A completely rewritten article is a new article, for the reader and for the encyclopedia. While it does require a little more effort to compare the revisions and determine if the amount of new content was 5x expanded (until someone comes up with a nifty prose-size type tool for revision comparison)--the encouragement of new content creation indelibly fits in with the spirit and purpose of DYK. But accepting this is all or none. We can't elevate a violation of one of the 5 pillars (such as essays or copy-vios) over the others. AgneCheese/Wine 15:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Our policy regarding x5 expansions is based on practicality, nothing else. The reason we generally count the existing content "no matter how bad the article" is because "bad" is obviously a subjective judgement, and we couldn't practically start making such judgements. Where an entire article is clearly copyvio, or wp:not, however, it generally isn't difficult or controversial to make that determination. Certainly in this case it isn't difficult.
As for your proposal about basing DYK count on the amount of new content, it's not a bad idea but I see two problems, firstly, it would encourage users to delete perfectly legitimate content by someone else, and secondly, it would lead to the practical difficulty of trying to figure out how much was new and how much was not. So I don't think that would be a practical solution. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


Future of DYK is with expansions/rewrites

Going along a point I made above, I think the DYK crew should be mindful of the future evolution of the project and how best to maintain the spirit and purpose of encouraging new content creation. As the subject pool for completely new articles diminishes, the shift in focus will be more on the expansion and improvements of existing articles. We already receive near habitual pushing to try and expand our scope to include promoted FAs and GAs in the DYK main page slots and I share the sentiments of the folks who push back on those ideas as contrary to what DYK is about. I am a firm believer in maintaining the spirit of new content creation with DYK. But I'm realistic of the point that a lot of existing articles on wikipedia are full of crap that are in complete violation of the Five Pillars and the next stage in Wikipedia's evolution is the improvement of those articles. Eventually DYK will be a part of that evolution with decisions and precedents set today guiding what direction we take towards that. While I don't think we should drop our 5x expansion requirement, this evolution does requires a re-thinking of our policy on how we count 5x expansion with "bad articles" that are in violation of Wikipedia policy. I believe that efforts like what Ottava is doing with Four Quartets represents what the future of DYK should look like--completely rewritten articles with at least five fold expansion of new content not weighed down by bad content that shouldn't have been in the article in the first place. If we get on the boat early and re-affirm DYK's commitment to new content creation in a way that jives with the broader evolution of Wikipedia--it will be easier for us to push back on the forced inclusion of FAs and GAs while still thriving as a project and maintaining the original spirit and purpose of DYK. AgneCheese/Wine 15:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a well-thought-out argument, but I also want to point out some things (which Gato also mentioned above). DYK relies on volunteers' being able to review and verify nominations quickly, and the guidelines have been tweaked for a long time to make the process as objective and mechanical as possible. If we were to change the focus to feature improved content rather than new content, every article would require an in-depth and subjective assessment, more along the lines of a GA review. These assessments would take longer, both because of the nature of what is being assessed and the likelihood that there would be some amount of bickering over whether an assessment was "fair" or "accurate". I doubt we would be able to handle large amounts of nominations at once. Now, if the amount of nominations also drops off because the standards get higher, then we might still be able to keep up...although personally, I think rewriting a terrible article is not much more difficult or time-consuming than starting a new one (especially if you don't mind more or less blanking the terrible article and starting from scratch), and it still takes several times longer to assess. The problem here is workability; yours is a noble idea, and probably one that we will be hearing and thinking about more and more often as time passes, but I still don't see a clear way that it could feasibly be implemented. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, while this proposal sounds reasonable in theory, I think it would lead to substantially more work by reviewers, as well as conceivably lead to the deletion of legitimate content by other users, so I don't think it's practical. Gatoclass (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand the practicality concerns but it is only a matter of time before one of the talented folks here creates a prose-size tools that evaluate revisions. But the short term for anything worth doing will always require a little more work than what complacency requires. As for concerns about the deletion of legitimate content, I think one of the strengths of our WP:AGF policy is that it frees us from being handcuff in policy-related discussions from worrying about all the bad-faith "what ifs" possibilities. In any discussion, there is always the perspective of bad faith actions but we can't let that be roadblock to further evaluating the future of DYK and how to best maintain the spirit and purpose of new content creation. When 99.5% of the users play by the rules, we can't let the perspective of the 0.5% lord over the discussion and dictate what the rules are going to be for everyone else. AgneCheese/Wine 16:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I should also point out the difference between addressing Ottava's specific question above, and extending this to a general discussion. Ottava is a user who, although we might not all get along with, has been around at DYK for a while and we all know. While it might sound boys-club-ish, I think we all know that we are willing to, and often do, make slight exceptions for people who know enough to come here and start a discussion about their hook. If we do decide to let Four Quartets pass DYK, then our making one exception here for a relatively established user does not necessarily mean we should open the door to get 50 noms a day that are all like this. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but as I said I think we are entitled to exercise a little flexibility at times in the case of really obvious examples of illegitimate content. I don't mind vetting the occasional request on this page from people asking us to evaluate an article's bona fides before they attempt an expansion. If it became an avalanche of requests, we might have to take a tougher attitude, but historically we've had very few. Gatoclass (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Every avalanche starts off as snowball rolling down the hill. :) I know that change won't happen overnight but discussions of this nature will become more frequent and pressing in the future and these are thoughts that should be kept at the forefront of how DYK will respond. It's always easier to present a coherent guideline and united front when you're being proactive and not working under the gun in a reactive state because of the "avalanche". AgneCheese/Wine 16:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of "one off-exceptions" as I think is counter-intuitive to the spirit of inclusion that Wikipedia is all about. That opens the door to more dangerous drama and discontent over the highly subjective question of who is an "established user" or not. That determination is far more subjective than evaluating the merit of an article purely on new content creation. AgneCheese/Wine 16:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying it happens. I doubt we would be bending over backwards to have this conversation if it had been started by User:Bob's new account for editing teh wiki. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but it still dangerous terrain (even if it is being crossed with the utmost of good intentions). It is far more objective to promote Four Quartets on the basis of the quality and effort of Ottava's work (which is a clear 5x expansion of new content if the policy violating original content is not counted) rather than on personal, subjective evaluation of him as an editor (i.e. "DYK regular/established user", etc) as an okay to invoke WP:IAR for a "one off exception". AgneCheese/Wine 16:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I certainly haven't dealt with this issue on the basis that Ottava is "an established user". I would have treated such a request the same way regardless of who it came from.
Let me put it this way. At the moment, we have a guideline which states that the expansion is counted from the existing article, "no matter how bad it is", the sole exception being copyvio. In fact though, there are probably a few other cases where I think we might exercise a little flexibility. For example, content that is clearly irrelevant to the topic in hand. Content that is meaningless garbage. Or, as in this case, content which is clearly a personal essay.
I haven't suggested adding such clauses to the existing rules because I don't want them to get too cluttered. But my general approach in all such circumstances is to exercise common sense. I think where content is clearly illegitimate under policy, we ought to be able to acknowledge that without our rules getting in the way. But if there's a view that we can't do that without opening the door to gaming of the system, perhaps we should consider tweaking the existing ruleset a little. Gatoclass (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I did not mean to say "Ottava is special so we give him special treatment". What I mainly meant was that editors like Ottava, me, and everyone else participating in the discussion know people at DYK, know more or less how it works, and know to come here if we have an article that might be borderline in some way or another. A lot of other editors would just nominate their article straightaway and then be surprised when it gets rejected, whereas people like us know to come here beforehand and initiate a discussion like this, so of course we are able to squeeze through more articles that a regular editor might not. It's not really intentional special treatment, it's just that some people know how to get around here better than others. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We each participate in DYK for our own reasons. I find it an opportunity to educate relatively new editors on issues such as the importance of correct sourcing, plagiarism, and basic article standards, as well as the fun for me of offering alternative hooks. Also, DYK is a way of encouraging content from underrepresented countries and areas of the world on Wikipedia. It is hard for me to understand how the work going into recalculating article content, as suggested above, is worth the time. If others are willing to do all that calculating, that is fine with me. My only fear is the arguments/dissension that breaks out periodically on this page that drove me and others away before, and will again if it occurs, the likihood of that increasing as the complexity of the DYK Rules grows. I would prefer more stringent enforcement of the simple DYK Rules as they exist, and some attention paid to the quality of the underlying DYK article, before adding a new wrinkle for reviewers. I would like to offer more help to new editors, in the form of minor copy editing of DYK articles to get them up to standards. Established editors have GAN and FAC and Peer Review available. We have an opportunity here to give a step up to relatively new editors. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Note - I wanted to make a note that, on the matter of the new subject pool dominishing, if anyone needs to work on a new article I have over 200 on my list that are clearly notable, have major references, yet have no appearance on Wiki. Of course, once they are written I wont have any personal experience to back up a response in a future statement, but yeah. :) But lets no worry about me too much over this - my next line up of pages are mostly new (Johnson's sermons, Ainsworth's novels, Hunt's essays and poems, Lamb's essays and poems, Hazlitt's essays and poems, then Fielding's later poems before doubling back on the rest. The above should be over 100 pages.). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is plenty of potential new content. In fact, the pleasure of working on DYKs is realizing how much new content there is, as whole new worlds open up in the form of information about countries previously ignored as well as continuing new content on subject we all thought were well known. DYK, as the first step for many, gives DYK reviewers a potent chance to raise the standards on Wikipedia in general by educating editors as to article standards, clarity of writing etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep, anyone who says WP is running out of new topics to cover is just not looking in the right places. We may have gotten the low-hanging fruit, but there are still big holes in many subject areas; just a month or two ago I wrote a new article on a Chinese rock song that many academic sources call the "biggest hit in Chinese history" or something like that, and I remember the GA reviewer being surprised that it hadn't been on WP until now. Anyway, like you say, there's still a lot to write, and DYK is a good place to force people to write it well. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A few points. First, I think we have to remember that human knowledge is constantly growing and expanding. I've read that currently the store of human knowledge doubles every five years. The encyclopedia is never going to run out of places to grow because there will always be new notable people, events, places, and things to write about. I don't think we are in any danger of not finding new articles to write at any point in time, even in 1,000,000 years (if wikipedia still exists then). Second, an application of IAR shouldn't be equated to a binding precedent. We aren't establishing new policy here or opening any doors. We are allowing a one time ruling in a one time instance. WP:IAR exists so that we can ignore the rules when following the rules hinders the spirit of the rules. In this case I think ignoring the rules clearly follows the spirit of DYK's purpose. We could easily decide not to grant IAR in a similar case in the future while still granting this one without being hipocritical. That's the beauty of an IAR because it doesn't void policy but temporarily abstains from applying it. Finally, for those worried that this might open a flood gate of similar IAR requests my answer is I doubt it. The only people likely to make such requests are seasoned DYK contributors. That is a fact which I don't think is unfair. We're not preventing anyone from making an IAR request but we're not encouraging them either. Seasoned editors benefit from their experience and there is no shame in that. Even if it does become an issue, we can always decide in the future to no longer allow IARs in these sort of cases later. I say lets grant an IAR for Ottava and if we get too many similar IAR requests in the future we stop granting them. Let's not be paralyzed by the fear of a potential problem that might not ever happen.Broadweighbabe (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, and those of us who do not like such things like catering to seasoned reviews are free to stop reviewing, fortunately. I do not like the fact that many just use DYK as "advertising" for their Peer Review, GAN, FAC etc. and prefer the less practiced editors. I know I take breaks when I feel myself getting aggravated over these concerns. (I feel a break coming up!) —Mattisse (Talk) 19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

I wanted to say that these pages are mostly done:

I have 6 more journal articles and a few more books that I can put in if anyone thinks any of the pages are too light for DYK. The current total for all of the pages is now over 60k in size. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated the wikilinks. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
5 DYK articles. (Re: "a little poll", much above) Pardon me for butting in, I heard Eliot's footfalls echo in the edit summary and peeked... After reading the argument, which is well summarized by "Rjanag @ 23:46, 11 April 2009", I think that it could be seen as 5 separate articles (each able to have its own 5x expansion) without making it such an exception or bad precedent, from three angles:
  • a) Because the original article was a conflation of 5 separate topics in the first place: each poem first existed separately with its own history and meaning, and then there is the new topic of how Eliot then decided to group them as a suite and tweak them to create echoes and symmetries in the new pieces, and the further story of that suite itself – that's not a sub-topic of the four others articles but its own separate topic. (Analogy: if there was a 20KB article about "The Beatles" with 5KB about the band and 15KB about John Lennon because he was originally redirected to and conflated with the band: I think someone could split it between "The Beatles" and "John Lennon" and perform a 5x expansion against the 5KB of "The Beatles" alone without cheating, and also a 5x expansion against the 15KB of "John Lennon".) As I see it, allowing such a case wouldn't be an exception or a bad precedent, just a special case about a page that was grouping or conflating things that (ideally, in a non-deletionist world) should have had their own separate stub articles from the start – that could be one criterion to help decide about such special case, at DYK reviewers' discretion, without opening doors to much other cases.
  • b) As I understand them, the current rules allow to expand something that's not even a real new article/topic but only a subtopic of a main article exported on a new page, e.g. if the article "India" had a 1KB section about "The cast system", I could export it to a new page "Cast system in India" and expand it 5x from that 1KB seed, even though I'm not creating a completely new article/topic but only developing a subtopic on a new page – I have nothing against such procedure, it's new content creation too, but I think it is inferior, creation-wise, to someone who actually creates or expands what is not a subtopic but a new topic (such as the "Four Quartets suite" as its own topic), and that such person shouldn't be penalized because his topic was originally conflated with four others on a single page years ago.
  • c) The current Four Quartets has practically no information about its titular topic: 99% of it is about the separate poems that historically came before from 1935 to 1942, but the titular topic of what Eliot did in 1943 and how and why he did it and the fate of the suite thereafter, that topic which does not exists in the four poems, is quasi absent: the titular article didn't really exist in the first place. Someone can expand on that and create new contents about "Four Quartets" relevant for DYK. (Disclaimer: I don't have any current or planned article-writing that would split an existing article or benefit otherwise from the Four Quartets case.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 20:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Signpost dispatch on plagiarism

Editors here might be interested in the recently-published dispatch on plagiarism. Awadewit (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

An excellent essay. I linked to it from my user area (basically a bookmark) before I finished reading it. Thanks to you and your co-authors for writing it. --Orlady (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Error in DYK

 Fixed

There's currently a DYK on the main page that reads:

... that in 1908, the newly built St John the Evangelist's Church (pictured) became the parish church of Preston in Brighton, England, after the 13th-century St Peter's Church was seriously damaged by fire?

You cannot abbreviate "Preston Village" to "Preston", as is done in that hook. They are not the same thing; the "Village" is absolutely necessary to differentiate it from Preston, England. Please be more careful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This was fixed a few minutes later[1]. Please note that at the top of this page is a big sign that reads, "Error reports Please do not post error reports for specific template versions here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS." – Please be more careful too, thank you (I'm kidding). — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 12:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my fault when I wrote the hook. I suppose I thought "Preston, Brighton" was enough to disambiguate, but on reflection it was not specific enough. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really: Even without the confusion with the Lancastrian one Preston Village and Preston Park are both distinct areas of Brighton, so it's unclear. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
@Frog: I think Shoemaker intended this to be more of a friendly admonishment than an error report, so I don't think there was a problem with posting here. And I hear that WP:ERRORS is pretty slow lately anyway; I know people have often gotten a faster response by posting here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Aye. I figured that it was better to mention this sort of problem to make it clear that it happened, it's not a ridiculously large problem, but... something to watch out for. The piped link wasn't a very good idea here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the notice back to the way it was. WP:ERRORS is not checked often, and posting here is often better. In fact, I'd guess a proposal to nix the sign would get some momentum. Shubinator (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ethics?

I have just loaded Queue 2, but I have left behind a hook thats says ". that an estimated 33,000 Filipinos live in France illegally?". Personally I think this kind of fact is what powers race riots. I have looked at the article ... which is fine, but it seems to me that to take this one fact out of context of the article is unfair. Would another admin care to agree with me or load it to the main page if you disagree. I cannot load it as it is. --Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Race riots? How? It is stating a fact. Unless it said "33,000 ugly Filipinos..." or something, I don't really know how the two are connected. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not contesting that the fact is true. I admit this is (only?) my opinion. Living persons are protected from having true negative facts expressed out of context on the main page. My belief is that this should be extended to races. I'm happy for others to disagree Victuallers (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
An alternate was proposed and verified for this article: ... that between 47,000 and 65,000 Filipinos live in France? Shubinator (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thx I'll load that Victuallers (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That was not a bad idea to change the hook, Victuallers. I didn't see it as an issue, myself (I was the one who promoted the original hook, because I thought it was more eye-catching and relevant) — but to think of all the racism accusations and flame wars that I've witnessed online, it's good to take a precaution just to be safe with a touchy subject like that. Jamie☆S93 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the hook either, Victuallers. The alternative hook is much better. Royalbroil 00:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Cited article and hook - The nomination's hook must contain a fact cited in the article. (See more information under The hook, below.) The fact should have a footnote at the end of the sentence and the entire article should be sourced using reliable sources, using inline citations.

Discussion:

  • I think this would improve the general quality of DYK articles and ensure that the entire article was accurate, not just the hook. Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe instead of saying "the entire article should be sourced..." it could be more along the lines of "there are no large unsourced chunks" or "no {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} tags, either for the whole article or for particular sections". That's slightly less subjective, easier to eyeball, and less likely to ruffle feathers for now (some people out there will fight to the death for their right to write crappily sourced articles and still get them on DYK...don't ask me why) Of course, more sourcing is always better, but I'm just trying to think of a rewording that would be as objective and easily assessable as possible. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, we already have the article in general should use inline, cited sources. I get the feeling that if an editor's stubborn, another sentence won't dissuade them. But to reinforce it, maybe something along the lines of The article should be referenced throughout with inline citations to multiple reliable sources. Shubinator (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I fully source my submissions, some even say oversource, but I feel requiring it goes against the goals of DYK: "as a way of thanking the editors who create new content and to encourage other editors to contribute to and improve that article and the encyclopedia." (emphasis added). That is to say, there is both the reward of the article being featured on the main page, and a chance for it then to receive extra eyes to improve it further. This would include additional sourcing. Turning this into little GA is counter to those goals. I not only nominate my own, but I also nominate others to encourage them to continue writing and submitting. I know my first article ever was crap, but I learned how to do it after a month or so and some help. I think DYK encourages new people to write more (in some cases, not all), and in time they too will hopefully be more inclined to fully source their articles. Now, if you are already requiring this and you know you shouldn't, then maybe you shouldn't require this. On Wikipedia we tend to try for uniform and objective rules so everyone gets treated the same. If one reviewer requires one thing and other something else, that's a problem. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Aboutmovies has a great point about the spirit of DYK. I think if we want to improve the quality of nominations, trying to become a "mini-GA" is not the way to go. I would be more partial to Awadewits original suggestion of raising the min char count (at least 2000, maybe 2500). I don't think we should consume ourselves with too many worries regarding assumption of bad faith behaviors of "padding". It would take a lot of time and effort to "pad" an article with an additional 1000 chars and, frankly, such deliberate and ridiculous padding would be fairly easy to spot. The risk of that behavior is minuscule at best. The benefits of more fully developed articles at DYKs far outweigh those concerns and would be the easiest solution that is still in line with the purpose and spirit of DYK. AgneCheese/Wine 06:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Insisting on the entire article being sourced using inline citations puts the DYK bar higher than FA ("...complemented by inline citations where appropriate"). Admittedly, FAC has a de facto obsession with inline cites, but that doesn't mean that DYK should enshrine stricter rules for new content than those for FA. A long time ago, one view of the purpose of DYK was to give exposure to new articles that needed improving and could, for the most part, be improved easily, encouraging involvement from both existing and new editors. The shift towards wanting to showcase what Agne aptly terms "mini-GA" articles and avoid the "total crap" isn't a welcome one from my point of view. From the same perspective increasing the character count isn't an improvement either. Yomanganitalk 10:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with rewording it however you see fit. The general idea was to get away from the problem of a single citation is sufficient for a DYK article. I would like to point out that there seems to be a problem here with people creating articles solely to get on the main page. We are therefore not encouraging editors to rewrite articles that have been around for a while but have stagnated (5x expansion is difficult). I'm not advocating a mini-GA, but I am advocating raising standards to the point that it is more difficult to churn out stubby articles simply for the sake of it. I think we need to think about what we are featuring on the main page. Most readers of Wikipedia don't realize that DYK is about "new" articles (despite the fact that we announce it - they just gloss over that bit and click on the articles). What we have on the main page is what builds our reputation. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, in my opinion, the rise in writing DYK articles just to get on the main page stems from the shift to treating the "most DYKs" competition as if it was central to DYK with the associated fixation on who deserves credits and how best to bend the rules to qualify, but I've come to realise that suggesting this might be a problem is heretical. As for the wording, what's wrong with "where appropriate" here too? (it is, after all, overenthusiastic reviewers at FAC that require citations for everything, so perhaps we can avoid that problem here) Yomanganitalk 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • FAC requires citations for everything, no matter what the criteria say...
  • Once upon a time, the goal of Wikipedia was to get as much content in articles as possible, disregarding citations. Now that 99% of the major articles have been created, this growth is slowing; along with this, the focus is shifting. More and more citations are being required in every phase of the site. As such, maybe it's time to shift the focus of DYK and begin to require that all major points or extraordinary claims be sourced. This would not be hard, and it would assure that DYK's keep within WP:V and WP:OR. Every other section on the main page has this or even more stringent requirements, so why not us? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a feeling that such proportions are different on India/Bangladesh related language Wikis. :P Also, 99% created? I can name you over 1,000 major poems, novels, etc, that aren't even mentioned on Wikipedia in any form. That would be in just a 150 year time period from one country. I think your percentage may be only a wild guess. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If you ever venture over to my subpages, you will see that I have plans for ol Keatsie. Once I finish with the epic I will try to fill in his two major collections. I need more assistants or, at least, a helper monkey (regardless of color). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Queue 3: Hoax or WP:POINT or OK?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maybe a problem about the Hotel toilet-paper folding nom (one of the three I reviewed after adding a nom to the page): after I checked and cleaned up that article[2] and gave it a Yes-AGF tick, the owner User:Noroton weirdly undid most of my edits[3] especially with respect to restoring all the silly headings. Getting paranoidsuspicious, I did a Google check and found out this article apparently originated from a thread at Wikipedia Review where the creator announced:

[Noroton:] The sum of all human knowledge will have been reached when I get around to creating my masterpiece article: Hotel toilet paper folding. Once this article is written and in place (I've already done the research), the ultimate in Wikipedia inclusiveness of human knowledge will surely have been obtained. As awareness of this article spreads throughout the Wikipedia community, it will become glaringly evident that, if Wikipedia has an article on this subject, it will surely have every other article worth having in any encyclopedia. Then editors, realizing the futility of their pathetic hopes for future articles, will stop writing new ones for the encyclopedia. For an as yet uncalculated period of time, editors will work on articles to get them all up to FA status, but Wikipedia will have begun an entropy which will gradually result in Wikipedians migrating to other websites and pastimes. I think Parchesi will see a surge in popularity, but we'll just have to see. I will announce on Jimbo's talk page when I have completed this ultimate article, and tell him that if he's the last one out, please turn off the lights. I will request that he provide a picture of a well-folded roll of toilet paper, in situ, from one of the hotels he stays at. This is my vision. And I'm just sure it will manifest itself.[4]

This article is now stored in Queue 3 at T:DYK/Q (queue 2 would go first at UTC 04:54 PM today, followed by queue 3 at UTC 10:54 PM). Its hook was sourced AGF from a Miami Herald pay article allegedly at Newsbank.com. A cursory Google check about it had found corroborating abstracts of the article, such as "Details are key in Fontainebleau makeover The $1 billion reinvention of the Fontainebleau paused recently on the topic of toilet paper. Rooms division chief Charlotte Rosenau wants all 1,500 upgraded rooms to have a distinctive look, and that includes the final flourish on a roll of bath tissue. Rosenau, a veteran of Las Vegas hotels, ruled the old triangular fold wouldn't do."(Google Cache) that corroborated both article's quotes and hook, so that part's fine. And the article isn't bad (the topic is well-known), most of it seems correct, and the hook is OK.

But... Due to the origin and off-wiki comments of creator, it is now making me a bit apprehensive at the last minute about how far to AGF for the whole article with all the offline sources it use: is the article 100% correct, or only 90% correct with some hoax planted in the middle to make fun of Wikipedia later? (My gut instinct is that if they want to make some point they're using a non-hoax article, ala AFDay, so DYK should be clear – but what are others thinking?) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 12:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the WR thread is clearly a nut (as is anyone who talks about how they're going to single-handedly bring down the communist machine of Wikipedia), but the concerns you raise about WP's credibility are relevant. If the article has offline sources that haven't been verified, I would suggest removing it from the queue until we have made completely sure that there is nothing that could come back later to bite us. And if the creator of this article really is the same person who posted the WR thread and is OWNing the article by repeatedly reverting it back to his preferred version, we have no obligation to feature it for him; being cooperative is one of the truly unwritten rules of DYK. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, he really did leave a message on Jimbo's page (on April Fool's Day), saying what was basically a different version of whet was posted on WR; link. BTW, "sneak that into a DYK queue" meant that it should run on that day, i.e. April Fool's Day... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe send it to AFD? I checked cite #7, which checks out, but the coverage would be trivial for WP:NOTE purposes, as I would guess are most of the newspaper sources (and certainly the movie review one). Don't know how much depth it is covered in the book, but only 1 page is listed, so might be minimal. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This set of hooks has now hit the Main Page, with the hotel toilet paper folding hook. I've intentionally not done the credits for that one, if an admin wants to pull it. It could be replaced with Jivin' in Be-Bop. Also, (childhood house pictured) should be changed to (Fillmore House pictured) per this. Shubinator (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I left a message at WP:ERRORS, but no one appears to have heeded the call yet. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can all put this behind us now. The template is about to get updated so the hook will go off the main page anyway, so it's no longer DYK's problem. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the clock wasn't reset right, so I fixed it. So it'll be up for several more hours. This folding technique is the real deal, I've seen it in hotels around the U.S. Royalbroil 00:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem isn't whether the folding is real or notable or not, but that the article was written by a user who we obviously can't trust, and even if folding is article-worthy we have no way of verifying that the article isn't a total embarrasment. For all we know, half the book sources could be made up. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
A "user who we obviously can't trust"? Why is that? Because he posted an obvious joke (if it can be called that) on Wikipedia Review? --NE2 01:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Because he apparently wrote the article to prove a point. Maybe I worded my previous message a little strongly, but the point is (as Frog suggested at the top of this thread) I don't see any reason to AGF on the sources in this article until a well-established editor has actually held those books in his hand and made sure they say what the article says they do. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that Noroton isn't well-established? He's been here since 2006, much longer than you. --NE2 01:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
My bad. I guess I should have looked more closely before commenting. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that it should not matter what anyone says off site. Or who the editor is, for that matter. Every article in DYK should be vetted on its merits. If it is a decent article with references, and a well referenced hook that is interesting or intriguing, that is what should count. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Noroton is a prolific contributor (as you are now aware) who apparently has full newsbank access (newsbank is the source of the hook in this article0, and has used that access in editing various other articles where I have encountered him/her. Although that off-wiki forum post is provocative, my past experience with Noroton gives me no reason not to assume good faith. --Orlady (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Pssst!! The check's in the mail. -- Noroton (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks that way. I just found the reverting at the article, as well as the WR post, to be a bit of a red flag. Looking more at Noroton's contribs, it looks like that was an isolated incident and is out of character for Noroton, so I'm willing to AGF now. I guess I just jumped to conclusions too quickly. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The reverting was apparently out of unfamiliarity with WP:MOSHEAD. --NE2 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • (1) Because he posted an obvious joke (if it can be called that) [...] Well, I have to admit, I couldn't ever write anything as funny as this thread. (2) Any of you might actually be able to get online access to Newsbank.com for free through your local public library (maybe university library, too -- check out your library's website; my library lets me access Newsbank.com from home). As Orlady says, I've used Newsbank in the past. I found it useful when Google can't get me everything I want. (3) The idea that posting on Wikipedia Review is, all by itself, a sign of a dangerous character is certainly worth serious consideration. I think it's those darned Arbcom members posting there that give that discussion board such a bad reputation. (4) I have to admit that I share The Little Blue Frog's paranoia and cantankerousity, so I did a little checking out of that editor. Aside from having some of the strangest gaps I've ever seen in the first [that is, earliest] page of the contributions history, TLBF seems to check out, although it's pretty obvious the Frog is an alternate account of some Wikipedian -- one that I've had a tussle with in the past? What got me suspicious was the Frog's going out of his or her way to be annoying on Talk:Hotel toilet-paper folding page (this weird revert[1] of Noroton: [...] I won't waste any more time with the points above, and sorry I did the first time. and So I'll fix it again, and thank you for all the fish.) I concluded that the Frog is, like myself, just an occasionally cantankerous, persnickety individual and shrugged it off. (And I don't really understand the fish reference, anyway. I never read Douglas Adams' books.) Then NE2 had the courtesy of telling me about this thread, and now my suspicions have been raised a bit more. I recommend you guys keep a close eye on this Little Blue Frog character. You never can tell. (5) The cool thing about the article is, of course, that it's all true. (6) WP:POINT????? Then I'd have to be completely serious in that WR post that the Frog so helpfully provided. One word: Parchesi. (7) Now I've gotta go post about this at Wikipedia Review. Maybe one of the denizens over there will admit to being Little Blue Frog. I've already got a list of suspects. -- Noroton (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Woah. A) WP:TLDR (though I read it). B) the hook already ran on the main page, so does this new post have anything to do with DYK or are you just using this as a forum to attack LBF? *Sigh* Can someone just archive this thread? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I think "Woah" should've been said much higher up in the discussion, Ed. I didn't apply for DYK. I think it was you who did that for me. I didn't ask to have my edits called "weird" and "silly", and when I objected and reverted some edits, that didn't merit a WP:OWN description. Or AfD suggestion. Or a description as an "incident" that was or was not "in character". It's hard to figure out what any of that has to do with DYK, either. It appears that it's easy for officiousness to creep in among editors who are (sincerely) trying to help the Wiki. Please have some regard as to how you appear to strangers, guys. Not a huge deal, and this certainly isn't an attack. But yes, it looks like we're done here. -- Noroton (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with Ed here—the hook has already come and gone, I have already stricken my complaint, and any issues between Noroton and LBF can be dealt with somewhere else. I'm gonna archive this thread now; if that's inappropriate, feel free to revert, but otherwise let's just move on. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sporadic problems with cascading protection on main page images

I started a Bugzilla report at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18483 about the problems that we've been having with cascading protection not being applied to images on the main page. I'm having trouble communicating the problems to the developers. They look at what's happening right now and don't find a problem. I've shown them examples of problems that we've encountered, and it's just not sinking in. It's bug report #18483. They've edited the bug description to describe the problem as a Commons protection issue, which is NOT what I'm trying to describe. It looks like we need to make the bold move of putting up an unprotected image so that they can see it for themselves. After posting the image, please leave a message on the thread to let them assess the problem. I'll remove the protection on upcoming Commons images. They usually respond to comments within 15 minutes. Royalbroil 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Building up the queues

Right now we have three numbered queues empty, both nexts empty, and just 1/3rd of the nominated hooks have been validated. I'll be away most of the weekend so people need to step up to build queues, evaluate hooks, and actually do the updates. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Queue 6 Error

In Queue 6, I forgot to add the Image, could an admin please put the following into the queue page, and remove the ''(pictured)'' in the hook below it.

[[File:Tomb of Sofia Afentaki.JPG|100x100px|Tomb of Sofia Afentaki]]

Thanks. ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done Royalbroil 11:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Update done, credits remain

I've done yet another update but one of my hooks is in the list so could somebody else follow this link and do the credits? Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it. ∗ \ / (⁂) 13:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. ∗ \ / (⁂) 13:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just updated the main page, but I can't figure out how to reset the clock manually. (RED FACE! HELP!) Also, the credits need to be done. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the DYK clock is not stable right now, but it's actually pretty simple; this old rev is a good example of how the clock normally is. All you have to do is edit that rev, and replace the numbers on the bottom line with {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}, and it should be fine. :) Best, Jamie☆S93 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
And I can do the credits, sure. :) Jamie☆S93 20:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. Jamie☆S93 20:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Corrections needed to queued hook sets

While we're at it, could an admin put queue 2 back to normal? Should look like this. Also, in queue 6, the Buntingford Branch Line hook should be tweaked (no bold on apostrophe and dab):

I fixed queue 2, I removed the link to the Standon dab page, and I edited the apostrophe, but I'm not sure if the apostrophe edit meets your objectives (it looks fine to me, but the coding is slightly different). However, I'm bothered by the Buntingford Branch Line hook. "Flour mills" are most definitely not a form of agricultural produce, and it appears from the article that the flour mill was not considered a source of "agricultural" freight. There's still time to fix this hook before queue 6 goes to the main page, so I've left it in the queue for now, but it needs needs additional surgery before it goes to the main page. (Heads off to find the history for that hook...) --Orlady (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
In queue 6, I replaced the Buntingford hook with another one of the proposed hooks. --Orlady (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The apostrophe's fine. Queue 2 needs to be copied from the link above though; it's missing credits right now. Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Got it! I added the credits to Queue 2. If there's anything else, just holler. --Orlady (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
*guilty face* Well, now that you mention it, the trams in Munich hook in queue 2 has a stray (pictured), and for the last hook in queue 6, the wikilink on Oregon isn't closed. Shubinator (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, that error in the Oregon link was mine, so I need to borrow your guilty face. I also fixed that problem in queue 2, plus a couple of others. Feel free to point out any more problems I created accidentally along the way! --Orlady (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
And I've fixed the other formatting issues with queues 2 and 3. Remember, when moving Next Update to a numbered queue you should copy the entire page, not just the hooks and credits. - Dravecky (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

T:TDYK and Loading Times

After reading an comment in the above thread T:TDYK_is_freezing_my_computer, I think I have come up with a worthwhile proposal to avoid having such a overedited and slow suggestions page. When we consider a more elaborate nomination system such as WP:FAC, they use transclusion to minimise the amount of edits to the main FAC page, to avoid long loading times, and to make the page easier to use. While it would be pointless to have a subpage for every individual article's nomination, I believe implementing a transclusion-like system will be extremely beneficial to the WikiProject.

I suggest DYK implements a day by day transclusion system. Basically, everyday gets given it's own subpage, something like Template talk:Did you know/17 April. All the nominations for that day would be placed, reviewed and discussed on that subpage, and the main T:TDYK page will only need {{Template talk:Did you know/17 April}} added. When all the hooks from that subpage have been used, the page is simply untranscluded and, perhaps, deleted.

By instituting this method of transclusion, we will having a nomination page that is a logistical nightmare, avoid edit conflicts and generally make the process run a little bit smoother and user-friendly. Comments welcome! ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding won't help with loading the page, it'll still have the same amount of data to load. It would help with editing though (since that would reduce the number of bytes included in the edit box). But that's not a problem is it, if we edit section by section (for each nom)? Chamal talk 12:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I was basing my technical comment based off of the comment in the thread above, relating to page history. I also have vague recollections about transcluded pages loading differently, (?) but I could easily be mistaken. In the current system, it is easy to use the section by section editing, but does fall prey to a section being removed at the top of the page. (That won't be eliminated, but certainly reduced) Transclusion's main benefit is that it makes the main suggestions page infinitely easier to manage. Moving the 'Expiring Noms' heading is a headache at the moment, whereas with transclusion is won't even affect the subpages and therefore, the reviewing. ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
@ Chamal:　edit conflicts can still happen when you edit section by section, as well as the section-editing issues that bother a lot of people (when you click on one section but, because of a change that happened before, end up editing a different one).
@ \ /: this is an interesting proposal. In the past I had toyed around with the idea of doing transclusion for each nom, like AfD, mainly to avoid that section-editing problem described above...but quickly dismissed that as utterly impossible, because it would be an enormous pain anytime you want to promote or delete 2 or 3 adjacent noms at once, and stuff like that. Transcluding entire days, though, would not be as problematic in that respect, so would be more workable. I'll have to think a bit and see if I can come up with any other arguments for or against. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem of edit conflicts and mixing up of sections still won't be overcome if we transclude each day since it still will be the same system as it is now, only the page sizes will be smaller. That is unless we do it for each nom, of course. Anyway, I agree that it will make the main DYK suggestions page more manageable so if it's necessary and there are any other benefits, I'd support it. Now I'm off to get familiar with the project again, I've been away for too long :) Chamal talk 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but I imagine the problem will get much smaller if the page sizes are smaller; I imagine the edit conflicts and section problems increase exponentially with the size of the page and the number of people editing it, so splitting things up by day should be helpful. It will also make it easier to find diffs of things that happened a couple weeks ago. I suppose moving things from one day to another would be a pain, but that happens pretty rarely so big deal. Another thing to worry about is making sure people edit the subpages, rather than just clicking the edit link for "candidate entries" and nominating their article above the transcluded subpages; that would probably be easy to avoid by making the page layout clear, but it's just something to think about. Anyway, like I said above, I think having subpages for each nom will not be workable, but subpages for each date might. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Just had a thought: if we go through with this, the date subpages should probably not be deleted after they are blanked, because then we would lose the record of what happened with particular noms, when they were promoted, whether or not they were removed properly (ie, not removed without having been looked at, etc.). All that stuff is important to have in case someone comes to WT:DYK saying "why did my stuff get rejected?!?!" or "[some article] on the MP is terrible, who's the moron who promoted it?" and we need to check what happened. Therefore, it would probably be better to have an organized way of archiving them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Sooo Template talk:Did you know/17 April 2009 (+year) and change the promotions to "if it's slashed it's promoted" or something of the like? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that we could keep on blanking promoted noms like we do now (to avoid having tons of strikeout all over T:TDYK), I'm just saying we shouldn't delete the page once all the noms are blank. After the subpage is archived, even if it's totally blank on the surface, the editing history should still be available. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea. I'm not sure it'll cut down on page load times though. Also, I get the feeling a lot of nominators will edit the nominations page directly, which would take a lot of shuttling on our part. The nom page shouldn't be full-protected, because we would need to remove (and add) days to transclude. We don't want the DYK nomination process to become more confusing. Shubinator (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I had a similar worry; on the other hand, though, AfD and FAC work this way and I don't think they've ever had serious problems with people editing the nom page directly. It might take some time for people here to adjust from what they're used to, but I imagine in the end it wouldn't be a problem in of itself. Of course, the other issue is still whether this is worth it; if it won't cut down the load times, and if it only partially relieves edit conflict and similar problems, will it be worth the trouble? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It will take some getting used to but most people use section editing, and with transclusion that means they will be pretty much hardpressed to honestly nominate on the main nomination page. (Section edit allows you to edit the transcluded page directly, and all the main nominations page will need is a comment to tell them where to go. Full-protection I don't think is an option, I'm not sure where that came from? ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the only issue is those few people who nom by clicking "Candidate entries"...I would hope that when they click that and see nothing but transcluded subpages they will realize they did something wrong and go back, but who knows. In any case, i think that's a pretty rare occurence, and in of itself is not a major point for or against this proposal. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(ecx2, same as Rjanag) Yeah, after a while people would figure it out. I see a few noms every day that click on "Candidate Entries"...any way to make the Candidate Entries edit button automatically go to the first transcluded day? This would also make it harder for full-page proofreaders (Art LaPella and myself) to proofread; we'd get used to it though. (On the full protection, I was nipping that in the bud, just in case.) Shubinator (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean that the full-page proofreading procedure described in the first paragraph of WP:Did you know/Proofreading#Proofreading Template talk:Did you know would have to be done separately for each page? That sounds like it would take a lot longer, and the only way I can think of to "get used to it" is to eliminate some other task to compensate for the lost time every day. Art LaPella (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that was my main concern: proofreading, moving stuff from one day to another, or promoting multiple hooks at once. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, DYKcheck shouldn't be affected, since it uses the HTML on the nom page to find noms, and the HTML should stay about the same. Shubinator (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag, in regards to moving and promoting two hooks at once, it is likely to be easier than harder. In the current system, if you want to move hooks or promote multiple, you need to entire candidate entries/older nominations section, since editing multiple sections of the page will cause an edit conflict with yourself, and there is a high likelyhood for edit conflicts anyway. With transclusion, you can cut and paste into two smaller sections, or promote on different pages, concurrently. ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have set up a small sandbox version based upon current DYK page, here. I haven't included every day, but I have included enough so that you can get the idea. ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The loading problem can be fixed I think, if we do it like in WP:AFD. Instead of transcluding the pages, we just link to them. We can have the rules and stuff on the main page as in AFD. This will certainly reduce the number of bytes that the browser has to load and therefore the problems during loading such as taking a long time/browser freezing should be overcome. The proofreading and moving problems will still be there though. Chamal talk 03:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean we turn T:TDYK into a list of subpage links? I don't think that would be workable; you wouldn't be able to look through nominations at a glance, and making automatically generated incoming links (like with the {{DYKproblem}} template) would be a nightmare. Also it would take two clicks to edit a nom (one click to open the nom, another to edit), which doesn't sound like much, but if you're reviewing like 20 a day it would be a pain. Am I misunderstanding your suggestion? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's pretty much the idea. I know it'll be a pain, and I'm only suggesting it to overcome the loading problem (since I'm not convinced that transcluding will do anything to fix that - Backslash_Forwardslash, can we have the full TDYK page included in your test, so that we can see how it works when transcluded? Then we can see if there's a difference in loading). If we do this, we will have to change the {{DYKproblem}} to be able to include a date as well. But I don't understand why we'd have to click twice; once you're on a day's subpage, you will edit that page (section by section) as usual. This will be the case even if we transclude, because even if you edit from the main page, once you save it you will be taken to the subpage. Chamal talk 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You're right that it'll take an extra click to get back to T:TDYK even if we use transclusions.... to be honest, that's one of the things that annoys me the most about AfDs. (I wish {{afd2}} had a link like "back to this day's AfDs" or something). But, in any case, I think losing the ability to see all noms at a glance would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Personally, I'm just not convinced that the load time is a big enough problem that we need to make th is drastic of a chance to deal with it...it can be annoying from time to time, but I'm patient, and I don't even have a great internet connection. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Even if loading times won't be affected, I still believe having transclusions for days will make DYK much more manageable. ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(never mind, section below was posted while I was posting this) What are the other benefits of transclusion? Reducing edit conflicts, possibly, but I almost never get them (except when I'm proofreading full-page, and then I expect it). I only get them when two people are editing the same nom, and then transclusion won't help (if it's in a different section, clicking back and "Save Page" does the trick). Shubinator (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Summary of points

Here is my attempt to summarize the main points that have been made in this discussion (so that we might be able to have a little straw poll or something later). Feel free to tweak, or to add any that I missed.

Pro
  • Reduce number of edit conflicts and section-edit problems
  • might reduce page load time
  • Easier to manage, move heading around etc.
Con
  • Mass edits will be harder (i.e., proofreading the whole page)
  • Extra clicks (to get back to T:TDYK after you edit a section)
  • Harder to trace a hook back once it's in the queue
  • General rocking the boat

Is this an accurate summary? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Added *Easier to manage, move heading around etc. To be honest, I'm surprised that people are actually able to make whole page edits, but I haven't tried to myself. :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Whole-page edits on T:TDYK are one of the most exhilerating things you can do in Wikipedia! It's like a race against time...the adrenaline rush is amazing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, this is how I get my highs ;) Shubinator (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess that it will make the main DYK suggestions page easier to manage too. The summary seems spot on to me. Chamal talk 04:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It will allow the history of the hook nominations to be more accessible and transparent - rather than wading through 500 edits you can go directly to the day to have nominated. It also follows the same method as AfD and RfA, to avoid a singular overused and overedited page. ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(ecx2) I just thought of another con, and added it – it will be much harder to trace a hook back once it's in the queue. A few times a week we need to go back (an example is in the section below on the Buntingford hook, and another in the ethics section above), find another hook that was proposed, and substitute it in. We search by page history, so we'd have to check 10–15 histories if we go with transclusion. Shubinator (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That is true when you don't know what you are looking for, but when you know the day it makes it infinitely easier. ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever remembered the date, so we'd need some sort of tracker like Rjanag's suggesting. Shubinator (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec x2)That's a good point. It would not be hard for me to update {{NewDYKnom}} to add something in the auto-generated credits saying which day it came from, but that would basically be a solution to a problem that we ourselves created. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't we just transcribe each date instead? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Clarify - I mean copy and pasting instead or archiving things. :) I saw some concern about archiving somewhere above. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Err, not sure I understand you. Copy and paste what? We're not going to making archives, but we do want the edit histories to stay intact (so we wouldn't delete any individual date pages). Shubinator (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is going to take the time out to create the page for each new day? I'm really not sure this proposal is feasible. Gatoclass (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Messed up clock

Something's wrong with the DYK clock. Looks like this line was accidentally removed (without quotes): "Then save to reset the clock to the current time. --></noinclude>" If somebody could fix that – thanks. :) Jamie☆S93 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

An experienced admin is needed. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've told Vic. Shubinator (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Done, Victuallers fixed his mistake. Shubinator (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good. Thanks. Jamie☆S93 20:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
New computer ... old brain. Sorry for mess up Victuallers (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Cascading protection, revisited

On the last round, I placed an unprotected image on the main page. I did this to demonstrate to developers that there's still a problem, and gave them a chance to test the problem. I did place the warning template on the image, but I didn't actually protect it. I'm discussing the problem with the developers, it can be found here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18483 . The image is now protected by cascading protection. Hopefully they will come up with a solution. I have proposed one solution that hopefully would work for DYK, but won't help ITN, and a second solution that might work for both. It's too scary for an image to remain on the main page unprotected for 40 minutes. I sent an offline message to a trustworthy non-admin friend to test the protection, and he was able to do add a blank line. He could have uploaded a picture of a penis. This needs to get fixed. Royalbroil 14:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally protect each image I upload now. I got sick of being unsure about the protection status of the image. It only takes an extra second to do it anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It takes me several minutes - you must have a faster internet connection. I want something bulletproof. Shubinator came up with a solution that I think we should try. The page User:Ameliorate!/DYKlock has cascading protection. We should add queues 1 to 6 to that page. Then articles and images on that page would get the protection, although it takes up to several hours for it to work. What we should do is have the admin who promotes the group from the next or next, next update to do the local download of the picture if it's a Commons picture. The admin would only need to apply the {{m-protected}} template if the image is hosted on the English Wikipedia. Eventually the picture would get the cascading protection. The admin who would promote the group to the main page would test to make sure that cascading is working by trying to edit the page to make sure protection is applied; otherwise the admin would manually protect the group. An admin who is also a Commons admin could just protect the image there; there's no way for a non-admin to defeat Commons protection. Comments? Royalbroil 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I figured out why User:Ameliorate!/DYKlock was cascade protecting next / next,next updates. We should test this solution - someone who's going to be around for 2-3+ hours needs to apply cascading protection to that page and make sure it doesn't lock next and next, next. I gotta run. Royalbroil 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
@RB: "Then articles and images on that page would get the protection"...I assume you mean "hooks and images"? I certainly hope we wouldn't be protecting articles that are up on DYK. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Good question. I meant just the images. I struck part of my comment. Royalbroil 15:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm back home now, and I applied the cascading protection. It seems to be working. I placed an unprotected image in queue 6 and it is now protected by cascading protection. The next and next/next queues are not protected. Hopefully we're done. So the change is that an admin needs to download a local copy of Commons images right away when they promote a group to queue 1 to 6. If it's already a local image, they just need to add {{m-protected}}. Commons admins can protect there. Royalbroil 16:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note that since User:Ameliorate!/DYKlock only transcludes those other pages, it won't actually apply cascading protection to the images displayed on that page unless that page itself is edited (the link tables are only updated on saving). I had this same problem with the TFA, OTD, and POTD pictures that are hosted on Commons -- see [5] for more details. howcheng {chat} 17:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow, I should've thought of that (cascading protection at Commons). Could we get the DYK queues to be transcluded on that Commons page? It would be a lot less work for our Commons admin(s). Getting back to the delay, do you know if purging the page does the trick? The people at bugzilla say that it just takes time (and are implying that a null edit isn't needed). Shubinator (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
There's no cross-project transclusion. Someone (myself or Zzyzx11, but he's not been as active as of late) has to manually put those on the page, but we could create a similar system for DYK. The edits might only be required when ParserFunctions are used, since when a transcluded template is updated, there's still some sort of user action that takes place that would trigger the job queue. howcheng {chat} 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Easter

Just a reminder this has already started on UTC. Semi-dome is approved but not in a queue yet. I might have a couple more Orthodox architecture articles (Tetraconch for one) ready in time for the end of the day. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It'll take an admin to go into the queues, since we've already got four queues lined up (which will run the rest of the day). You should get any more articles nominated quickly to give us maneuvering time, because often there aren't admins around, and we'd want it to run the full 6 hours. Shubinator (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
ok thanks. If I nominate any more (max 1 tonight) I'll say so here. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, tetraconch coming now. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Two now cleared, but still not in queues. They are similar so should go in different updates. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Tetraconch is now on the Main Page, and semi-dome will be up in a few hours. Shubinator (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, & Happy Easter all! Johnbod (talk)

Expanded?

Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules seems confusing.. at least in this instance, it does to me. It says, DYK is only for articles that have been created, or expanded fivefold or more, within the last 5 days. Yet the Selection criteria says A nominated article must be new. My question here, does it have to be new period or can it be an older article that has been expanded fivefold within the last 5 days? If it's the latter, the rules wording needs a re-write. If someone could get to this ASAP, I'd appreciate it as I have a somewhat older article that I've expanded immensely and would like to go for a DYK if it's eligible. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 11:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"new" does not mean "very recently created", it means that the content is presented in Wikipedia for the first time. Your article should be fine. Skomorokh 11:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Echoing Skomorkh here... if you look at the second bullet point under "Selection Criteria," it says, "Former redirects, stubs, or other short articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are also acceptable as "new" articles." If enough people think that's not very clear, we can try to work on a way of making that more obvious. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I went back and checked the history and the article has been here since 2005 - but I extensively expanded it earlier today. I will be adding it shortly. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In the rewritten version, we have M3. Also, 1. New at WP:Did you know/Article mentions expansions. Art LaPella (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hooks

Is Art LePella no longer proofreading the hooks? I thought the "goat meat" hook, among other recent hooks, was not good. Is anyone overseeing them? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Art mostly does typo-checking and MoS fixes, rather than rewriting hooks or tweaking content. All in all, though, over the past couple days I've been seeing several hooks that are longer than necessary and have lots of facts crammed in. I shouldn't complain too much because I haven't been active at T:TDYK lately so it's my own fault if the hooks aren't written the way I think is best...but in general, I think we all need to be more relentless about tearing hooks down to be short and punchy, and removing as much fluff as possible. More often than not, nominators want to cram as much into a hook as possible, but the more stuff there is in a hook the less interesting a hook becomes; a hook with one semi-interesting factoid is usually more hooky than one with two more interesting factoids. I know the DYK rules technically state 200 characters as the cutoff, but my goal is usually to get the hook down to about 1/2 a line on T:DYK on my browser. If a hook is sticking onto a second line, it might be good to try and trim it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

@my article in the next update

If a picture is needed for a different update, Brazilian battleship São Paulo has a good one that, for some reason, I didn't nominate it with. If not, it's definitely not a big deal.

—Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Queues empty

The queues are pretty much empty now and need to be filled. We've got over 100 verified hooks, so it shouldn't be too difficult. I'd help out, but I'm busy until tomorrow night. (Also, the hooks in queue 4 are on the Main Page right now; 4 should be loaded with the hooks from Next update.) Shubinator (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK hook frustration

When looking at the talk page of an article that had DYK I really get frustrated trying to know what was displayed on the main page. I'd have to go through the date of the nomination, which is really frustrating. Please make the bot add the hook to the DYK template added to each article talk page. It really helps.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You can find the archived hooks also at WP:Recent additions. Cirt (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Diaa knows that, and is saying that having the hooks within the {{DYKtalk}} template would save trouble. I personally don't have any feelings on the matter; I don't remember the exact reasons it was decided not to keep the hooks anymore, but didn't it have something to do with not cluttering the edit window of the talk page? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, any move to standardize putting DYK hooks into {{DYKtalk}} would also have to be discussed with User:Gimmetrow, because a lot of DYK articles don't use DYKtalk but now use {{articlehistory}}, which is currently not equipped to have DYK hooks in it. (It would be quite simple to add a dummy parameter that holds the DYK hook but doesn't display anything, but it would clutter the template in the edit window.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
There already exists a parameter at {{ArticleHistory}} to link to the archives, it is dyklink=. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I never noticed that. Do you know if Gimmebot puts that in automatically? I haven't generally seen it used in talk pages. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if it is automatically added, but I know it works when inputted manually. Cirt (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that's good to know. I rarely add recent additions links to DYKtalk and other stuff, because after an article is on DYK it takes several weeks for it to be moved into a recent additions archive (before that it sits at the "current" page for a while, and there's no point linking to that), but by the time an article is getting updated with {{articlehistory}} it's often several weeks after it was up on DYK, so there should usually be a working recent additions link by then. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding WP:Recent additions. Yep I know that one. I'm just saying it's counter intuitive and takes a lot of time till one finds the hook. Why isn't the hook just added to the template at each talk page? It's very interesting to know what the hook was.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It takes five seconds to find the hook in WP:Recent additions. Just click on What links here in the toolbar to the left, when on the actual article's page. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, didn't think of that. Still having the hook automatically added would be beneficial. There is already a parameter for the hook available in the template, adding the hook would be fairly easy.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
When I get DYKHousekeepingBot running, hopefully it'll address these issues. If it works as expected, it'll go through all the DYK articles and add the hook to the talk pages that have {{DYKtalk}}. It'll also create new archives that are more intuitive and will go by month and year of appearance, instead of an arbitrary number. Then {{ArticleHistory}} can automatically link to the archive (right now it can't automatically link because it has no way of knowing the number of the archive). I've been busy, so I've put the bot on hold for now, but I'll take a look at it again in a few weeks. Before that, though, it's unlikely we'll manually add the hook for the current updates. Even an efficient 20 seconds for each one would add up to almost 3 minutes extra for doing an update. By the way, we don't have a bot doing the updates now; when it was running, it did automatically add the hook. Shubinator (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This kind of bot would solve the problem and would make dyk much better. Has this bot been coded though?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It's still in development; Shubinator's the one who's coding it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The talk page part of the code has already been written, just a few tweaks need to made for handling substituted DYKtalks. I still have to do the "making new archives" part and the image tagging part. Shubinator (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Which queue is next?

I'm confused. Although the counter says that queue 4 is next, it appears to me that queue 4 has already been up for several hours, and that queue 5 should be next... --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. 4 should be cleared. And I can do credits :) Shubinator (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I moved number 5 to number 4 so the sequencing is no longer confused (I hope). --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:NewDYKnom updated

I have updated the template to handle one of the common errors we get. If you're not interested in all the details, all you really need to know is this: if something goes drastically wrong on T:TDYK in the next couple hours, just follow that diff and undo my latest edit.

If you are interested in the juicy details, here's what the update was. One frequent error with the template is when people use something like author=User:Myself rather than author=Myself, which makes the links bad and messes up the auto-generated credits; people usually notice right away if they've done it wrong and fix the bad links, but often don't fix the credits because they're invisible, so one of us has to go back later and fix them. It makes two or three edits out of what should only be one, and it's just a pain for everyone. So basically I updated the template so that it strips off User: from whatever you enter. There were multiple ways to do this and I chose the one that's easiest for me, so if this turns out to cause problems I can start working on an alternative. Anyway, hopefully this will cut back on some of the annoyingness of the template. There still is no way to handle when people use signatures instead of entering their name (ie, author=~~~, but no other template that I know if (stuff like {{talkback}}, etc.) can do that either, so I'm not too worried; I think there's a limit to the amount of human error you can try to guard against, and you just have to accept the fact that sometimes people will do stuff the template is just not prepared for. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One problem:

<small>Created by [[User:Cbl62|Cbl62]] ([[User:Cbl62|talk]]). Self nom at 03:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)</small>

Note that both links go to the user page. :-) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Oceanh fixed that this morning (or last night), so newer noms should be ok. I'll take a look just to make sure. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When reviewing hooks...

...we've got to check the hook too, not just that the article contains the fact. See here; 11 != 10 years, and "at least almost"? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! thanks for pointing that one out! I'll fix it this evening. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
:) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I am new to DYK hook checking and will keep this in mind next time. (In addition to the issues raised in the illustrious portrait painting hook). --Belasd (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't apologize! It wasn't a big deal; just a reminder for everyone, not just you, to keep in mind. Thank you for helping DYK! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Crediting

Would someone please credit the articles in queue #4. I have to go to work. Royalbroil 12:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Queues

The hooks in queue 4 have been on the main page for several hours, but the queue was never cleared. Also, the DYK update is due right now, and the batch at T:DYK/N looks to be ready for queue 2. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 18:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert! I cleared queue 4 and updated the main page from queue 5. Can someone else please do the credits for queue 5?? --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done Gatoclass (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The images in the three numbered queues are all Commons images that are currently unprotected. If a Commons administrator should happen by and protect them before they get moved to the main page, it would save the trouble of temporarily uploading them here. :-) --Orlady (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up re Biodyl

Biodyl is likely to be a hot topic in the next 24 hours, due to breaking news in the case of the 21 polo ponies that died on Sunday. It would be really, really cool if the hook could appear on the Main Page within the next few hours, where Americans (both continents!) can find it there after their evening news. --Una Smith (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a big enough story for in "In the News"? --Orlady (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no experience there, so someone else decide, please. There are now over 1400 hits for "biodyl polo" on Google News, it has reached CNN, BBC, ABC. The polo team in question has a very rich and politically connected Venezuelan amateur player and three world class professional Argentine players, they have been playing all over the world, and now the media feeding frenzy is about to switch from the dangers of illegally importing putative performance-enhancing drugs for sport, to the dangers of having a drug compounded for you at your local pharmacy. This new topic is much "closer to home". --Una Smith (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This is much more suitable for ITN. There's some info on ITN at WP:ITNMP and WP:ITN/C. Shubinator (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Queue 1 promoted, credits need to be done

I've done the update from Queue 1 and reset it but the credits still need to be done. (It's almost 3am here and I have to be up in a few hours to drive out of town for the weekend.) If somebody could please follow this link to do the credits, I would appreciate it. Oh, and I'll be out of touch most of the weekend so if the other admins that watch DYK could be extra-vigilant, that too would be appreciated. - Dravecky (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Credits and tagging done (I think) =) Chamal talk 08:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Queue 2 promoted, credits need to be done

Could someone please do the credits from Queue 2? I'll go move the next update to Queue 3... --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm on it. Jamie☆S93 16:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
All done. Queue 2 can be cleared, now that it's on the MP. Best, Jamie☆S93 16:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Jamie! --Orlady (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Queue 4 promoted, credits need to be done

Just dropping by from my hotel room in scenic Tulsa, Oklahoma, to keep the queues moving so if somebody could do the credits for queue 4 (by following this link) I would be quite appreciative. Thanks and have a great weekend. - Dravecky (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On it. Shubinator (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. Have fun dodging cattle! Shubinator (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm actually in town for Conestoga (convention) so no cattle to dodge here. - Dravecky (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Conestoga (convention) has no pictures, Dravecky.... nudge nudge. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not displaying

The hooks for articles created on Arpil 22 and any earlier are not displaying on my screen. Is there a problem?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 14:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem too...--Rectilinium'♥' 15:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
fixed. Someone had broken the page by doing an incorrect copy-paste rather than using the template. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

simmilar pics

I would just like to point out that Queue 1 and Queue 2 both have very simmilar pictures. Is that Kosher here?--Found5dollar (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries; queue 2 is the next one to be used, so there will be over a day between the two.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 01:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated note, but Queue 2 can use File:Blacktip trevally.jpg rather than the image that's already there. It's similar, but it's a picture of a real fish rather than an artist's rendition. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost 180 hooks

The current count of entries at T:TDYK is 182 hooks, as of ten minutes ago. We haven't broken that kind of number in a little while. :D All six queues are filled and ready, which is great, and T:DYK/N and T:DYK/NN are almost both ready. Thanks to everybody for helping move those nominations along into queues in the past several hours; there was only one prepared earlier today, and I came back a few hours later to find at least 4 more queues filled. Have a doughnut. :) Jamie☆S93 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

*grabs a doughnut* Fanksh! Shubinator (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
/me swiftly grabs the remaining donut - yooble verobble welcoblle! Paxse (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DYKcheck update

I've been fiddling around with the script, including adding a brand new feature. But first, the mundane stuff. A few days ago all wikilinks in section headers on the nom page were taken out to help reduce load times. As a result, DYKcheck switched from finding article titles by section header wikilinks to finding them in hooks. The script has to find a hook to detect a title, so if you get an error, it's most likely because the hook doesn't start with "... that" or doesn't end with "?" (the question mark must not be italicized or within a link). The script will take the last hook detected and interpret any bolded wikilinks as nominated articles.
On to the new feature! DYKcheck can now detect a slew of tags placed on the article. It finds AfD tags, and pops out a nice link to the AfD discussion. It also finds CSD tags, although I'd think those articles wouldn't be nominated for DYK, or would be speedily deleted. The script finds other tags based on images in the article (the full list is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). This means it won't pick up on {{fact}} tags, or other "inline" tags, since they don't have any images. Hopefully everyone will find the new feature useful, and it won't give too many false positives. I'm open to adding or removing tag images from the list. Shubinator (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to make the script also recognize "...that" (without a space)? There is no official rule on that (although I think it's most common for people to use a space), and that bit isn't generated by the template, it's just whatever people type out by hand for the hook, so it would be easy for someone to accidentally not use a space and cause a DYKcheck error. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. Oh, and if anyone's not "seeing" the update, try bypassing your browser's cache on pages you've visited before (or clear the cache completely). Shubinator (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the space after ... is required by I1 which refers to WP:ELLIPSIS, and it wouldn't be nearly so common if I didn't routinely add it (although about a month ago that job suddenly got a lot easier; are you sure some script isn't fixing it?) Also, if the script doesn't work without "... that", then perhaps I or some other script should be adding "that" when it is missing, and requiring "that" should be moved from these "Debatable Rules" to WP:Did you know/Hook format. It has previously been argued that we wouldn't lose anything by removing all the "that"'s (or more precisely, almost all the "that"'s) introducing hooks. Art LaPella (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I've been doing full-page checks about every day for random things, that included (pun intended). Keeping "that" at the start is a good idea because it helps the flow of the sentence. No matter what part of speech the next word is, "that" stays the same, and leads the reader into the hook. From a technical point of view, "that" is what allows DYKcheck to latch on to a hook. Also from a technical point of view, the "?" is similarly crucial to finding hooks, so the script will give an error on noms like these. Shubinator (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK Robert K. Crane Correction?

Per the suggestion of Shubinator as a result of my inquiry to him, I am posing this question to the general DYK talk page. The April 13 DYK regarding Robert K. Crane isn't accurate. His work did not lead to the development of Oral rehydration therapy, but instead it provided a physiological basis that helped explain its use. ORT was discovered independently of Crane's work, and his work was later used to understand why the therapy indeed works. I'll admit the distinction is subtle, but it is important because as written, the claim is giving undue credit in an already very complicated (and hotly debated both in and out of wiki) history of this therapy. What actions, if any, are valid in correcting this error? Thanks for any help! Chaldor (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Like Shubinator said, I don't think there's anything worth doing. I've run across the same problem (the DYK hook I wrote for Real Change turned out to be based on a misinformed source) and just let it be. No one really looks at the archived hooks, so I don't imagine it causing any trouble. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. If it's not considered authoritative, then that's fine. Is it at least acceptable to update the talk page of the article under the DKY notice? I just don't want readers to take that as fact (and presumably anyone reading the talk page would have some moderate interest level in the author/work). Chaldor (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Error in Queue 1

In the current version of Queue 1, there's an error. For the item:

…that baseball pitcher Antonio Bastardo had an average of 21.6 strikeouts per game after one start in 2007?

What the hook should say (and what the article does say) is::

…that baseball pitcher Antonio Bastardo had an average of 21.6 strikeouts per nine innings after one start in 2007?

There's a big difference between "per game" and "per nine innings". (FYI, he had 12 strikeouts in his one appearance, which makes his per game average exactly 12.) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

According to this, "per game" implies "per nine innings" to baseball statistic addicts, so the question is whether explaining this statistical detail to others is worth an extra Main Page word. Art LaPella (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Per my comments on all-state, below, since the majority of us do not know what strikeouts are, and cannot for the life of us understand baseball statistics, it hardly seems to matter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't matter. This is par for the course with sports hooks; the vast majority of sports articles have nothing that would be remotely interesting to a general audience, and are only interesting within their sport, so it's normal that the hooks are only comprehensible to people who actually understand the statistics. (I suppose you could say the same thing about my occasional brain hooks, but who knows.) It's something I don't really like, but there's not much that can be done about it; the long-standing consensus at DYK has been not to set arbitrary standards for what is "interesting" and what is not, so I've pretty much given up on trying to make sports hooks sound interesting. The best we can do is copyedit them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please try to make DYKs at least a little comprehensible

I take issue with this DYK: ... that Jermaine Mays was named All-State in high school as a senior despite breaking his collarbone?

Those not familiar with the USian education & sporting systems, like me, do not know a) what All-State means, b) necessarily what a high school is and c) what a senior is. We can kinda guess the last two; the first - the main point of the story - is just lost entirely.

DYK should, I think, seek to speak intelligibly and inform us, not present culturally-bound idioms to those who do not share the culture. If you cannot explain the term with a link, consider whether you should use it at all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tagishsimon. DuncanHill (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
High school should be linked to secondary school (if there's still time; it might be off the MP already, I haven't really been paying attention). I couldn't find anything to link all-state to. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
All-star#Variations was suggested as a response to a question I left on a reference desk. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Cassidy

Just so everyone knows, this DYK hook that aired briefly (and was then removed by Thatcher) and its related article are being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Martin_Cassidy and the article itself is at AfD and will certainly be deleted. There's no need to name names or anything, we all screw up sometimes (I know I have done it), but we really should not be featuring negative hooks about the recently deceased (with the exception of people who were infamous anyway...I remember back in December we ran a negative hook about a then-recently-deceased politician who had ordered the police to open fire in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, and although I didn't disagree, the consensus was that a negative hook was ok in that case...but either way, this is a normal person and we need to be sensitive). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't quarrel with removing the hook, which was focused on embarrassing details of a recent death. However, it's not a BLP issue (subject not a LP), and deleting an article on a notable person with news coverage independent of his death because of such concerns sets a bad precedent. Cbl62 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm actually in the process of writing up a question to post at WT:BLP about this sort of thing. From the old discussions I have looked at, it seems the consensus is that recently deceased people aren't covered by BLP (which makes sense; after all, as you said, it's BLP)...but at the same time, I have picked up a de facto sense here that we should not run negative stuff about the recently deceased, unless they are known for being jerks anyway (for example, back in December there was a negative hook about a Chinese politician who had been involved in ordering the police to open fire at the 1989 Tiananmen protests...I remember objecting to the negative nature of the hook, but I think consensus ended being that ordering the police to open fire was kind of a dick move anyway). Anyway, yeah, I've just been getting curious about how our gut instinct to be sensitive about recently deceased persons fits in with BLP or other "do no harm"-type guidelines, especially in cases like this where the family is still alive and probably needs to be considered. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There are two separate principles here: 1) BLP, which is intended to protect Wikipedia from suits for libel by living persons, and 2) good taste. Several months ago, I proposed a DYK hook about a porn actress, and someone raised a valid distinction -- good taste is a reason to refrain from featuring something prominently on the main page, but it is not a justification for deleting content in its entirety. I think the right decision was made to pull the Cassidy DYK hook (as a matter of good taste), but I don't think the entire article should be deleted -- and based on tne AfD discussion, it looks like that is what is going to happen, and based largely on concerns about good taste. Cbl62 (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

I am suggesting that the template page is interwikied to the Simple English Wikipedia with simple:Template:DYK. Since I cannot edit the template I am asking an admin to do that. Thanks, The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 04:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done Royalbroil 01:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Crediting needed

Would someone please do the crediting for the current set? The hooks are found in queue #4. Royalbroil 12:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On it. ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. (sorry about the late reply) ∗ \ / (⁂) 12:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Royalbroil 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging responses at DYK

Ever since I started working here, I've noticed that nominators often reply to my comments on their nominations at my talk page. Can we encourage responses at DYK somehow? I think it is better if the entire DYK community can see these discussions. Awadewit (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Are you notifying them about your comments using {{subst:DYKproblem}} at their talk pages? If so, I could add a line in there saying something to the effect of "please respond there". If not, and they're just coming to your talk page unsolicited, then changing that template wouldn't help much, and I guess we'd just have to add further instructions on T:TDYK (although, to be honest, I'm not sure how often people read the instructions that are already there).
As for me, I sometimes get responses at my talk page, but usually people leave their real response at T:TDYK and go to my talkpage just to nudge me and be like "left you a response there, thanks". That doesn't really bother me, but it sounds like your problem is different. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been leaving the templates, honestly (blushes). People are just dropping by, in a very congenial manner, to discuss the issues I raised. However, I think that all DYK discussions should take place at DYK. Should I just direct them back here or what? Awadewit (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say just direct them back here or to T:TDYK with a polite brief note. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Hm, yeah, I guess all you can really do then is leave them a note along with your response saying something like "btw, in the future you can respond directly at T:TDYK, I watch that page closely" or something. Or something at the top of your talk page directing people here (although you shouldn't be required to ugly up your own page just because of other people's getting lost a bit). To be honest, I haven't really had much of a problem with this before, maybe you're just more welcoming-looking than I am! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe I just leave complicated-sounding messages at DYK. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe. As I don't have that problem either. Just an occational nudge as Rjanag describes. But then, on my talk page I am not very chatty. (I don't use the template either, as it seems editors watch their entry.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries there; I generally just use the templates with n00bs (as regulars know to watch their nom) or when it's time-sensitive, like if a nom is in the last day of Older Noms and I'm just now pointing out a problem. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I nominated perfluorooctanesulfonamide which is in queue 5 Template:Did_you_know/Queue and I think Scotchgard should be linked. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. - Dravecky (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Buddha's Birthday

Buddha's Birthday is coming up soon (May 2 this year), and I think it will be great if we create some Buddhism-related hooks for the day, like User:Blnguyen and I did last year. Sadly Buddhism isn't a very well covered topic in Wikipedia as we can see in this crowded stub category. Any help is appreciated. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What a great idea. I can certainly managed to nom a few articles from a Buddhist country, perhaps I work in some pagoda hooks. Paxse (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. When you nominate hooks for the day, please mention they are meant for May 2, so updaters won't feature the hooks on a wrong day. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This I can help with, since I'm a Buddhist myself :) I think I can find some time for it. Rather than Buddha's Birthday it's more widely celebrated as Vesak, btw. Chamal talk 12:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
So I've heard. However, in South Korea, Macau and Hong Kong, we celebrate it on the date I mentioned above. I see Vesak is celebrated on May 9 this year—perhaps we could save some hooks for that date as well. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know the days were different. Then I suggest we divide the hooks by their relevance to each day; by region etc. But before doing anything like that we need the hooks :) We could get some help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism I guess. Chamal talk 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>Hmmm... Visaka Bochea is a redlink as well. I may do something about that. Here in Cambodia I think it's on the 9th as well. We could spread the hooks equally across the two days. Shall we list them here (like last year) or in the special occasion holding area? I've been doing some searching and Buddhist Institute, Cambodia and Sanghapala are both tiny stubs. I will try to make them DYK worthy. Well done BorgQueen, this is doing something concrete about en-wiki's systemic bias. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've created a new header at the special occasions section of T:TDYK for Buddha-related DYKs. Jamie☆S93 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if any of you would be interested in expanding Four sights. It is one of the major episodes of Gautama Buddha's life, which is included in this template, yet the article remains a three-sentence stub. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The article has been nicely expanded by User:Chamal N. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the info in the four sights is wrong. The excursions were sanctioned, just that some things were not covered up effectively YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe hook

The hook in queue 1 for Edgar Allen Poe is slotted for the 1:00 a.m. overnight slot in the U.S. Since it's a pretty good hook and directed to a U.S. audience, might someone consider moving it to queue 1 so that it will run when people in the U.S. are awake? Hook is as follows: ... that the quarterback for the first College Football All-America Team in 1889 was Edgar Allan Poe? Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Poke. Any available admins out there? :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've bumped it back to queue 2 so it won't debut before 8:40am on the US East Coast. That should give it a good run during daylight hours across the continental United States. - Dravecky (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Cbl62 (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Why was this worded like an April 1 DYK? To me the intention seems to have been to humorously mislead readers into thinking it's the poet Edgar Allen Poe (although, if you know more about him, you know he died before 1889). This sort of joke is only appropriate on April 1... and it would have easily been avoided by adding "Maryland attorney general" to it: "... that the quarterback for the first College Football All-America Team in 1889 was Maryland attorney general Edgar Allan Poe?" -kotra (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Queue 1

Just a minor quibble, but in queue 1, the image hook needs to be tweaked; "(patent pictured)" needs to be switched to "(patent pictured)", with the parentheses in italics. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_44&oldid=1146806249"