Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Template:Did you know

What happened with that hook? I'm not seeing it here.--Cannibaloki 18:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just gonna have to put a notice there. The template updating bot has not updated the recent additions for a while and the bot operator hasn't edited in about two weeks.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

28th

With a bit of shuffling, the sets of hooks for the 28th have been completed. We didn't have enough pictures and hooks to cover four updates, so I have moved the batch that was in Q5 to P1, until Q2 clears up, as Q2 will receive a better timeslot for American readers. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Those uppity Americans. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon?--Giants27 (c|s) 14:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've shuffled the hooks a bit to separate the LGBT hooks. Hooks on the same topic should never be adjacent to one another (unless the update has more than 50% hooks on that topic) even on "special" days. Other than that, you've done a great job Backslash, thanks for helping out :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK credits and redirects

Hi. I left a note on Nixeagle's talk page, (in this archive) about this problem, but he doesn't seem to be responding to comments on his talk page lately. I've noticed that the bot that gives out the DYK credits puts it on a redirect's talk page if the nom'd article link is a redirect to the real page. I've fixed this manually the couple times I have seen it happen, but perhaps this should be changed in the bot's programming? Just wanted to leave a note here, since it seems that nixeagle hasn't edited in awhile. For example, just now Talk:Garfield School got the credits instead of Talk:Garfield School (Brunswick, New York) (because the DYK used the redirect as a link instead of piping to the article, presumably.). Killiondude (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been fixing these, and other bugs, manually. For now, set assemblers can use scripts like User:Splarka/dabfinder.js to quickly spot redirects in the credits and correct them. Shubinator (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Review Needed

Can somebody check out some of the nommed hooks here? Because only about four of the 13 nommed hooks in this special holding area have been reviewed and July 1st is only in two days (as most of you know).--Giants27 (c|s) 19:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Canada Day (July 1)

Can someone please add Toronto to Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes? We are perilously close to Canada Day and there is a bunch of hooks ready in the "special occasions" section, but no-one seems to have done much about it yet. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Canada share the same time and time zones as the US?--Giants27 (c|s) 13:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple timezones across the US. But Toronto is UTC-5, so it must be about 8:30am there, which means there is 16 hours to go to Canada Day. So I guess we should let the current two updates in the queue run and then start using the Canada Day hooks from queue #4, which is currently empty. Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think queue #4 will be just about spot on, because there is still four hours to go with the current update. 4 + 6 + 6 = 16. But somebody needs to start putting those Canada Day updates together. Gatoclass (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have a total of 12 Canada hooks but only three pic hooks, so I think we can skip the pic hook for the first update, as that is early in the morning, and lead with the pic hooks for the next three updates. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done the first Canada Day hook and got a start on the next two, I'm taking a break now so someone else is welcome to finish them if they want to. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've promoted all but three of the Canada Day submissions. The three I left out I couldn't really fit into the updates as there were already numerous Canadian sporting hooks, and it would make the updates look unbalanced to have included them all. So I suggest the three leftover hooks be used over the next day or two instead. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done 3 1/2 of the updates, someone just needs to finish the last one. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Error in shortstops article lead-in

Five, not four, Hall of Famers have won Gold Gloves at short stop. Robin Yount belongs on list. New page corrected; lead-in here needs to be as well. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article you're talking about. At DYK we go through at least 24 of these articles a day, we're not automatically going to know what you're talking about. Are you referring to List of Gold Glove Award winners at shortstop? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has to mean this. It was on the Main Page then, but not any more. Sorry. Next time, please use WP:ERRORS (the top of the Main Page talk page) so that more of us will see it. Art LaPella (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of DYK articles

I just reverted vandalism on Papuan King Parrot which is at the top of DYK on the frontpage. The vandalism was committed by an IP. Aren't articles linked to from the Main page normally at least semi-protected or even full protected? 193.244.33.47 (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they're not normally protected unless they are subject to excessive vandalism. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

But thank you for reverting the vandalism. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

less esoteric DYKs

In case anyone wanted to look at broader and less esoteric DYKs, a while ago we got a few listed (now somewhere in archives), which I have collected to here --> User:Casliber/To-Do#Potential_DYKs. Anyone is welcome to expand and harvest them (just strike it if you do), or alternately add some more broader ones which may be quite sizeable stubs but could be expanded fivefold in an extended burst. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK award updated

Since a lot of people are unaware that they can update DYKSTATS themselves, I updated the DYK award/notification/credit with a brief sentence mentioning it and linking to instructions for how to check their article's hits. This was per a suggestion I made at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 47#DYKSTATS Update. Just a heads-up so that if there are any errors the next time someone does credits, you will know where to look (and possibly revert if something in my edit is causing a problem with the template). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, people do this and whoever regularly updates it doesn't have to go through every hook.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

July 4 question

Can you nominate an article you did since last July 4 that wasn't used on DYK that has relevance to July 4, 1776? That is, like April Fools Day.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it but others might.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now the only exception is April Fools, and I don't think opening it up is a good idea. The fundamental point of DYK is to feature new content. If we let the Fourth of July be an exception, people will ask for exceptions on other holidays, and we'd get into debates on whether a day counts as a "holiday" (what about National Pig Day?). Shubinator (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess I won't bring home the bacon then, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shubinator here; July 4 is mostly just a US holiday, and arguably not even the most important one (as ridiculous as it is for a country that supposedly has separation of church & state, most people get off work for Christmas but not for July 4...but at least New Year's and Thanksgiving are non-religious holidays :P. then again, whether Christmas is even still a "religious" holiday is always a subject of debate...). It wouldn't really be fair.

Out of curiosity, what is the article you have in mind? Is there any other way you might be able to get it onto the MP on July 4? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shubinator as well, though I think if any day is worthy of an exception, it's National Pig Day. Geraldk (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Andrew McNair. Sources on him are next to nil, and I scraped like anything to get what is there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. I found one site with a fair bit of info: 1. It's a blog, but it says the real source is the book Andrew McNair and the Liberty Bell by Mary D. Alexander; you could try getting your hands on a copy. It looks like he's depicted in a few historical plays and movies, so that could add another few sentences. Shubinator (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to the suggestion above, most people in the United States do get off work on July 4 (and when it falls on a Saturday like this year, many people get the preceding Friday off, or the following Monday when it falls on a Sunday). Obviously, not everybody in the U.S. is off from work on July 4, but a great many people are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot hiccup

DYKadminBot was over two hours late on the last update. For many weeks now it's been updating at 02:35, 08:35, 14:35, and 20:35, but that latest one was at 23:42. Hopefully this is just a minor hiccup (Wikipedia was very sluggish a few hours ago for me), but keep an eye out if the bot keeps delaying updates. Shubinator (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Wikipedia was having some problems so that probably delayed the bot, since it probably didn't account for the downtime and the bot thought it updated on time.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: Translations of other wikis = new?

Hi there. I'm not all-to-familiar with DYK, so this might be obvious for regulars here but it's something I wondered about: If I were to translate an article (say from de-wiki), does it count as "new" for en-wiki (as it does not exist here) or not (as it exists on some other wiki)? Regards SoWhy 08:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag's post here covers it pretty well. The content is "new", but of course it must meet DYK standards. Shubinator (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you do not have access to the source then there could be a problem. Make sure that you check with the sources and verify. It would be your obligation to ensure that it is factually accurate in your translation. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I refreshed the main page template manually

Was confused by all the queues etc. Can someone please do the credits and load up some of the prep areas? I need to hop off now. Sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Credits done for this and article talk pages tagged (correctly, I hope :P). Chamal ^talk 10:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

July 4

Here we are on July 4 and no-one bothered to even load a US independence day update. Someone managed to throw one together for the next update, but I had to spend half an hour trying to fix the formatting errors.

What the heck is going on? Aren't there any Americans who care enough about their own independence day to make sure the right hooks get featured? I had to do Canada Day just a couple of days ago, with almost no help from anyone else, and I'm afraid I don't feel like doing a repeat performance this weekend. So please one of you Yanks step forward and show a bit of interest! Gatoclass (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Turns out there's only a couple of Independence Day hooks left on Suggestions anyhow. I thought there was a lot more of them, I guess I was mistaken. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I promoted the last two independence day hooks - one each for the last two updates. So Independence Day is "done" - except that the updates in question will still need to be filled out. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I did two last night, and just filled up another.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You did two July 4 hooks last night? But that was July 3 in the US wasn't it? Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It was July 3 when they were posted, but July 4 when they went up (although, to be fair, it was like 3 AM to 9 AM...although the but is an hour late on its update, which is probably my fault, so that set is getting some extra time). The next set with a July 4 hook is set to go up any time now...if the bot is running late maybe we should just flip it manually? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the bot just updated. (Oh, and Giants means two sets, not hooks, last night.) Shubinator (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I should say, I did one set, thought I did two but used one article in it, Annual Reminder which was just on the main page.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Stonewall riots prompted a more productive content creation session. Perhaps it is hard to find an unwritten article on what is a fairly limited topic. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Stanhope (optical bijou) wikilink in Q5 needs to be fixed

Sorry about that but the link to microphotograph needs to be changed to link to Microform, not microphotography. The corrected hook should have the microphotograph wikilink corrected as follows:

that in 1864, René Dagron produced a stanhope which enabled the viewing of a [[Microform|microphotograph]] that included the portraits of 450 people in an area of 1 mm2?

The current microphotograph link directs to microphotography, ([[Microphotography|microphotograph]]) which is wrong. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What can I say. This kind of speed is awesome. Many thanks BorgQueen. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 17:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Blanking instead of updating

[1] What on earth went wrong? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The queue was missing a <!--Hooks--> Shubinator (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, curiously User:Rjanag omitted it. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was worried for a while that I had screwed this up again, but I only copied what was in the Prep Area; here is the problem. An editor inadvertently removed it while loading the prep; I can see how this would be an honest mistake, as it's right next to where we do cutting-and-pasting for the image, and easy to miss. Would anything be messed up if we moved it up one line (on Template:Did you know/Clear) to prevent more accidents like this from happening? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the fix I was suggesting. Feel free to revert it if you think it will cause a bot error; I just figured it might prevent the <!--Hooks--> from being removed by accident. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Should work. I removed the line return before, so there's an overall one blank line (the commented out part isn't seen) in the edit window, which means nothing is changed on the template. Shubinator (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, we need <!--Hooks--> and <!--HooksEnd--> back in T:DYK. Shubinator (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, does that look right? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks! Shubinator (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Article renamed

The "2009 London tower block fire" article is now at 2009 Camberwell tower block fire after it was moved by another editor. Currently in the queue for DYK. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Halloween DYKs

Is it too early as I have reviewed a Dracula-related one? --candle•wicke 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Although this is slightly better because multiple countries celebrate it, my answer's the same as in #July 4 question. Shubinator (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

DYKSTATS link

Is it just my computer or does the article view link not come up for anyone?--Giants27 (c|s) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the article view link"? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The stats site is currently offline. [2] --BorgQueen (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This link, but BorgQueen's post covers it.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The site seems to be back up and running. It looks, though, like it didn't collect any data during the days it was down (see, for example, [3]). Tear... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha - the missing stats have been retrieved! And Zhang can take her place on the STATS board with a round 5,000... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Preps need moving!

Kindly move the Prep Areas on so I may attempt to prevent the panic that will ensue tomorrow. --candle•wicke 00:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you asked. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be a good idea, no? There are currently only 24 hours of DYKs ready. I hope I didn't appear too rude. :D --candle•wicke 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, if the preps are full and there are no admins around to clear them, you can organize further updates anywhere you want, such as in a personal sandbox. Just copy the text of T:DYK/C (Template:Did you know/Clear) into your sandbox, and prepare an update there. That way you can prepare as many updates as you want, and be ready to move them into the prep pages the moment an admin clears them. (Just be specific in your T:TDYK edit summaries that you are promoting them to a personal sandbox, rather than the regular prep pages...otherwise people might start getting confused.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check minimum sizes

Could everyone, when reviewing an article, please ensure that it meets the absolute minimum 1500 character requirement? Articles such as N'Mai River, which is currently on the Main Page, have been verified yet fall short. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The N'Mai River article has 1,478 characters of prose, is 22 characters really such a big deal? It's just 1.5% off. Nev1 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1500 is meant to be an absolute minimum - 1500 is already bordering on too short. In fact, Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules makes it clear articles 1500 long may still be rejected. 22 characters may not be a lot, but we need to draw a line and we have a line that we cannot cross, simply because 1500 is already bordering on being a stub. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Chamal verified my hook that only had 1499 characters... he should be fired!!!!

(j/k. Backslash is right, we need to be pretty strict about the 1500 limit. Of course, somewhere there is a point between where rejecting a hook is nitpicky, and that point lies somewhere between 1 character short and 22 characters short, but who knows exactly where. For the most part, we should be pretty wary about accepting any articles that are less than 1500—the only absolute exceptions are articles that I wrote! ;) ) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, articles are deliberately short to catch everyone out... this is tricky enough without that sort of behaviour... :) --candle•wicke 02:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

179 unverified hooks

...and just 3 verified ones. We're in no immediate danger since we have about 24 hours worth of queues assembled and ready but at this time tomorrow the panic will be in full swing if folks don't jump in to review some hooks. As always, the older the hook, the more in need of review it is. Thanks to everybody who jumps in here. - Dravecky (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've verified a few of the older ones, unfortunately as usual I then ran into a series of articles that couldn't be verified. I'll try to verify some more tonight. Gatoclass (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll go review a few.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been verifying and preparing for several days now - I don't know how you all do it consistently but I presume there are usually more reviewers? --candle•wicke 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The current template has 8 hooks and the queues that are full all have 7... I'm sure we could cut down to 6 if we're worried about running out of verified hooks. Fewer hooks means more attention for each hook and a less intimidating-looking template. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be best. --candle•wicke 15:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If we have that many hooks sitting on dyk unverified, shrinking the ones placed on the main page again is actually the last thing we should do. Wizardman 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wizardman. Let's keep it seven. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Norway in Did You Know

comment moved from WT:MP rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we going through this whole ordeal again about minute details on Norway being presented as some curious fact that people should know? I think it puts my country in a bad light, and please save the sarcasm. 193.213.19.176 (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the nature of this complaint? Gatoclass (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago there was a long period of norway-related articles on the front page, often in the DYK-section. Yesterday there was one and today there is one. I know that the DYK is for showcasing new articles that may be quite narrow in their subject, but one does not need to look far for other articles than to push out Norway-related articles at every opportunity. 193.213.19.176 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We just put up what the creators/expanders nom, it's not our fault Punkmorten is really hard working.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also finding his DYKs quite easy to verify this week, especially when one last DYK is needed, and they vary as well so sorry about that one. --candle•wicke 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the english wikipedia. Norwegian topics are not particularly familiar information for the majority of english-speaking readers, and for that reason, almost every new well-written Norwegian article would contain information appropriate to the DYK box. —Akrabbim^talk 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions needed on the RS-ness of a source widely used on FAC/GAC/GA/FA

Cross posting because people here are interested in RS matters

A lot of Eurovision Song Contest articles, some of which have been successful and unsuccessful at FA/GA use a few websites that have been contested and are the subject of some debate. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eurovision Song Contest/archive2 and WT:EURO YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

All U.S. hooks in queue #6

Yep, all seven hooks in this queue are US-related, and three of them are sports hooks to boot.

I know we have a shortage of verified hooks ATM, but I think it would be better to leave completing an update until some more have been approved rather than putting one together that has hooks all from the same country. It's not as if this was a really urgent update given that we have several in the queue already. Gatoclass (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced three of them. I agree the admin should have been more careful. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work BQ, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium ports

Just noticed that Gaius Iulius Caesar (name) hit the main page. It's a port from the corresponding article on Citizendium, with a little MoS tweaking to fit. Selection criterion 1.d (original to Wikipedia) would seem to discourage (though not ban outright) such hooks from appearing in DYK. I've no real objection to such material hitting the Main Page, but I thought I'd start a discussion on the topic now to get others' views on the matter, as the recent licence change is going to mean that we'll see quite a few articles like this appearing over the next month or two, and others sporadically afterwards, and I'd rather there be a coherent policy in place before it becomes an issue down the line. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, would such things be brought over without the encouragement of DYK? I think yes, so that's not an issue. However, Citizendium has very different, much more POV-pushing friendly policies than us, and I do think we should encourage review and revision before featuring them here, more extensive than just MoS tweaks. If they do revise and rework it, I'm fine with it, however. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Not a big problem though as a good port of all their top articles would keep dyk running for about 4 days. Victuallers (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was troubled by this article too. I didn't see anything that really made it notable or worth while, and the use of references was a tad troubling. I don't know about Citizendium articles in general, but if they are like this I would rather not have them without a major overhaul. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same about this as I do about articles that incorporate DANFS text, OWL, 1911, etc.... it may be free according to copyright, but it's plagiarism, it's lazy writing, and it's still a shame that so much of our community approves of it. Nuff said. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not "plagiarism" to use public domain text rjanag :)

I must admit I was a little uncomfortable about this article, not because it came from citizendium, but because it seemed a tad OR-ish to me. Since I was undecided about it, I thought I would leave it to someone else to approve. Gatoclass (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copyright violation are separate things. It's entirely possible to plagiarise a public domain work. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The OR part was what I found troubling. Citizendium, Conservapedia, Literary Encyclopedia, etc, all allow a very liberal use of sources. It is hard to really tell where the source ends and where the editor's voice begins. We are a tertiary encyclopedia and not a college term paper and our standards would require things to be a tad different. I'm all for the pages being the base and then transformed to conform to Wiki standards, but it would take a lot more work than a simple copy and paste. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree. Maybe we should make the discouragement of ported articles into a straightforward ban, unless sufficient work is done on it to fully integrate it into Wikipedia? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well we certainly don't want articles from Conservapedia, since that is not run as an encyclopedia but as a vehicle for the promotion of particular political views. This issue has been canvassed before but the consensus has been that articles ported from foreign language wikis at least ought to remain eligible. Gatoclass (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally the consensus has been that they're eligible but subject to all the same restrictions as normal articles here. If an article is crappy and unreferenced on zh-wiki (for example), and it is translated to here but left in the same crappy and unreferenced form, it won't be accepted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Queue almost empty

If someone could throw another update together, that would be handy. Gatoclass (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I can do that. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bandwidth

Srsly, when are they planning to add some? I am sick of waiting half a minute for a window to open on this project. You just can't get anything done. Isn't $6 million enough to buy a few extra servers? Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so it's not just me.--Giants27 (c|s) 14:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thirded (is that a word?). I have managed about 3 edits in the last two hours, and I don't know what is happening with Commons: weird error messages, and uploads seemingly getting eaten! Scream... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

AH! Someone fix T:DYK! The bot blanked it! The template should be updated with queue 3 Shubinator (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That was bad. I was having a heck of a time trying to actually save my "revert" edit with those WMF errors. Rjanag updated it to queue 3 after my revert. Jamie^☆S93 15:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I got it, after 15 minutes and about 20 Wikimedia error messages. God, was that a horrible experience.

I suppose now you want me to update the clock and purge the MP, too? ;) Here goes an hour of my life.... .rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like for at least 5 minutes the MP has had "Did you know..." followed by an empty white box. I'm sure there's some deep philosophical meaning to be found in that, I just haven't figured it out yet. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, AND credits need done: here is where they are. right now I'm afraid to even try opening that many talkpages.

AND... @Gato.... maybe we should all donate to Wikipedia ;). I know it's been a good 6 months, at least, since I did. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've purged the Main Page, and I'll try to do credits. The one good part is the bot didn't purge after blanking DYK (I checked right after I saw the diff, and the MP looked fine). Thanks to both for chipping in. Shubinator (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Who removed the pictures from the main page and the wikipedia logo from the side of the screen? :)--Giants27 (c|s) 16:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected images

The last two images appearing in Template:Did you know (File:Alisterus chloropterus -Jurong Bird Park -male-8a.jpg and File:Richie Hall.jpg) were inserted without first being uploaded/protected locally or protected at Commons. (I protected File:Richie Hall.jpg at Commons as soon as I noticed.) This means that for almost seven hours, our main page was vulnerable to image vandalism. The three queued images for upcoming updates (File:MarkusHowell.jpg, File:Flag of Nunavut.svg and File:Astraeus hygrometricus.jpg) also were unprotected (and I've protected them at Commons as well).
Shouldn't DYKadminBot be programmed to verify that the image has been protected (either locally or at Commons) before performing the update? (I've left a pointer to this thread on Nixeagle's talk page.) —David Levy 10:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally it is the job of the moving admin to protect the images, I don't think we need a bot to do it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not proposing that a bot protect the images. (This would be problematic, as they could be vandalised beforehand.) I'm saying that DYKadminBot should not place an image on the main page without first verifying that it's been protected. —David Levy 10:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for that. That would be a useful feature indeed. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I just noticed that the current image (File:Heart left ventricular hypertrophy sa.jpg) was unprotected (and Iimmediately protected it at Commons). Hopefully, Nixeagle will respond soon. —David Levy 00:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, all of the images appearing in the upcoming queues were unprotected. (I protected them at Commons.) —David Levy 04:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It just happened again with the current image. Can we please do something to prevent this from occurring? —David Levy 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added an editnotice (reminding administrators to protect the image) to all of the queues. I hope that this helps. —David Levy 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And despite that, another unprotected image was added to the next queue. (I protected it at Commons.) So apparently, this big, yellow box is insufficient.

Any other ideas? —David Levy 20:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And it happened again. I've now resorted to leaving messages at individual sysops' talk pages (which I'd hoped to avoid). —David Levy 05:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the word on cascading protection of images on the MP? I know it's been discussed before, but I don't remember the conclusions (most of the discussions were before I had the mop and so I wasn't paying much attention)... is it just never gonna happen? It would certainly make things a lot easier. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cascading protection has been applied to the main page since the feature's introduction in 2007, but it doesn't affect images stored at Commons; they must be uploaded locally. —David Levy 08:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I opened a bug on Bugzilla to add cascading protection for Commons, but the response so far has been lukewarm. The bug about the delay in cascading protection is similarly stalled. Feel free to voice your thoughts at both bug threads. Shubinator (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The delay problem ought to be fixed, but I don't see how allowing local protection to cascade to Commons would be feasible. It would be quite problematic for a file to be protected at Commons because it sits forgotten on a long-disused page at any of hundreds of wikis (with the only solution being to contact someone from that wiki in whatever language happens to be spoken there). —David Levy 19:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's true. I didn't think of it before, but it would be somewhat unfair to people on Commons if we prevented them from editing an image because it was being used somewhere. Uploading a local copy to en-wiki is a royal pain in the butt (and uploading 4 a day even more so, but maybe it's the only alternative.

How about this: take that job out of the hands of the admins moving stuff to queues, because often we are doing it in a hurry (like I did the last time I was updating them). It could be in the hands of the people preparing the next update in the Prep areas, or people could even post their nominations using temporary local copies rather than commons images (although it shouldn't be required, because that might intimidate people—also there would need to be a process for people to tag their local copies for deletion if they don't end up being used, since only a small percentage of images nominated actually get used on the MP). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Only administrators can upload a file to en.wiki at the same spot as the one at Commons (see reupload-shared at Special:ListGroupRights). If we use temporary filenames, the archives will show redlinks after the temps are deleted. Shubinator (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bastille Day

Are there going to be any hooks for it (July 14th)? I have prep for Coleridge's France: An Ode, which describes his feelings in support of the French Revolution but betrayal he felt when France invaded Switzerland (he also wrote many works on the French Revolution). I heard that there might be featured pictures related and possibly other stuff. I would like to see everyone's thoughts. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Coleridge picture to go with the hook? It would be nice to get something French in the lead slot for a few hours. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many pictures of the French Revolution (in addition to Coleridge) that could easily be used. Is anyone else willing to put out some hooks? I would hate to have it go solo. Anyway, I will put together what I have in a little bit (not a complete page, I will finish it Sunday) and possibly some others. There is also a play called The Fall of Robbespierre that would equally be interesting for Bastille Day. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to work on some more possible articles, such as William Blake's The French Revolution. I should have a few poems on the events by the British Romantics ready by Sunday evening. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, three articles for a hook - something along the lines of "The British Romantic poets captured the unfolding events of the French Revolution: list a few events". I have three articles (not finished yet) User:Ottava Rima/The French Revolution (Bastille and the French tyranny pre-Revolution), User:Ottava Rima/The Fall of Robbespierre (Robespierre's death, yes, a typo, but I'm too lazy to fix at the moment), and User:Ottava Rima/France: An Ode (invasion of Switzerland). If anyone can think of another British Romantic poem that would fit the mold that I have missed, drop me a line. I wanted to deal with the early revolution in order to fit in with Bastille (and ignore Napoleon's stuff). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's not enough work, you could just bring French Revolution up to FA status tomorrow and get it on the main page by Tuesday. Nevermind the fact that it's always used as the example of an article that will never make FA.... Or, if that is too difficult, it could be expanded 5x for DYK, that would only require writing 200,000 more characters. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There IS an FP scheduled. (luckily: No way we'd get an FP through now). But we're leaving this a little late, aren't we? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Letters on a Regicide Peace - I moved that out to mainspace because of the time. Anyway, there is another one (Britain's possible peace with France). Are there any other major works that don't have pages that Wiki is missing? The others I've found are so minor that they aren't worth a holiday event. A four part DYK on British response should be good, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't able to think of anything last night. Unfortunately, July 2009 Urumqi riots has been taking up pretty much all my time for the past week. I took a look at pain au chocolat last night but it's already about 1200 characters--putting it definitely range of a DYK expansion, but not the sort of easy freebie one that I could get done in an hour or so. No other "french" stuff that might be stubby how has popped into my mind yet. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I have four - they could be combined in one hook saying that the British Romantics were describing various parts of the French Revolution (Bastille, Robespierre, Invasion of Switzerland, and War with England) or four different hooks that are set on four different slots and done in chronological order (Blake viewing the FR through apocalyptic terms and called for the destruction of the Bastille, Southey glorifying Robespierre as a necessary force of freedom and a destroyer of despots, Burke desiring a war with France and a restoration of the monarchy, and Coleridge changing his mind on France after it invaded Switzerland). The dates are 1791, 1794, 1796, and 1798. I wish there was one directly describing the Reign of Terror (the Death of Robespierre discusses it as necessary as with France: An Ode, but neither go into detail). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• ... that William Blake's The French Revolution calls for the destruction of the Bastille (pictured) and sees the revolution in apocalyptic terms?
• ... that Robert Southey's contributions in The Fall of Robespierre praise Robespierre (pictured) as a liberator of mankind and a destroyer of despotism?
• ... that Letters on a Regicide Peace, by Edmund Burke (pictured), criticizes the British government for seeking peace with France while France threatened to invade Britain?
• ... that France: An Ode, by Samuel Coleridge (pictured), describes his support of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror but not the invasion of Switzerland?

Four hooks. I will list them shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I just reviewed them.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now lets see if they can be put up for Bastille Day without a problem. :) By the way, I enjoyed this immensely. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yeah I had a little trouble adding the "Speeches" category, it's amazing you type Speeches into hotcat and the Obama category comes up.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I could never understand why anyone would think that so many current speeches could ever compare to the old speeches. But yes, modern bias. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

TOC limit

Would the T:TDYK page be better without the TOCLIMIT? Yes, it would make the TOC box bigger, but on the other hand would allow easier navigation to nominated articles on the page. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's easy to get to noms by searching the page (ctrl-F or whatever). And having them in the TOC wouldn't really make it easy to navigate; having to scroll through a 200-item TOC looking for a needle in a haystack wouldn't really be very helpful. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary Counsel Office / Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United_Kingdom)

Before I and my talk page disappear again, can someone look at this and and User talk:Ironholds#DYK for Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United_Kingdom). Thanks. -- RetiredUser2 (Talk) 12:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, you and your talk page appear to have disappeared again... but does that then mean I'm talking to myself? :-/ Maybe you're reading this but can't answer... hi! :) --candle•wicke 00:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:4m-Victor M. Blanco Telescope.jpg

I am confused by its copyright status. Can someone tell me if we can use the image? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, the issued has been resolved. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Preps full

Both are ready now. I have done what I hope is the best with what is available. Are they OK? --candle•wicke 23:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Images uploaded locally and protected. Will now check the preps and see whether I can work out how this new-fangled system works (not been very active at T:DYK for a while...) Bencherlite^Talk 23:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There was one instance of an extra set of "..." in a hook, and I shuffled two to avoid US hooks following each other, but otherwise fine. A more active admin might care to check that Q4 and Q5 contain what they ought to contain and do not contain things that they ought not to contain. Bencherlite^Talk 23:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Checked, and the queue 5 contained too many biographical hooks, so I had to swap some of them with the queue 4. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Manual update

I just had to manually update, since the bot didn't. Could someone do the credits? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I am doing it. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging articles nominated at T:TDYK

Resolved

 – ≈ Chamal ^talk 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

When a nominated article is taken to AFD we usually wait until it's over. So what if a nominated article has been suggested for merging with another article? Looks to me like this would be pretty much the same thing if the article is merged into another article since the nominated article would not be there anymore. I came across something like this today with 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study, which I had to fail because of the decision at AFD to merge it into another article. But what do we do if another article is merged into the nominated article? This would create a problem with the character count for instance. I think we should get a clear idea on what to do in a case like this, and include it in the DYK rules. ≈ Chamal ^talk 07:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think people already take that into account when checking the character count. I know I have failed articles for things like "not new content, content is taken from X". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't it necessary to include that in the rules? Just thought it might be confusing to someone who is new to this. ≈ Chamal ^talk 12:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be instruction creep. We already have the x5 expansion criteria, and they apply whether text is taken from another article, or merged into it. It's really just common sense. Gatoclass (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... yeah, I agree to that. Marking as resolved then. ≈ Chamal ^talk 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

fivefold expansion versus new article

Can articles be featured twice? If I wrote an article months ago that was featured as a new article and I now have new sources which could expand the prose fivefold, does that work? Ironholds (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, articles can only be featured once. Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dang, ahh well. Thanks for your time :). Ironholds (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot

The bot is currently not working. Does anyone know what happened to it? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea. I was looking at it earlier, trying to see if anyone has screwed up the formatting. I've emailed nixeagle about it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count function has also ceased to function for some hours. Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been doing that lately, updates at 6 UTC and then stops only to restart again.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the bot on the tool server? Kate's tool and other tool based applications are down and have been for at least 10 hours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it just updated, crisis over. ;)--Giants27 (c|s) 13:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And DYKadminBot is back working again as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Queues updated, but...

...with the current problems ("File uploads have been disabled temporarily on Wikipedia. Apologies for any inconvenience.") I was not able to upload the images for Queues 2 and 3 for protection. As I will likely not be at my PC when the problems are resolved, I'd appreciate if some other admin could keep an eye on this and upload the images when possible. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can track down a commons admin.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again, the picture in queue 3 is a local upload and doesn't need to be uploaded again.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Queue 2 picture protected by Juliancolton.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Date linking

In queue five (as of whenever I sign this post) there is this hook:

• ... that on July 9, 2009, the racing yacht Alfa Romeo II broke the Transpac record for miles sailed in one day, by sailing 431 nautical miles in 24 hours?

I suggest that the date is unlinked, as it isn't especially relevant. Gratzias! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 08:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hubert or Herbert?

[4] I'll ask Doug Coldwell also. Art LaPella (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably just a typo as it appears to be "Hubert".--Giants27 (c|s) 17:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Typo. It is suppose to be Hubert.--Douglas Coldwell (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

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.

---

When today is July 17, and the backlog dates to July 5 (was the 1st before i came out of my wikibreak to fix it) I should NOT be seeing hooks from the 15th being promoted. I don't care how few hooks are verified. By not even looking at the expired ones, that just makes you guys lazy, and I'm sick of seeing this happen so frequently. If this was a very occasional occurrence for a good hook that's fine, but ignoring 10 days of hooks just for the heck of it is extremely disappointing. Come on guys -_- [5]Wizardman 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wizardman here, all hooks in the older nominations section should get our attention. Usually when I fill the queues and no hooks in the older noms section is verified, I'll go to all the unlooked at ones first. But not only are the queue fillers at fault but so are the reviewers there always seems to be a bunch of non-expired hooks verified and only a select few expired ones.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The list is indeed getting a bit bottom-heavy; after some sleep, I'll try and get some older ones verified. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The other day I went through and verified all the ones I could see without comments from before the 5th. However, there are a lot with concerns by other people and it is hard to tell if they have been resolved or not. We need to come up with some method of dealing with time allowed for improvement and the rest so we can figure out if some of the old hooks with major problems are to be cleaned out or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is all hooks with unresolved problems for 8+ days are removed, although I do 5+ since I fail to see the difference.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

People could try nominating some more interesting hooks. Sure, I'm sure there are good ones that slip through the cracks, but often when a hook sits around for ages it's because everyone who looks at it thinks "ugh, do I have to deal with that"? A common complaint about DYK is that too much of the stuff promoted is silly or trivial, and while the consensus now is that there's no objective way to counter that (I myself have said as much in previous discussions about this), it would kill two birds with one stone.

Having more people checking hooks would help, too. (I'm not really in a position to say that, since I haven't checked any lately myself -- but I am having a busy summer, and in my wiki-youth I am getting wanderlust and experimenting with other parts of the project for a little while, and I started finding hook-verification to be a chore so I took a break from it.) Often someone will do what Ottava did -- take a day when they have free time and go through and check everything -- but, as Ottava pointed out, many hooks have problems that need to be dealt with and it can be time-consuming to follow up on all of it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Balloonman recently wrote an essay on the interesting factor hooks. And I also believe a key part to a successful hook is the subject matter.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I semi-retract (but not totally) my previous message. A thought came to me while I was in the shower. In a hurry now; more to come. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a hook. *Waits in suspense for Rjanag to come back*

On a more serious note, yes the hooks are boring. I'm open to ideas for spicing it up. I'm also busy during the week this summer :( Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing anything wrong here in the last while. But I find if it's not too many bios, it's too many from one country, if it's not not interesting enough, it hasn't been reviewed, etc. Hard to dodge all the problems people are presenting. But I haven't taken to deleting the older hooks or anything in case there's a problem with that as well. I hope my actions and edit summaries are transparent enough. --candle•wicke 01:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm lazy? I've reviewed more hooks here than anyone else over the last few days. I've gone mainly for the quick 'n' easy ones because we have a dearth of verified hooks. If someone thinks there are not enough "tough" hooks being processed, there's a solution - process them yourself, don't blame others for your lack of participation.

As for the hooks being boring - when I am preparing updates, I always try to pick at least a couple of strong hooks, there is no worse update than one with all weak or uninteresting hooks. I put this into the updating guidelines long ago, unfortunately it seems that some updaters don't follow it. But then, it's been difficult to do so recently because of the shortage of verified hooks. So again, the solution is for more people to get involved with verifying. Criticizing those who actually are making a contribution is really not helpful. Gatoclass (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass. Criticizing hard-working regular admins when the criticizer himself/herself just occasionally pops up from time to time is plain ridiculous. And, actually a more serious problem is assembling an entire update with all-U.S. hooks, which happened more than once. Promoting recently submitted articles for the sake of variety is perfectly justifiable. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And guess what. It was the criticizer himself who promoted the all U.S. update I was talking about. [6] And he thinks he has a right to lecture on us. Seriously, he should examine his own mistakes before he does others. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think jumping on Wizardman for this comment is really going to solve anything. He made a valid point about promoting older hooks, and perhaps the lazy comment was a but harsh, but we are likely to receive much more insulting criticisms from users whose nominations have been left unattended for two weeks. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First, it is one thing to receive "insulting criticisms" from an editor who does not have a good understanding about the overall process of DYK, and another to receive that kind of comments from an admin who should be familiar enough with what is going on the behind the scenes, i.e. who should know better. Second, this is not a paid service and we give no guarantee that the submissions will be featured within a time limit. Getting featured on Main Page is a privilege, not a right. If they are so impatient that they cannot wait for a few days delay, then they can always help out our work. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've all had our say now, continuing this thread is unlikely to lead to anything positive, so I suggest we all just take a deep breath and tiptoe quietly away :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 18 July 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.

Publishing Errata?

When a published hook is later shown to incorrect, should we publish an erratum?

E.g. The hook "... that Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe, who died in 2009 during Operation Panther's Claw in Afghanistan, is the highest-ranking British officer to be killed in action since Lt Col 'H'. Jones in the Falklands War?" was inaccurate. See Talk:Rupert Thorneloe. 84.13.125.244 (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Publish where? The only places those hooks are saved is in WP:RA and on the article's own talkpage. The hook could always be stricken or something, although i don't see how much good it would do (no one looks at those archives anyway).rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing should be done, it's an archive.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not be impossible to have a link from the "Did you know" section on the main page to an errata page which would list the corrections for previous hooks with the most recent at the top.89.240.88.177 (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before it's an archive, please do nothing.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not many hooks have errors (I have written over 30, and 1 had an error—because it turned out one of my sources were incorrect—and that is probably a higher percentage than normal) so such a page would be very small. Also, very few readers would really care, I think. Most people forget DYK hooks within a few hours after they're off the main page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The tag and the archives are both a record of the hook as it appeared on the Main Page, and should not be altered. Almost no one would look at a corrections page. Such a page might also give the impression that we regularly go back and check for errors, which is not true. Shubinator (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Typos in the present DYK section.

"that footballer Ole Gunnar Solskjaer scored a 12-minute hat-trick after coming on as a subsitute?" The name is Ole Gunnar Solskjær, with a Norwegian Æ letter, not an ae-combination. Also, subsitute probably is supposed to be substitute. Manxruler (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please bring to WP:ERRORS.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Have done. Thanks for the pointer. Manxruler (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Admins: Update needed

There is meant to be an update in 2 hours and there is nothing in the queues. Prep 1 looks ready to go (to me inexperienced eyes), so could an admin move it over? Thanks! --Tango (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks! Royalbroil 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What is DYK for? (long, sry)

Last night I left a somewhat tantalizing comment in the discussion above and didn't have a chance to follow up on it. Anyway, here are my thoughts.

A lot of people complain that DYK hooks are too boring. I myself have complained about that before; see, for example, my extended discussion with User:Mattisse at User talk:Rjanag/Archive5#Inquiring minds want to know, where my conclusions at the time were that a) enforcing an "interestingness standard", even if it's subjective, would both improve DYK and lessen our workload; b) users should not automatically be "entitled" to a DYK whenever they create or expand an article; and c) implementing an "interestingness standard" would require having fewer updates to T:DYK (perhaps once a day or something) and perhaps reinstating the practice of removing old hooks without reviewing them (the rationale being that if a hook has sat around for a week without being reviewed, it must not have piqued anyone's interest). I'm sure there are a lot of DYK critics out there who would agree with this, and think that making DYK a little bit more competitive would improve things.

On the other hand (and this is the thought that came to me in the shower), there is also a strong argument against that. In addition to the fact that it's impossible to objectively enforce an interestingness standard (I have said that myself, too, in previous discussions—as you can see, I'm having a wiki-identity crisis), a more fundamental problem is that who says DYK's purpose/definition is to show off interesting articles? Interesting articles are nice, of course, but many people believe DYK's main purpose is to show off new stuff (to demonstrate that Wikipedia is still growing) and interestingness is just icing on the cake. The "entitlement" view of some editors fits with this... I myself have probably nom'ed some articles that may not have been the most interesting things, just because I thought "hey, I put a good three or four hours into this, might as well stick it on the MP and get a DYK out of it". Just like this, many editors believe that a good new article is entitled to a few hours on the MP, even if it's not exactly the most exhilirating stuff. Under this view, DYK is basically a vetted version of Special:NewPages: showing people what new stuff is on Wikipedia, regardless of how interesting it is, and the only purpose of the vetting process is to rule out the junk that we aren't proud of.

So what the real question comes down to, then, is what do we believe DYK is for? Is it for showing some of Wikipedia's most interesting new stuff? (If it is, then at some point DYK is going to have to evolve, become more competitive, more subjective, etc.) Or is it for showing all of what's new on Wikipedia (minus the junk that we don't want anyone to see—keeping in mind that most new articles are junk, even if they survive speedy deletion)? Both of these are valid viewpoints, but some people subscribe to one and some subscribe to the other. Many people who subscribe to the first think DYK is an embarrassment to the project because it "celebrates trivialities", etc.; on the other hand, many people who subscribe to the second believe that DYK should be as inclusive as possible. In many cases this disagreement is moot, since a lot of DYK submissions can have an interesting hook written about them if you put the right amount of work and creativity into it (see Balloonman's recent essay on this); sometimes, though, an article is notable and well-written but just dull as all-get-out and nothing interesting can be written about it. In cases like these, our understanding of what DYK is all about really matters. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How about DYK is for interesting stuff and we add a new section to the main page called "Boring crap only the writer of the article cares about"? ;) Seriously, I'd agree more with the second thought in that DYK should be for showing off our new pages and encouraging new users to be like, "hey I could work on that article". Just my $.02.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There are also, of course, side arguments like "DYK is for exposing new articles to more eyes for copyediting/expanding/etc." I think arguments like that more or less fall under the second argument ('dyk is for new articles, regardless of interestingness'). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a middle ground between the two sides, and that's where I am. I would support more liberal rejection based on boringness, but I dislike inclusion based on interestingness. In other words, the default for a hook should be accepting it, not rejecting it. We should also make sure we don't turn into a tabloid; new science and math articles are already rare at DYK, and we shouldn't discourage them. Shubinator (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be strongly opposed to excluding articles on the basis of "boringness", because what people find interesting is very much in the eye of the beholder. I still recall the time I complained on this page about road and rail route submissions, only to be howled down by folks who are apparently fascinated with the topic. Also, it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to have information only on "interesting" topics. Since the very range of topics covered is virtually what defines an encyclopedia, I think it would be a mistake to start limiting ourselves arbitrarily along these lines.

It's a different story in regards to hooks though. Certainly, I think we can retain the right to turn down articles if no acceptable hook can be found, but I also think it's a rare article which would have that problem. There's a passable hook for almost every article in my experience, no matter how dull the topic might appear to be at first glance. I think if we have a problem at all, it's that dull or clumsily written hooks too often make it to the front page when with a little more thought, a much better hook could have been substituted. But the reason that occurs is as usual more a problem of lack of time rather than anything else. Gatoclass (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite unlike the number of words in prose, there is no universal tool to measure "interestingness". It's too objective. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from "boring factor", I think Rjanag brings up an interesting point that is getting glossed over. What is the purpose of DYK? As noted in the section above regarding "single sourcing", there is a lot of WP:CREEP mentality running amok with the ever expanding Additional rules. Frankly, I think the fact that we have to have an additional 17,000+ byte page for just extra rules is jaw dropping for a project that functions partly as a recruiting tool for new contributors and new content. The spirit and purpose of DYK is certainly drifting away into another direction as standards inch ever close to becoming mini-GAs. I see nominations flagged for copy editing and being held off on featuring. Seriously?!? One of the most awesome and dynamic sights to witness on Wikipedia is the collaborative transformation of a DYK article during its brief 6 hours on the main page. All the little tinkers and tweaks (including copy editing) by a wide range of editors and IP turns a very rough, infant article into a shinning example of why Wikipedia works. Far from being "embarrassed" at the articles that appear on DYK, we should be proud of fostering the dynamic that makes Wikipedia tick and promotes it growth. Rarely is there a DYK article that doesn't improve after its time in DYK and that is a tremendous thing. But it seems that we are getting farther and farther away from that--especially when we spend more time talking about what embarrasses us instead of what makes us stronger as a project and proud. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Your thoughts, namely this line, "All the little tinkers and tweaks (including copy editing) by a wide range of editors and IP", have thrown me in a slightly different direction (disclaimer, these are the random musings of a brain that has just worked for 12 1/2 hours).

If, say, 40% (random number) of new editors register and become eventually become regular contributors because they wanted to fix something wrong in an article, I submit this: could higher DYK standards be hurting the project as a whole? As shown at Wikipedia:Editing frequency, editors who edit greater than five times a month has been, in general, falling from a high in 2007. I've argued in the past and still believe that all articles should be at the least fully sourced, but should more leniency be given to other articles which may not *perfect* but have adequate citations that cover the information in the article?

In short: if a DYK nom goes through with poor writing, but some random person comes along and fixes it and then decides to register and edit regularly as a result of the experience, isn't it a net gain for the project?

This is simply food for thought; I myself am not even sure my ideas are the right way to go. Hope this stimulates your brain for better ideas ;) —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 07:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As someone with over 200 DYKs now, I honestly get rather annoyed when reviewers say anything about the entertainment factor of the hooks. First, one time I want to write (in response to the "is this the most interesting thing in the article) "no, actually I went through and found the most un-interesting thing I could find and wrote a hook about it, cool huh?" This is partly because, as I have argued before and as someone above mentions, how interesting something is is way too subjective. For instance from DYKSTATS:

... that traumatic insemination (pictured) is a practice in invertebrates where the male pierces the female's abdomen with his penis and injects his sperm into the wound?

I don't find that interesting enough to click on. Now, if I was in 8th grade, I'm sure I would have, but at a certain age penis and sperm become less funny (though I do still find farts funny). Or take:

... that the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history was launched in Nazi Germany?

It would have been interesting, but I learned this years ago, so its yada, yada, yada. The point here being in both examples, obviously many people found these interesting enough to get these hooks to the hall of fame. But they would not get my click. I'm sure everyone here could take a look at the hall of fame and see hooks that they too would not have given a second thought to.

Second, trivia is discouraged in Wikipedia in general, as apparently we are writing an encyclopedia. If you want more interesting articles, and thus hooks, then we might need to re-think the no trivia thing (as well as OR). There are plenty of interesting things I have left out of articles because its trivia, or it would be original research. I for one prefer keeping trivia and OR out of Wikipedia, interesting DYK hooks be dammed!

Third, as I and others have said, this is not GA. The goal has been to feature new articles, and now to an extent only the better quality ones through the 101 rules (give or take). This encourages creation, gives exposure to these articles, and gives people like us something to do (otherwise we would be giggling about penises, farts, sperm, boobs, and maybe poop too.)

Lastly, although there is no requirement for interesting hooks, there is a built-in encouragement for them, and I think that is all we need. That is, the more interesting the hook, the more people are going to read the article, thus people should be aiming for interesting hooks, but allowed to fall short. Personally, that's my goal with DYKs, get people exposed (insert giggle here) to the article, just so my work is not for nothing/pointless/just for myself, but also so people can cody ediitt [sic] my work and make the article better. And if the hook is really super awesome and rad, then it can be listed at DYKSTATS for all eternity and people can bask in the glow of my hook awesomeness. But in all seriousness, no requirement for interesting hooks/articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Aboutmovies, you raise some good points. The issue of how a DYK "transforms" during its time on the MP is important, but I think right now there's not much we know about it; we have no real numbers, only anecdotes, about how often DYK articles actually get edited while they're in the front page. I remember my first DYK ever was heaven, I got like 10 edits (mainly for typos and stuff that I had never noticed); very many since then, on the other hand, have not been edited at all (maybe that just means that I'm writing them awesome to begin with, or maybe it means they're so boring no one is actually reading them, who knows). In any case, it is true that this is often the only exposure these articles get; many DYK articles go unviewed and unedited for many months after their appearance on the MP. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be that difficult to get some empirical data on how much DYK articles are improved and edited while on the mainpage. Something could be established along the lines of WP:DYKSTATS with a bot that list edits and maybe a breakdown among IP/Register users. While I'm sure the quality and "perfection" of an article would sway the amount of editing, you also hit on a point in how the "interesting factor" plays a role. Articles with interesting hooks and subject matter are naturally going to get more clicks and more opportunities to be improved while on the mainpage. Personally, I think 'this is the angle we should be trumpeting in DYK in order to improve hook interest levels. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I never understood the argument that we need DYK to get new articles to improve. We can only get 7 times 4 articles per day (10,220 per year out of almost 3 million total articles) to improve that way, and it concentrates hundreds of editors on the same articles. Wikipedia as a whole would improve more, if those same editors fanned out and improved a larger number of neglected articles like this one. Does it reward new article authors? Only a tiny fraction of them, and I thought we needed to clean up old articles more than we need to write new ones. To me the best reason is that there has to be a Main Page, and there might as well be something interesting on it, just in case any of the 3 million per day readers looks before moving on. I'm not sure DYK is the answer at all, but if it is I think it should be interesting. Art LaPella (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA and FA and FL all serve the purpose of improving existing content. DYK through the 5x expansion also does to a limited extent. As to rewarding a tiny fraction, yes, but we should only be rewarding those who put out decent content (thus all the DYK rules) and not your average crap about the band down the street or your POV pushing I hate this ethnic group in the Balkans/Middle East/Caucuses and other hot spots; or hundreds of new crappy stubs created last year by the political party folks that basically existed to say state legislator X supports Barack Obama (some may have said Clinton). That is the vast majority of new articles, crap, and we don't want to encourage more of those. And whether hooks are interesting or not would do nothing to address the crap concern. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most new articles aren't even nominated for DYK, and most nominated articles are accepted. So despite all the rules, I'm not sure they succeed in making DYK articles much better than average articles. If they are better, it's probably because anyone who knows Wikipedia enough to jump through all our hoops for nominating, is more likely to know Wikipedia's other rules as well. Art LaPella (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I find DYK to be one of the most interesting aspects of WP, in particular because of the diverse nature of the little facts it presents. I believe it introduces new subjects to people who might otherwise never discover them. Also, in my case, it does persuade me to work on neglected stub articles, and create new ones too. Manxruler (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd find DYK more credible if there was a requirement that articles were free of at least basic spelling and grammar mistakes. Just take a quick look throuh the current crop for instance. "Though drafting a defense showing that the allegdly murdered died natural deaths...". "The division was renamed renamed The Lionel Pincus and Princess Firyal Map Division." Ought there not to be a requirement that the DYK reviewers actually, you know, read the article? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• (interjects quietly) Ah, the Pincus one: that was me gave it the tick I think Malleus. What, read them? From one end to the other? The whole, like, text? Ah, no. Not really. I'm an editor, not a reader ;-) But I do wish I'd spotted that mistake. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As you know, most articles are not read completely from start to finish before being promoted to DYK; they are just checked quickly. If you want to read and copyedit at least 24 new articles a day (some long ones...that's not even counting the articles that get reviewed but not promoted), you are welcome to join in, but it's a lot of work. Not to mention the fact that there are people out there (as I described above) who don't believe DYKs should be 'mini-GAs' and don't believe typos/etc. are a major problem in most articles. (Granted, some articles are terrible, often ones by non-native speakers; when I come across them I don't pass them until a third party has copyedited them.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I know no such thing. What I do know though is that it doesn't take long to read through a typical DYK nominee and correct the most egregious spelling and grammar mistakes. For interest's sake I've been doing that myself to the main page DYK's over the last few weeks. Pity that the DYK reviewers aren't prepared to take the same trouble. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think standards should be higher. I would like to see the articles have sections (at least a good lead), and fully-formatted references, even if they are start-class articles. Some reviewers are more careful than others - there is no arguing that. However, some fault has to lie in the nomination itself. Whether an article is a self-nom or not, the person adding it to this page should be aware of not only basic DYK criteria, but should strive to not just meet it, but rise above it. Law _{type! snype?} 01:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The DYK criteria are already more demanding than many realise; I only recently became aware of the "hidden rules" for certain types of articles for instance. But to address a point that several have made above, if the purpose of DYK is to encourage other editors to work on an article, then surely logic would dictate that DYK ought to be choosing the articles most in need of help, not those that meet some hidden standard that doesn't even include correct spelling or grammar. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that recent growth in Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count suggests we don't have enough volunteers to enforce existing standards. Although I agree that spelling is a higher priority than keeping all the exceptions to the length rules for instance. Art LaPella (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what that tells you, but what it tells me is that DYK is not working as currently implemented. Still, getting blood out of a stone is far easier than changing anything around here, so having said my piece I'll leave you to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(ex2) Doesn't that (your comment above this one) bring us full-circle? If this is a place to showcase articles that need work, and you are admittedly helping out with grammatical issues, then is DYK not serving its purpose? (You're here right;) I don't know if I would agree that logic has ever 'dictated' they way anything worked around WP, however. Law _{type! snype?} 02:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "helping out with grammatical issues". I was looking at DYKs to see whether my prejudices were justified or not, and I found that they were. Along the way I fixed the worst of the errors that I saw. I've got no intention of continuing to do that, not unless there's a paycheck involved. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I stopped reviewing DYK hooks because I found my standards were too high; I became demoralized. As far as "articles being improved", out of my 79 DYKs, none were improved and a couple were redirected out of existence. My 2 cents. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From experience of both, I'd say that a TFA has a far greater chance of being improved than a DYK. Mind you, that's not saying a lot. DYK occupies a quarter of the main page, and to my mind that's currently an embarrassing waste of space. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

@Mattisse. Sometimes when a masterpiece is done right the first time, what can you expect? @MF, if it is going to take up that much space, then I really think standards should include basic diction and grammar. Law _{type! snype?} 03:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to kill DYK, such killing is at least a constructive suggestion. But if you don't want "basic diction and grammar" mistakes linked from the Main Page, the Main Page would often be blank. I do things like this In The News article edit all the time. Art LaPella (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My new essay on how to criticize typos is at User:Art LaPella/Is this criticism constructive? Granted that I've seen worse examples of the problem it describes. I expect to use it in the future, so reviews are welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I love the possible discussion section, very funny. But DYK serves its purpose I know I've seen people fix typos in articles I submitted to the main page, which helps a lot. Killing DYK would be a lapse in judgment for the simple reason of new articles with mistakes not getting looked at so then the encyclopedia gets crappier because of it. And this is going to sound like a smartass comment but I'll say it, in reality the DYK/ITN/TFA/OTD don't really take up 1/4 of the main page, because there's still all that stuff at the bottom of the page. ;)--Giants27 (c|s) 14:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Marco Polo sheep

Hi DYK'ers.

We've submitted Template talk:Did you know#Marco Polo sheep,

The spotlight team are currently working hard on this article, and I wondered if the DYK could be expediated; reason being, we plan to work on this for just 3 more days (because that is the way spotlight works), so I wondered if it might be possible to DYK it while the edits are ongoing.

We've tried to add a good catchline and a pic, and it's already 5x size; please let us know if there is more we can do, either on Wikipedia talk:Spotlight or via IRC, thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"DYK it while the edits are ongoing"...? That's a highly unusual request. May I ask why? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Because, the attention generated by it appearing on the frontpage would perhaps result in readers getting involved with the further improvement process. It this is not appropriate, that's fine.  Chzz  ►  14:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, cancel this request. Spotlight will be moving on to the next article within 24 hours anyway.  Chzz  ►  23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be too late, but I just verified the ALT hook (the original had a problem). But, although the hook was submitted for July 20, the expansion actually began on July 16. Therefore, that should have been the date (I wasn't sure if I should move it, so I did not, but noted that in my verification). The proper date may make it less problematic to run the hook immediately. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Credits

On the last update from Queue 4 the credits for Jamaican general election, 1997 were not done. Would somebody mind doing the credits for that article. It looks like it was because the article was not added to the credits section of the queue as seen here. Davewild (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of pages

At Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK there is a list of eighteen pages which the "DYK process" is "divided over". Would anyone mind if I trim this list? A lot of them are pages which are not actually related to process (there are information pages like WP:DYK/A and WP:DYK/NAP; nav pages like Template:DYK archive nav and Template:DYKbox, and stuff like the DYK hall of fame and, even more inexplicably, its talk page). As these pages have nothing to do with the actual process of how a hook moves from an editor's head to the front page, I think this list is basically the project-space equivalent of fancruft and it probably intimidates new users seeking to come learn what DYK is and how it works. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominated article 'Stellaland' involves anniversary (July 26)

Hello -- I have nominated the article Stellaland (expanded) for DYK, and was advised to leave a note here. The article is about a former country which was founded on July 26, 1882. It might be nice to have it featured on that anniversary. Thank you~ Seb az86556 (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Verified and moved to special occasions area. Whoever will be making the queues for 26th, please include this too. ≈ Chamal ^talk 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing hooks should not be done

DYK is a nice area of WP, usually immune to the fights found in ANI and SSP. Never remove a hook except in the case of obvious vandalism or a joke hook. If you think the hook is poorly written, you may try to improve it or comment that it is impossible to improve. If you think the article will be deleted, a note can be made but you should not act as a crystal ball and remove the hook. The only reason to remove a hook according to the official rules is promotion or expiration. User F203 (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well actually, we don't technically do "expiration" any more, instead older hooks are removed if the issues have not been resolved after a reasonable period of time. But we've had very few problems with the existing system. If you have a specific hook you think should not have been removed, you can always bring your concerns to this page. Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were to guess, he's talking about Barack Obama in Hawaii. And, all hooks that have been reviewed but have problems that go unanswered for 8+ days are removed.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Everybody whose reads the article likes it because it's interesting, very non-political. However, Obama attracts a lot of militant editors which, unfortunately, have infected this the article. I fully expect the article to get the axe. Once it does, I don't object. I did learn that Obama articles are at the same level as Israeli article...too much drama...best to stay away from them.User F203 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hooks that are beyond usable must be restored? We can wait a few days, but when people nominate and the articles have significant problems and they are unwilling to even bother checking in, then there is no reason to allow them to stay. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the first time I've removed a hook. We have the discretion here to exercise our own judgment. If the hook or the related article is a BLP-problem, or controversial, I'll yank it. There's no point is waiting out the Obama article AfD when the consensus here was not to promote it, and when it clearly shouldn't go on the main page. Anyone is free to revert my removals - I can take it. Law _{type! snype?} 02:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the rationale for adding this to the Rules page is an edit summary of "we mustn't have an ANI-type free for all where hooks are removed at will, DYK is/should be domain of nice peopl[sic]." This is really poor and a bit odd. Law _{type! snype?} 02:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't odd at all. ANI is a vicious place. DYK is a much nicer place. That's like the Obama article. It's wicked and nasty there. The Honolulu article is not like that.

We mustn't have people just removing hooks at will. That's why we should have a little reminder. Recently, there was an addition to the DYK instructions. However, it's been removed by one of the above WPedians. So the proposal is to add/re-add the following that Giant27 put back:

Hooks should be removed only if obvious vandalism or a joke hook. Having the opinion that the hook should not be promoted is insufficient to remove the hook. Rather discussion of the hook should be done.

Feel free to suggest modifications. The benefit of this addition is that there are a few hooks that I don't like. Yet, I don't just remove them. Particularly if one removes them and gives a flimsy excuse, then DYK will degenerate into ANI. At ANI, long time users get a free pass to remove threads and just give the excuse "trolling" or "a new account so SPA". Let's keep DYK friendly! User F203 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose such a rule. Removing hooks is about common sense. It's obvious that Barack Obama in Hawaii will not survive AfD intact. It's common sense to remove such a nomination. Shubinator (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you perceive so much "wickedness" and "nastiness" around Wikipedia, User F203. ANI has that atmosphere of negativity because it is an area specifically designated for discussing problems that have arisen in the community. If the DYK process is less contentious, it is because it has an entirely different purpose. DYK is specifically designated for identifying and assembling a certain type of contents to be featured on the main page. DYK's smooth operation depends, in part, on participants' efficiently removing hook suggestions for articles that clearly don't qualify. Making new rules such as the one you suggest would be unproductive, IMHO. --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to go back to eight

I think it's time we went back to 8 hooks per update. Currently we have two full queues and 231 hooks at Suggestions, if the queue was full we would still have 200 hooks on the Suggestions page. So I've adjusted the Prep Clear page accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Really.. I was enjoying our seven-hook period. I personally feel having eight hooks in an update is kinda crowded, a bit hampers readability... but we have no choice when we are going to develop a backlog, do we. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to keep a shorter update going for a while, I'm not going to stand in your way, but we are heading towards backlog territory right now and they are no fun to deal with either. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nevermind.. Having a plenty of submissions is a good thing for sure. After assembling a couple of eight-hook sets, I am already getting used to it. :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The alternative is 7 hooks per update but updating more often. Would that be better than 8 hooks per update? --Tango (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that would require uploading/protecting lead images and archiving more frequently. Let's just keep it eight. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that we have a two week period of constant complaining about needing more hooks followed by a two week period of constant complaining that we have too many hooks? :) It is like a boat that keeps rocking from one side to the other. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whenever there's a big discussion on this page, editors who have it watchlisted either 1) Stay as far away as possible, or 2) Help out with verifying. Shubinator (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I like Ottava Rima's boat analogy, but I don't think that it's truly a two-week cycle. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Two weeks" sounded good - not too short, not too long. I'm sure Goldilocks would have appreciated it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed re: New Article, expanded prose

I need clarification on the definition of a "new article". An article some time in the past was 5,000 characters, but it was unsourced, uncited, and so changed to a redirect to another article that contains none of the information in the original article. Does a "new" sourced, cited, rewritten article need to match the fivefold criteria, ie must it be 25,000 characters?

A related question: Is the fivefold criteria applied to the "high water mark" of an article's history, or just to the latest revision. So, in my example, if the redirect is replaced with a 2000 character article and later is expanded to 10,000 characters, does that count as a fivefold increase?--Work permit (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? It's usually easier to deal with specifics. Gatoclass (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Ling Woo article. I'm working on a new version in my sandbox It's still a work in progress, so ignore the "draft notes section" and the copyedit issues. I'd would like to know "how much" work I have to do to make in a DYK article. --Work permit (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It was only recently redirected, so it would need to be expanded from what was there before it was redirected; no matter how poorly-written an article is, 5x expansion is still counted in terms of characters rather than quality.

If you can't expand it 5x from what is there before, you can consider taking it to Good Article nominations instead of here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dollarsign

After a request on my talk page, Template:Dollarsign now can link to various types of dollars and other currency, such as the United States dollar or the Brazilian Real. Feel free to use it when making DYK nominations, or add/request another currency if you can think of one. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate pictures

I'm used to DYK having fairly high standards when it comes to pictures, so I was somewhat disappointed to see that list of domesticated Scottish breeds was illustrated with a picture of a cat in a bathroom sink. Was that really the best alternative out of the many other pictures in the list?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We've had loads of building and portrait images (particularly those of "dead white males"); I and Gatoclass both agree that we need to refrain from using them too frequently. As for this particular entry, the original suggestion was an image of a sheep, but we've featured sheep twice recently, so I asked for something else; we could have featured other animals listed in the article but the article creator himself suggested the cat image. I agree the image is not exactly professional looking, but the last time we featured an image of a cat was several months ago, (thanks to Raul654) and I think the image does have its appeal, as you can see in the latest view hits of Scottish Fold. Perhaps the image was a bit too attractive, since people are clicking on the cat article far more than the DYK article. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to appear overly defensive about the quality of the picture (it was after all my third choice) but what it lacks in professional excellence I think it more than makes up for in its unusual, even eccentric appeal. One of the purposes of DYK is to "hook" the reader into taking a dip into the Wiki-galaxy, and as BorgQueen has been kind enough to point out, by that standard the picture is a success. Ben MacDui 16:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC) (Nom of the list in question).

I don't see the use of this discussion. What's the problem with the image? Unless Peter Isotalo can explain why he's offended by it, there's nothing to discuss. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Judging by his comment, I'd say the bathroom sink was the problem. 122.255.2.11 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The faucet in combination with the "I IZ IN UR SINK HATING WATERZ"-look is what put me off (rather than offended me). If anything it was a pointless distraction from the actual focus of the picture: the cat. I also get the feeling that the cuteness factor is what got the pic on the mainpage rather than it's overall illustrative quality. I mean, what was wrong with the pics of either dogs or cattle? At least three of those had decent composition and nice colors.

I hate to be the party pooper here, but goofing off with odd-ball pictures on DYK isn't something we really need to do; we get labelled as eccentrics for free already. I'm all for avoiding dead white males and other kinds of obvious systemic bias, but doing it with kitty-pics doesn't seem like the right way to go.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the sink, but I did notice the cat, and I thought it was a good selection for the pic because this wasn't just any old cat, it was an unusual breed that I've never seen before and I doubt many others have either. Gatoclass (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary Counsel Office / Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United_Kingdom) redux

See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 48#Parliamentary Counsel Office / Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United_Kingdom)

I'm just noting that Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (United_Kingdom) was given a DYK without anyone checking the copyright status of the prior edition of the article Parliamentary Counsel Office which I have now restored because it was not a copyright violation. Potential copyvios should always be checked against the very first revision to see if the article was always a copyright violation.

I think that this doesnt affect the outcome of the DYK, as it probably still qualifies under the 5x expansion rule. I am guessing that this scenario doesn't happen too often, but it would be good to try to prevent it happening. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact of the Day II

I've had an idea for a "Fact of the Day" game for a while, which I wrote up during the WP:DRAMAOUT. See User:John Vandenberg/Worm of Facts. The selection algorithm I have proposed is only a first cut; so long as it is relatively simple, I should be able to write the bot that updates the stats hourly in order to keep it interesting. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like it would be easy to get stuck within a walled garden, and have weeks upon weeks of facts about the same topic. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is possible, but I expect that WP:MILHIST will be able to dig an enticing tunnel out if required. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed re. 200 character limit for hooks

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 37#Length of the hook question

Hi there. The current DYK page says that 200 characters is the outside limit for hooks. As such, it would be great if we could reach consensus which part of the hook count towards this limit. Particularly, do the "...", the "that" and/or the "?" count towards this limit? I think the project page should have more detailed instructions regarding this requirement because the question how the hook length is determined arises quite often. Regards SoWhy 08:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Art's formerly-unwritten rules have some stuff on that. But the truth is, what's more important than the 200-character limit is the general spirit of keeping hooks short and punchy; 200 is not an absolute limit or an entitlement, it's just a guideline, and in reality most hooks should be much shorter than 200. If you're at the point where you're worrying about whether your "..." will put you above or below 200, your hook is probably too long already. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think SoWhy has a point, for the record, I count the "that" and the "?" but not the dots. I'm inclined to think the "(pictured)" or substitute for it should not be counted either, but as Rjanag says, 200 is an outside limit for a single-article hook in any case, so after taking all the above into account, the chances are that a hook right at 200 characters would be very likely to get trimmed back in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My main point is this: If we set a rule that 200 characters is the maximum (and this seems to be the case, then we should also tell people, what counts towards this maximum. Otherwise, every reviewer will use different standards and whether one counts "... that", "?" and "(pictured)" or not makes a difference of 19 characters, which is not really that little. Regards SoWhy 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you must have a rule, it doesn't say 200 characters; it says about 200 characters. I have often called attention to that word and it stays in, so it must be a consensus to allow reviewers to use different standards on that issue. They necessarily use different standards on more subjective issues. But for what it's worth, User:Shubinator/DYKcheck agrees with Gatoclass above (I believe that if it says "(object pictured)", "object" counts). User:Art LaPella/Long hook agrees without mentioning the "(pictured)". I count "(pictured)", but only because it's easier and because I don't say anything unless it's so far over that 11 characters don't matter much. Others have enforced the rule more and more strictly lately. Art LaPella (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The rules say "about 200 characters" but it also says that 200 characters is the outside limit. So the rules are contradicting each other. 210 characters is well inside "about 200" but it's too much if 200 is the outside limit. We should decide what the rule should be and while doing so, we should also decide how it is counted imho. Regards SoWhy 14:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In my experience the great majority of over-long hooks can easily be reduced to below 200 on any count basis. I haven't noticed cases where a hook that really "needs" to be a few chars over (say with a very long title) is objected to. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The main point of limiting hook length is to ensure that it does not take too much room on the T:DYK template thereby wasting space that can be used for another. Keeping the presentation of the template clear and in high quality is another reason I guess. The "..." and "(pictured)" are sort of standard characters that always appear, so everything else apart from those should be counted IMO (that includes various descriptions added to the "pictured" part) since they all contribute to the space the hook takes in the template. ≈ Chamal ^talk 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Question - new page or expansion

In a FAC for The Lucy poems, it was asked that the redlink for "A slumber did my spirit seal" be filled in. I have done such. In doing so, I only used minimal bits from The Lucy poems, rewriting them, and added in better sources and expanded text. I added in parts from The Lucy poems page so that there would not be any problems in FAC regarding the new page created by request (i.e., wanted to preempt any questions about comprehensiveness).

I would like to nominate this for DYK, as this is "the only poem in William Wordsworth's Lucy poem series that does not mention the dead Lucy by name?" However, I am placing this here in order to make sure that there are no concerns, especially those regarding "expansion" and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to list it tonight as a new article unless there are any concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Main Page Images

Hey guys, it has come up at AN that many images on DYK have been unprotected. Remember. when you are updating the queues, remember to ensure the images are protected. Cascading protection is being applied, but an image on Commons needs to be uploaded locally in order for cascading protection to work. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK needs updating!

The bot misfired on the last run (probably because of the massive lag at the time). Ironically the only thing it did do is reset the clock. Could an admin please update from queue 4? Shubinator (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the main page. Now I'm off to do the other tasks! --Orlady (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Halloween

Is it too early to start putting out Halloween-themed DYKs to be held? Otto4711 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Shubinator (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is too early. While there is nothing wrong with researching appropriately themed subjects and even writing articles within personal subpages, it is too early to move those articles to the main namespace and queue them at T:TDYK under a special heading. My personal recommendation is be for themed articles not to appear earlier than two weeks before their intended feature date. --Allen3 ^talk 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I often wonder why the April Fool's day special is exempted from the time limit though. Why does it get a special treatment? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it is funny... And yes way too early for Halloween.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Halloween funny, too? :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean like giving kids an apple instead of Hershey's, haha. :)--Giants27 (c|s) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, more like giving them shoe polish instead of Hershey's. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BEANS comes to mind at the moment - for some reason. :D — Ched :  ?  07:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

hook reworded for Richard H. Sylvester from version approved

The hook "that Washington, D.C. Chief of Police Richard H. Sylvester coined the term "third degree" to refer to harsh means of extracting confessions from suspects?" which was approved but now appears in the queue "that Washington, D.C. Chief of Police Richard H. Sylvester may have coined the term "third degree" to refer to harsh means of extracting confessions from suspects?", inserting the words "may have" before the words "coined the term". The original hook does imply a definiteness that may not be appropriate, but "may have" adds unneeded ambiguity as to what is uncertain. It could mean that he did or did not coin the term, or it could mean that he may have coined it to mean a certain interrogation technique or he may have coined it to mean something else. My I suggest that the words "may have" be replaced with "is credited with having" (or a variant thereof) to make it a bit clearer as to what is uncertain in the hook, leaving "that Washington, D.C. Chief of Police Richard H. Sylvester is credited with having coined the term "third degree" to refer to harsh means of extracting confessions from suspects?". Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Status missing

This page does not have a template listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace . Should it have one? — This, that, and the other [talk] 07:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it should. It's not a policy, guideline, essay, or whatever. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this too daft, dense or just plain weird?

Instead of providing yet more single-article hooks on churches in Sussex, I thought of combining three churches (all linked by this chap's 11th-century actions) into one slightly, er, "different" hook. Trouble is, I would have to finish the first one and write the other two in order to support that hook. Could you all kindly take a look at this and say whether it could work, or whether it is too hard to follow, confusing, poorly structured, misleading or just too whimsical? I honestly can't make my mind up. (Bold words are where the piped links to articles would be, probably.)

• ...that of three churches in Shoreham granted by Philip de Braose to Saumur Abbey in 1096, one partly collapsed in a storm, another is now part of a barn, and the other acquired carvings of King Stephen, his wife and a cat wearing "sad or angry expressions"?

("Acquired carvings" because they weren't there in 1096, but were soon afterwards. And there was an elf as well, also with an angry expression, but we've already got 255 characters.)

If this is viable, then I'll start writing the other two now (no sleep for me!). If not, I can spread these out over time as single-article submissions, and try and find a decent hook for the one I'm writing now (believe it or not, churches were always collapsing in storms in Sussex). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it, but don't lose sleep on it. ;)--Giants27 (c|s) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

5-day fivefold expansion, how to figure

The examples make 5-fold expansion seem (relatively) easy to calculate, but in reality, with multiple editors working on an article, growth is rarely all in one direction. Take a look, for example, at this edit history for the Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire article. The version from 5 days ago had approx. 5360 characters of readable prose. The current version has about 3250. In between, it has gone as low as 544. Part of the reduction and then rebuilding was from removal of copyvio, but the extent to which it was copyvio would be difficult to determine. How would you figure this one? Should I wait until it's been 5-days from the most stripped-down version and then submit? That seems like gaming the system. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been given some leeway before when copyrighted material has been removed before expansion. I think that as long as you mention it and talk about it on the talk page, there shouldn't be a problem. Just put any close situation or problematic situation like this on the talk page so people aren't surprised about it. This is not a comment on the actual page, as I haven't had a chance to look. It is just on my general impression of the expansion when it comes to copyright problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't really look like a DYK article to me. It's been gradually worked on since late July (over a week ago, it looks like), and was already a big article when it started; even if you rewrite it, it's going to be more like a greatly improved article than a new article. It would be more appropriate to take this to GAN rather than DYK.

As for the peaks and valleys in the edit history...well, Expansion should really be calculated with respect to this version from April 13, the last version before Crimmels started adding stuff in this and later edits. HelloAnyong's edit here several days later started cleanup of that stuff, but cleanup is not the same as expansion.

The bottom line here is that article expansion is counted from the previous version of the article, no matter how bad it was—this even includes spamvertising and other junk. The only thing that is excluded is blatant copyvio (literal copy-pasting), which you are suggesting that this was not...if it's vague or questionable copyvio, and the main problem is advert tone, then it's still part of the edit history. Since that 'expansion' began a week or so ago, and the work since then is cleanup rather than expansion, I don't see how this would be eligible. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all. cmadler (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin alert! Q5

Plz could the text "(Kedarnath temple pictured)" in Queue 5 be italicised before it goes on the Main Page. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše

May I suggest that the hook for Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše (now showing) be removed from the front page. This is a very old and controversial article based on a book Hitler's Pope that has been extensively criticized for it's inaccuracies and to some degree retracted. The article has gone through 3 AFD's and apparently been deleted at least once then recreated (one AfD is hidden for some reason). Also the expansion is less than 5 times (4852 bytes before expansion, 20,884 now).

More importantly it looks like pure propaganda to me. Anti-catholic to be sure (I'm not Catholic), perhaps against BLP (if any of the clergy are still alive), and in general in very poor taste. Thanks in advance for a quick review. Smallbones (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound patronizing but have you actually read Savidan's rewrite of the article? None of the facts are cited to Cornwell but almost all to Phayer. Even if prior versions of the article were plagued with being sourced to this controversial source, this is not the case anymore with the current version. It's neither anti-Catholic nor violating BLP, all potentially libelous facts are cited to reliable sources and the article extensively shows that there were different stances held by Catholics as well. The Catholic clergy was involved with the Ustase, there is no doubt about this fact and stating it is not anti-Catholic. Claiming stuff without sources would be.

The expansion was exactly 14,717 / 2,738 = 5.37x (of prose text) and the article was reviewed by myself, SusanLesch (talk · contribs) and Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs); it has thus been reviewed by three different experienced users. I find it hard to believe that three different users would have missed inaccuracies as bad as you claim they exist... Regards SoWhy 16:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review. I did skim the new article, but obviously not in enough detail. I will remove the Cornwell reference - since it is not actually referenced in the article. This is quite a sensitive topic, so no apologies for asking for a review. Smallbones (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No apology needed. I would leave the Cornwell book in the article though, maybe in a different section (e.g. "books about the topic") but that's not for this page to discuss. Regards SoWhy 17:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Timing DYK

Greetings. I would like to move this article to the queue for appearance on August 8. Right now (at this time) the next update is queue 5. That's where this should go, right after the next update, according to Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Local_update_times. I count three empty queues. Someone has used one of the prep areas. Where should I put it? And how did you figure that out? Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I or another administrator can move it to the queue anytime after the current Queue 5 is cleared. For now, though, there's still a day and a half before it needs to be posted; whoever organizes the update for that queue can make sure the update includes this article. In the meantime, please try to clear up the issues that Shubinator raised at the nom. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All right so I can't place it. Nor do I know enough about the subject to update the article. Thank you for your reply though. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you time it right you can promote it to the Prep area queue at the right time (ie, when the next prep area is set to go to Queue 5; you wouldn't want to promote it to Prep too early), but you should make sure the concerns raised have been addressed. And then it can't be moved from the prep area to the queue except by an administrator. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)