Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

WP:DYK

I've rearranged and trimmed this for clarity. I removed one criterion:

• The hook should refer to established facts that are not likely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness.

I'm pretty sure that's never been true. I also removed a lengthy section about how a DYK reaches the main page, since the recent changes with bots and templates made it actively misleading. I'd suggest that ifg it's restored, it goes after the rules. We link to this page as a rules page, after all.

Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 11:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks pretty accurate... the only real difference is that nowadays admins move hooks from the prep area to the queue (not to the main template) and a bot moves them from there to the main template. Other than that, it looks correct to me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

These changes look over-drastic and premature to me, though I'm no expert on those procedures. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The other day, I spent an hour trying to find where it was documented how long an article needed to be, because I clicked on the link labelled "Rules", and didn't see any rules, just pages and pages of waffling about the background of DYK. In every other process, the Rules and Criteria are their own page, not mixed in with irrelevant information. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 14:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The complete rule page is Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage. We are all aware that there are problems with the DYK rule pages and that they can be confusing, but editing them as you see fit is not going to help at all, as you can see from the above discussion and this one. Please discuss here before you make any change, since almost each editor seems to have their own concerns about how such changes might affect the project, so it is necessary to discuss here and obtain consensus first. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should reword the DYK box so it doesn't say "Rules" then. I disagree with the changes you've made. Overall, the DYK process section was accurate, and gave editors some idea of what to expect. You should have changed it (or asked for help with changing it) to be less "actively misleading" instead of removing the content. You've also nixed the lists of participants; now if the poor editors are confused, they won't know where to look for help. (By the way, User:Shubinator/DYK site map might help you in your search.) Shubinator (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I really like the idea of having the rules first. If an outsider wants to contribute to Did You Know, he doesn't need to know how his nomination gets through the preparation pages and the queue files. And he certainly doesn't need to read about Raul's pencil sharpener! What he needs is to know the rules for his hook and article. That was one of the main reasons for my Learning DYK system. If there are enough such improvements to WP:DYK, then the duplicate system will become more trouble than it's worth.

The description of the overall process is very obsolete, but WP:Did you know/Lore#How a DYK suggestion makes its way to the Main Page is better – although I noted at the time that I have a limited ability to document a process I have never participated in. So if you want that description back in WP:DYK, you could copy my version or improve it further.

Does anybody use the list of participants? I occasionally get questions without being on the list. The real participants are the names people find in places like T:TDYK.

But if you do want those things back in, please don't put them first! The easiest thing to find should be how to help, not how everything else works. Art LaPella (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all that. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too. (I agree with Art LePella and promote the visibility of Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage.) Considering all the "rules" I always can find what I want, eventually. —mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, regulars can always find what they want. They didn't learn the overall process from the obsolete description at WP:DYK for instance. My thought was that the first priority is newcomers who are completely lost in a sea of unfamiliar concepts, and I don't mean familiar names like Shoemaker's Holiday. Those newcomers aren't and can't be represented in this discussion. But if Shoemaker's Holiday had been directed to WP:Did you know/Learning DYK, he would have hopefully determined that his question was about articles and clicked the article link to WP:Did you know/Article. From there he would have seen that the second criterion was "Long enough – The article must have at least 1,500 characters of prose – not the whole article, just prose." Perhaps that's all he wanted to know. Or, he could click through for more details. The system includes everything including Raul's pencil sharpener, but you don't have to read that to find the 1,500 character rule. Art LaPella (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Need some help...

Alright, so I've just put together a quick update, but I have to go to bed. Every queue outside of the one I just filled is empty (someone will have to throw one together before ~9 hours from now), and we could use some more verified hooks; there are only about 15 as of this moment. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Expansion at AfD

I expanded the article Moonie (term) over 5x from its previous version. However, it is currently at AfD (discussion) and though several editors have switched positions after recent work on the article from "delete" or otherwise to "Keep", I'd rather not be presumptuous - as I have become a significant content contributor to the article. Should I nominate it for DYK now, or wait, or what? Thanks for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and nom it; if it is merged or deleted we can always reject it. ;-) Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay I added it under 29 September. :) Cirt (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, our precedent on that seems to be that an AfD "freezes" a hook nom until it's resolved, but if the nomination is made during the appropriate window, the hook will be considered after the AfD's conclusion, even if the normal window would have since passed. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay sounds good. Thanks all for the clarification. :) Cirt (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Which icon do people really like better?

{{icon}} was changed per Template_talk:Icon#Change_DYK from the blue circle question mark to the "naked" question mark, both of which are used in infoboxes, etc. relating to DYK, without a lot of consistency between them.

I like the blue circle question mark , over the current DYK icon , but I'm not going to revert that change unless there's a consensus that more of us like the blue circile than the naked question mark. Which do other DYK-contributors prefer? Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I also like the blue circle usually, but I guess it depends on the context in which it's being used (for example, in the {{dyktalk}} notice the bare question mark is better).` rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Blue circle. :) Cirt (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Blue circle. Yes. —mattisse (Talk) 18:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, make it neon orange plz. Cirt (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Blue circle, unless it can be neon green, which is way better than orange. :P--Giants27(c|s) 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, blue circle :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Blue circle per other, similar, icons for B-class/A-class etc. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Blue circle please. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think blue circle works best because it looks similar to the other icons for FA, GA, etc. that use the {{icon}} template as well. Gary King (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it back, and made the "naked" question mark the DYK2 icon, and changed the icons in my post above to match the revision. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot didn't complete update

The bot didn't finish the latest update. Could an admin clear queue 6 and increment the next queue count to 1? Shubinator (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I see you already fixed the credits. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For the last update of Q1, our favorite bot didn't update the count and did not clear Q1... —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Same with the last update of Q2.[1][2] —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

More care please

Of course, we appreciate it when people step up to help out with the running of DYK, but lately I've had to spend considerable time trying to sort out a series of unbalanced updates. Today for example, I had to work on an update that had been promoted with no less than 7 biography hooks!

For those who may not be aware of it, there is a guide to putting updates together. Please try to adhere to these guidelines in future everyone. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

All I was trying to do was make sure we actually had updates, because the queue was completely and totally empty, and I had to systematically check pretty much every. single. hook as I went along, because noone was bothering to review them in any significant number either.

If you want balanced, you're going to need to actually keep up to date, at least with verification, because I was checking about a dozen hooks for everything I was able to just copy over, and, of course, a good number failed verification. The only sensible and fair thing I could do was to systematically work through the backlog. If I had lost track of what I had checked and what I hadn't, the entire thing would have fallen apart. If I had tried to verify, then come back and select, it would have taken twice as long. There was no way I could jump around like you propose. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 209 FCs served} 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks for helping out, but as I've said before, you do not need to "systematically work through the backlog". It's much more important to do balanced updates, and if that means taking a few hooks from the newer entries, by all means go ahead and do it. Gatoclass (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I threw together an update a couple days ago because everything was empty (see #Need some help...), and it wasn't easy to come up with a varied update simply because of a dearth of verified hooks.

Regarding Shoemaker, I think that he ran into this problem too. On the other hand, he did just put seven or eight queues' worth of updates together over today and yesterday. We ought to be thanking and patting him on the back... Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I already said we appreciate the help, but I could also point out that when I first started working on this project almost two years ago, having no hooks verified was the norm. The people who did the update did the verifying as well. Things have improved a lot since then, but as you rightly point out we can always use more assistance. But really, I think it's better not to do an update at all if you don't have time to do a reasonable job. It won't matter a lot if an update stays on the front page a few hours longer than it should, but a poorly done update reflects poorly on the project and on wikipedia as a whole. Gatoclass (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember those days well... DYK was such a pain to do. I was verifying them and then moving them right on to the Main Page immediately. Part of the reason I got burned out doing these, I suppose. howcheng {chat} 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As asked, I shall never attempt to help out here again. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 209 FCs served} 19:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No one was saying you should never help out again; Gato was just trying to familiarize you with the standards in as polite a way as possible. Would you prefer if no one said anything and people just passive-aggressively went around changing your update behind your back? Or are you just being a DIVA? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, Shoemaker spent a great deal of time helping out a project badly in need of more contributors. If the DYK regulars are going to scare him off because he didn't do it exactly the way they want, then it is no surprise that he wouldn't want to contribute in the future. A simple note on his talk page politely asking him to try to balance the queues would have been far better; there was no need for this thread. And it wasn't like he was adding BLP violations to the main page or anything - he simply added an excess of one type of hooks. I hardly believe that having one DYK set of just biographies will "reflect poorly on the project and on wikipedia as a whole". NW (Talk) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, notifying someone on their talk page is what I usually do, but in this case after looking at the history pages of both prep #1 and #2 it wasn't at all clear who was responsible for the updates in question, and as there were several of them it would have taken me quite a while to figure it out. Apart from which, it wasn't just about these recent updates. I have had to repair a number of updates over the last two or three weeks, so I felt it was necessary to bring the problem to the attention of all our contributors.

Obviously I am sorry Shoemaker has taken offence at my comments, but they were not directed at him specifically and I made the point three times that we very much appreciate all the assistance we get here and want it to continue. But not everyone has the same amount of experience updating DYK and I find it disappointing that what was intended as a gentle reminder to all our contributors about the existence of updating guidelines has somehow been interpreted as an attack on one particular individual. There's a learning curve for everyone on this project, and we certainly don't blame people here for not being familiar with every nuance. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another Shoemakers' holiday issue

This edit [3] seems again over-drastic. At least 2 of them have already been restored, by Victuallers and myself. I haven't looked at them all. I thought we were short of articles a few days ago? Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say undo it, if that hasn't already been done so already. Just looking at the first two articles that SM removed, the objection for Christian music industry was minor and was made less than a day ago; in cases like that it's standard to let the nom sit for a few more days to give the nominator a chance to respond (especially in a minor case like this, where it's likely to just be a miscommunication or a quick fix). I imagine lots of the other removals were similar. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He just swept clear everything that was left from 5 days (19-23 sept), though I imagine many were goners anyway. So far only 2 seem to have been returned. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Has this been undone? We don't need a string of "OMG! Where's my hook?" type of complaints. SH has obviously acted in good faith, but the people who wrote the articles are not going to be thinking about that if they did make an effort to get them passed. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree that this is an overdrastic deletion. At this point it seems clear that Shoemaker's needs to spend a little more time familiarizing himself with our standards before making major edits at DYK. His hook reviews look worthwhile, I would encourage him to stick with that for now while he gains more experience.

I have restored the deleted section for now, there are probably a couple of duplicated hooks but I think it's better to go through the whole section hook by hook than try to deal with a barrage of complaints over the next few days as contributors realize their hook has disappeared. Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted some duplications leaving the updated (reviewed) versions. This created some mess with dates, but it will clean itself soon (some noms will just get deleted/promoted). I have a concern with "His hook reviews look worthwhile" - some are in error, though kudos for placing mere rather than or . Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess we must have been working at the same time, I've also gone through and deleted all the hooks that I think were justifiably deleted, which leaves about 10 which can still be reviewed. We may need to inform some of their creators as they might think their hooks were deleted already. Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(Just reverted you there 'cause you snapped a nomination right when I was reviewing it :-) Not to say I was right, just to keep the review). Usually bottom noms are semi-forgotten, and I haven't noticed much activity there recently, thus IMO, no need for notifying. Materialscientist (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I will probably notify them later today, the hooks in question were only reviewed on the 30th, and then deleted, so the creators had very little chance to respond. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance in processing those, BTW :) Gatoclass (talk)

Queue 1 hook issue

This hook is currently in Queue 1:

• ... that Robert Southey composed five epic poems that describe: human sacrifices, murderous Hindu demons, evil sorcerers, a Goth rapist, and a violent maid?

The linked poems are terribly under wikilinked (practically all just flat prose), and Roderick doesn't even have a lead. Who exactly approved these for DYK? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If wikilinks are required, can someone please point out which letter that requirement is under? Also, the leads are being worked on, as it was stated at the template page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's not that they're required, they're just very... Unfinished looking. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. Joan of Arc does not have a lead either. "In terms of subject matter, the story of Joan of Arc was not well know outside of a legend"... "Southey's understanding of politics and religion began to chang"... What does the following mean in Roderick? "The poem's poems present is after the Moors invade"? "At the monastary, Roderick is ordained before he sets off to free Pelayo". "Also in April 1815 was John Taylor Coleridge's review for hte British Critic" The least the writer could have done was to take more care with their spellings and grammar and maybe reread when submitting such a detailed set of articles. I've only skimmed through two of the articles in minute detail and I'm under the impression that they're either designed to mislead or have been hurried through especially to feature on the Main Page. I would suggest they be removed from the queue until all these issues are sorted or at least until it can be confirmed or reviewed by some others. --candle•wicke 18:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Candlewicke, if you are going to claim there are problems with spelling, don't be petty and actually fix them yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, that first one from Joan of Arc is grammatically correct. Perhaps you should check things before listing them in such a manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, "well know" should be "well-known" (the auxiliary verb "was" makes "know(n)" a past participle, and to be pickier, WP:HYPHEN has a paragraph about the word "well".) And the rules aren't intended to be exhaustive; see R6. Art LaPella (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement for them to look finished, or be finished. The articles are new, for cryin' out loud. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm? Well, sorry if I misread anything but I found two of them could have done with some more work. I would understand one or two typos but I found a lot rather easily with little effort. I was also thinking of the readers. --candle•wicke 19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't mean finished as in complete, I meant finished as in... Like raw wood versus wood with finish on it. Unfinished or sanded wood just looks rough no matter how nice the material. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Think of the readers who will be motivated to dig in and correct the spelling errors, and perhaps get caught up in further Wikipedia editing tasks. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why don't we put articles marked with maintenance templates on the main page, then? I got yelled at for removing a template from an article I was waiting on a DYK for. In fact, that leads me to the exact DYK rule, D6. "There is a reasonable expectation that an article which is to appear on the front page, even a short one, should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles which fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive." Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing this out to make sure everyone here is aware of this - see R3: "[article] should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress". ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles above, the ones we are talking about, don't fail to cover the subject comprehensively. They don't have unexpanded headers. They are reasonably complete articles, well-referenced, that need some more polishing and wikification. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Roderick has no header. How is that not unexpanded? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that one has no summary at the beginning, no lead section. It is most certainly not a B-Class article; not yet. It is reasonable for us to expect that Ottava Rima (or somebody else) will write a summary soon. Still, it doesn't fail to cover the subject, and doesn't have empty headers. I don't see it failing DYK standards. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I had leads finished. I just didn't have time to place them on the pages. I made that note on the template and above. I just added in the leads. There didn't need to be all of the above fuss. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot

The bot seems to have missed the update in T:TDYK/Q6, so I've done it manually. Could an admin please check if Template:Did you know/Next update/Time has been updated correctly? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the bot didn't miss it. Are you aware that the update interval is 8 hours nowadays? --BorgQueen (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin add in the instructions that were on Template:Did you know/Next update/Time before? They were accidentally removed on this edit. Shubinator (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've checked back through the Archives to August and I see no poll or RfC in which 8 hour rotations were approved by the community. Does someone have a link for this rather major change? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the only thing close and there is no consensus there. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(a) the discussion you are looking for is two sections below your link (b) we need a "poll or [a] RfC" to go to eight-hour rotations? O_o In my experience, the time has always been a variable, changing when we had a shortage or backlog at T:TDYK. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That is definitely not consensus. And yes, we need consensus before making big and arbitrary changes such as going from 4 updates a day to 3. There is no proposal to shorten the rotation as chosen by people. There is no consensus for this change. WP:CONSENSUS is not an antiquated policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The change was necessary at the time. We have to (as we have done before numerous times) reduce the number of hooks or increase the time when the backlog is too great to maintain the normal update levels. By the time we hold polls and RFCs we'll have run out of hooks. Common sense needs to be applied if we need to keep DYK running in a situation like that. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem reducing the number of hooks per update. But 6 to 8 hours is a massive change - hell, it would skew the page hits by allowing pages to be up for an extra 2 hours. The reduction of hooks would not. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in a way, reduction of hooks would also skew page hits—fewer hooks competing with one another, plus the fact that in general the fewer the hooks are, the more likely someone is to read any one of them (TL;DR). But to be fair, just about any change to anything will skew the page hits in some indirect way or another, and DYKSTATS isn't an exact science anyway, so page hits probably shouldn't be a huge factor in deciding what to do. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Rjanag. WP:DYKSTATS is not some kind of reliable statistics. As many people mentioned in this discussion, it is just a harmless fun - not to be taken too seriously. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not relying on that page or thinking about raw numbers. I'm just thinking about the time people devote to such things. I remember when we had far fewer hooks on the update and things worked out. I would have just preferred people actually responding to the various choices instead of just picking one. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I personally prefer to have six or seven hooks too, since fewer hooks make it easier to focus and read. But, at that time, six hooks per update would have made it very difficult to maintain the Main Page balance, since both ITN and OTD were already down to the minimum - five entries each - so we had to take the 8-hooks option. Having said that, it might be a good idea to return to six hooks per update soon, since it appears that we have more than 200 entries waiting at the candidates page at the moment. Any supports? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean we should return to six hours per update? I guess we could switch back now. Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, sorry I am quite tired. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

BorgQueen, can you, Gato, Rjanag, etc (the DYK admin corps) work together on putting together a plan for such things in the future that can be displayed - "if it gets below ___ hooks on the template talk page, DYK will switch to 8 hours per update until the amount of hooks is restored" or something to that effect? The first time I heard about the 8 hour update was above and it sounded like it was a permanent change. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok, that's why you took it so seriously. Sure, I think Gato told me that we needed to have about 180 entries on the candidates page for 6-hour updates? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really need a hard and fast rule, but a few days ago we got down to under 150 entries with no queues full, and when it gets that low the variety of topics to choose from starts diminishing. So I'd say that's around the level we probably start thinking about going to eight hours per update. Now we've built up to 230 hooks again total, and that's plenty, so I think it's the right time to go back to six. But one has to exercise a little caution because when there aren't enough nominations, one can burn back down to the 150 mark again pretty quick. Gatoclass (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have set the bot back to the six-hour interval. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And we'll be going with how many hooks now? The normal eight or less than that? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The normal eight, I suppose, unless consensus dictates otherwise... --BorgQueen (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The verified number of hooks is more than it was when the change was made, and things are slowly returning to normal. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK Halloween 2009

I've created a page for DYK Halloween 2009, mostly riffing off of the Halloween 2008 page that was successful in getting a large number of topical DYKs last year, for anyone who's interested in helping out. Geraldk (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Double-checking verified hooks

Per the recent discussion on my talk page with User:Shoemaker's Holiday, I wonder if queue-assembling admins are required to double-check hooks that have been already verified by someone else? It seems that I get all the blames for featuring an approved hook on DYK. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to this particular hook, I must say that I too had reservations about it. I do think perhaps you were a little quick on the draw on this one, it wouldn't have hurt to let the discussion go on a little longer, but no-one gets it right 100% of the time. Gatoclass (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I use to blame Dravecky when hooks would get to the queue that may have had problems. If you would prefer, we could return to that system. Haha. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No wonder that we haven't seen Dravecky for a while, eh? :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, normally I would yell at "whoever listed the hook" and then it would turn out to be him. I wish Gatoclass would screw it up so we could get some jabs in. That punk has been running around here all perfect and high and mighty because he hasn't made a mistake for too long. Doesn't he know that this is the mainpage we are dealing with and screw ups are supposed to happen every other day? :D Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Punk? Is DYK turning into some kind of badmouthing competition? :-D I may be acting like a redneck housewife but I would really prefer not to hear bad words. (close my ears) --BorgQueen (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha. By the way, I have a great solution to the DYK problems and concerns - we could get more admin to participate. There, wasn't that easy? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How do we get them to participate, exactly? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We could promote Ottava to admin to help... :O —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lulz. People don't even trust me to move them to the prep area, and I get attacked for a few spelling errors in over 100k worth of text. Like that would ever be a good idea. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's put up an ad: "Got the admin tools and don't know what to use them on? Head over to WP:DYK" ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As a semi-related question, would it be a decent idea to have a list of people we need to be careful in accepting offline sources from, because they have a history of interpreting them incorrectly? --NE2 02:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, definitely not. That would be pretty much cabalism. We are supposed to check each and every article properly, so if we really do that these problems won't be there. It's easier said than done of course :P ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chamal. Having a list of editors who we need to "be careful in accepting offline sources from" is a bad idea. It's best to just to do as Chamal said and check every article properly. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there's a loophole: cite a hard-to-access source. As long as it doesn't raise a red flag, the reviewer is likely to accept it in good faith, when in reality the nominator may have misinterpreted the source. --NE2 02:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be cabalism, at least any more than we are currently the "DYK cabal". I can see how it could cause hurt feelings, but it may be more important to keep bad stuff off the main page. --NE2 02:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can implement what you are saying; having one set of standards for one group of people, and another set of standards for another group. The only thing that I could think of is to disallow offline sources completely; and that, will hopefully not happen. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

People like put the "cabal" label on a lot of things. We are the DYK cabal, the people at ANI are the admin cabal etc etc and all sorts of crap. Those are just words. Putting this into practice will make us an actual cabal, as the first line of Katerenka's comment above explains. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Next queue?

It looks like "I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be A Soldier" is scheduled up next without using the sound template or either of the two images from the article. One of those images is a featured picture candidate, and the sound is a rough edit for a featured sound drive. Is there a particular reason for the omission? Last time I checked it seemed like the sound had been approved. Not often DYK gets to run sounds! Would you reconsider, please? Plenty of media-less hooks could take its place. Durova³²¹ 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix. :) Durova³²¹ 04:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've moved it back to P1, since we rarely get a chance for a sound file on DYK. If there was a reason this was dropped, or of anyone has any objections, please feel free to change my edits back. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤

I was wondering the same thing as Durova. Thanks for taking care of it, Chamal. :) Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 04:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It seemed like the template was approved, from the review discussion. Thanks again. :) Durova³²¹ 04:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Advance notification to non-nominating editors

I was tempted to call this "Yet again, another Shoemakers' holiday issue", but.... Regarding the debate over the Casuals United article appearing in DYK, I've made the point in discussion elsewhere that, as one of the contributing editors to the article, but not its originator or nominator, I had no idea that the article was in the queue for DYK. Had I known, I would have made extra efforts to ensure that the article was sound, that the hook was sound, and so forth - but, without checking the queues for every new article that I as an editor am involved with, there is no way of knowing. Most new articles probably only have one or two editors involved before they reach DYK, so the problem may not arise frequently. But with articles that arise out of current news, and which may be contentious, there should perhaps be some way of giving advance notice to all editors involved in an article that it is in line for the main page. Can some arrangement to do this be considered? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. The approving editor could simply look at the article history to see if non-nominating editors were present, and send each one a talk page note. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would want to call it "Yet again a Shoemaker's Holiday issue" when AFAIK he was not the nominator but only tried to get it pulled. I do think the hook needed a little more discussion, but sometimes these things slip through. Gatoclass (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, it wasn't a comment to be taken seriously - but the issue arose as a direct result of his intervention, and I was cross about the manner of that intervention and its factual inaccuracies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I don't think this should be the approver's responsibility, it should be the nominator's. It's common courtesy to tell someone "hey, I like your article and I nominated it for DYK", and it's less work on the nominator's part than it is on the approver's. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a templete that could auto inform an article's creator that it has been nominated for DYK if it has been done by someone other than that user? Do you feel this be beneficial to the project? ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 08:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Those suggestions would not cover my point - that in some cases there are active editors of a new article who are neither the article originator, nor the nominator. In some cases (obviously not all cases, but particularly in contentious and/or news-related cases), it would be helpful if those other editors could be informed that an article has been put up for DYK. If an article is contentious, it may be that the creator and/or nominator are not motivated to contact other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

List/footnote eligibility?

I've got a really interesting fact that I think would make a great hook, but I'm not sure if footnotes of lists are eligible for DYK. For anyone who's curious, the fact is that former Watford Football Club Player of the Season Steve Palmer once bowled out England batsman Graeme Fowler in a first class cricket match. WFCforLife (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, a DYK hook has to appear in the actual body of an article and not just the footnotes. Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 03:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, how is that fact interesting? Maybe for a cricket fan it's obvious, but for me I have no idea what it means or why it's special. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Even knowing nothing about cricket, I appreciate that a football player defeating a professional cricketer in a first class match should be worthy a DYK nom (I guess you need more than one lucky strike for that :-). Materialscientist (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I can't justify putting it in the body of the article really. Shame. For those interested in the trivial he also has a degree from Cambridge and has played in every football position, including in goal... but there's a 200 character limit ;-) WFCforLife (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are thinking to expand Steve Palmer, I would encourage to do so, as even his current stub is already remarkable, and there should be no problem making a good hook out of it. Materialscientist (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's not everyday that a football player bowls out a batsman of the national team :) Anyway, when I check list articles, I consider the refs in the list/table as well. The rules say the hook fact must be in the article and cited after all, and not in the prose. But if it really is an interesting and important fact, it should be in the lead of the article as well, no? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I may well go to his own page at some stage. I like putting all my energy into one article at a time and I'm nearly done with the list, so that could be a good one to do. Thanks for the suggestion WFCforLife (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Buddy, Scorecard reads

G Fowler lbw b Palmer 49

Now is Palmer really beat Fowler there? I suggest to use "caught in front" instead. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Caught in front"? Pace WP:BOLD, he was neither "caught in front" nor bowled. He was trapped leg-before. Ericoides (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

plz check me

I just updated manually because it was overdue and there were no queues ready. Since I had to throw it together quickly, please check the hooks to make sure I didn't leave any typos or other problems. (And, by the way, they seem to look god-awful ont he front page right now--they're all just about the same length, and it's just a tiny bit longer than one line, so there's a lot of white space (not whitespace, but white space).) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed one entry each from ITN and OTD to improve MP balance; it is still not perfect but they have to maintain five items minimum. Just wondering if finding one more hook was that difficult...? I notice there are some verified hooks on the suggestions page. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there are some higher up; an 8th hook could be added, and then you could restore the entries to ITN and OTD. It's up to you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, nevermind. It isn't that ugly - we've had worse. Thanks for your hard work. :-) --BorgQueen (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate you lot are busy but do the article creators/articles get notified (eg articles nominated for 04:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC))? Thanks Ericoides (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I knew I was forgetting something. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK credits

Were credits given for this diff?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

See above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are pointing to. There is nothing on my user talk page and nothing on the Talk:Jake Long.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P2 - sorry, can't finish

I don't like leaving a job half done, but my lunch hour has finished and I can't complete the filling of Prep Area 2, which needs to be completed and in a queue in a few hours. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

 Doing...  Done - T:TDYK is severly backlogged though :-/ Regards SoWhy 13:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The computer locked up and crashed as well, which didn't help... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

c-uploaded

Admins, remember to tag DYK images with {{c-uploaded}} when you upload images from Commons for the Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Prep areas full

Can someone move to queues and reset? cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks very much for putting them together. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Script to notify editors of problems with their DYK nom?

Hi there. Short question: Lazy as I am, I wondered, is there a script that you can use to notify editors of problems with their DYK nom? I'm thinking of something like this: you press a button while in the editing window for a certain hook and the script will identify the creators (using the parameter of {{DYKmake}} for example), open edit windows in background tabs to their talk pages, add the DYKproblem template and save. And if there isn't, could anyone create something like that? :-) Regards SoWhy 08:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes} }... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.161.172.98 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a template, not a script. But just a thought; maybe we can add this template to twinkle or friendly (which allows custom templates to be added I think). That will make it easier without the copy pasting, but you'll still have to click the link :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

T:DYK/P1

Resolved

Preparation area 1 is again full. If an admin could move the hooks to T:DYK/Q2 so that DYKadminbot can process the update or move them straight to the queue, it would be appreciated. Thanks, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked DYKadminBot

DYKadminBot screwed up again in a new way this time, I think. It updated DYK properly, then missed User:Daniel Case, User:Scapler and User:Cbl62 with the credits and then missed Talk:Tromzikhang and Talk:Pierre de Cros when tagging talk pages. A few minutes after updating the bot count correctly, it told the admins that DYK was late ([4]). After I removed it, it re-added the message ([5]). Since something's obviously wrong and it'll keep repeating the messages until it's fixed, I've blocked it until it can be fixed. The block is currently for just 12 hours, hoping the problem can be fixed by then. If it needs to be extended please do so. The next update(s) will probably have to be done manually. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait... bot didn't update Template:Did you know/Next update/Time after updating DYK, which is apparently the reason for this. I've updated the timer and unblocked the bot. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please see my suggestion. Majorly talk 20:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Riverside International Automotive Museum

Hello; I received a notice stating that the Riverside International Automotive Museum hook was selected as a DYK article. The article also received a notice that it was selected. I then looked on the queue and saw the hook was under an area labeled prep area 2, but now it seems to have disappeared, and never appeard on the DYK page. Can anyone tell me why or if something needs to be corrected? Thank you. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was on the DYK page; it was placed there at 6:28 UTC and remained up for 6 hours. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it I don't see it in the DYK archive? MissionInn.Jim (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be patient. It will get there soon. There is always some delay, when your hook is hanging with some intermediate status. Materialscientist (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

When your message was posted (at 01:01 UTC), it was in the archive. Note the message at the top of the archives page; it's updated manually (by a one-man army it seems) and sometimes is up to two days late. Shubinator (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I see it now. It wasn't there when I did my original post. Thanks. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Queues 2 and 3

I created two updates which I placed at Queues 2 and 3. I also uploaded the pics to Wikipedia and protected them. It's been quite a while since I've done an update, so if another admin could look over my shoulder to make sure I didn't mess things up, that would be great. Cbl62 (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you add {{c-uploaded}} to the images? Looks good otherwise. Shubinator (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cbl62 (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The "tl|" should be taken out so the template displays properly (see File:Phoebering.jpg for an example). Shubinator (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Cbl62 (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nom for Santa Muerte

I 5x expanded (more like 10x expanded) the article for Santa Muerte and self nominated it. Ive been informed that it was a DYK back in 2004 and that disqualifies it. Ill accept it if that's the case but it seems a shame since I put so much work into it.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and sympathize with you. I had brought up this issue last year (see the discussion) and there were many people who supported my suggestion, but we failed to form consensus on this. One of the main concerns was that if we allow a second DYK for one article it might encourage some people to game the system, i.e. they might submit barely long enough articles to expand them later for a second DYK. At that time I didn't want to argue further so kept quiet but I am still not convinced that allowing it will be truly detrimental to the overall quality of DYK articles. I personally think it will rather enhance the scope and quality of our project. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with multiple recent DYK noms (say featured once in December 2008, then again now?), but ones that were DYK'd in 2004 should be allowed to go again, IMO... that was five years ago. —Ed (talk • contribs) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What if the proposal was brought up again but there was a time limit, something like it can't have been a DYK within the past 3 years. I don't frankly think we'll seen a ton of repeat entries. Geraldk (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Three-year limit sounds reasonable to me. Expanding a non-stub article for more than 5x is a hard work and I don't think there will be many such entries either, much less system-gamers. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well that such exceptions should be made and I think even if we cannot agree on a general rule, then we should at least be able to make exceptions where necessary and with consensus. I think this is such an exception. Regards SoWhy 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree to a rule that says if an article was DYK'd 3 years ago and it's expanded 5x again then it can reappear. Because like BorgQueen noted above it's easier to expand 5x for the first one, but harder for the second time so the editor puts more in it and should be rewarded for it.--Giants27(c|s) 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Or if gaming the system is the concern, just don't allow the same editor who already received a DYK for the nomination or creation/expansion to receive another DYK for the same article. Gets rid of the arbitrary time limit and the need for exceptions. Or for an actual rule: Although articles may be eligible via expansion for a second or third DYK, editors who were involved in any previous DYK for that particular article may not nominate the article or receive recognition for any expansion on that article. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but tracking down the editor who brought it to DYK sounds extremely time consuming.--Giants27(c|s) 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. First, this only becomes an issue on expansions, and the old DYK notice on the article should be on the talk page. Thus you already know you have something to check. Then you only have to check that one editor's talk page for the date the DYK was awarded (date is on the article's talk page). Maybe a minute or two, and actually prevents the problem raised, where the date may not. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The notice is already on the article's talk page and the notice says nothing about the editor who expanded it, nor should it. So, you'd have to look at the tag on the talk page and look through the history for it, which is a waste of time IMO.--Giants27(c|s) 22:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. OK: First there is a Nom at DYK. Nom has the name of an article and the name of the editor nominating it. Next, because it is an expansion (if it is not an expansion nothing in this entire thread about prior editors or time limits matters), you would need to check the article's talk page to see if it was previously a DYK, which is a step you have to do no matter what if there is a time frame or my proposal, otherwise you would not know if the article had previously appeared at DYK. If there is not a notice from old articles (and I believe most have now been updates) then nothing in this thread matters at all as for the time frame or the editor proposal would matter as I don't think anyone is proposing hook checkers go through the DYK archives to ensure the article will not be a repeat within the three years or the same editor (that is to say not having a notice is a moot point if you were to judge the two proposals). Next, if you have an article that has been on DYK before (if it isn't then go no further for either proposal) then you check the talk page of the editor who has nominated it, which does not come from the article's talk page, but comes from the nomination at the DYK template. You also will have the date from the article's talk page of when it was on DYK from the notice template on the article's talk page (again, if the date is not there, then whether you are going for the editor or time frame then you are screwed as if there is no date you would not know if it had been three years or not without further checking, so again no difference there between the options). The one difference is then if you go by date, then you would be done if it had been more than 3 years. If you go by editor, you would then check the nominator's talk page history on the date of the original DYK to see if they were involved, and that's it. Maybe an extra minute or two, but it actually addresses the issue of gaming the system instead of putting it off for three years. But go with the easier 3 years. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Aside from which, the gap would ensure that the same article didn't appear on the main page two times in a short period of time. Geraldk (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page notices for DYK didn't exist a couple years ago. Art LaPella (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they didn't exist for user talk or article talk. Only noticed this one because DYKHousekeepingBot tagged the article a few months ago. Shubinator (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd support a 3-year gap, even with the same editor. Btw (full disclosure), only after Dutch Golden Age painting was on DYK on September 12 did I notice it had already been on in February 2006 (when I hadn't edited it at all). I must admit I'd have been a bit peeved if anyone had spotted this before & objected. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaah! Johnbod gamed the system :P Anyway, I too agree that the 3 year limit is reasonable. It's not like people will be expanding 1500+ articles everyday, and not everybody would do it either. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I only saw afterwards, honest! Just as well, though. In this case the hooks were very different, & the 2nd hook covered stuff not in the article when it was first on - I think we should expect this in future, & also that nominators mention the 1st appearance. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also agree with a 3-year limit. Shubinator (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears now that consensus is clear. Glad to see User:Thelmadatter's splendid work has been saved. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Shubinator, anyway you can make DYKCheck account for the 3 year gap?--Giants27(c|s) 14:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. The script uses the date given in the dyktalk tag; if there's no date for whatever reason, or the date is malformed, the script won't be able to tell if it's been 3 years or not (it will note that the dyktalk tag is there though, so the reviewer can check manually). Shubinator (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Same set of hooks used twice

I noticed that the current set of hooks (updated 15 minutes ago) are the same as they were before the update and Queue 6 still has the same set - if nothing is done I guess the same set will appear again at the next update in about 6 hrs time. Mikenorton (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that has occurred indeed. By the way DYKadminBot has issued me wrong credits. Will some admin act quickly to load a new set.--Chanaka L (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot has not in fact updated the template at all as a quick look at the history shows. I have updated the bot's queue count to use queue 1 the next time and have manually cleared queue 6. I will now remove the incorrect duplicated credits but I am unsure whether we should really do a manual update now or simply ignore that the hooks have been on the Main Page twice as long. Regards SoWhy 13:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dunno SoWhy, I believe we should need a new set. Readers might notice the redundancy. Regards!--Chanaka L (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

True. I have just done a manual update (I hope I made no mistakes). Regards SoWhy 13:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

While you're at it, mind throwing the P1 set into Q2?--Giants27(c|s) 13:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind you just did.--Giants27(c|s) 13:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done there SoWhy. DYK community should appreciate your quick response. Regards!--Chanaka L (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I put it into Q1 which is the next one that should be used, I hope the bot works again by then. You are more than welcome to refill the prep areas again :-) And thanks for the kind words, Chanaka L. :-) Regards SoWhy 13:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

More care with credits, please

May I ask the reviewers to pay attention to the credits listed as well, apart from the usual length and reference checking. This kind of thing has happened a few times already, the same user using sockpuppets to evade a block. Anyway, the thing is he added himself to the credits without improving the article at all, or just for suggesting an alt hook. On two occasions IIRC these noms almost made it to the front page, but were pulled out of the queues at the last minute. People trying to get "free" credits for something someone else has done just undervalues the efforts of the actual article creator/expander. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That situation was obvious, but how are reviewers here supposed to know that the user is a sock? They aren't CUs, or, well, most of them aren't. By the way, people nominate articles they didn't write all the time. See the hall of fame. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about spotting socks, nor about nominating articles. What I'm saying is we should check if the people listed for credits for improving the article have actually done so. No big deal, just a glance at the page history :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreviewed DYK Hook

Hello everyone - I recently posted a hook on the DYK page, and it has yet to be reviewed. Could someone please review it? I realize that there is a backlog for the page, but I'm afraid the hook will go stale soon. Anyone? The hook is for "Konk (recording)". The nom can be found here. Thanks very much - I.M.S. (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK noms do not go stale. They won't be denied simply by time. Note there are over 50 noms that were submitted before yours that have yet to be reviewed. Shubinator (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Agree with Shubinator, but I went ahead and reviewed it for you. In the future, just be patient and we'll get to it when we can. :) –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! I didn't no that they couldn't go stale - I'll be patient in the future. One more question - am I allowed to move the hook into a prep area by myself? Once again, Thank you! Sincerely, I.M.S. (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. You can't move your own hook into the Prep area. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 01:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

O.K., just making sure. I imagine an admin will move it there shortly? Many thanks for the speedy replies - I.M.S. (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It can take a few days. Patience. Shubinator (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I find that if I review everyone else's hooks around mine then it creates a "doughnut effect" that is designed to highlight mine as the one that is not reviewed. Does it work? Not at all! :-) But it gives you something to do whilst you wait... and its a good contribution. Victuallers (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Queues empty

All DYK queues are empty. Prep 2 only haves 3 hooks and Prep 1 also empty. As being fairly new to DYK, are there any expeienced contributers who may want to promote a few hooks. Thanks ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 13:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone panic instead! :) But seriously, I'm sure someone will get around to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently filling one.--Giants27(c|s) 13:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

lol. That wasn't the intention. Just assumed this would be a good area to bring it up. ...watchlist and all. and thanks Giants27. I've seen you have been busy with it just now ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 13:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Finished. The update's a minute overdue so...--Giants27(c|s) 13:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Possessive apostrophes

One thing that comes up every so often, and I can't see a comment about it in the various "how-to" DYK guides, is the question of possessive apostrophes after a bold article. The possibilities would appear to be:

1. "... that Bencherlite's favourite colour is green?"
2. "... that Bencherlite's favourite colour is green?"
3. "... that Bencherlite's favourite colour is green?"
4. "... that Bencherlite's favourite colour is green?"

From looking through the archives, the commonest method appears to be number 4, using {{'}} or {{'s}} (the same effect can be reached using "nowiki" tags, but these templates are easier. Thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 11:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The apostrophe should be outside the bolding, but it's better to use {{`}} or {{`s}} (rather than {{'}} and {{'s}}), unless the article title is also italicized. {{'s}} & co. are made for use with italicized words, and {{`}} & co. for use with unitalicized words. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction. I've added it as Additional rule C7. Bencherlite^Talk 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of Hooks in Update

Since we have less than 20 hooks out of ~162 hooks verified, I'm thinking that the update size needs to be lowered to six or seven until we can get some more verified hooks.--Giants27(c|s) 16:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I've caught us up a little on the verifications. Geraldk (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, any idea how many active reviewers there are currently? I know I started reviewing over the last few days, somewhat sporadically, but what about dedicated ones? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there's many evidenced by the normal amount verified hooks hanging around 25-30. Highest I've ever seen in six or so months actively working around DYK is like 48. So, to answer your question there's either none or very few. The reason being, IMO, is that it becomes tedious and boring when you do too many in a row.--Giants27(c|s) 00:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that's not the only reason. I used to be a very prolific reviewer way back when the practice was first gaining footing. What turned me off to reviewing was the explosion of rules detailing and micromanaging every little thing. I took a few weeks off for a wiki-break and everything changed. You add the subjectivity and "additional rules/interpretations" by different reviewers and it became a recipe for a headache I didn't want to deal with. The last thing I would care for is to approve a hook based on the core rules (New/length/hook referenced) and then have a "Problem with hook approvals" thread started here because there was a single paragraph in another part of the article, completely unrelated to the hook, missing a reference or had bad grammar, etc. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with Agne. Rules are quite easy, referee is not obliged to check them all (i.e. would be great, but if not, others could point to remaining issues) and we should care more about quality (i.e. tougher reviews) than quantity. Also, every one of us misses something, thus a second/third/.. look at any stage is welcome, especially for blunders (like this was already ITN, etc., etc.). IMO, an attitude that "someone else is already reviewing - I better pass this one" is to be discouraged. I myself have had two wikibreaks in the last few weeks, but will increase the number of reviews. Materialscientist (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, the only substantial requirement we've added in recent times, albeit informally, is to have one cite per paragraph. I don't see that as such an onerous requirement for anyone, whether one is the creator of the article or the reviewer. Gatoclass (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Material Scientist. An editor giving a check mark and validating an article and hook by these core values ( New/length/hook) allows other editors to know the article is valid and for the most part ready for Dyk. This then allows other editors to possibly suggest alt hooks for wording or clarity. Also agree that a second view before promoting to prep area is valid it for no other fact that it will appear on the main article space and some error have indeed been caught after the fact. Maybe changing the WP:DYKRules to ask that each hook recieve two different editor validations before promotion might be helpful. Just a suggestion. Thanks ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 04:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've become inactive due to real life. I feel like I'm here in spirit with the help of my script :) Hopefully I can start regularly reviewing again soon. Shubinator (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This section started by saying there aren't enough reviewers, so I don't know how we can simultaneously call for second reviews unless those reviews will be performed by the Good Fairy. The one cite per paragraph rule is unwritten and disputed, so every once in a while we have to argue with someone who doesn't consider it to be a real rule. We enforce our other rules more stringently than we used to, such as reliable sources and copyvios (the latter issue prevents us from using DYKcheck to detect 5x because the earlier version might be a copyvio); "about" 200 characters used to mean 235, now it means 201 if you're lucky; fact checking used to be sporadic at best, but now there are big arguments over whether the sources support a shade of meaning; ... Art LaPella (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As a new sporadic user, I'll admit, I didn't know about the one cite per paragraph rule. :-( Maybe make up some kind of "welcome" for new reviewers that points to the secondary rule pages like that, would help? I do find Shubinator's script quite helpful for doing the character checks, since the other page size script doesn't give the actual character counts. Though the script does "break" the actual DYK page a little :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just looked at the history for your monobook; that's pretty funny :) Is it just the fixed sidebar that's breaking things? (And are you using Internet Explorer?) If either of those is a yes, try adding fixedSidebar = "never"; as described in the Options section. Shubinator (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and it only seems to happen on the actual DYK page. The usual Wikipedia bar on the side breaks where the "DYK Check" link usually apperas and scroll bars appear. Is that the fixed sidebar? On all other pages, it loads fine :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's normal. Without it you wouldn't be able to click on the script link since the noms page is so large. If you don't like it though, the option is there to remove it. Shubinator (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The admin who moves an approved hook to a queue is supposed to check it, so that is pretty much a second review. Other than that, I don't think it's possible to ask for second reviews on a single hook. The 1 hook per paragraph rule is not strictly enforced, really. For example, a large article that is very well referenced shouldn't be held back because one paragraph lacks a cite. As long as it's decently referenced, the reviewer can pass it with a little WP:COMMONSENSE. As for reducing the number of hooks, I agree that it'd be best for now, if it hasn't been done already. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If WP:COMMONSENSE is still applicable, then I can probably start helping out reviewing again. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And in any case, having a thread show up on the talk page asking questions about an approval is the way it's supposed to work. It's not a personal insult, just other editors doing their due diligence to keep reviewers accountable. Geraldk (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the suggestion by Giants27, can we lower the number of hooks please? I just tried to assemble a set and it was quite hard to find 8 hooks to use in it. It's impossible to fill more than 2 queues at the moment. Regards SoWhy 11:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There are 36 approved hooks right now. Geraldk (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

2 of them are for Halloween and 3 of them are checked but disputed. From the rest, you need to remember that the lineup should consist of 50% US-hooks and some biographiies as well, both of which there are very few of at the moment. So with those ~30 hooks, you can at most create 2 queues that meet those requirements. It might look enough but we cannot fill queues only with buildings or fungi. Regards SoWhy 11:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not even for the international day of mushrooms and historic buildings? Geraldk (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We do seem to have a lot of those...--Giants27(c|s) 12:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Someday I'll start submitting more non-fungal hooks, I promise :) Sasata (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

53 verified hooks. See Giants - we've already beat your record. And only 51 of them are mushroom articles too... Geraldk (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, we need some more then since those will be some very repetitive sets. ;)--Giants27(c|s) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hook in prep 2 on Sydney Rippon

A hook currently in the Prep 2 area states "... that Sydney Rippon, father of a UK Conservative minister, played in a first-class cricket match under an assumed name so the Inland Revenue would not find out?" I wonder whether this is appropriate, considering that it insinuates corruption in the Conservative Party, that the strong suggestion that Rippon did this to avoid paying taxes is wrong (according to the article, he did it because he worked for the Inland Revenue and for whatever reason it wouldn't allow him to play cricket), and that the fact that he is the minister's father is not cited. I know that hooks should sound interesting and may be slightly misleading, so to say, to elicit interest, but I'd suggest this one went a little too far. Ucucha 02:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've pulled it from the prep area since a part of the hook is not referenced. I'm not sure about the appropiateness of the hook, however.--Giants27(c|s) 02:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reffed the fatherhood point in this: the book cited actually quotes from the son about this incident in his father's cricket career, but the incident is attested in Wisden as well. If you wanted to change "Conservative minister" to "Cabinet minister" it would work as well. Just thought it was appropriate in the light of the UK fuss about politicians and their financial affairs that's stoking itself up again this week: something of a "fun" item. Johnlp (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read it that way when I confirmed it, and what it says is both explicitly true and a great hook for drawing in the readers. But if people are uncomfortable with it we could do something like... ALT1 - "... that Sydney Rippon, father of a UK Conservative minister, played in a first-class cricket match under an assumed name so the Inland Revenue, his employer at the time, would not find out?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldk (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. My concern was exactly that in the context of the current scandals in British politics it wouldn't be prudent to put the strong suggestion of corruption in a Conservative cabinet minister on the front page. I am fine with changing "Conservative" into "cabinet", though, which mitigates that concern and keeps the interesting twist about the IR. Ucucha 12:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Tweaking" while on main page

Could I ask admins to be a little more cautious with, er, "tweaking" hooks once they are on the main page? The process to get them to the main page is not short and surely there is the opportunity for discussion before then. It kinda cuts off the opportunity for debate if it is done that way. Do we have policy on this? I think this should not be done absent actual errors. It's good to be bold, but caution is good too.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This usually happens with hooks I don't recognize, which means I and other proofreaders haven't had a chance to go over them. It's happened more lately because there is a shortage of approved hooks, so the attempt to put an update together is more likely to result in taking new, un-proofread hooks. This in turn results in tweaking, and any mis-tweaking shows directly on the Main Page. Art LaPella (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who tweaked it.[6][7] I did so because even though the Time man of the year is important to the article and the man, it's not important to the hook. Hooks are usually better when they focus on one quirky aspect of someone or something's life. —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On that note this might need un-/re-doing as the Mori Koben article says >1000 (descendents male side) and ~1000 (descendents female side), but that isn't necessarily over 2000 decendents. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A question

I have a question to the "regulars" here. I've noticed that some hooks never get reviewed, and in several cases, I've seen a whole slew of reviews in a row for newer noms, while older noms languish. Is there any generally accepted process for reviewing hooks? (I've just gone through and reviewed a bunch of older hooks which are technically past their shelf life; one of them is quite interesting, and a couple of others should garner some interest.

Of course, the reason I ask is because one of my submissions has languished, and its due date ends tonight. I don't submit many DYK nominations, but this is the first one that has been ignored (other than an offhand comment about wording; it hasn't received an "icon" review). Shouldn't the older reviews get a thumbs-up or thumbs-down before moving on to the newer ones? Horologium (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No hook expires if it goes unreviewed, so it's irrelevant as to when articles are reviewed. However if a problem has been raised and it has gone unanswered by the nominator or a contributor for 7 days. To answer your question, reviewing older noms is encouraged, but not required, and don't worry your article will be reviewed eventually.--Giants27(c|s) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Giants, and would like to highlight that there is no due date. Shubinator (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

About copyvios and socks in DYK

I think DYK reviewers should make a note of the points raised here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot again

The bot stopped halfway through the credits on the last update. I have manually given the rest of the credits and tagged the articles. Queue count also updated and queue 2 cleared. It was a very large queue ([8]) so could someone check if I have missed anything? I have to run now. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, that is big. Looks good to me. Shubinator (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What, it was only a 6-part and a 10-part hook amongst 6 normal ones... ;-) Okay, I probably should have used only one multipart hook. Thanks for cleaning up after the bot, Chamal, great job. :-) Btw, I really think we need a new bot code that has failsafe mechanisms to avoid such problems in future (e.g. the bot should check if credit was already issued or restart after an error). Any idea who we could ask to look into it? Regards SoWhy 09:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nixeagle (talk · contribs) is the botop so I'd assume he knows how to fix it.--Giants27(c|s) 19:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Split Articles Are...?

If a new article is made as a split from an existing one, for DYK purposes is it evaluated as a "new" article, or does it need to be considered an expanasion? I started to review the The Heartland Series submission. By new guidelines, it passes, but it was split from an existing article, in which case it has not been expanded 4 fold. Not sure which rule applies? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Did it literally just involve copying text over from the old article word for word? Geraldk (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, 2 (out of 3) paragraphs were (almost exactly) copied, one trashed. The nominators argument is because they trashed roughly 1/3, the expansion becomes 5x. Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer to "which rule" is M2 and F4. Art LaPella (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It needs more expansion. Geraldk (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the nomination is legitimate and is not to be snowed, but they need to expand 5x what they've copied. My approximate (MS word) count is around 4x. Materialscientist (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a note on the nom and with the user. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Holding Area Question

The 2010 Olympics start in February, and I've proposed to the Olympics wikiproject to do a series of DYK nominations for the games. Unlike Halloween, however, the games are a multi-day event, from February 12-28. So a couple questions:

• How far in advance can we begin holding approved DYK hooks?
• Would we need to hold hooks for each separate day of the games or is it doable to have one holding area for games-related hooks that people can pull from for the updates for the entire period? Geraldk (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That will depend on how many hooks you guys are planning on. I'd say beginning of January or mid December at the most should be enough. And we should have one holding area I think, so that people preparing the queues can mix them up properly with normal hooks. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything empty!

Please, any admins active at DYK: The queues are completely backlogged right now. The next update is scheduled in 4.5 hours and all queues as well as both the prep areas are empty. I have done the last queue one half an hour before it went live but since it's 1am here, I really cannot do more (I have to go to bed sometime...), so please, whoever reads this, take some minutes to fill a queue (or, if you are not an admin, one of the prep areas). Regards SoWhy 23:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would but real life is calling. If at 9 ET, the queues are still empty, I'll throw together a set or two.--Giants27(c|s) 00:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Queue 3 is ready now. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 00:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled hook

Whoever is preparing the queues, please note that there is a scheduled hook for today. It should probably go up on queue 5. I'm just logging off and don't have time to prepare the queues myself, but hope someone can get it done. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gatoclass (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone...

I can't figure out the prose length counter gizmos, would someone mind running it on CRV7 for me? Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Text-only prose is 6,545 bytes, Maury. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And before your expansion started, it was at 2,402, so still a little way to go to reach x5. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a little too far for me. Thanks though! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to 8 hours

I've switched the bot back to an eight hour cycle because we are right down to 130 hooks again, and there's not much variety in the current bunch. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

DYKadminBot messages at AN

Why does DYKadminBot ask to "remove the message once resolved"? Is it necessary for the bot's functioning (does it check if the message is still there before continuing)? Or is it simply because the thread is no longer needed? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 00:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be because the thread is no longer needed. I can't see the bot ever being made reliant on such an unreliable occurrence as whether or not someone has gotten around to removing a thread from ANI. Gatoclass (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I imagine it's just to avoid cluttering up the noticeboard... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Chamal's right, the bot will only post a new warning if there isn't one already on the page. The bot program runs every 5 minutes, and if it didn't check, there would a flood of messages at AN. See the BRFA, specifically, this diff. Shubinator (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I assumed he was asking if the bot quit posting updates while there was still a message on AN. Gatoclass (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot broken?

It says at the top of the page that an update should have happened on "17 October 2009 07:42 (UTC)". Can anyone fix it? Regards SoWhy 09:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine now, probably needed a purge. I don't think it's a bot problem. The bot's contributions show that Template:Did you know/Next update/Time has been updated correctly. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot's on an eight hour cycle right now, so it updates two hours later, but it seems not every program is aware when the time cycle gets changed. Gatoclass (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicates in archive

I noticed there are a couple of apparently duplicated updates in the current archive page. Anyone know how that happened? Gatoclass (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. One was because the bot itself duplicated an update. Shubinator (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK Update

Not sure if there is a problem or anything, but the DYKs were supposed to be updated over and hour ago, Thanks. Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass switched the bot to an 8 hour cycle, so it still has one hour left until the next update. See two sections up. :) –Katerenka (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Have a Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot still believes that its on a 6-hour cycle and posted a warning to WP:AN to that effect and the template also warns that the update is overdue. I'll ask Gatoclass if he can fix that too. Regards SoWhy 09:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

More queues need filling, may need manual updating

After someone pointed out at AN that DYK hadn't been updated for 11 hours, I quickly stuck together an update and then added a further update at Q1. It seems that the bot didn't issue a warning in advance that the queues were empty, so the bot may not update in 6 or 8 or whatever number of hours it currently is. At present, there's nothing else in the queues, and it's past my bed time. Apologies if I've missed anything in the updating process; it's been a while since I did one! Bencherlite^Talk 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would help with the general gueue filling, if I had the faintest idea how to do it, despite reading the instructions. It seems that it had grown very complicated! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I haven't done one for ages before today... Bencherlite^Talk 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'll toss a few together.--Giants27(c|s) 23:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A little mystified

I haven't really been heavily involved in the DYK process (I submit my own work when I've got a hook, and I occasionally comment on others' that I happen to notice), so the process of reviewing & selecting is pretty opaque to me. I currently have three articles at T:TDYK. The oldest has been sitting there for about a week, and no one has either approved it for DYK nor told me that they see any problem with it. Is there something I'm missing here? Am I confusing things when I offer more than one possible hook? - Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just random luck. The same thing has happened to me before. Reviewers will get to them, but there is little method to the madness. Just be patient. Geraldk (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I once had a hook make it all the way to the bottom without a comment and stay there for about four days. While I've had a hook get reviewed in four hours. As Gerald said, there's no method to which article will be reviewed, although newly nommed ones tend to get reviewed quicker (which shouldn't be but...whatever).--Giants27(c|s) 01:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I won't sweat it, then. - Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

9 part William Blake nomination

Please see [9]. They are all 5x expansions and I can go through them if needed. They are not completed pages, meaning that there is still room for expansion. However, they were mostly all stubs or very little there before, and they now currently have all of the basics. Contact if there are any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK picture needed

It has been brought to my attention that Jim Sanborn does not want images of his sculptures featured on Wikipedia without his permission. I had no way to know this and was informed by a trusted user that has done extensive research on him of this. The works were uploaded images which were released by cc 2.0 and followed wikicommons / wikipedia guidelines. However; under U.S.copyright laws he does have the right to decide that these images not be used. Since he has informed a trusted user of his wishes, this should prevale. Would an Admin please replace an image from one of the current hooks. I app for this inconvience. Thank you ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 01:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Already done, no other picture available in set so it'll be picturless. Unfortunately.--Giants27(c|s) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Rescued Picture for hook 3 ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 02:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination assitance needed

I tried to do a nomination using the template, but missed something. Would someone format for me?[10] Thank you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this how it should look? The problem in your nom was the [[ in the middle of "Mole National Park"...the template thought it was still looking for a closing ]] so it never subst'ed itself. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't quite follow from the edits, but do appreciate your fixing it. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all I did was change Mole National [[Park to Mole National Park (removing the extra brackets). Once that is done, the template kicked in and made the rest of the changes (which is why the diff looks like I did a lot, whereas all I really did was one tiny edit). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I had extraneous brackets. A fault of my editing habits, deleting in the middle, and common for me. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Merged content

Lists of Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders is the merged content from three articles previously on the main page's DYK section. Can this newly created article be nominated for DYK?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Normally it might be accepted if the content was then 5x expanded, but since this has already been on DYK recently, I agree with Rjanag. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK rules

Should the rules for DYK be modified to state that articles nominated for DYK need to have at least one inline cite per paragraph. Since this has been brought up on a number of occasions and appears to be treated as critera for a DYK hook to be verified (as an implied rule). I thought I would bring this it up here. I don't believe this would be asking too much and would not be an unnecessary burden on an editor. I wonder if some consenus on this issue is warrented. Any opinions? Thanks in advance ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 21:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion here. Art LaPella (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As Art brought up, this has been discussed numerous times, and consensus appears to be in the corner of: it's up to the reviewer but the "rule" will be unwritten.--Giants27(c|s) 22:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. There appears to be valid reason to both sides of the topic. I'll start researching through the archives to bring myself up to date on where the community stands on different issues and past topics. Thanks again ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My one concern here about that rule is dealing with articles on films/television/books, etc as the plot summaries specifically should not be cited with an inline cite. I know others from those projects have heavily complained about attempts by some reviewers to force them to put in a cite that has to then be removed after the DYK because they are not necessary. As they are not required even for FA, I think it should be made clearer that the rule is not for pure plot summary (i.e. the plot section of a film/television/etc that has no interpretive statements, episode/volume summaries in lists). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

6 hour cycle

I've switched the bot back to a 6-hour cycle as we now have more than 200 hooks on the Suggestions page plus two updates in the queue. We can go back to 8-hour updates again if and when the number of hooks drops below 130 or so. Gatoclass (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW, does anyone know why the bot delayed for more than 11 hours before updating yesterday? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Would that happen if there was still an "attention, admins, DYK is almost late" notice on WP:AN, which hadn't been removed even though the next queue had been filled? Bencherlite^Talk 06:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Chamal made that suggestion a few days ago. I very much doubt the bot would take account of an unremoved message on AN. Are you sure there was an update ready to go? If there wasn't it would explain why the bot updated late. Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just checked, the reason that update was three hours late yesterday is because there was no update ready for the bot to post. It posted immediately after an update was copied to the queue page. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO whether queues are being maintained and prepared consistantly running the bot on a 6 hour basis is as important as how many hooks are availible in deciding between a 6 or 8 hour update. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 08:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase that please? Gatoclass (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, What I meant to say is that there are times when all queues are empty along with both prep areas. To take burden off administers it can take 1-2 hours to prepare a sorted prep area (At least to double verify the rules- date, length, hook (sources), and any issues that prevouisly came up). At least this is the case for myself. Just pointing out that this might be considered along with how may hooks are availible when deciding a 6 or 8 hour cycle. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 08:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) B.s.n.R.N. is correct. There might be many hooks but that does not solve the constant shortage of people to fill those queues so we should not consider the amount of hooks when changing the update cycle but the number of active participants to take care of those things and frankly, I do not think we have enough people to maintain a 6-hour-cycle. Regards SoWhy 09:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are "not enough people", all it means is that we have a late update now and again. But if we stayed on an 8 hour cycle, we would end up with way more eligible hooks than we can promote, which means not only a severe backlog at TDYK but also having to make tough decisions about whose hook gets promoted and whose does not. I certainly don't want to start having to make those decisions and historically, no-one else has either.

But in any case, the fact is that while we do have labour shortages from time to time, they have always been manageable and there's no reason to think that things are suddenly about to change. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that will happen. Stuff might get promoted later but it will be done. But right now all queues are empty and so are the prep areas and it's a common sight these days. Several admins who were previously very active at DYK have scaled back their involvement and not enough other admins replaced them so far. Regards SoWhy 11:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a cycle. We have a bunch of users who are very active for a while, then they get burned out and drop off, and a new bunch of people take their place. Actually we've been pretty lucky to have so many helpers this year, when I first started here the queues were always empty, and nobody even bothered to verify hooks ahead of time either. So, I'm afraid it just doesn't bother me a lot to see an empty queue :)

Anyhow, we have you and bsn discussing this now when you could be preparing an update instead! And while I'm on the topic, I would just like to point out to bsn that he is under no obligation at all to "double check" everything, if it's taking him two hours to put an update together he is being far more conscientious than he needs to be. All an updater needs to do is give verified articles a quick eyeball to see there are no glaring problems, you don't need to go through the whole process all over again. Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And BTW you don't need to be an admin to prepare an update, admins are only needed to load updates into the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

True but you need users ready to do it, just as you need them to verify submissions. Currently, only 1/4 of the submissions are verified and we can only fill queues with those someone verified first. Regards SoWhy 20:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there is nothing to stop you from verifying hooks yourself on the fly. I do it all the time. Often it's the only way to create a balanced update. You can't rely on other people doing all the verifying for you. Gatoclass (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a just a suggestion to address the issues recently showing up with the overdue queue updates and since changing to 8 hours has been brought up in the past when the entries drop low. I can see your point Gatoclass about consistantly running at 8 hours would not be a good idea as there are greater than 24 articles nominated (assuming a 8 hook queue) on a daily basis. Seeing how the queues were empty and the update time was coming up, I was taking the extra time to make things easier and quicker for the admins to change from Prep to Queue. If I prepare a queue, why not try to do it to the best of my abilities. I'm sure it will become quicker as time passes. Don't want to be coming up on the uggh again radar :) The talk page from Sept 30 well explains the possible reaction for not attaining a balanced prepared selection. I understand that double checking all the rules for DYK is not obligated while preparing the Preps. I meant nothing negative by my assessment of bringing up the issue with the empty queues. Just an observation I wished to share. My 2 cent per say. I thank all the admins and non-admin for all the work they do. and I appreciate your healthy input in the matter. Kindly ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 20:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin and credit

If I'm using the tools to move a selection put together by a non-admin, am I right in thinking that I have to put my name in {{DYKbotdo}} for it to work? If so, can I put the non-admin's name somewhere so that s/he is the one giving the credit to the editors, rather than me? Bencherlite^Talk 06:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we normally sign ourselves. It's to indicate to the bot that the set has been approved by an admin. It is also possible that the bot checks if the editor included in it is an admin or not before proceeding, but I'm not sure. I never thought that giving credit templates was such a big deal to include the editor who prepared the hooks. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it does; on seeing a "Attention, admins!" bot post at AN, I moved prep 2 to a queue and used the non-admin's name in {{DYKbotdo}}, before removing the bot message. Shortly afterwards, the bot reposted the message, so I can only assume it was because the bot spotted the lack of an admin's name. It just felt slightly odd to be handing out the credits when my role was minimal and the grunt-work was done by someone else. Bencherlite^Talk 06:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even if a non-admin compiled a prep area, it's the admin who approves the hooks by filling the queue (and by re-checking them usually), so it makes sense that your name is used since you have the responsibility that the hooks used are really suitable for the main page. But you don't have to do it, you can actually enter almost any text you like into {{DYKbotdo}}, the bot seems to check the user that put the template there rather than the username in the template (for example, some admins use to link to WP DYK instead of their own name and, although it screws the bot's editing summary up, that works for signing the pages). Regards SoWhy 06:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been putting the updater's name in DYKbotdo for ages now, and as far as I know it hasn't refused to work because the nic in the template was not an admin. A few days ago, Shubinator told me that the correct way to do this is with the string: {{DYKbotdo|{{subst:User0|updatersnic}} }} where "updatersnic" is the nic of the updater. Gatoclass (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was three tildes... —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, the template was designed with the tildes in mind. However, some admins prefer to put the nic of the person who put the update together rather than their own, and we are discussing the correct way to go about doing that. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we include both, then? Maybe something like "update prepared by X and Y on behalf of DYK". That shows both people who are responsible for the update. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Loading an update into the queue is a routine edit that oughtn't to require any sort of acknowledgement - I know that I personally don't want people leaving "thankyou" messages on my talk page for it, but that is a not infrequent occurrence. The people who deserve the thanks are those who make the effort of actually putting the update together, which really is a substantial contribution. So I don't see any need to have both nics there.

However, I think perhaps it would be useful to have a more straightforward method of acknowledging the updater in the template. One shouldn't need to be nesting substituted templates in order to do that. Gatoclass (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, that's what I said in my first comment of this section. I'm not talking about taking "credit" for copy pasting a bunch of hooks prepared by someone else, but about letting people know who is responsible for that update (the editor copying the hooks to the prep area and the admin copying them to the queue, who are both supposed to check them). It's not a big deal; I'm not insisting on it if everyone thinks it's unnecessary. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Error in current Queue 3

The entry on Beaver Creek (Alaska) is missing an essential verb. Dahn (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed this.[11] Thank you! —Ed (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My bad. The problem was that the hook said (says): "that the Beaver River (pictured) flows through the heart of the Yukon Flats, one of the most productive waterfowl breeding areas in North America, and the most productive in Alaska". I didn't read carefully, and didn't realize that "one of the most productive..." refers to the Flats, not to the Creek. The problem wasn't a missing verb, as I originally thought ("which flows... is one of..."), but the hook is a bit weird in that it has a second comma between "North America" and "and" - which is probably why I got lost in what part was referring to which location. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

ALTS

In the current standard new DYK template, there are parameters for 2 alt hooks to be included. Is there any possibility that more could be introduced for those who want to introduce a variety of different hooks, in order that a suitable one may be chosen? GiantSnowman 04:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be very easy for me to add some. I just wasn't sure how necessary it is, given how rare it is for people to suggest alts at nomination-time anyway, and if you do want more than two it's always possible to add them in a second edit. But if there's enough demand, I can add more (say, for example, up to 5). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You could always add them manually under your nomination, if the template is not enough to include them all. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Does adding more functionality to the template mean longer loading times for the TDYK suggestions page? I've sometimes wondered about that.

In regards to this particular inquiry, I'm inclined to think we should not be adding extra functionality, because every alt hook means more work for verifiers having to try and verify more facts, so I don't think we should be encouraging the practice. Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Chamal - yes, we could, but I think it looks much neater to have it all as one, as can be seen by the nomination of Les Cocker (23rd October). In response to Gatoclass - I was thinking more for alternative wording as opposed to alternate facts/hook - an example would be my nom of James Mitchell (footballer) (24 October), which has a hook and three alternates. The essence - that he is the only player to play international football for England while wearing spectacles - is the same throughout all 4 options; the only slight differences are working & structure. GiantSnowman 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You can always format it the same as the other ALTs.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

True, but it would be prefrable to have ALL the options in the first template, and leave the rest of the space for comment. GiantSnowman 22:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but if we add a few more alt fields, where does it stop? Sometimes noms have eight alts at the beginning, do we add eight alt fields? In my opinion, adding more opens the gate to add more and more alt fields when most noms only have one or two. If needed any other alt can simply be added later on or right after nomming.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not limit it then to a maximum of, say, 5? GiantSnowman 13:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, I agree with the possible need to have more, but I still believe that if we add more, people will want to add even more. Sticking with two, which tends to be the most used unless problems are raised, makes it easier IMO.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

@Gato: Extra functionality for the template should have no effect on loadtimes. When ALTs are not specified in the template (the vast majority of cases), no wikitext for them is even generated after you click "save" and the subst'ing happens. What slows down the loadtimes, I believe, is wikitext and particularly links & headers, which adding new invisible parameters to the template would not affect. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I guess it wouldn't do much harm to have a third ALT field if you want to then, we do occasionally have someone submitting a choice of four, but I think four should be the limit. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

erotological

The word "erotological" is used in a hook in the queue "... that the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco houses one of the world's most comprehensive libraries of academic sexological and erotological resources?" Is "erotological" a word? It is not in my dictionaries. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's in Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary here. Cbl62 (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Update needed. Preps ready.

Can an Admin move up P1 and P2 to the Queues to free space for preps. Last update currently at 6 hours. Thanks ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 07:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Victuallers did it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Halloween

Just so all are aware. We now have about 32 hooks for Halloween. And its still a week to go. Assuming they go 8 to a load and its run every 6 hours, and we make no errors then that 32 will run through in the 24 hours of primetime Halloween. Firstly thank you to all. However I think it is likely that we might have 48 (ish?) hooks. Is there someone who can tell me, or better still, guarentee to switch the bot to load at 4 hour interval or what ever at midnight on Oct 30th?

To make this process easier I have prepared 4 (and there may be 6) Queue pages so they will have to loaded into the real Queue pages at midnight. The Qs are here, here, here and here

Any comments? Offers of help? Victuallers (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we'll probably need 6 queues. I'll be able to change the time, if no one else is there. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should go to a four hour cycle, that would be unfair to the contributors. We can always go a bit longer than UTC time, after all, there's a 15-hour or longer time lag between one part of the world and another which means it's Halloween on some part of the planet for a lot longer than 24 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Second Gatoclass on that - unfair, extra trouble with changing, and there is no strong reason to keep it exactly 24 hours. Materialscientist (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This came up with April Fools last year, when DYK ran Foolish hooks for more than 24 hours on the basis that it was 1st April somewhere in the world for more than 24 hours. It left DYK looking the odd project out when the rest of the Main Page went back to "sensible mode" at midnight on 2 April UTC. I would oppose making DYK Halloween specials last for more than 24 hours, as Wikipedia runs by UTC not by "it happens to be still X-day somewhere"; pick the best hooks and use them in that period at the normal updating hours. Any left over can be binned, if they're scraping the bottom of the barrel, or returned to the main page to be mixed in over the following days, possible with non-Halloween hooks. Bencherlite^Talk 10:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but April Fool's is a very different proposition, because it's a day basically given over to self-indulgent nonsense which a lot people find objectionable. Also, the problem on that day was not that we had too many hooks but that the hooks we had were stretched over a 48-hour period. As far as I am aware, all the submissions we have for Halloween this year are quite legitimate hooks and articles, that have just as much right to appear on the mainpage as any other article, whether on Halloween or not. In which case I see no reason why we can't run a couple of extra "themed" updates on a date that happens to be relevant to their appearance. Gatoclass (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the point, isn't it? The date that's "relevant to their appearance" is 31 October UTC, not 1 November UTC. I'm not against running the left-over hooks spread out through the updates in the first few days of November, just objecting to blocks of DYK Halloween-themed hooks still appearing on and after 1st November when, for example, the Featured Article will be back to being a "regular" article and not a Halloween-themed article. Bencherlite^Talk 11:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you happen to live in Greenwich, then maybe it will seem tardy to have a hook up after midnight but not if you live in, say, Chicago, where it will still only be about 7pm. Do you really think we should stop running Halloween hooks at 7pm on the night in question in the country where Halloween has the most prominence? That doesn't make much sense to me. Quite frankly I think this whole UTC thing is pretty ill-advised in any case, it's a policy that seems to have been organized by the folks at FAC who didn't bother informing any of the other mainpage projects about either the discussion or the decision, which is why we ended up being out of step last April. But regardless, it seems to me that only a policy wonk would be likely to object to a Halloween update still being on the mainpage after 7pm US time, it's not like it's going to look so very out of place as it did with the April Fool's hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Then let's not continue after, let's start early. In many parts of the United States, mischief night occurs the evening before Halloween. Also, because Halloween falls on a Saturday this year, most schools who allow it are going to see kids coming in costume on the 30th. Geraldk (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting early or finishing later seems to be the best option to me. Since we have the most number of readers from the west (mostly US), I suggest we time it to catch them. Would that be early or later? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to a secondary issue of the updates currently being several hours out of sync with UTC midnight, I would suggest a little of both. The last update of October 30 should be a Halloween themed update. Combined with the four updates that occur on the 31st, this will provide five themed updates. If a sixth is needed then the first update on the 1st would be usable. A second recommendation is to choose items with broader appeal than just Halloween for those updates that will appear on the Main page outside of the 31st while more "hardcore" are featured during the three updates occurring entirely on the 31st. Examples of "cross-over" topics include things such a seasonal food or relics of saints (for All Saints Day). --Allen3 ^talk 13:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if we end up with six updates we can run one update prior to UTC and one afterward. I suggest that, for the update prior to running the Halloween hooks, we leave it up a little longer than normal so we can start running exactly 6 hours prior to UTC Halloween (assuming we have six updates) and end 6 hours afterward, which will make the extra time the hooks are on the mainpage as unobtrusive as possible. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have extended the current time between updates by 15 minutes[12]. Assuming no big problems with the bot or availability of updates, this should get things reasonably close to sync with UTC for the start of Halloween. Change will obviously need to be reverted once we are back into sync. --Allen3 ^talk 11:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also nominated some for another almost entirely unrelated event on 1 November. It is probably a good thing I am the only one to have done this or there might not be much space... :P --candle•wicke 04:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really need those long notes in the citations? You have links to the original articles already, your notes are practically longer than the article itself. Gatoclass (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)