Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 60

Number of nominations

A short while ago, I discovered a page which listed how many nominations there were currently on the T:TDYK page, including how many were and weren't verified yet. Now, for the life of me, I cannot find the page. Could somebody please point me in the right direction? Thanks! JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There is such a table at the top of Template:Did you know/Queue. Ucucha 10:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I just found it as soon as you posted that :) Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count. Thanks. JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

PrepExtra

Would it be a good idea to include a link to the PrepExtra page in the DYK navbox? If we removed the T:DYK bit from the T:DYK/P1|P2 bit we could probably fit it in. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's only meant to be a temporary page to help with the backlog. Not much point in adding it to the navbox. Gatoclass (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Redlink on queue page

"Click here for an example of what these hooks will look like..." has 'here' as a redlink on the queue page. Is anybody able to fix that? Schwede66 21:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's transcluded, so the magic word "sees" the page you're viewing. I don't think there's a way around that. We also can't substitute because that would mess up the bot. Shubinator (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible rule on Infoboxes

I've been reasonably active on WP for only a few months and don't know all the background to what's going on, but here's something that I've been wondering about. I'm not sure what DYK is supposed to achieve, but I'm guessing that it's there to stimulate the generation of new content. Putting rules around DYK nominations ensures that the content is of some decent quality, and that's important.

Given that there seems to be an increasing volume of DYK nominations (see backlog above), I'm wondering whether there's scope for tweaking the rules slightly. Could consideration be given to a new rule along the following lines:
If a suitable infobox template exists, an article must use it in order to qualify for DYK.

A new rule like this could potentially have two outcomes:

  • Slightly fewer articles might be proposed for DYK inclusion, or be eligible, and/or
  • The average quality of new article improves, as DYK nominations are regarded as desirable by many editors and the new rule would encourage them to familiarise themselves with infoboxes.

I've had a look at the current Queues 1 to 3. Of the 24 articles, 7 don't have an infobox. Of those, I know that 4 articles could have used infoboxes (not sure whether there are suitable infoboxes for the remaining 3 articles). So if such a rule got adopted and the above statistics are representative, we would have 16% fewer DYK nominations, or a significant improvement of 16% of the nominated articles, or (most likely) a combination of the above with slightly lower percentages for each. Is that worth considering? Schwede66 23:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh please no. While I appreciate the good faith suggestion, DYK needs less FA/GA WP:CREEP not more. Not to mention that some infoboxes are just hideous. AgneCheese/Wine 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Whenever someone proposes a rule requiring or rewarding the use of infoboxes, I like to point to Emily Dickinson, a featured article whose editors purposely chose not to use an infobox, possibly to make the reader actually read the article. ; ^ )
Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
A good essay is WP:Disinfoboxes. I tend to agree with Binksternet here: I rarely use infoboxes unless someone presses me to (only one of the couple FAs I've done has an infobox, and that only because it was already there when I started working on the article). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Not a good idea. It is based on the questionable premise that articles are always improved by having an infobox. Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford is an FA without an infobox, after comments made in the run-up to FAC about its inappropriateness. It was on DYK with an infobox, and the article was definitely improved by its removal. BencherliteTalk 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I won't be so harsh on them (boxes). In some cases, they help to unify certain basic and pertinent information (chemical, minerals infoboxes, etc); they also urge to look for certain information (to fill the box), which is otherwise often missed by editors. However, I agree that making it a DYK rule, especially for all subject fields, would hardly help the project. One more negative side of the boxes: some of them have poor programming (don't allow certain input), and it takes quite some effort to fix that. Materialscientist (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Infoboxes are useful sometimes, and sometimes they just repeat the first sentence of the article. To require them for DYK would be massive instruction creep without adding much, if any, any actual content to an article. Also, it would make reviewing harder- does anyone here know every possible type of infobox? I know I do not; and if reviewing hooks became running down infobox types it would be a massive waste of very limited reviewer time. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Infobox templates Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow. If it weren't for that category, I would never have found the once-proud {{Mongolian sport wrestler infobox}}. (Sorry, it's a redlink now, but for those of you who can't see the deleted version you're not missing much.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Or {{Template:Infobox Marcha de la Diversidad Guadalajara}} (also red now, but you're missing even less).
But more importantly, I oppose this proposal. In my view, any additional DYK rules for the article should make sure that we are not promoting anything really bad (such as copyright violations, BLP violations, very bad prose, or mostly unsourced articles). Certainly, many articles are improved by having an infobox, but an article without an infobox is not really bad. Ucucha 07:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I hear you loud and clear. Thanks - as I say, I don't know all the background to what's going on. Schwede66 08:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Helping with the backlog

I haven't been active at all with DYK, but the backlog is becoming so ridiculous I feel that I should do SOMETHING to help. Any suggestions on any clerking/reviewing that would be of help? Best Regards, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 21:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! You can help review articles for compliance with our rules: whether they are new and long enough (at least 1500 b of prose, and not more than about five days old or a 5x expansion from a previous article; User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js can automate much of this); whether the hook is cited in the article and whether the citation confirms the hook; and in general whether the article is good enough to be featured on the Main Page. Ucucha 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. You may also find Wikipedia:Did you know/Approval a helpful read. Regards SoWhy 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've only been following DYK for the past month, but is this backlog normal, or quite bad? Does the volume of DYKs coming in vary a lot over the course of a year, for example? I may try and help out with reviewing some nominations, if that link above tells me all I need to know. Hopefully it will say where the best place is to start (are there ways to avoid review-conflicting with someone?). Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

These weeks, we have more nominations and roughly same backlog (percents of reviewed noms) as usual; however, this overly large reviewing backlog is not healthy and should be improved. Materialscientist (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

DYKVerified

Just thought it might be worth reminding updaters that User:Bawolff/DYKVerified creates a page containing all the currently verified hooks, which I have found quite handy in putting together updates while the DYK suggestions page is so heavily backlogged. Of course, you have to remember to go back and delete the hooks you've verified from the Suggestions page afterwards, but I still find it more convenient to create the update itself from the DYKVerified page. Don't forget that you have to update the DYKVerified page by clicking on the update link before you can use it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice suggestion. Also, Is it just me or does Mozilla firefox load the suggestion page much faster than Internet explorer? I only bring this up because if this is the case, it would be helpful for those assessing the page to verify and address hooks on this ever growing page. Calmer Waters 07:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I really should try firefox again. IE is abominably slow at TTDYK, and these days I get lots of pageload errors too. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Golly, you're right, I just downloaded it, it's about fifty times faster!
The only problem currently is that all the fonts are the wrong size. I guess it will take me a while to configure it the way I like ... Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Golden W Award

The Golden W, awarded for having content featured in every area of the main page.
The Golden W, with Laurels, awarded for having content thrice featured in every area of the main page.

The Golden W Award goes to editors who succeed in having content featured in every area of the main page: Featured Article, Did You Know, In the News, On This Day, and Featured Picture. It is currently proposed as a WikiProject. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Golden W Award if you are interested in making this WikiProject a reality. Time commitment is minimal, less than an hour a month at this point. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 16:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Time extended?

I notice that the nominations go all the way back to the January 13, or almost two weeks. I seem to recall that usually it was a five day cycle with maybe two days backlog. Has the timing of the nominations changed? Or is this just a really big backlog? Or is it that you're getting many more nominations than you used to? Or maybe that you have insufficient staff to review the existing nominations to clear out the bad from the good? Something else?--162.84.166.253 (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  • It's a backlog. No matter how many we get, or how many we review, we can only run 32 hooks a day. (8 hooks a set, one set every six hours) We've been getting more than that since New Year's, hence the backlog does nothing but grow. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Queue 1 fix required

Hook 1 of Queue 1 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. --Bruce1eetalk 05:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Added. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Highest number of new articles in hook

T:TDYK#Napaljarri (skin name), Contemporary Indigenous Australian art, Biddy Rockman Napaljarri, Daisy Jugadai Napaltjarri, Susie Bootja Bootja Napaltjarri, Tjunkiya Napaltjarri, Wintjiya Napaltjarri, and 19 others

has got to be a new record. Simply south (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame, the "record" is currently 17. Hooks with more have been proposed, but have been rejected on account of being too ridiculous. This one looks good, though. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep, looks good, although after the bot fails to parse it I don't envy the user who has to do the credits manually :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Shall we just leave out the credits when we add hooks like that? Say, for hooks with more than 5 DYK articles, ince nobody knows the actual 'limit' of the bot? We could do them manually afterwards. Better to do only those ones manually than doing the entire thing when the bot inevtiably fails. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I think if they are put at the end the bot may do the rest before it gets to them. Gatoclass (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and added this one to the list at H of F. Hope that was OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3 hook tweak

IMO Great Western Railway operated ships would be better as Great Western Railway operated ships. Others may disagree, so I'm putting this up for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree; it is more informative by allowing the reader to directly go to the Great Western Railway article. Ucucha 13:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I've now tweaked the hook. Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A special request

Hi, I know it's frowned on to canvass but can I ask for your help in a special circumstance? I made an article today on a 7 year old boy, Charlie Simpson who has been fundraising for Haiti and so far has raised £150,000 ($242,000). I've put it up for DYK today. Assuming it passes muster, is there any chance it could be 'fast-tracked' so that it can appear in the DYK column today to catch the zeitgeist, while it is still a 'hot' story and people are therefore more likely to donate to his cause? Thanks Stronach (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a worthy request. The article is not written in a matter requesting funds. I for one wouldn't be opposed to this request as it still needs verified. Also, this would be the appropriate area for such a requests, and don't feel this to be an instance of "canvassing" :) Calmer Waters 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant. I assume I can't take part - if others are ok with this can you verify it and add it to a queue? (I noticed that the page hadn't been marked as patrolled a few minutes ago too). Thanks for re-wording the hook too. Stronach (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed the hook, and there are some problems. I'll be happy to put it directly in the queue though if the problems are fixed. Ucucha 15:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It now got nominated for deletion per WP:BLP1E, probably correctly. Unless it's SNOW-kept, we'll have to wait until the AFD is over. Ucucha 15:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've just nominated it for deletion as a blatant WP:BLP1E and one that involves a seven year old boy as well. It's nothing personal against Charlie, who I think has done a great job, but I do think that his future psychological development is rather more important even than the money he's raised for the Haiti victims, and certainly much more than any Wikipedia article, and doubly certainly infinitely more than any DYK hook. Physchim62 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD trumps a DYK nomination as up above explains and these things happen. Nice job this kid has done thou. Calmer Waters 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah well, I've tried to argue my corner at the AFD. We'll see what happens. Stronach (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nanawatai merge

I was just reviewing this article for DYK, but it seems that Nanawatai has been merged with Nanawate. IIRC we usually looked for a 5x expansion in the past with merged articles, but this is not explicitly mentioned in our rules and I'd like to see what other reviewers think about this. Before the merge, Nanawate had 1111 characters while Nanawatai had 496. According to F2, "Fivefold expansion means at least five times as much prose as the previously existing article – no matter how bad it was". So unless I'm wrong, we should count the original as a combination of both articles and start from 1607 characters, which means the expanded article should be 8035+ characters long. Going by M1, we look for a 5x expansion for splits. Should it be the same for merges as well? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The other way to look at it would be discounting the merged text and a 5x expansion of the article that is being nominated. which would be (1111*5)=5555 + the not counted 496 from Nanawatai making the required total 6051 Calmer Waters 11:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, obviously :) But which method do we use? Also note that what has been nominated is the smaller article, which had only 496 originally rather than the 1111 character one. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Chamal. Just meant I would take the higher of the two as theoretically they could have been merged either way with the other as a redirect. At least that would be the rational I would be using, taking into consideration what the editor had to state about the situation. With that said I would state its currently 3375 and below the 6051 that would be a 5x expansion (x2.78). I think this would be a judicious assessment. Calmer Waters 11:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
My first edit to the article was to merge the two articles; so the size at that point contained all the information from both articles - they were both poor stubs when I found them, I merged and then expanded fivefold. To suggest it needs 8000, is taking into account the a traditional Afghan custom, '''nanawatai''' is the process of...[[Category:Afghanistan]][[Category:Pastun culture]][[Category:Social customs]]{{afghanistan-stub}} material into account as well. Which to suggest one needs to fivefold expand the categories and title of the article... Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
No, the character counts I mentioned are only for the prose (as is the rule), excluding titles, headers, templates, categories etc. These are the versions of each article before the merge: Nanawatai (496) and Nanawate (1111). ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I suggest the editor to use the monobook.js application for prose count, specifically this one..

importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); //User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js importScript('User:TheDJ/qui.js');

--TitanOne (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As it has become time for a decision on this nomination I went ahead and verified it. My rational after looking at what the editors stated along with the current rules ie. mainly M2 and M3. My rational for verifiying is as follows. The article was 496 prose before expansion. Now at 3375 prose. Per discussion page portions of the article utilized information from Nanawate that was at 1100 prose at the time. As the editor has stated, both articles were stubs and the text merged from Nanawate was rewritten and far less than 1100 prose used (rather than a direct copy paste split). After seeing that there is nothing specifically under the rules prohibiting this submission Per 5x expansion M2 496*5x=2480 prose. Asking myself the question, are rules being broken and project being gamed, or is the encyclopedia better for this effort and within the rules and current consensus? The rules here are just don't address this specific issue. I will be BOLD here and say the effort has proved fruitful here. It is very possible that in the future, this type of merging expansions should be clarified and discussed. With that said and unless there are objections I have verified (ticked) the nomination. Kindly Calmer Waters 03:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that rationale. The total amount of text before expansion was about 1500 characters if you include what came from the other article. Sure, the user may have changed it during the merge, but we already don't allow DYKs for cases where people improved existing text rather than adding new text.
Since you've already verified (and since this was sitting here for a week and I never commented) I'll bow out and go with your decision to verify it. But in the future I don't think articles like this should get special treatment. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If there are other views please share. Up above there were a couple of suggestions as to how this might be assessed. 8000 needed, 6051, or 5x discarding any text merged over. If my latest assessment to verify is not accepted with valid reason, I am allows open to listen even a week later if that's the case :). Any other suggestions on how to proceed? Calmer Waters 06:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

http://stats.grok.se/en/201001/Castle_Green,_London

As shown by this example, there is a problem with this tool in that both the 23rd and 24th Jan 2010 do not display. This is the same with a lot of other articles I've tried. Simply south (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This occasionally happens. Little we can do about it here. Ucucha 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
According to Henrik, the tool's author, the stats source files are missing for those days. See here. --Bruce1eetalk 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The bot must be confused...

Why did I receive credit for Norwegian Church Abroad and not Norwegian Seamen's Church, San Pedro? Theleftorium 15:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reconstruction: promoted here with credit templates for Norwegian Seamen's Church. Placed in prep1 with same credit templates [1]. Promoted to queue 2 with same [2], but then Shubinator fixed the credit templates pointing to a redirect [3]. The problem is that you originally had "Norwegian Seamen's Church" as the title of the DYK article, then renamed it and retargeted "Norwegian Seamen's Church" to Norwegian Church Abroad, but did not correct the credit templates. I will correct the templates. Ucucha 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks. :) Theleftorium 15:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

query

After I submitted my DYK for approval, I posted a follow-up question (at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Graham_Court). Hope you'll take a look. thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Question - is this article suitable?

Is Demon Candy: Parallel suitable for dyk as it is rated 18+? Are there rules about the main page material in this regard? Also, I question the article's notability as the main source is self-published, and the qualifications of The Bondage Awards are unclear. Would appreciate the feedback of others. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In defence of this article, I would say that anything that has been nominated for an award is notable. I am trying to get another source mentioned, but it is currently on the spam list and I've listed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist to get it removed. With regards to qualifictions for the awards, information is listed in the site's FAQ. ISD (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we've run similar (or worse) stuff before. Concerns about the article's notability and reliable sourcing should go to T:TDYK. Ucucha 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
As a general rule, "anything that has been nominated for an award is notable" is certainly not the case! Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's fine for the main page (no opinion yet on notability). We don't need to use pictures or say anything nasty; saying something like "Demon Candy, a fetish comic, bla bla bla'ed" could be pretty tame. This certainly isn't like the Cunt hook that was rejected. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the hook has since been removed altogether now. Is it because of the deletion nomination, I wish to highlight this debate. ISD (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Some people may be a bit too proactive in removing nominations. I think it should still run if you can establish that it is notable. Ucucha 15:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying to find some sources and have contacted one website to see if their entry could be updated. I've yet to hear back. ISD (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 fix required

Hook 7 of Queue 6 should not have a "(pictured)". --Bruce1eetalk 05:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shubinator (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about archives

Hi all, I am currently involved in coding the {{ArticleHistory}} template to display the entry of the DYK hook, just like {{DYK talk}} currently does (see here if you're interested ...). Anyway I came across the DYK archives, which seem to be on monthly pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Recent additions 243 contains April 2009). I wondered why this wasn't called something more descriptive like Wikipedia:Recent additions/April 2009. The advantages would be:

  • Easier to find the month you want.
  • The templates could automatically link to the correct archive by extracting the month from the date parameters and it would not be necessary to feed this to the template as a separate link.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this would be more informative. I can't find anything in a cursory search of the archives regarding why this convention was chosen. If we were to change it for future RA archives, one disadvantage would be that it'll be inconsistent with older archives. Ucucha 23:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind moving the pages so that they're all in the same system. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:Recent additions/2007/April. Shubinator (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
We have two different archives? Why? The whole thing seems a bit of a mess. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that myself. Isn't it time we dumped the numbered ones and just retained the date ones? Or is there some reason that can't be done? Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The date-formatted archive system was produced by DYKHousekeepingBot on its run through DYK history. I was thinking I'd unveil it once I had time to finish the run. (It doesn't matter that the bot hasn't finished because monthly archives exist from March 2009 onwards.) Yes, we could dump the numbered system. It would make linking much easier, which is why I programmed it into the bot. You should take a glance over the bot-created archives and see if there are any major discrepancies though. It's also not a bad idea to keep the numbered pages for historical purposes instead of deleting them. Shubinator (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest redirecting them to the date formatted ones, to avoid running two systems in parallel. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So would there be any problems or issues with extracting the year and month from the date parameter and deprecating the link (or num) parameters? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

None that I can see. Shubinator (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have now implemented this on Template:ArticleHistory and have proposed a similar idea for Template:DYK talk. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Browser problem

Template talk:Did you know, and no other page to my knowledge, became unreadable about an hour ago when using my Flock browser version 1.2.7. I can view edit diffs, but the other paragraphs show only the last line of a hook, with the beginning of the hook extending beyond the left edge of my screen. Switching to Microsoft Explorer solves the problem. Anyone else have that problem? Art LaPella (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem for me (Firefox). Ucucha 01:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine on my Firefox and IE. I have had similar WP displaying problems myself in the past (with old Firefox, but not with IE), and have heard complaints from other editors. In all cases, they were browser related. Sometimes they were "self-fixing" after a while. I naively thought the problem is server-related and is due to the way specific browsers handle certain web texts and images (caching, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I've never had that problem. Try clearing your browser's cache. Shubinator (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I've had no problem with Firefox. —mattisse (Talk) 03:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
I fixed it by updating to the current version of Flock. Art LaPella (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I had the same problem with Firefox, but updating my version solved that for me also. Mikenorton (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ill grace from DYK applicant who should know better.

Resolved
 – Lapse of judgement on both sides. Please remember to cite hooks, and that we all want to improve wikipedia.

WFCforLife (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


The rules of DYK state very clearly that hooks should be cited. However when I checked this hook

yesterday, the user had failed to cite the hook.

Today the author has posted this [4] - read the edit caption - and this [5]. The perfectly standard sources are not accessible to people without access to specialist material.

Does the 100 DYK medal give the authors of new articles the right to ignore the rules of the DYK project and the right to sneer at mere mortals who point out that they have not conformed to the rules? Or is there a way of telling editors to behave civilly if they expect other editors to spend time approving their hooks? --Peter cohen (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now informed the arrogant sod of the exitence of this thread.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Both of you need to chill down and breathe. You calling Wetman an "arrogant sod" is well beyond WP:CIVILITY, and cannot be condoned. Wetman's edit summary of "supplied thoughtlessly requested refs. from perfectly standard sources" is rude, and wrong, but not such a deep cut as your "arrogant sod". I advise you both to pull away and not deal with each other for a few weeks. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. Why wouldn't mentioning D1 be enough? Art LaPella (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
We cannot paint both editors with the same brush, peter is absolutely out of line here as well as on wetmans talk page.Taprobanus (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but given that Wetman initiated the exchange, I think it quite unfair to single out the other party for censure. Other than that, I'm happy to see this thread closed per Rjanag's suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Both editors were incivil (I'm not making any judgment about who was more), but the references have been added so this is not a DYK concern anymore. If you guys want to worry about civility you can try WP:WQA, but I think it's probably better for you both to walk away and ignore one another—it's a big Wikipedia, there's plenty of space for everyone.
Are there any objections to closing this thread? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I shouldn't have put things that way, but I still think that a project that runs a backlog should know if volunteers to their scheme are being bitten and potentially driven away from helping out.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Both seem like good editors who are rarely involved in disputes. While not condoning the diffs I've seen, I'm confident that neither person intended to attack the other, and that both genuinely wants to improve wikipedia. That's all that matters. WFCforLife (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3

The hook in q3, "... that the first sub-four-minute mile in athletics was broken at the Roger Bannister running track, when it was known as the Iffley Road Track?" doesn't make sense. The first sub-four-minute mile wasn't "broken", it was "run". The 4-minute barrier was broken, however. Sorry to be pedantic. Ericoides (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed "broken" to "achieved" hoping this will fix the problem. Materialscientist (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ta. Ericoides (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Something strange

Something strange seems to have happened to Template talk:Did you know. Two of my nominations have "disappeared" (Lyme Caxton Missal and Coniston Railway) while one (St Christopher, Norton Priory) is duplicated. Can anyone explain and sort it out? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A ton of Nominations disappeared

Every Nomination from January 21 to the 26th have been deleted from the nominations page. I was not able to find where this happened.... Help?--Found5dollar (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for one nomination from this time period and cannot find it either, is there a connection? --candle•wicke 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Prep areas

Just noticed that prep. 1 and 2 have the exact same hooks in them. Can't be right? Manxruler (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed (loss of session at my side while clearing prep2). Materialscientist (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Good fix. :) Manxruler (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DYKs about criminals

Are articles about criminals not allowed on DYK? Candlewicke nominated Edwin Curry and Ger Doyle for DYK, but both of them were not accepted by Coffee. The hooks aren't unduly negative because Edwin Curry is only notable for 189 counts of indecent assault and Ger Doyle is only notable for 34 counts of indecent assault and one count of sexual assault. Joe Chill (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hooks which may hurt feelings of an average reader are to be avoided at the main page. Both noms mention crimes against children (with some clearly unnecessary details) that fall under this category. Materialscientist (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
So that would mean that criminal articles are usually not accepted for DYK or as a featured article? Joe Chill (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we do accept articles about criminals. But sometimes hooks are too sensationalist. I think the alt hook given for the Edwin Curry article looks okay except for the word "only" which is POV. These articles will have to be checked for NPOV though, judging by the hooks, they may need work. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is currently up for AFD, so I guess we will have to wait to see how that turns out first. Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I've said this before about other topics, but there is a difference between something being appropriate for the encyclopedia and appropriate for the main page. Yes, we don't censor articles, but there are also some that we don't brag about. Particularly in the case of articles that may be painful for living people (i.e., both the families and the victims of these criminals), I think it's mean-spirited to feature articles like this. No offense meant to Candlewicke, whom I know is an excellent and conscientious editor, but mean-spirited is the way I think articles like this would come off if put up on the main page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Glitchy!

The chaos mentioned by Peter and Found5Dollar seems to have happened with this revision. Let's see if I can sort it out... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be this edit and the longer we wait, the more edits there are and the harder it will be to fix. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Have started manually redoing now (made more difficult by having had two pints of beer at lunch ... gah.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Only two? That should help the process! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
LOL - actually it seems to have helped, because judging by the number of bytes before and after, everything is now in its rightful place. Such is the power of Harveys Sussex Best Bitter. Pls could Peter, Candlewicke and Found5Dollar check that their submissions etc. are in situ and correct. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks - mine are fine. Now off to celebrate my birthday (thanks for contributing to it). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for that. --candle•wicke 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Mine is good and everything seems to be as it was. Thanks!--Found5dollar (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
And it happened again. Wonder what caused it. Ucucha 23:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Reproduced. It appears a stray }} may have been causing problems, but I still don't exactly understand what was going on. Ucucha 00:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hook count

DYK hook count has stopped working. Anyone know why? Gatoclass (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's because WikiStatsBOT stopped running. I've left a message on the bot's talk; I'll copy it to the operator's talk too in case he doesn't have it watchlisted. Shubinator (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Working again :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 fix required

The first hook of Queue 6 needs a "(pictured)". Thanks. --Bruce1eetalk 14:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo in hook 3 on main page

Needs fixing, if it is still there. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is not so much a typo as the weird way the page lays out in my browser, so that II? is on a new line by itself. —mattisse (Talk) 18:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I added a non-breaking space to "Parysatis II". In the future, could you please be specific about typos? I looked at the template and saw nothing before you clarified yourself in your second post. Ucucha 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. —mattisse (Talk) 18:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reducing the backlog

How about reducing the hook time to 5 hours in an effort to reduce the backlog. Thus over a 5 day (120 hour) period we'd get through 192 hooks instead of 160 hooks. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reluctant support until we get back down to the 150-200 pending nominations level. While I am not thrilled about 5 hours updates, the current situation of all the "newest articles" being close to two weeks old by the time they reach the Main page needs to be addressed. We appear to be receiving new nominations at close to the same rate as we can handle them but are making very little progress in working off the backlog from the first of the month (45 to 55 noms per day from January 1 to January 10 was quite a spike). Looking forward there are several holiday spikes we can anticipate before the current backlog can be worked off at the current rate of processing (Valentines day and April Fools come quickly to mind). Our other option is to add a 9th hook to each update (180 hooks every 5 days), but previous discussions on this page have discouraged this possibility. --Allen3 talk 21:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
How about being more rigorous in requiring better referenced articles? Go through the list see what's on the margins (or very poorly written) and remove those. I know it would not be popular but it's a pragmatic solution.--162.84.166.253 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Being more rigorous may be a good idea, but within reasonable limits. Removing noms without discussion and giving a chance for improvement would be inappropriate. I myself don't rush even removing absolute failures (like repeated nom) just to let the author read why it was rejected (though reducing the length of the T:TDYK page might urge such removal). Materialscientist (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we absolutely need to reduce the update time? The number of hooks has remained stable for several days now. It may be we're getting back to normal. Even with a backlog of 350 hooks, that's actually only 10 days' worth. We could find the number reducing quite rapidly once the number of noms drops off again. Remember, it's not so long ago we had to go to eight hour updates because we didn't have enough hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. Though it would be nice to have T:TDYK down to a usable length again, this solution could leave short of hooks in just a few weeks. Further, one of the beauties of 8 or 6 hour updates is that the same number of hooks are required every day, and the times stay the same. (Or should!) 5 hour updates would throw that off, changing the update times every day. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Updates are done by bot, so why should this be a problem. Running 5hr updates for a five day period would use up a day's worth of hooks. As the end of the five day period comes up, it can be re-evaluated as to whether to continue for a further five days, or revert back to 6hrs. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but a day's worth of hooks over a five day period is not a lot of difference one way or another. And as Brad says, it mucks up our archives, and it also gives less time on the front page for each hook. And by next month, we might get a dramatic drop in the number of submissions again, like we had several times in the last few months of last year. So I think we can probably afford to wait a little longer. If the situation is unchanged a couple of weeks from now, I guess we could look at it again. Gatoclass (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I prefer 2-4-6-8-12-24 update hours. Some reasons for that are (i) thinking about timezone while assembling the preps - with 5hr shift, it is too long to figure out which time will it be in 2 days, when the hooks will feature on the main page; (ii) archiving DYK sets, which is again much easier for fixed day hours. Materialscientist (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Increasing the minimum size

The easiest is to pad up the Righ hand side of the page by showing more hooks for ITN and SA, and secondly is to check the hooks for carefully to remove redundant wording. There were afew roundabouts in some of the hooks I altered yesterday when the TFA was short. Thirdly, raising the bar would also work, if there are still many minimal length articles out there YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean increasing the minimum length? That's a reasonable idea, I think. It appears that Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 18#2.5 KB decided on the current 1500 b requirement, and it has been previously temporarily moved to 2000 (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 25#Back to 1500 chars). Ucucha 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd cautiously support raising the minimum length for a couple of months. I think it will be only temporary due to the wikicup. Funny - there are still so many notable stubs - I just 5x expanded one of the most popular garden plants in Sydney. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Cas. This is why I don't like WC. DYK offers easier points than GAN/FAC, so many decide they will just write plenty of small DYKs instead of complete GA/FAs. There will also be more cookie-cutter GAN/FAC as a participant wouldn't bother to go into notable detail as it would require more time. The average reader wouldn't be able to notice this unless they had an idea on the subject. —Aaroncrick (talk)
I have always been a fan of increasing the minimum article length (with 2500 being my ideal). While yes there is a risk of the bad faith scenario of people doing ridiculous padding, I think an increase minimum length is a more user friendly way to increase standards with demanding mini-GA style referencing. AgneCheese/Wine 02:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Articles could just be padded up with quotes, though. I've been guilty of this myself when I've had limited info available; however, as long as it's kept in proportion and it's non unnecessary I think it's alright. I can't see it getting to 2,500, as a few veterans may kick up a stink. —Aaroncrick (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not try just refusing more hooks for subjective reasons (eg, they're boring or banal)? Do people really think that our readers care whether an article is 1500b or 2000b, or whether it has been created in the last five days or not? Physchim62 (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Length is a fairly good predictor for comprehensiveness, I guess. And when dealing with a section titled "From Wikipedia's newest articles"? Yes, then it's important that they are actually new. Ucucha 03:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
We've debated the "Interesting vs boring" angle many times before and it always boils down to the fact that what is interesting is entirely subjective. Really any created article is about an "interesting subject" because it was something that obviously struck the interest of someone to take the time to research and write about it. Just because it doesn't interest a few people, doesn't mean it won't interest anyone. Articles about architecture, soccer players, historical buildings and fungus bore me to death but that's just me. While many of the wine articles I create are interesting to wine buffs, I'm sure beer-drinkers and teetotalers couldn't give a flying hoot about them. But who is to judge? Who am I to declare a soccer hook about some player scoring the most goals in the history of a particular league as "boring"? There really is no fair and objective way to ever hold hooks to an "interesting" standard. What's riveting to one is another person's paint drying. AgneCheese/Wine 03:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with that. I think that some hooks are just bad by any reasonable standard. We can't expect everyone to be interested in particular subjects, certainly, but in many if not most cases it's still possible to distinguish between a good hook and a bad one. Basically, a hook should highlight a fact that is interesting or unusual. If the highlighted fact is just an everyday, mundane occurrence, or is something which could be said about countless other examples of the type, it almost certainly fails the criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thus the challenge is to find an interesting hook for each article - and a bit of ingenuity can do wonders... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
PS: The other benefit is making 5x expansions look more attractive - we have so many stubs on notable subjects just dying for a good fivefold increase and reffing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

TV characters

There seem to be a number of submissions on fictional characters in TV shows at the moment. Is there a policy or guideline on the notability of such characters? One would think there should be somewhere, but I can't find one. Gatoclass (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember there was a proposal WP:FICTION sometime last year, but I don't think it ever gained consensus. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Crazy we don't have something to cover the topic when we have policies on more substantial works likes films and books IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
We do have the rule here that hooks on such characters should have real-world relevance. Ucucha 15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Any chance you could point it out to me? I'd like to read it. Gatoclass (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
C6. Ucucha 21:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that. I thought you were going to point me to a policy :) I haven't noticed clause D6 before, quite honestly I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what led to the adoption of this rule—perhaps Art knows? But it seems to discourage hooks like ... that character A fell in love with character B during season N of television series X? which don't have any relevance outside the fictional world of the series. Ucucha 14:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't write it. Here's the diff. My interpretation was more like forbidding "... that character A fell in love with character B?", as if that really happened when it was actually fictional. I think it was cited once; that's about it. Art LaPella (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hook on George Levendis

I submitted a hook on George Levendis. It was part of the backlog, and was denied on grounds that "but apart from the fact that his notability is questionable, this article reads like a resume.".[6] Literally five minutes later, the entry was erased from the page by a different user, not even giving me a chance to respond. [7] I checked up on WP:NOTE, and it seems like he meets notability without a problem as he has been covered by many secondary sources. As for reading like a resume, any biography will contain the same type of information, so I am not entirely sure what the issue is. Greekboy (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the nomination was removed quickly. In general I've been seeing X's thrown around a lot more liberally these days; before they were only used for obvious denials that would almost never pass the review process. I can't read Greek, so I can't address the notability part. The article does read like a resume though. It's because for every job position he held (it seems like it) there is 1) company name, 2) date of joining/promotion, 3) position. It makes sense to list the companies he worked at, but dates of joining/promotion and position title are unnecessary. Shubinator (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Although these are legitimately good concerns, that can be fixed rather easily, they do not seem to be part of the selection criteria for DYK to outright deny the hook. Like you said though, it seems the X was used rather liberally. I have since addressed some of the "resume reading like" problems. Greekboy (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Possibly the use of the X was a tad harsh, but we have a huge backlog and in that circumstance there is much less reason to promote borderline articles. Please note however that an X is not meant to be the "final word" on an article, it's only one person's vote, articles should still be checked before being removed and presumably the person who did so checked the article and agreed with my assessment.
As to the article itself, I still have doubts about the notability and the article still reads like a resume. If I'd taken the trouble to add the {{Like resume}} tag, that would have automatically disqualified it until the problem was addressed in any case, and IMO it still hasn't been. Disqualified articles can of course be reconsidered if the problems are addressed but in this case you haven't done so and given the current state of the article, I very much doubt the problems can be resolved to a sufficient degree to make the article suitable for the mainpage. Gatoclass (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the history, there was a 5 minute break between when the X was given and the hook was removed. No time was given for a response. Doesn't every biography read like a resume? It's what he did and is notable for. The fact that there is a backlog is irrelevant. It's not the fault of the people that make the articles. It can't be "oh I'm sorry if you had created last week it would have been fine" because that is not fair. Work has been done address the concerns, but being similar to a resume is unavoidable for pretty much all small biography articles. Levendis is a judge on one of Greece's most popular singing shows. Would you also deny an article about an American Idol judge? I feel like the criteria are being applied overly strict with the only goal to cut down on the backlog. That will take care of itself overtime, but the reward for creating an article can only be given in this short time period. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I strongly disagree that "every biography article reads like a resume". Hardly any of the bios that are submitted to DYK read that way. And there is no evidence this guy is "notable" for anything at all. The essence of notability is that the person has done something out of the ordinary, which makes him of interest, and the proof of that is that a number of reliable sources have written about that person and his particular contribution. One would therefore expect to see, not just that X has been the executive of a large company, but that X achieved a b and c while the head of that company. If X is a judge on a TV show, one would expect some content about his personality, his style, the way critics view him, his popularity or lack of it. The problem with this article is that there is virtually no information about this person at all apart from the jobs he has held. I can only assume that is because there is nothing else to say about him, and if that's the case, it means his notability is dubious. But even if he is notable, and sources simply have yet to be added to clearly demonstrate that, the article in its current state simply isn't fit for the front page. Nobody wants to read a mere resume, and if we promoted it we would in all likelihood only get complaints about it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Billboard and numerous Greek media have written about him, notability is clearly not the issue here. This isn't an FA article with in depth analysis. It's "from Wikipedia's newest articles". A new article is never near complete to pass this threshold you seem to be applying. If anyone complains then they obviously don't understand the spirit of DYK. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, as someone who has been involved with this wikiproject for over two years, I think I have a reasonable grasp of "the spirit of DYK" by now. Secondly, if "numerous Greek media" have written about him, you ought to be able to create an article that is more substantial than a list of jobs he has held. Thirdly, clause D6 of the additional rules clearly states that Articles which fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. It ought to be obvious that articles which consist of scarcely more than a list of jobs somebody has held is inadequate. That's why we have the "like resume" template in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a lot of information to make it seem less resume-ish and I think it could pass now. I added some more information concerning what he did at each post and included his interactions with others. I understand that you felt the article was not ready, but that is why it is important to let me know or at least give me a chance to respond. My hook was there untouched for at least a week. How am i supposed to know what, if anything, to fix when a no vote is made and then my hook removed within minutes. Greekboy (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can one or two of the other regular reviewers do a reassessment of this article please? I don't want to monopolize this debate, and at this stage I think a fresh perspective might help. Gatoclass (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In short, I would support promoting this nomination and leave the rejection up to the reviewer next time. To elaborate, the article is rather dull and still reads as a list - its expansion into prose didn't really help; but, it is encyclopedic and well referenced. Just to give an example, the only interesting part is the last paragraph of the background, and if the text could be enriched in that spirit then there would be no debate here. In other words, not just listing the titles, but expanding their causes, effects and details. Materialscientist (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, should I put it back on the list or does someone want to move it directly to a queue because of its age? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll add it to a prep or queue with a suggested hook ... that George Levendis has held marketing and management positions at record labels on three different continents? Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Does redirect conversion count as "new"?

On 1 Feb I converted Super Ball from a redirect to an article, it had been a redir since October 2007. At the same time i added significant content, but not a 5x expansion of the pre-redir text. Specifically it went from 668 chars of prose in this version to this redir to 2092 at present. But none of the 668 were visible, all were hidden in the history for 2 and a half years. Does a case such as this count as "new"? or would it need to pass the 5x rule, at say 3,400 characters? DES (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably would need to be 5x from this Cirt (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you only need 1500 b. We count from the version immediately preceding the DYK expansion. Ucucha 18:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I wasn't sure about the rules or practice in such a case. DES (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, Cirt and I are contradicting each other, so I'm not sure how much further you've got. See WP:DYKGN and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 53#Interpreting the baseline for measuring a "5x expansion" for some background. Ucucha 18:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Having read the prior discussion, at least now I know that this issue is disputed. DES (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This falls into the gray area but I would agree with Ucucha and say that we would consider this a new article. If an article was deleted and then recreated 2 and half years later we wouldn't bat an eye at accepting it as new. In a way the redirect did the delete the article but maintained the history. I'm sure someone will have a knee-jerk reaction about "What is to keep someone from making a spurious redirect and then making a new article from scratch a week later?" As I said before we can not consume ourselves with constant worry about people trying to game the system. Trying to create a rule for every possible way that someone can "game the system" only distracts from the real reason why we are here-building an encyclopedia. I think it is very easy to see the good faith and sincere efforts of DESiegel in this case and so I would have no problem with this article being submitted for DYK. AgneCheese/Wine 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not that bad: reviewer could (should) look into the article history and check for recent page moves, article collapse into a redirect or cuts, such as (restored) vandalism. As to gaming - one DYK award is no big deal, but possible abusers are risking more (an example comes to mind of a hoaxer caught around DYK nomination and quick indeffed). Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Web slices

Does anyone support adding web slices to the DYK template? There is an example at User:Smallman12q/webslice test. There is also a discussion at Wikipedia:Vpt#Webslices_for_the_main_page.Smallman12q (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

All-American DYKs

More an observation than a complaint but the current set of DYKs on the Main Page seem excessively American. There is "Stranded (Haiti Mon Amour)", the recording of which was apparently "done over diverse geographic locations", but for every Rihanna, Bono and The Edge there is still Jay-Z and Swizz Beatz and that's barely stretching beyond the Caribbean. Is there a shortage of nominations from other parts of the world or was it just coincidence that "a historic Harlem apartment building", "a Californian land grant", a footballer of the American variety, a TV episode referencing Wikipedia and Nirvana, a book by two American economists, "Hamilton, Ontario's first full-time fire chief" and "a historic U.S. governor's mansion" complete with sex scandal all came together at once? --candle•wicke 04:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is rather American, yes. But it varies: I think yesterday I had difficulty even pulling together three U.S. hooks for a set. Ucucha 04:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
There is one DYK shift, starting at 00:00 UTC, which falls into low-activity time for most of Europe, Africa, Russia, India, etc. It is Ok for Americas, Australia and Japan, but among those, most submissions originate from US. Materialscientist (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
http://stats.grok.se/ statistics for February 6 show a median of about 900 clicks per U.S. hook (meaning recognizably U.S. without clicking them), and about the same number per international hook. So total reader interest is about the same. Art LaPella (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and since this topic has come up, I think I will take the opportunity to remind matsci that there has never been any consensus for shifting hooks around to accommodate timezones. I'm not sure if this is was the problem in this particular case, but I've noticed that matsci has been doing a fair bit of hook swapping based on timezone concerns lately and I'm quite uneasy about it. We should not in my opinion be operating from the assumption that Americans want to read mainly US hooks, or that Indians only want to read hooks about India, and so on.
Other than that, I quite agree with candlewicke that we have had some unbalanced updates lately, the rules state that there should never be more than four US hooks in any one update and that is the maximum. Hooks should also be appropriately distributed in the update itself. Not that I'm pointing the finger of blame at anyone in particular here, because we have a lot of different updaters these days, but I do wish everyone would pay a little more attention to the rules regarding variety. It's a lot of work trying to rebalance updates that were not appropriately balanced the first time, it's much easier for all concerned when we get it right the first time. Gatoclass (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Gato, I fully understand and exercise the point that people might be (and most likely are) interested to learn about other countries, but. Please note that we have a steady flow of hooks devoted to small and local places and specificities (in UK and US mostly, but other parts too). I am keen to learn arguments against that. There is another reason for my reshuffling of lead hooks - I advocate a point that the lead should be an ample article, or, if short, on an extraordinary "interesting" topic. Note also that I am always open to reconsider my edits, just leave a note why. Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to quibble about the substitution of lead hooks, that really doesn't bother me when it's done for a legitimate reason, I do it myself sometimes. I'm mainly concerned that by swapping hooks around based on timezone concerns, you may be sometimes inadvertently introducing imbalance of one kind or another to an update. I know from my own experience that it's quite difficult to keep in mind every possible permutation when moving hooks between updates, so I think it's generally a somewhat hazardous practice that should probably only be done when absolutely necessary.
If you really want to continue doing this however, as a possible compromise, might I suggest that you just swap entire updates when you have a timezone concern? That would preserve the integrity of the original updates, while also allowing you to continue highlighting particular hooks in given timezones when you feel that is appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
With the above mentioned queue, it was the intention to balance it with a variety of subjects, as at the time I believe we were heavy in biography and fictional television characters. The one mentioned had two buildings, an agreement, two biographies, a book, a TV show, and a song. Agreed it was a little US heavy; however, as Ucucha mentioned, there are times when the older nominations become either heavy or light on the number of available hooks that are based or focus on a particular region of the sphere (whether its the US or India). Through on occasions we do promote newer nominations when diversity and balance is not available within just the older nominations for a particular queue set. Calmer Waters 17:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
While we obviously want to clear out the older nominations, that is very much a secondary consideration. The end product is what matters. All the verified hooks will get featured sooner or later in any case, so it really isn't that important where the hooks are taken from, what is important is that the updates are balanced and interesting. Gatoclass (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
That is true, but I think the waiting period is helpful in allowing other reviewers to note issues with the hook or the article—the person placing the tick mark may have missed something, after all. Ucucha 21:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that makes a lot of difference really. People often promote hooks I have promoted from the bottom only minutes - sometimes seconds - before. Just because a hook is near the bottom, doesn't necessarily mean it's had more scrutiny. A lot of hooks get to the bottom simply because nobody wants to review them :) Gatoclass (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, but we never know that and thus may hope there is more chance that a possible blunder will be noticed over time. What I do know is that some editors (Art, myself, most probably others too) scroll through the hooks sometimes and note or quickfix obvious issues. It is not only factual errors, it is often the hook phrasing which gets improved even after the formal acceptance. Materialscientist 23:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) At least, those people have looked at the hooks and they would probably have done something if they saw the hook as badly written or something similar. As an extreme, someone once promoted a hook of mine about twenty minutes after I posted it here—I think that's undesirable. Ucucha 23:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Well, regardless, the most important thing is still to get a balanced update. It's fine to favour hooks from the bottom, but if a balanced update can't be created from those, then they should be taken from somewhere else. Gatoclass (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing talk page notice

Architecture of Denmark was on DYK on November 19. I got my talk page notice but the article didn't. I don't know that template & there may be others. could someone very kindly look into it? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The article did get the template, but someone must have removed it. The other hooks in the set also did get the template, including one that got deleted. Ucucha 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The article's now tagged with {{ArticleHistory}}, so the DYK information was merged into there. Shubinator (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, missed that. Ucucha 18:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have seen, by chance, that editors (maybe in care about those multi-storey talk:page headers) trim or remove DYK templates. This is not frequent, yet not a singular case. Materialscientist (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I looked at article history but missed it, if it was there then. Thanks all. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot notifications

Whenever users get notified by a bot on an article that they only nominated being added to DYK, the notification says that an article that they either created or expanded was added to DYK. Is there any possibility of that getting fixed? Joe Chill (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The bot operator hasn't edited since November, so probably not soon. I've been manually fixing them for months now. Shubinator (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) This is known, but we can't do anything about it except fixing the bot. It is doing great work, but we might be better off with a bot with an owner who is still active, so that issues like this can get resolved. Ucucha 18:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Sooner or later it might be a good idea to have a new bot code that addresses such problems and other bugs that have been mentioned multiple times but so far no one volunteered to write one. :-/ Regards SoWhy 21:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Please express your opinion about promoting Peter Fendi. The stumbling points are pictures in the article and featuring this article at the main page (no, not with a leading hook). Materialscientist (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem. The article itself is not raunchy, the hook would not be, and we don't need to use a picture with the hook. It certainly isn't Cunt (video game). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I must admit I sometimes feel a bit uneasy about seeing sexually explicit stuff on the mainpage, but when I think about it, they'd be blocked by webfilters anyway, wouldn't they? Gatoclass (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a gray area ("erotic art") which won't get blocked or filtered. Yet many might perceive it as porn disguised by antiquity - that is why this thread. I myself distinguish erotic art from this. Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It's fine if it's not lead hook. Heck, we've had frontal nudity on DYK before... Shubinator (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, not a good example - that image was art acceptable in virtually any museum and TV program, which I won't say about the watercolors by Fendi. Materialscientist (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
True, but we aren't putting Fendi's images on the main page. Shubinator (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I find no problem with the hook itself on the main page (Like Rjang said the image doesnt need to be displayed with the hook), it warns the viewer what may be contained within the article anyway. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, text-only is certainly not a problem, since I assume that the hook will make it clear what kind of images to expect anyway. If people click on it, it's their decision. Regards SoWhy 13:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with those above who state the hook, without any accompanying image, is acceptable for DYK. If you are still worried about this hook then I would suggest scheduling it for a time with minimal school activity (i.e. a Saturday or early Sunday). This is a technique I have previously used for hooks that are obvious vandalism targets or present potential problems for youthful readers. --Allen3 talk 13:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
He has many other pictures that would be quite suitable for the main page: a couple are available on commons. I'd be more worried about the hook; while Fendi certainly illustrated a wide variety of positions (many of them functionally impossible), the statement his "watercolors depict almost all possible sex positions" is based on a mere puff in one reference (Human sexuality: an encyclopedia) which itself cites Fendi's Forty Erotic Watercolors as the source for the authors' throwaway line. Is the number of sex positions (including Fendi's backflips and standing on one leg on horseback variations) only around 40? How disappointing for the non-horseriding non-acrobats! Yomanganitalk 14:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Query

If an article submitted on Feb 2 isn't in the queue, but has been reviewed as okay for DYK, what does that mean? I'm thinking of one I submitted, Sally Amis. Sorry to ask, but I don't do this often so I don't know what the procedure is. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's still on the suggestions page (here), it's just waiting for someone to pick it up. Usually whenever the queue needs filled someone goes through the suggestions page and grabs 7 or 8 hooks that have been reviewed and would go well together, so if it's not in the queue yet it just means no one has grabbed it yet. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Rjanag. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the article I nominated?

I self-nominated the article Sufyan ibn `Uyaynah several days ago under articles created February 1, and it has only received one suggestion. The article is the appropriate length, well-referenced and well-written along with a decent hook—at least in my opinion. Given that I generally make my more substantial contributions to relatively obscure pages that receive little attention I would like to know how those articles rate. Supertouch (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is "wrong" with your article, it simply had not been reviewed yet; please keep in mind that all the DYK reviewers are volunteers and do not have a strict deadline, they simply review whatever hooks interest them when they have a chance to.
That being said, I have gone ahead and reviewed your submission (here). It needs a reference. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Supertouch (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sallie Gardner at a Gallop

Moved long discussion with broader implications than this article from T:TDYK. Ucucha 15:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Muybridge sequence of a horse galloping

Experiment on June 19, 1878, not development of motion pictures on that day: switched the phrase for more logical exposition.--Wetman (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your help guys, appreciate it! I think this is an important article as of this time no other motion picture or film has been found to predate this feature. --TitanOne (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • To the person who will be preparing this DYK: Please consider adding the picture attached, it's a featured picture too by the way. I think it would help visualize this important article. --TitanOne (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The part on Eadweard Muybridge indicating the film contained about 770 characters of prose and the references were mostly offline. In order to segregate the actual film from the creator's page would you suggest merging it? Or take off the information from the creator's page? The new article contained a bit more details (gait, jockey, etc.) and now online references. Remember this was considered by many as the first motion picture, so I thought that subjects with historical significance should be given it's own article. The idea I wanted to express was to segregate the director/creator from the actual film, as in the case of James Cameron, to Avatar (2009 film), surely some content of Avatar will be at Cameron's page. We'll that's the perception I had, so please do correct me if I am wrong as this was I thought how the actual Films/Directors should be made? --TitanOne (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the article of Muybridge had issues with accuracy such as the date it was done and the number of cameras used, etc. The new article suggests online multiple-references that proves otherwise and the Muybridge article would need you to have the books in hand to validate them.--TitanOne (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand Gatoclass' concerns, but I think this article satisfies WP:N as an independent subject. Perhaps a third editor can make the call on this? --otherlleft 18:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm confused — is someone saying that the new article isn't on a notable subject? I can't imagine that the first movie ever made wouldn't be notable; I've heard or read about it in plenty of different sources. Moreover, the text is different from that of the Muybridge article; it's not copy/pasted or anything like that. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems a perfectly acceptable subject for a new article to me, per the "first movie ever made" argument; duplication of material is covered by the Cameron/Avatar argument, and, as Nyttend says, it's not c'n'pd. Ericoides (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • DYK awards new content. The section on the Sallie Garnder film at the Muybridge article runs to 2,739 chars - it's actually longer, excluding the intro, than the material dealing directly with the film in the new article. The only really "new" content in the article appears to be a paragraph or two at the end which is not really related to the film itself. So there is very little information here that is new to the encyclopedia, and the handful of lines that do look like new content could be readily merged with the Muybridge article. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • To settle the issue can we get consensus or take vote on this matter (Excluding me and Gatoclass for the point of COI)? Any other editors who has similar views? Really if you check Muybridge's article it's nothing like that and if you proof read it a lot of items will get deleted like inaccuracy of details (Date, Logistics). Well I intend to edit Muybridge's article pending the results of this issue as to show they are far apart. --TitanOne (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, you as the author of the article have a COI, I have none. And this is a discussion, not a vote. I also disagree that the section in the Muybridge article is "nothing like" your article - they both cover almost exactly the same ground, and are just written in different language, a circumstance that is covered by WP:MERGE. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I never said it was nothing like the article I help create, I only said it added more depth to the feature. And with regard to the part about COI kind sir, I just thought it would raise the integrity of the voting part as respect to 2 parties with opposing views (yours & mine) but if you insist, I'm fine with it. --TitanOne (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, the discussed part was brushed up and enriched with references and is a constructive work for WP. But. DYK is designed to select new WP content which this article is not. I am with Gato here and his comments are both valid and relevant. DYK rules require about 5x expansion of content taken from another article. Thus if the article is significantly expanded with new content, it can qualify. Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; this strikes me as clearly eligible. Forking off content from a pre-existing article is a perfectly legitimate and accepted way of initiating new pages, and I can think of no compelling reason to deny such pages from the main page. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the matter hinge on an interpretation of the first DYK rule and more specifically the words "spun off"? "For purposes of DYK, a "new" article is no more than five days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article." This article doesn't seem to have been "spun off", although it's a somewhat imprecise term. Are there any other rules that would deny it its hours in the sun on DYK? If there are, would they not be outweighed by 1. the fabulous gif and 2. the point already mentioned, that it was the first ever piece of film? I'd far sooner read about that – and be notified about it, the purpose of DYK – than be mandraxed by yet another article on an obscure Norwegian, alpinist, church, corvette. A pedantically rule-bound wiki does rather make for a dull wiki. Ericoides (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that this can hardly be considered "new", since the text largely duplicates that existing at Eadweard Muybridge. I think it should expand at least 5x the text at that article (2803 b) on this subject. Also, I deleted the "vote" list as there is no such thing as a "vote" around here; Wikipedia works by consensus. Neither is this a conflict; rather, it is a good-faith disagreement. Ucucha 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gatoclass that this isn't a vote, so I'm going to expand upon my comments here in the interest of building consensus. Gatoclass, Ucucha, and Materialscientist have tremendous experience in this area, so I take their views seriously. If I understand them correctly, they feel that this is a fork which provides little new information. Other editors feel that this article, focusing on what is essentially the first film, is the type of nomination that is best suited for DYK. The concerns raised are understandable, but I think this is a good time to invoke WP:IAR and promote this. It's interesting, it's valuable, and it likely will appear less like the article on Muybridge over time, so why not? Will it harm the encyclopedia to have this one the front page? --otherlleft 14:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • DYK is for featuring new content, and this I believe is not new content. Invoking IAR is fine if you'll also invoke IAR to have a Today's Featured Article that is not a featured article. Ucucha 14:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, Ucucha, I suggested IAR because I feel this is new content as intended for DYK, but recognize that editors such as yourself do not. I see this as a grey area where promoting would provide benefit whether or not you agree with my assessment, rather than an opportunity to turn DYK on its head. I haven't seen evidence that, if I'm wrong, a promotion would cause harm, embarrassment, or outrage, so I offered the idea of ignoring the rules in the spirit of this not being a bureaucracy. DYK in particular is less restrictive and more flexible than FA, so I don't quite understand your comparison there.--otherlleft 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think promoting an article such as this would encourage editors to create new articles instead of improving existing articles, which is a bad thing. Ucucha 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I now realize that my previous statement was unclear. What we should not encourage editors to do is creating a new article instead of improving the existing article that covers the same topic. Ucucha 17:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That makes more sense. It appears to me that the core issue is whether or not this is the same topic, and that's what an uninvolved editor should be evaluating.--otherlleft 17:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a few questions, how many people know that this article is the first considered motion picture in the world? What's the harm in placing this in the mainpage anyway? --TitanOne (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Points from Muybridge's article that are made fillers for the prose construction:

  • Copied from a book word per word -- Stanford sided with this assertion, called "unsupported :*transit", and took it upon himself to prove it scientifically
  • Copied from a book word per word-- Muybridge's relationship with Stanford was long and fraught, heralding both his entrance and exit from the history books
  • Unsourced --Though legend also includes a wager of up to $25,000, there is no evidence of this
  • Who? -- as contemporary illustrators tended to imagine
  • incorrect data -- Muybridge used a series of 12 stereoscopic cameras, 21 inches apart to cover the 20 feet taken by one horse stride
  • incorrect data -- The first experience successfully took place on June 11 with the press present
  • comment- slap in the face --without verifiable sources --TitanOne (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Then improve that article. Ucucha 15:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
As in my previous statement I would be after this discussion. Or is it ok to delete stuff now? The idea will be to give a quick synopsis on that article and link it to the main one which is Sallie Gardner's. Now the point of me posting these is to show that how can Sallie Gardner's not contain new content when it presents data that has wider detail, more wikified, free from POV and has data backed up by sources? --TitanOne (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe an article like this is fully covered by WP:MERGE, which states that articles which duplicate content, and which are unlikely to be substantially expanded, should be merged. I very much doubt there is much more that can be said of this film, that might be of interest. Since it's already comprehensively covered at the Muybridge article, and is an indispensable part of that one, this article should simply be left as a redirect. As Ucucha said, we can't be encouraging the creation of content forks in this way. I know you have worked hard on this article, but it's better that you are made aware of this problem now before you go wasting time creating any more duplicated content. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Instead of a merge, why not move the bulk of the info regarding the film from Muybridge article to the page specifically for the film, keep a brief intro at the Muybridge page with a main page template leading to the new page being discussed here? Supertouch (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Because it isn't necessary. The Muybridge article is itself not very long, so there's no reason to split it into two articles. And I think a basic description of the film is necessary to the Muybridge article in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Anyway, what's our proposed resolution to this issue if a vote will not be done? Should we just take the points of the opposition and snub the raised points by the other Editors/Sysops? Clearly there are valid points to each argument but can anyone suggest a good resolution for this issue?--TitanOne (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • An uninvolved editor experienced in DYK should make that judgment, I think. I asked Calmer Waters to weigh in, but since he added the image I don't know if he would be considered uninvolved enough - although I'm interested in his viewpoint nevertheless.--otherlleft 17:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK promotions are not generally determined by a "vote", usually any article which is firmly opposed by two or more users in good standing doesn't make it, because a higher standard is conceded for articles which are to appear on the front page. It doesn't always mean that there is perfect unanimity for every promotion, but it does mean that if there are opposers, they are willing to set aside their concerns if enough people disagree with their POV. I can't speak for the other opposers, but in this case, I for one am not prepared to do that. I don't believe this article is eligible, and I think promoting it would create a problematic precedent. Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree that voting isn't appropriate here, or just about anywhere on Wikipedia, and I thank you for explaining the general principles that guide these discussions. My understanding of how consensus operates suggests that, in this particular case, there's a very real question about whether the opposing editors' arguments against are strong enough (even in the light of the higher standard which is appropriate for the main page) to overcome the arguments in support of its promotion. Would you have any objection to an editor with your level of experience and no involvement in this discussion weighing in for that purpose? If you do, would you kindly articulate the nature of that objection? If not, I think it wouldn't be difficult to find such an editor.--otherlleft 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
In fact, I will ask User:Bradjamesbrown if he would like to review this discussion. I don't imagine he will get involved if he thinks it's inappropriate to do so. --otherlleft 18:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the concern that Gatoclass, Materialscientist, and I have is fairly clear: This article is not new, because it duplicated content that was already covered at the article of the photographer. Promoting articles like this would encourage editors to fork instead of improve content. Ucucha 18:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd looked at this discussion earlier, and didn't think my opinion was really needed then, but since it was asked for; I would oppose promoting this hook. One of DYK's principles is that content we feature is new; not new to whatever article it resides at, but new to Wikipedia. Eadweard Muybridge contained a large portion of this content; there has been nowhere near a fivefold expansion. Rule A5 seems to encompass this situation quite nicely even though a word-for-word copy did not occur in this case; "If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Barring an amazing new point being offered, and having none myself, I respectfully accept that there are sufficient grounds not to promote based on current practice. C'est la vie.--otherlleft 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly an amazing new point, but Otherlleft's conclusion seems very sad to me. On what basis was the "five-fold expansion" rule established? Is it really relevant today? On what basis are we saying that the encylopedic coverage of this subject has not been improved? Should DYK even have a space on the main page if its sole purpose is to act as an editor award? Physchim62 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

After a request on my talk page to comment here, and reading Gatoclass' original concern (without reading the entire conversation), I believe that if the article was long enough without the section from another article then it should be allowed to run on DYK. However, if the article was a 4x expansion or 1,400 characters without the section then further expansion should be required before it runs.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have counted approximately 1256 prose to is pertaining to Sallie Gardner at a Gallop within the Eadweard Muybridge article. A 5x expansion of that would be approximately 6280 prose. It is currently at 3782 (~3.01). I believe if the editor and any others who wish to assist can further expand this additional 2x may quash any further concerns. I really can't say yeah or nah as I have attached the image that may have increased interest in the hook, and therefor may have COI in the matterCalmer Waters 20:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • With this information in mind. I heed to the other editors, please help?--TitanOne (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The reason the section in the Muybridge article is now only 1256 chars long is because Titanone just reduced it from its original 2463 chars. Gatoclass (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah from poor sourcingas the contents of the old content is also disputable then however x3 is still doable. Now coming from the perspective of the other editors, we're just trying to look at this positively and put some form of constructivity around this issue; but if you really want to push this to the ground everytime we try to suggest something constructive, well what can we do? --TitanOne (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but content does not become "new" just by deleting the original content. Your article is no more original than it was before you made that wholesale and questionable deletion. A substantial proportion of your "new" article is not even related to the topic at hand. You are just wasting everyone's time with this. Gatoclass (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Whoah.. Questionable deletion? That's why I didn't want to touch the other article before this convesation was over but one of the other editor's suggested it be done to improve it's content. Wow, where do you place yourself at situations like this? I knew it, shouldn't have taken the shark bait.--TitanOne (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? You knew what, exactly? Gatoclass (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
RE: Wasting People's time, the last request for help was no longer about pushing for this to be a new article, it was for help for x5 expansion. We're no longer talking about it's "New" content. --TitanOne (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Last point, I do not consider this my article. I strongly pushed for it as I felt people should know of it's historical significance to the development of the film industry (A long way from this to Avatar) and DYK was a perfect avenue. --TitanOne (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You can also try Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries—it would be perfect on June 19, I think. Ucucha 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
See this was one of the constructive ideas we were waiting for (besides x5 expansion). Thank you Ucucha for breaking your suggestion. Finally a constructive/positive suggestion.--TitanOne (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Just one final comment. I really don't appreciate the insinuations that I am negative/destructive, or vindictive, or that because I comment on someone's article I must have a "COI". This could have been an amicable discussion, but unfortunately your ongoing bad faith hints about my character and my motives, along with your attempts to marginalize my POV, ensured otherwise. It doesn't have to be that way. Hopefully you will bear that in mind next time someone happens to challenge a hook of yours. Gatoclass (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Point taken, I'm sorry if things did get a bit heated, but please also understand that I also did not appreciate being suggested that I made questionable edits. The main intention of the deletion of some parts of the said article was to clean up unsourced matierial. I do take into consider the validity of your point which is why I want to collaborate on other avenues where in this could pass, be it DYK or not (Be it needs 10K more KB of prose or less). No hard feelings? I hope you also take into consideration why I commented as such. --TitanOne (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Titan, I would like to bring up that Gatoclass has been with DYK for far longer than most editors and has always had the best intentions for the project as a whole. Please assume good faith that his constructive criticism and information given, such as addressing the removal of text from Eadweard_Muybridge was to give information I had missed and not as an attack towards you. From what I can see, he is not stating whether or not the article should exist; but rather, if it meets the criteria for inclusion to DYK. Kindly Calmer Waters 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, sorry per comments above. Now time to do a wikiwalk --TitanOne (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I want to beat a dead horse, but after reading this whole discussion, it seems that this argument was more focused on setting the correct precedent than actually dealing with the case at hand. This form of debate would certainly make sense in a Supreme Court case, but it makes no sense here. There are hundreds of active DYK reviewers, the vast majority of whom didn't know about this discussion and never will. Even in the extremely unlikely event that a reviewer does decide to try to find some precedent for an issue like this, the chance that he'd actually be willing to sift through the 54 archives on this talk page is about the same as the number of above comments that linked to an archived discussion: a big fat 0. And if, by some sky-splitting miracle, some poor reviewer actually does sift through the archives to find some relevant precedent, the opposition will simply deny the relevance of the precedent: "The details are totally different! This article is about a neanderthal riding a zebra." So really guys, what's the point? The quest for the golden precedent may surely have its home in the halls of the arbcom and perhaps at WP:FA, but not here. The stakes are simply too small! A one-sentence blurb for a 3-paragraph article that spend 6 hours on the main page earning a whopping 900 hits (estimated values, not specific to this article)? A tiny cookie—more like a single chocolate chip—for a hardworking editor who successfully managed to throw 1500 characters together?

There is no point in trying to set a precedent (which will be ignored) for something so insignificant. There was literally nothing accomplished by this discussion other than to make two honest contributors (TitanOne and Gatoclass) feel awkward if they ever have to share a wiki lunch table. In future, try to find a solution for the one article in question (not all of the potentially similar articles that will be written in the generations to come), and if that doesn't work, flip a coin. Or be the bigger man/woman/moose and just walk away. This strategy will prove to be more effective, efficient, and less likely to result in people being called "shark bait". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What happened to my hook?

My nomination of Lonicera nitida was removed. Joe Chill (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Disappeared here. Very strange edit, that one. Hold on. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I've restored your nomination. It's in line for review. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Moved the nom to its date (thus the above link won't work); posted a note for Alex Douglas as his edit indeed looked strange, but could be a glitch. Materialscientist (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oops. Now I need to be more careful; I just put the nomination back where the American Pie one was introduced. (Fixed the link in my earlier post). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Olympics?

I don't watch this page, so I apologize if this has been discussed, but with the 2010 Winter Olympics starting February 12, will there be a day when only Olympic-themeed DYKs are featured? If so, I have one (Boy Meets Curl) that would work. -- Scorpion0422 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I don't see a need for one special day, as the event is spread in time, but Olympics related hooks are welcome, and I would encourage giving them green light for promotion around beginning of the Games (the time of increased attention). Materialscientist (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this point, Ive nominated Montreal Stars earlier which is also Olympic themed. And I imagine other editors will be making more articles. But can these articles wait another 2 weeks anyway (In the Que) for the olympics to begin (It may allow the back log to decrease temprorarily but thats just a thought)? Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought, but would it be worth while having a second day on the closing day of the Olympics, as I imagine during the events there will be numerous new pages created and these may well be nominated for DYK. Miyagawa (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed on the second que for closing. Shall we go ahead with making the Que for the start of the olympics? Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added a queue for the olympics. Though there is another event on the 12th. If this is conflicting, It may just be best to have a holding area only for the closig ceromonies. Ive left the queue anbigous at this time (running feb 12-28th) but if we all agree on the closing ceromonies We can change it to that (There would likely be a larger amount of articles created for the closing cerominies anyway). Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just added a couple nominations. I think it makes sense to salt Olympics-related DYKs over the course of the Games, as it is an ongoing event, rather than bunching them all together on the day of the closing ceremonies. People will be more interested in the Olympics as the events are ongoing, as opposed to after most events have ended. Marylanderz (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Women's DYKs

I have made two nominations featuring an author and an inventor I expanded and which I thought might be useful for International Women's Day, "a major day of global celebration for the economic, political and social achievements of women", after noticing this day had previously received four other nominations. However, I received the reply "Why should this be on Women's Day?" for both and now I wonder if they are as obvious as I thought. I was wondering if there are any limits to what women can do to be included? --candle•wicke 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cathy Kelly definitely would be appropriate, I think any articles about women would be good (who knows, maybe we can have a couple all-female updates). Sugru is arguable I guess, since the article itself is not about a woman but just about something invented by a woman. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I love a challenge. I hope I can find enough stubby/missing women. --candle•wicke 21:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Stubby women, eh? To each his own.... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in User:T. Anthony/Women in Red. Happy typing. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently nominated George Elliot (1784–1863) for a DYK and was told by a DYK reviewer (whom I respect a great deal and I hope this will not be taken as a comment against) that it had too many redlinks to be promoted. The links were valid under WP:REDLINK but I was told that they would have to be delinked in order to have the article feature on the mainpage. While I understand the logic, I disagree with this being part of the guideline (and indeed I cannot see it written down anywhere, either in the official, or the unofficial rules). The links were valid redlinks, and may have encouraged the creation of new content, but I had to delink them solely for the passage of this article through the DYK critera, though I intend (and was encouraged by the same reviewer) to relink them afterwards. I was told that it had 'always been the practice not to promote articles with too many redlinks'. Of the two people who replied to this issue on WT:Main Page, one actually said 'I'd rather have redlinks than people de-linking things just to fulfil some criteria'. I'd quite like to see a confirmed consensus in DYK and MAINPAGE on redlinks in linked articles, and if a particular number or proportion is too many, just what this number or proportion is. Having contributed over 200 DYKs to wikipedia, this is the first time that I can recall that this has occurred. Benea (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings Benea, in fact I was thinking about bringing the issue here myself :)
As it happens, I have been under the mistaken impression for a long time that there was a policy somewhere on wikipedia that redlinks should not be permitted in articles highlighted on the main page. When I first started working at DYK as I recall I saw other reviewers turning down articles with redlinks, and just adopted the same practice. But it turns out there is no specific policy about this.
Now that the issue has come to a head however, I am still of the opinion that it's good practice not to promote articles with redlinks. First of all, articles with lots of redlinks tend to look very untidy and unfinished, and removing them at least temporarily while they appear on the main page is a pretty minor task. Secondly, I have found in practice that when challenged, creators will frequently just go right ahead and create a bunch of new articles to remove the redlinks, sometimes even adding the new articles to their hook. So it's also a position that encourages the creation of new content, which in many respects is what this project is supposed to be about. In short, I would support adding some sort of formal rule that articles cannot be promoted until redlinks have been removed. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm against any rule prohibiting promotion of articles with redlinks. As long as the redlinks pass WP:REDLINKS then there should be no problem, as a few extra hundred readers when it is featured on the main page should "...encourage[] the creation of new content..." far more than asking one person to do it. Secondly, all articles are unfinished, as we don't ever put them into a special status of "complete" once they pass FA or any other content review process. And, as pointed out, DYK is for new content, not completed content or even GA/FA ready content. Redlinks promote growth, and may give the impression we aren't quite done with expanding this encyclopedia, which in some ways is related to one hypothesis for why Wikipedia is bleeding editors (as in the theory is some people have left as there is little new to write about, or little new they want to write about). Aboutmovies (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Suitable, appropriate redlinks should never prevent an article from reaching the main page. Binksternet (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
In this case, I think removing the redlinks actually makes this article worse. Our coverage of the pre-Victorian Royal Navy needs lots of work, and the redlinks in that article were perfectly valid; eventually all of them will be created. Maybe even by one of the DYK viewers who saw what was needed. There's a perfectly logical rule against redlinks in hooks, but I oppose any prohibition of valid redlinks in articles. Yes, FAC or even GAN would not be happy with that number of redlinks, but they both have different standards than DYK. DYK articles need to appear reasonably comprehensive- and this one does- our entire encyclopedia in some areas isn't anywhere near there yet. This nomination was in one of those areas. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Neither FAC nor GAN have a five-day time limit on nominating articles! I don't think even those black holes of petty bureaucracy processes would be correct or helpful to oppose on the basis of redlinks, but for DYK to oppose on that basis is even more ridiculous! Physchim62 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the number of redlinks should not be a DYK criterion, for many of the reasons Aboutmovies and Bradjamesbrown mentioned. I don't see Gatoclass's argument that articles with red links tend to be bad ones; this is certainly not true for the Eliot article. Incidentally, red links are not part of the FA or GA criteria. Ucucha 13:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment by Aboutmovies (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that valid redlinks encourage the creation of content - therefore there's nothing wrong with suggesting that some of them be created to get the pleasant result Gatoclass mentioned, but having them in the article when it's on the Main Page will also serve that purpose. The perception that they're "untidy" is a Wikipedia-centric cultural norm that doesn't in any way reduce the value of the article for the rest of the world.--otherlleft 14:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I also think quite the opposite is true as Aboutmovies put it. Having redlinks in an article that appears on the Main Page will remind readers that Wikipedia is far from completed and that their help is needed to achieve our goals, thus their presence is actually probably helpful in getting readers to create those articles. Some articles that are on DYK have very limited exposure otherwise, because they are about very specialist topics or of minor public interest and as such their redlinks may not be noticed for a long time if they don't get a major exposure and DYK can help to achieve this. Regards SoWhy 15:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SoWhy heartily. So long as it passes WP:REDLINKS there shouldn't be a problem. DYK is more about new articles, oftentimes in underwritten topics (such as the pre victorian navy) that need attention. Although there are a lot of redlinks they seem valid. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with many of the above (AboutMovies, SoWhy, etc) that we should be encouraging redlinks in DYK articles rather than asking for their removal. The WP:REDLINKS page is very straight forward and fair minded about what kind of links are acceptable and I disagree with the notion that their presence makes an article look untidy. On the contrary, redlinks contributes a lot of tangible benefits to the article in that it shows readers (and potential editors) what areas of Wikipedia still have room for exploration and development. It reminds readers that Wikipedia is still dynamic and growing. AgneCheese/Wine 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I overstated my case. I didn't intend to suggest that articles should contain no redlinks at all, just that they should not contain an excessive number of them. I have never, for example, challenged an article on a biological order that has lists of redlinks for species in the order, because that's obviously a legitimate use of redlinks that is also informative. Benea's article was really not a good example for a "test case", but as I was about to challenge another article with what I felt were an excessive number of redlinks, I thought for the sake of consistency I should do the same in his case.
My main concern is about articles with an excessive number of redlinks, often for topics that are unlikely to ever be created - but since the latter problem is covered by WP:REDLINK in any case, perhaps we can do without a DYK-specific rule. I do intend however to continue encouraging submitters to fix redlinks, as I have found in the past it's often all that is needed to motivate the creator to fill in the redlinks themselves. Gatoclass (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think suggesting creating those articles is an excellent idea, or even recommending the removal of redlinks for articles that will not realistically be created. It sounds like there's consensus that articles should adhere to WP:REDLINKS, but no other remedy is required.--otherlleft 00:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Call me a heretic, but I am with Gato on this. "Red links" merely paint some words in red color that makes them flashy - that is how I feel most main page readers might treat them. Let me give an example which I know as an AIV regular: vandals use red links (and bold letters) as a tool to accentuate nasty messages. "Urging to create new articles" might be how some experienced editors above perceive red links (no disrespect meant). I would definitely not set any a rule eradicating red links, or reject noms based on that, but I would reserve to the reviewer a right to request removing excessive red links. Materialscientist (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think some thought should be give to the issue of whether the "red link" is worthy of an article or not. Sometimes I have pursued a red link, only to find there is no information available on the subject, and probably never will be, as the subject is obscure and not relevant to other articles. —mattisse (Talk) 01:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
.. which reminded me another situation, close to a true DYK story: An editor X places a red link having their idea on how this article should be named; then an article is created on this topic under another name, but X creates their article going by their red link. This is unlikely to happen with many names from wikispecies, but many other topics (even chemical articles, believe my word) can have unexpected names which are not covered by redirects. Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks should be allowed YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 00:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Procedural questions about things that I could try, but I might break something

Two simple questions:

  1. The template instructs admins to "purge the cache of the Main Page so that the updated version appears." Does this somehow purge the cache for everyone, or does it simply purge the cache of the updating admin's computer so that s/he knows that the update was successful?
  2. In the "next update" section of the template, there's a section for "Last updated: [number] minute(s) ago.", along with links to verify, reset, and purge. If I hit "reset", will that delay the next update? Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. That refers to this link: [8]. This instructs the server to re-assemble the Main Page from the templates that feed it, and thereby purges the cache for everyone. Ucucha 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  2. The link ([9]) leads you to the edit page of the DYK timer, which the bot uses to determine when to do the next update. We normally don't have to edit it, since the bot is functioning. Ucucha 01:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks; I didn't know that the cache could be purged for everyone, and I was afraid that clicking the "reset" link would reset something instead of taking me to a page from which I could reset something. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

February 14

February 14 has been removed. Joe Chill (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Found it back. Ucucha 19:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Huehuetenango Department in Queue 2

Note that the credit section in Queue 2 is pointing to the wrong article (Huehuetenango instead of Huehuetenango Department) - I'd fix it myself but I don't have the user rights. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it. Ucucha 22:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ucacha! Simon Burchell (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the DYK hooks on the main page are overlinking to articles and really should only link to the nominated article (similar to how disambiguation pages should only have one link per line). It is confusing and annoying when one clicks on a link in the DYK hook and ends up at the wrong article. PleaseStand (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The link to the DYK article is bolded. The additional wikilinks clarify the hook (example, by simply pointing the mouse to "Indian" the reader would understand whether it is about India or America) and also attract readers to those articles, which is not bad for WP. Materialscientist (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
In a sea of text, the bolded link is hard to distinguish from the others. On allowing multiple links but bolding the main one: why do we not do it that way on DAB pages? PleaseStand (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe because there are many many thousands of DAB pages and the Main Page is one? :-) Seriously, extra efforts are made to facilitate understanding of the main page by a wikipedia newcomer. If you wish to modify the wikilinking of DAB pages, it is best to discuss it with the community at a corresponding desk. Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The Main Page and dab pages serve to very different functions. The former is intended for casual site visitors, providing them with reasons to read further; the latter is designed to reduce the confusion caused by similar terms, and thus radically reduces the number of acceptable links. On disambiguation pages we certainly don't want a "sea of text," while the Main Page uses bold to set apart the white caps on the waves of that sea, if you will.--otherlleft 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with MS and Otherleft in that the additional links serve valid functions, especially with providing context. That said, we can always be extra mindful about whether or not the additional links really do enhance the context or are just WP:OVERLINKing. The BorgQueen frequently will trims hooks of excess linking and that is perfectly acceptable. There is plenty of room for a happy middle ground between having some added links for context and avoiding having too many blue links. AgneCheese/Wine 02:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

rewrites

Shouldn't there be some way to indicate when an article was completely re-written?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs) 17:51, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "completely re-written". DYK has accepted articles that have undergone a 5x expansion for years. The mission of DYK is highlighting new content and a 5x expansion guarantees at least 80% of the article in new. The problem comes when a rewrite does not include a sizable expansion of article prose size. In such cases it often requires detailed knowledge of the article subject for a reviewer to determine if the article contains new content or is simply a reshuffling of previously existing text. As such a level of prior knowledge can not be expected of DYK volunteers, nor do we have the labor force needed to research subjects to the level needed for proper analysis, rewrites that do not include significant expansion are not accepted. This is an imperfect solution but given the limitations we function under has the advantage of working. --Allen3 talk 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I mean where you blank the article except for the title but I see your point. Thanks for the response. JPatterson (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
One legitimate reason to do that is in the case of a copvyio. I'm not sure whether the blanking would count as the start of a 5x expansion if it was done by the expanding editor. If someone else did the blanking, then I can see that it could be argued as the start point for the expansion. A better way to deal with these is to get the copyvio deleted and then create the non-copyvio article from scratch. Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
We actually have an exception for copyvios to this rule (rule A4 and WP:DYK1P#copyvio). Ucucha 13:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now nominated an article completely rewritten today (Template talk:Did you know#Olof Strömstierna), where the previous version was a partly nonsensical automatic translation (from Google Translate). Such a rewrite should count as a new article. "Cleaning up" an automatic translation actually requires re-translating from the original or completely rewriting from other sources, even if the result may not end up five times longer than the previous version. --Hegvald (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(copied from T:TDYK). I think I would support promotion of this article, on the grounds that the previous version was just plain nonsensical. I've thought for a while the existing rule on this is a little too restrictive, and we have precedents for promoting articles on grounds other than COPYVIO, such as articles which were obviously personal essays. The original rule was incorporated basically because assessing quality is for the most part too subjective a judgement, but when one has an "article" that is transparent nonsense, it's a quite straightforward assessment. Gatoclass (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The one I rewrote Numerically-controlled oscillator was in similar shape. It was complete nonsense probably written by an engineering student or hobbyist. It seems to me that a simple before and after diff would suffice to make the case but that doesn't get around the problem of finding qualified volunteers to judge. Of course, nonsense can't be sourced, as was the case here. Maybe the rule could be that if less than 5% is left after removing unsourced material it counts as a rewrite.JPatterson (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
When I said "nonsense", I didn't mean merely woefully incorrect content. I meant word salad - text that literally makes no sense at all. I don't think we can extend the exemption to content that is just incorrect, because there is no way to readily quantify such problems. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
If article length is important, we should use the character count on the article's edit page (and double the 1500 limit to compensate), and be done with it. An unwritten attempt to distinguish unsourced material, nonsense, and/or verbal salad, would add even more details to the Article Length Department of Did You Know's hazing rituals for newcomers. Stability will be reached when we spend all our time debating such distinctions instead of producing a finished product. Art LaPella (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Prose length is used instead of article character length due to the fact that character length can be trivially added with no corresponding added value to readers or the encyclopedia as a whole. As an example of this please take a look at User:Allen3/blankarticle, an "article" that contains over 25K characters of source text with zero readable text. Anyone familiar with wiki markup and a couple of commonly used templates should be able to produce similar "articles" of arbitrary size with nothing more than repetitive use of their browser's copy-and-paste function. --Allen3 talk 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
But User:Allen3/blankarticle only has the following: Prose size (text only): 119 characters (60 words) "readable prose size". That is no where near the 1500 character minimum. —mattisse (Talk) 00:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Off course one could replicate that code text and add some useful text to have an article with any large ratio of code bytes to article prose. What worries me though is that DYK check gives non-zero count on an empty page. Materialscientist (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That appears to be because the empty {{cite book}} templates still generate a non-breaking space. Ucucha 01:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Prose can be bloated as easily as any other component of an article. It can, it can, it can, it can, it can, it can, it can, it can, it can ... Or less trivially, I could repeat that same point in fifty different ways until I fill up this page. Art LaPella (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
When I review articles, I often copyedit them to remove such bloat. If that means the article gets under 1500, too bad. Ucucha 04:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Good for you. In the blank article example above, you would presumably notice the mismatch, check the edit screen, and similarly remove the bloat. Art LaPella (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Bluntly bloating the blurb is a sin :-) My motto is reputation of the editor is much more important than one DYK "award", and it is much easier to ruin that reputation than to build. Materialscientist (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a sin that tempts the first-time DYK contributor the most. Do you think bloating would become a bigger issue if we counted the whole article, and do you think that outweighs all the beginner's confusion and recurring drama we have now about arithmetic? Art LaPella (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a choice: too many articles contain infoboxes and other templates, which are perfectly valid, but do not contribute to the textual content; the byte size of those templates is absolutely arbitrary. Materialscientist (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
If so, that's the point I'm missing. Here is the first DYK example I found with an infobox. You couldn't bloat Template:Taxobox without everybody noticing. Even if the infobox were less well known, how would its size be more arbitrary than the arbitrary size of bloated prose? Art LaPella (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Many (even experienced) editors copy/paste a template with all or nearly all fields in it, even if only a few are filled with data. User:Allen3/blankarticle is an example. I do not feel like deleting those empty fields from some infoboxes because some fields will be filled soon, and because it takes time to recover some of those fields (as they are not documented in the template) Materialscientist (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, that's a reason anyway. I'll think about how that possibility compares to our current recurring dramas such as "I should just convert my list to prose!" (countered by our alleged power to detect "listy" prose, which greatly exceeds our ability to detect typos), "Oh I didn't know spaces counted", "Sorry, I thought it was words, not characters", "My table entries are so long they are effectively prose", "But WP:DYK says to use Javascriptkit" (which doesn't exclude anything), "he said 1200, she said 1400, I said 1700", "It's x characters with spaces, y without, z words, ...", experienced DYK editors who still don't use DYKcheck, "I just found another block quote, so that should get me to 1500", and this drama. Art LaPella (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable source for hook?

Can a self-published source by someone in the Department of Biology at the University of Wisconsin be used as a source? The source has a lot of interesting facts that I can't find elsewhere: http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/TOMS_FUNGI/apr2002.html Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Should be fine for did you know. The guy's an academic, and an expert in the subject, so even if it isn't peer reviewed it's a pretty reliable source. Marylanderz (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I've used this one for FACs, so it should be ok here ;-) Sasata (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this specific source should be Ok, but. A general answer is no. Many universities offer free web space to any staff member and allow publishing there anything which is not clearly offensive, thus it is merely a blog. Strictly speaking, even this page shouldn't be allowed, because it is not the refereed version of an article, but another one, where the author could have inserted statements, which were objected by referees or were missing in the original article. This would be not unusual in science. In this case, however, I would AGF the author that this version is only slightly modified from Inoculum 53(2): 4-8. April 2002, most likely with web enhancements. Materialscientist (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK bot crash

Some update happened at system level about 9 hrs or so ago. That crashed editcount tool and the owner had to adjust the code to fix that. I suspect for the same reason DYK bot failed to start at last 2 updates. Users Ameliorate!, PeterSymonds and Nixeagle could help, but are not very active these weeks. Ideas? Materialscientist (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note on PeterSymonds's talk. I can't see anything on the toolserver email list that corresponds (timewise), but I'll keep an eye out. Shubinator (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is the thread about editcount. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, interesting. If it's something on the code level that's gone bad, we're out of luck. PeterSymonds doesn't have access to the code, and Ameliorate! and Nixeagle haven't edited at all recently. Shubinator (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
PeterSymonds says it won't start. Shubinator (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid that's it for our bot. :( So what should we do? Perhaps ask at the bot requests page whether someone is willing to take over the task? DYKadminBot's old code is still available somewhere and might be used as a start by a willing operator. Ucucha 04:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I can probably code another one. I don't have much time now, though; I can start working on it over the weekend. I do have a head start from DYKHousekeepingBot's code. Getting a toolserver account will also take a while. Shubinator (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Before reading this, I have reposted a tweaked version of the previous request by SoWhy. The previous request was fruitless. Shubinator would be an ideal candidate for the bot writer/operator; the issue is important and I won't hope for miracles. These days, I'm Ok to run 3 updates/day manually, unless noted. The update of 6pm UTC is impossible for me. Materialscientist (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well this sucks. I haven't been active here lately, but ping me if you need an update anytime. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll likely be able to do the 6 pm update tomorrow and Thursday. Shubinator, it would be great if you could run a DYK bot in the future. In the meantime, we'll have to do stuff manually. Ucucha 05:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
True, it would be great. I suggest you request an account on toolserver as soon as you can, so you have it ready once you can start working on it. Regards SoWhy 12:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that someone contact the admins willing to participate so those who are less active at DYK (like myself) will make efforts to pitch in until this is resolved. The older admins like me are used to doing this manually and probably are fairly proficient. I would do the contacting, but I have to leave now. Royalbroil 13:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I can also help - used to do it by hand and can pitch in as needed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lonicera nitida

My hook for Lonicera nitida was moved back to the template talk page from the prep area just because one person doesn't understand the hook. Should I change it to ...that Lonicera nitida is at the Osborne House? Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the problem was that the hook did not contain enough information to concisely make its point known. It read as the plant was clipped to form deer, which unfortunately, really doesn't make too much sense in itself. Looking at the article, I believe you meant to state that the plant is cliped to form curved turf shapes in the shape of deer. Kindly Calmer Waters 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I was that "one person"; Joe Chill, feel free to just name me here. I could only make sense of the hook after I read the source, and have now re-written the relevant sentence in the article and proposed an alternative hook at T:TDYK#Lonicera nitida.
In general, I think it is an excellent reason to return a hook to the suggestions when someone does not understand it; after all, hooks should be understandable for everyone, and it is often possible to fix such problems. Ucucha 23:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to say a name because I thought that it might come across as an attack to someone if I did. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Next update

at 6:00 pm 16 Feb I am offline and the bot might not recover (10-15 min. is a max time for him to wake up). Thus after 6:10, would any admin please copy the hooks from queue 5 and paste into the current hooks at T:DYK. Just in case, if unsure about other steps (queue count, timer, credits), it would be fine just to leave them be - I can fix that later, before the following update. Materialscientist (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll be available. Ucucha 12:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Ucucha 18:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I probably won't be available to do tomorrow 6 pm UTC update, so we need another admin for that. You can follow the instructions of Materialscientist above (including copying from queue 5). Ucucha 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I will do this Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Ciudad Juárez hook

I have removed this hook from T:DYK:

Tom Mix

Ben Viljoen says nothing about his father/grandfather, and Giuseppe Garibaldi II says that he fought in the revolution and was original Garibaldi's grandson. Battle of Ciudad Juárez, the bolded article, says that Viljoen was Garibaldi II's son. And why is grandson linked to Garibaldi II's article? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed, read again, it is "Ben Viljoen" and "the grandson of Garibaldi". Materialscientist (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
OH, that makes so much more sense now. The construction of that statement made me think "grandson of Garibaldi" was referring to Viljoen. Perhaps this hook would be better clarity-wise?

... that the grandson of Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Boer general Ben Viljoen, and future Hollywood Western star Tom Mix (pictured) fought for the rebel force in the Battle of Ciudad Juárez, part of the Mexican Revolution?

If you think so, let's add it to P1, as I took the bridge article hook from there. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Added and fixed the rest. Materialscientist (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry for the confusion. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for the confusion - never thought about it. Thanks for fixing it.radek (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Entirely rewritten articles

I think entirely rewritten aricles should also qualify. They are more or less new because they are completely different from old vers. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This inevitably raises a question of why the article was rewritten. If the past version was too bad then some reviewers can discard the old version and consider DYK as new article (but they don't have as we can't properly evaluate articles from all areas). If not then .. imagine the former author comes out of vacation around the DYK day and legitimately starts edit warring .. we surely don't want that. Materialscientist (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless the past version was completely rubbish, you'll inevitably incorporate the information there in your rewrite. You may reword it and present it differently, but it is still "already existing" material. Considering the massive amount of nominations it's not possible to review how much an article is new, so we use the clear guideline of fivefold expansion. As F2 says, that should be "... five times as much prose as the previously existing article – no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it...". Otherwise, all you will need to do is reword a whole article and nominate it as a "rewrite". ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think reviewers should be allowed a discretion on complete rewrites. We all know that there are plenty of articles out there that need thorough copy-editing and citations: I will hazard a guess that there are a million articles on enwiki that have no references at all. DYK is a reasonable tool to promote the improvement of such articles, and hence the encyclopedia as a whole: apart from anything else, it already exists so no one has to create a structure from scratch. The argument that "we've always done it this way so we're going to keep on doing it this way" is hardly convincing when you consider the development of WP since DYK was first created. Physchim62 (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But it does promote it through the 5x expansion rule. And if an article does not require 5x expansion there is always GA or FLC.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
True but there is a large gap of possible improvement from taking an article with the kind of unsourced, POV saturated mess that makes Wikipedia look bad to a full fledge, decent article and then taking it all the way to FA. There is a lot of benefit that comes to Wikipedia within that large gap and DYK can help fill that niche. Eventually I do believe DYK will need to embrace rewrites more and I suspect one of the ways will be holding them to around a 3x expansion versus a 5x for an article that started out much smaller. This obviously won't happen overnight but as the culture of DYK shifts towards promoting more quality oriented articles (which it clearly has already shifted towards with full article citations, etc), this is the next natural step of that evolution. AgneCheese/Wine 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
An adjustment on the 5x expansion rule is certainly a possibility.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I've thought a rule that either a fivefold expansion, or a significant expansion to an article that was already fairly large; would make more sense than a strict five-fold expansion. An article that is already 20,000 characters long does not need a fivefold expansion; but bringing it to 40k would still be gracious plenty work. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I almost added something similar above.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Entirely rewritten articles can go to GAN. They're not what DYK is for. No one will die if they don't get a DYK for their work. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course no one will die if they don't get a DYK! But what is so special about new articles? Simply the fact that DYK has always worked like that? Already, Did you know? is far too often Did you care?, a simple award for editors rather than a tool to improve the encyclopedia. That can be seen in the number of readers who actually chose to click on a DYK blurb, compared with the clicks on surrounding main page areas. If DYK is incapable of accommodating a few article rewrites into its structure, then it is completely unworthy of the main page space it is currently occupying, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
As Rjanag said - improved articles are for GAN. We can't endorse rewrites for DYK because it would encourage people to do unnecessary rewrites just so they can get a DYK sticker and their handiwork on the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I honestly don't think there is such a thing as an "unnecessary rewrite". No one is ever going to try and rewrite the American Civil War just to get a DYK but someone may try to rewrite an article like Industrial warfare (22kb prose) which certainly would benefit from a complete overhaul. Really any rewrite of a poorly referenced or POV saturated article is a necessary rewrite which Wikipedia will only benefit from its encouraging. Again, as I noted, DYK has been making deliberate strides this past year towards focusing more on quality. Why? Because it is for the good of Wikipedia to encourage better articles. Encouraging rewrites of articles like Industrial warfare, even if it may only be a 2-3x expansion, is the next natural step of DYK's evolution. AgneCheese/Wine 20:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to extending DYK to improving crappy articles. "Rewrite" is probably not the best word; I'd rather focus on articles that are (for example) completely unreferenced. But it's going to be complicated, and I am not sure whether we'd be able to handle it logistically. Ucucha 16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Logistics is always the problem. Unlike 5x expansion, there's no objective way to measure "improving" an article. If an article is totally unreferenced, how many references need to be added to constitute a "rewrite"? If the prose is terrible, how much copyediting needs done? If the article is full of OR, how much of it needs to be trimmed? To the best of my knowledge, the only cases in the past where we've allowed rewrites are when the previous version of an article was complete copyvio (literally copy-pasted from somewhere), and even then it's often caused an extended discussion for just one article. With a 100-200 noms on the suggestions page at any given time, there's simply no way an extended review could be done for all of them. Plus, since there would be no objective guideline, when reviewers make the inevitable subjective decision ("this article isn't improved enough yet" or whatever), nominators would throw a fuss and come here and take up even more time. It's simply not a workable proposal, even if the spirit of it is good. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If we do this, we should probably simultaneously bump the length requirement up to 2000 or 2500. For rewrites, we'd need a bright-line rule. One example I can think of is going from an article without any references to a fully or nearly fully referenced article. That doesn't seem unworkable to me. Ucucha 21:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not a bright line, though; that's subjective. What is "fully referenced"? One reference per paragraph (see the numerous discussions that have been had about a "one-ref-per-para" rule)? One reference per sentence? One reference per thing that needs to be cited (and who determines what constitutes one "thing that needs to be cited")?
And, that is all beside the point... once you get to a point where you're reviewing an article in that much depth and trying to decide if it's "fully referenced", you're doing a GA review. GA is for identifying quality articles; DYK is for identifying new articles (as long as they meet some minimum quality bar). If something is greatly-improved quality material but not new material, it belongs at GA. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. It is too much to ask of reviews, I think, to evaluate a "rewrite" that does not have clear parameters for inclusion as the 5x does. Should we have criteria a la GA that the rewrite is NPOV, has satisfactory referencing, covers the subject broadly, etc.? Too much burden on reviewers, I fear. DYK has been remarkably uncontentious lately, compared to the olden days. Hate to see that change. —mattisse (Talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a point about the contentiousness which should serve as a word of warning for the "pro-rewrite crowd" (including myself). Encouraging more rewrites will undoubtedly force DYK to narrow it selection to truly interesting hooks and quality articles. The days of featuring mundane hooks from 2000 bytes new articles about obscure politicians or athletes will be less because when you suddenly have an influx of several high quality articles, it is harder to find time to review and feature the lesser offerings. Our current DYK burden comes from the desire to make sure that most every eligible new article that passes the criteria gets featured, even if the hook is boring. That desire is why we sometimes have 10 day+ backlogs. From some perspectives, DYK only picking the cream of the crop would be a great side benefit of allowing more rewrites. But as someone who has been nervous before about the contentiousness that will come with using subjective "interesting/boring" standards for DYK selection, I admit that is my only worry about encouraging rewrites. AgneCheese/Wine 21:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has done a fair few rewrites, I don't think DYK is the place to include them. I think 5x expansion works just fine, and from time to time it's motivated me to a massive expansion of an article, a few of which have then gone on to GA or FA. At the moment reviewing a hook is reasonably straightforward, with DYKcheck and a fairly rapid read through the article. If rewrites are permitted, the whole DYK thing becomes more confused and moves it more towards a sort of sub-GA review. Secondly, the whole idea of DYK is to encourage new submissions or substantial expansions, so every eligible article should go through and the backlog now will be nothing compared to what it will become if every rewrite has to be trawled through - just look at the backlog on GAN, where articles are usually not picked up by an interested reviewer for quite some time. I also tend to dip in and quickly review a DYK submission when I have a few minutes to spare but not the time/access to references to write stuff; that would not be so easy if I was reviewing for a rewrite. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As an editor uninvolved in DYK except to nominate the occasional article – some of which have been turned down – I'll offer my opinion that expanding the remit of DYK in the way being proposed here would be an absolute and unmitigated disaster. If DYK becomes a GA-lite then it will die, just as GA will if it becomes FA-lite. Each process has different goals, and DYK's goal, rightly or wrongly, is to encourage the writing of new articles and the expansion of small ones. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To sum up:
FOR:

  • Good development for DYK
  • Encourages rewrites

AGAINST:

  • Makes DYK sub-GA
  • Difficult to review

As nom, here are my points:

  • I would define 'completely rewritten' as follows:
    • Content tripled
    • References tripled (if the previous version has unsufficient refs; in case of no refs at all, I say at least 2 more)
    • No overlapping sentences with original EXCEPT for the 1st sentence of the lead section
    • Appropiately linked - introduced good links and removed bad ones
    • Suits the naming convensions (including that for sections)
    • In other areas other than those mentioned, similar to the DYK.
  • Sometimes, articles that used to be trash can be completely rewritten so it's, well, another thing. The old one may contain POV disputes, inappropiate tone, bad section names, etc. If all these are settled in the new section, but the article is still, say, C-class or start-class and doesn't qualify for GA, then why not DYK?

Kayau Voting IS evil 02:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So basically we are going to make it a threefold expansion rather than fivefold? And how do we measure "insufficient refs"? An article, although badly written, may already have enough references. "No overlapping sentences" means you just change the words a bit. "Introducing good links and removing bad ones"; how do we measure that? You do realize the amount of work that will take, don't you? "Suits the naming conventions" is a requirement for all articles here, and something that is obviously expected from a DYK article already. In short, I'm not sure how this would improve the quality of DYK articles (it seems to me like it will be reduced even further) or how it would make the reviewing process easier (which seems to me closer to a GA review, in which case even fewer people will be willing to do it). ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Chamal, I see the problems. As a reviewer, I don't want to have to check all this- it takes me a couple hours to do a through GA review (Though I haven't done enough to get efficient at them), and around a minute to do most DYK checks. Too many of these suggestions are function creep, instruction creep, or both. While I personally would be fine with taking 2x or 3x expansions for articles that were already of a good size; no change at all is preferable to some of the suggestions that turn DYK into a glorified B-class review; which some of these suggestions would do; and which the current team of reviewers would have little chance of keeping up with at a 32-a-day pace. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the gist of most of these "rewrite proposals" is to essentially have a 2-3x bar for rewrites of articles that are already in the 10,000+ size. Anyone who is doing that substantial of a rewrite is most likely already going to be improving the kind of things Kayau is suggesting. I think we can keep reviewing simple by just lowing the 5x mark for larger rewrites. AgneCheese/Wine 04:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
That is what we are in fact already doing; we regularly make exceptions to the 5x expansion rule for large and good articles. Formalizing (and perhaps expanding) such an exception may be good, but would also make the rules more complex. Ucucha 04:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
"References tripled" disturbs me quite a bit. It sounds like something that would encourage ref-puffery—either adding lots of pointless sources (passing mentions, duplicates of other refs, etc.) or adding multiple footnotes to every trivial claim. References should be used where they're needed, for the sake of improving the article; they shouldn't be used for the sake of satisfying some arbitrary requirement. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
That's what WP:IAR is there for. If a very large article is a few hundred characters short of a 5x expansion, there's no problem with it getting passed. On the other hand, nobody tells us to pick a 10,000 character article and try to go for a DYK with it. These should be treated on a case by case basis, and there's no need to make DYK even more obscure by adding more rules. It wouldn't really be fair either IMO. Can we reject a nomination where a 9,000 character article was taken to 40,000 characters, but pass a nomination of a 10,000 character article that was taken to 30,000 because we have different limits for them? That's just going to create more problems. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Next update and error

I did the most recent update, but there was an error in Queue 5, which listed two editors for the article Titus Turner here, but neither of them wrote the article. I have given DYK credit to the actual main editor and apologize for the mixup.

Also someone else will need to do the next update at 0:00 UTC Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I should be around. Shubinator (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
One author was added by the true author. The name of true author was then chopped in some technical error. I'm watching 3 updates/day, but the update of 6pm UTC someone has to cover every day. Materialscientist (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Cuello was on DYK yesterday

Cuello is currently in Queue 4, however it already appeared on the main page yesterday. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I replaced it with another article of yours. Ucucha 20:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Simon Burchell (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It was I who promoted Cuello directly to the Main Page to adjust the column length. Somehow it didn't get deleted at T:TDYK, thanks for noticing that! Another example of how extra eyes help DYK operation. Materialscientist (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Olympics holding area

Once verified, we should maybe start utilizing the Olympic hooks and working them into the queues. Would hate to not use them until after the Olympics is over. I'll start a couple of review. Calmer Waters 03:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll start some tomorrow, and thanks. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Juanita Wilson

One of the articles I created/expanded for International Women's Day (March 8) is on the Main Page now. I don't mind but why or how did this come about? --candle•wicke 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably someone just made a mistake. Gatoclass (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Notified the promoting editor. Materialscientist (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It's right in the middle as well, thought it would have been an N9 "funny or quirky hook" for that day - oh well. --candle•wicke 02:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
No excuse, I missed the nom taken from special area; as to the quirkiness, IMHO, the last hook in the current set beats yours :-) Never stop improving :) Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion for the William Mudford hook

I just noticed that the William Mudford hook uses italics for the The Iron Shroud short story but quotes for the "Pit and the Pendulum". Wouldn't it be better for the sake of uniformity both stories to be in italics?

... that The Iron Shroud, written by William Mudford, influenced Edgar Allan Poe's writing of the "Pit and the Pendulum"?

Thanks. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it, but used quotes for both short stories, which I think is more conventional. Ucucha 03:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Great. Thank you very much Ucucha. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bradford Scobie

The February 8th nom for "Bradford Scobie" is stuck in limbo over one editor's well-meaning objection. I disagree with this objection and would be very appreciative if someone else would please take a look at this before it’s too late. Thanks very much. --Griseum (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But it is never "too late". --candle•wicke 12:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Knickerbocker Theatre

The article on the Knickerbocker Theatre in the next queue has been moved from Knickerbocker Theatre (Washington, DC) to Knickerbocker Theatre (Washington, D.C.). Someone needs to fix the link in the queue. Marylanderz (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I have just created The Iron Shroud, could this wikilink be added to the Mudford hook please? Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Added. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Iron Shroud/William Mudford DYK question

When I created the William Mudford article I was not thinking that I would create the The Iron Shroud article, so I used both articles in the same hook. Is there any way to create another hook for William Mudford (and I have a very good one in mind) so that I can use the present hook for the "Iron Shroud" article or is it too late in the day? Thanks. Alternatively can the "Iron Shroud" article be submitted again with a new hook? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 07:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We could convert your William Mudford hook into a double nom with The Iron Shroud bolded in it (the latter article satisfies DYK criteria). Is it Ok with you? Materialscientist (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
That's why I asked the experts. I would never have thought about it myself. Sounds fantastic. Thank you very much. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 07:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. I also tweaked the hook (in Q5) and wanted to add "a short story" somewhere, but couldn't figure out how. Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for all your hard work trying to help me and the great solution you suggested. It was a pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 07:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Childish issues again

Please comment on the last hook in prep2

... that pre-colonial sexual customs in the Philippines involve equation of dowries with female breast size, phallic piercing, and the use of penile adornments called goat's eyelashes?

keeping in mind practical issues: responsibility of the project for possible angry comments (the article is Ok, but wikilinks of the hook direct to images which some might find disturbing). Sorry for bringing this up again, but I feel in such cases a community (dis)approval is necessary. Materialscientist (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a tough one. The article is well written and presents the topic in a very tasteful, encyclopedic manner with no disturbing pictures awaiting the reader who clinks on that link from the main page. The article itself is "safe for work" and it should be featured in some way. But the other links in the hook are certainly more questionable. Any ideas for an Alt? Maybe just shorten it to the dowry based on breast size? AgneCheese/Wine 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that pre-colonial sexual customs in the Philippines involve equation of the size of a woman's breasts and the wideness of her hips with the price of the dowry?
That look like a decent hook? Although the article is fine, the links in the hook.... ew.... Not suitable for main page. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with either rewording of the hook or removing the actual wikilinks. Calmer Waters 02:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Alternatively, we can just delink the offending terms in the original hook. Ucucha 02:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
People will still look at them, but I'm not sure how this goes per WP:NOTCENSORED NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
NOTCENSORED is not, and never has been, relevant to what may or may not appear on the main page. Barring something from the main page is not the same as wiping it from the encyclopedia entirely. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. Didn't know how it applied as well as I should. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the hook is fine as is and doesn't need to be reworded. The linked articles don't have anything that someone wouldn't expect to see when clicking on them--if someone clicks "phallic piercing" they know what they're getting themselves into. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Rjanag YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Slight amendment to my previous comment: it turns out the two offending links go to roughly the same place. (One goes to a main article, the other goes to a summary section elsewhere that is linked to that same article with {{main}}.) Only one link to the article is necessary, so the hook can be amended—note that I'm only suggesting an amendment for redundancy/copyediting purposes, not out of some illusions of propriety. Also, FWIW, the link to the main article (which is the one that should be kept) doesn't directly point the reader to any images; a reader going to that article only sees images after scrolling down, so there is no "shock value" in the links themselves. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Let us be practical - this hook is also supposed to be quirky (as it is the bottom one). IMO, ALT1 by NativeForeigner fits there much better than the original hook, which is also unclear on what is equated with what. Materialscientist (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Have to concur with MS; NativeForeigner's revised hook is quirkier, and I think will play better on the main page, issues relating to linking to NSFW articles aside. (To be fair, anyone who clicks on any of these links should know what they're asking for.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that ALT1 is better. In addition to the arguments above, remember that our readers are not necessarily completely fluent in English, and may unwittingly click on words like 'phallic' not knowing what they mean. They would, needless to say, be in for a bit of a surprise. Marylanderz (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Phallic maybe not, but penile adornments could indeed trip someone :) Materialscientist (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK picture Pixelated Amr Bey

I just noticed that the hook on Prep Area 1, specifically the pictured Amr Bey is pixelated. Should this be the headline hook? Just looking at it, it doesn't look appealing. Comments? --TitanOne (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a reasonably good article, but with no suitable picture, unfortunately; thus I agree it hardly suits for a lead. Materialscientist (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know#Bloom_Energy

This one would be interesting to run early. Length and hook are already verified. It's a tech startup that was covered by 60 Minutes a few days ago and has $400 million in venture capital. They're doing a (pre-IPO?) media blitz and about to hold a press conference today with where Arnold Schwarzenegger will be in attendance. Their Wikipedia article was started three days ago, seemed like astroturfing at first but it's been cleaned up. They're very hush-hush about company secrets, but a writer from Wired found interesting facts from a patent they were awarded last year. It'd be really cool to get into DYK today. ;) Cheers, Durova412 16:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Adin Talbar hook query

This hook is currently sitting in Prep area 2:

I'm sure this is going to raise queries on the Main Page. Israel, at least the modern state of Israel, did not exist before 1948. --Bruce1eetalk 09:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The ref says (in German, Spiegel) that he was a national champion. Any suggestion how to call that nation? Palestine? Materialscientist (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mainz carnival

in Queue 5: I suggest to move the term (pictured) to Mainz carnival because the picture does not show the parade - a daytime event - but a different aspect of the carnival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Snakeflies

Always happy to see more biology on DYK, but what's the rap with all these snakefly posts? Have I missed International Snakefly Week? Complainer (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Any complaints about football, baseball or winter sports which we're having every other set (more to come :)? Can't reject them based on topic. Materialscientist (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I should write some rodents to make up for all those uninteresting snakeflies? Ucucha 12:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me, I find snakeflies are perfectly relevant, and am happy they replace some of the typical "did you know that Fellaberry Bridge is one of only seven covered bridges in Northern Fellahassy Country that has been painted red more than three times in its history?". I was just wondering what the occasion was. Complainer (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Kevmin (talk · contribs) has been writing a couple of those. Don't think there's any specific reason he is doing that now. Ucucha 13:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
While only partially related to rodents, I have to say I was quite happy to contribute to my team winning a local trivia night because I remembered from one of Ucucha's DYK that the Hunter-Schreger band pertained to tooth enamel instead of another body part. :) Kinda reminded me of all the good things that DYK can be for. :P AgneCheese/Wine 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Blimey—I thought some of my pub quiz rounds were esoteric :D Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Normally not so esoteric but they always tend to throw in 3-4 pretty tough Q's, which makes scoring on them big. This was worded "In certain mammals, the Hunter-Schreger band is found in what part of the body?" They most likely would have accepted something close like the head or mouth but thanks to remembering Ucucha's DYK, I was able to nail teeth. :) And I'm not even the "science person" on my team. :P AgneCheese/Wine 18:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I am glad (and very surprised) my articles are useful in this way. Ucucha 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
That beats the most esoteric pub quiz question I remember; "How long is the Statue of Liberty's nose?" (And they wanted it to the inch!) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

April Fools' day

I went ahead and added the April Fools' Day section to the end of the suggestions page if anyone is interested helping to create and/or place 32 quirky articles to present for the April 1st. Any takers? Calmer Waters 06:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. Ucucha 03:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I changed the nominating section to address that page to prevent the possible forking of suggestions. Calmer Waters 03:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}} Please add <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags to the {{Pp-template}} protection template, because this page is transcluded on non-protected pages as well, causing an error category.. Debresser (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly? On T:DYK, that template is already within noinclude tags. Ucucha 20:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with 12:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"... that Nicholas If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon is considered a pioneer of fire insurance in England?"

should read,

"... that Nicholas Barbon is considered a pioneer of fire insurance in England?"

Would someone be so kind as to fix this? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.41.99 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:DYKA is an archive that we do not modify. Regardless, the hook was correct; it gave his full name because that is, well, hookier. Ucucha 02:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The article's author assured us that the cited book is a thorough historical study, and that the middle name of that person is a fact. Materialscientist (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

March 17

I added a section for this date. Can any Ireland-related topic be included? --candle•wicke 05:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as a ... yes? :) --candle•wicke 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Danish Bacon

The hook about Danish Bacon, currently in Prep 2, is incorrect and I was just in the middle of adding a comment when it was promoted. Taken literally it says that the bacon is sold in Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) but is packaged in the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) and this isn't right. Great Britain and the United Kingdom are not the same thing. -- BigDom 09:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is all sliced, packed and sold in the UK, but (I guess) to avoid repetition, the author put Britain in the first place. Why does this make the hook incorrect? Materialscientist (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Just because Britain is not the same as the UK. As far as I know, the bacon is sold in Northern Ireland so it's technically incorrect to say that it's only sold in Britain. -- BigDom 09:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The hook doesn't say "only", it says "that [the] Danish Bacon [which is] sold in Britain is sliced and packed in the UK? Materialscientist (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose so, but the way I read it implies that it is only sold there, and I bet many others will read it the same way when it's on the main page. However, since I can't think of any alternative suggestions we may as well leave it as is. -- BigDom 09:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I rephrased it to avoid this issue [10]. Ucucha 14:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Henry Bracy hook in queue 5 needs context

Re ... that Henry Bracy was one of the most popular comic tenors of the Victorian era?

Shouldn't the Henry Bracy hook in queue 5 state that he was Welsh for context?

... that Welshman Henry Bracy was one of the most popular comic tenors of the Victorian era? —mattisse (Talk) 14:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I think "Victorian era" already implies he was British, and we don't really need to specify that he is Welsh. Ucucha 15:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the following hook. It is an Italian industrial rock band. Shouldn't it mention they are Italian, especially as I think Italian industrial rock bands are rare?

Also the hook is not entirely supported in the article, as the source for the hook does not mention Gigahearts nor say that they increased their popularity in America as a result. (I was paying attention to this hook and supplied an alt hook, as this one was not supported in the article. The alt hook was verified, but not this one, last I looked.)

—mattisse (Talk) 15:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I verified that article, but I verified the alt hook, not that one. It looks like someone grabbed the wrong hook. Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I replaced it. Thanks for picking that up :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Q1 hook on Lee Seung-Hoon

Is "converted" the appropriate word to use here? To me it sounds like he joined a different church. Ucucha 15:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I want my credit for the DYK since I've added more than half of contents.[11] --Caspian blue 23:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Added. Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Another in Q3:

This sounds like the Swiss would have had to forfeit. Any suggestions for a rewording? Ucucha 15:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Does that work for the second? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe Spain could have played with 5 no matter what. Materialscientist (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of |right

According to WP:ERRORS and this edit, some browsers apparently break the layout of the Main Page when |right is used in images. I just deleted all uses of it in T:TDYK; we should make sure it is avoided in the future. Ucucha 15:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no one is supposed to be using that. {{NewDYKnom}} automatically puts the images in the proper formatting, but sometimes people add images manually later and do it wrong; I used to just make sure I changed them when moving them over to Prep or when I commented on that particular nomination. Perhaps the instructions can be made clearer somewhere. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I added something to one of the Learning DYK pages. We might want to extend Template:Editnotices/Page/Template talk:Did you know to instruct people to use {{NewDYKnom}}. It makes life easier when doing updates. Ucucha 15:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Now we're on the subject of NewDYKnom, I've noticed a lot of people don't include a caption for their images, which is quite a nuisance. Is there some way this problem could be addressed? Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and planned on noting this here sometime. I think we can tweak {{NewDYKnom}} so that it says something scary when no caption is given. Ucucha 16:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it should be pointed out that people with difficulty seeing, use these captions to find out what the pictures show (e.g. If they have a text to speech machine). Certainly in the UK and the USA we are legally obliged to do all that is "reasonable" to allow disabled people to access web site including be able to "see" the images. I cannot believe people are not willing to make this small contribution to allow others to access life easily. Victuallers (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
By "caption" do you mean alt-text or rollover text? (Both are issues...alt-text because of accessibility, and rollover text because some people think lacking rollover text is unprofessional.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I mean rollover text. Most people just seem to ignore that field. Gatoclass (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Oh wow, I just noticed the template doesn't even have a facility for adding alt-text at all, which means it would need to be entered manually by the promoter every time. That's pretty bad...I'm surprised I hadn't gotten complaints before. (To be honest, I thought I had...but the template talk page looks like it doesn't even exist. I could have sworn there used to be lots of stuff there.) I added an |alttext= parameter for this, and will update the documentation shortly.
I also added some red messages to show up and remind people to fill in rollover and alt-text, per Ucucha's suggestion. Looks like this (scroll down) when used. The template automatically generates <!--Insert alt-text here--> and messages like that, so people should be able to understand where to put the stuff. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, we'll try that for a while and see if it improves things. Thanks for the quick response :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if the new bot could alert if "right" is found (100x100px is not found, etc) in the update - I don't believe people would stop putting incorrect (for the main page) operators at T:TDYK, I see it every now and then. Materialscientist (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the bot could theoretically check for this (as well as other common problems, like spaces before question marks, no spaces after the ellipsis, (pictured), etcetera. In fact, it might be good to have a bot running at T:TDYK to do such checks. But let's first wait for DYKupdateBot to get fully at work with its first job. Ucucha 22:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I would think that elimination of a string like |right should be doable from NewDYKnom itself. Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the issue, though, is people using the template to nominate an article without an image, and then coming back later an adding an image by hand, just using the |right and stuff like that. This problem doesn't happen from within the template (if someone tries it, I believe it causes some nasty and in-your-face formatting errors), it happens when people try to add images manually later. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I didn't think of that possibility. I guess we'd need a bot then, as per Ucucha's suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pig Day

Am I too late for a last-minute pig day nomination? If not, see British Landrace under Feb 27 nominations. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 17:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lardon is another that was missed. I'm not going to load them into the queue, because I'm about to log off, but maybe someone else can help out. Gatoclass (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't looked at anything yet, but the problem is that we've got too many noms for the pig day, and I was putting two per set; a third would be too many, IMO. Materialscientist (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. It can wait & go in as normal.--BelovedFreak 00:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we could have comfortably gone with three or even four a set. Although I was initially opposed to the National Pig Day "special day", it's become clear over the last couple of years that there are a group of editors who are quite enthusiastic about this topic, and if it encourages the creation of new content that is a good thing for the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I personally have no particular interest / enthusiasm for the topic but got a sudden urge to write the above article when I saw that most of the Pig-day related DYKs seem to be about eating the things, which I thought was a little unfair! I really don't mind whether it goes in today though or after the usual timespan. It's a pity there's not equal enthusiasm for other dates like St. David's day which I didn't realise was today until I went on google about 10 minutes ago. --BelovedFreak 10:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Some were rather interesting. The problem was having "bacon" in every hook. Also, I am not a big fan of last-minute nominations - the longer it stays, the smaller are chances for blunders (which happen anyway :). Materialscientist (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Eek! Help! Welsh emergency

Help! I've just realized today, March 1st, is St David's Day, the National Day of Wales! Can Welsh art, in the Feb 27th noms, be hustled into today's main page, at least in time for the Patagonian Welsh? Expansion & referencing continues, but there are enough refs already - certainly enough text. We don't seem to have any other Welsh articles I can see. Many thanks if it can possibly be done! Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hook selection

I've noticed on a number of occasions recently that updaters are selecting hooks that have not been verified or which have been superseded. Please don't just grab any hook in a section where you see a green verification icon - scan the thread to be sure you are selecting the right hook and not an outdated or unverified version. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would also help if nominators/reviewers could strike-out outdated/superseded hooks. --Bruce1eetalk 12:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but one can never be sure everyone is going to do that, so if updaters start relying on that instead of scanning the thread themselves, it will continue to be a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Another thing that helps (again, on the reviewer's side, to make the updater/promoter's job easier) is to specify which ALT you're verifying. e.g., instead of saying "{{DYKtick}} verified!", say "{{DYKtick}} ALT3 verified". Just a minor thing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I always do that, but even that has been ignored once or twice lately :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Prep2

Need a comment on a hook in prep2, which I would otherwise return to T:TDYK

I would send it back to T:TDYK for rewriting if I were you. I did track & field for 6 years and even I find this hook boring. The numbers are, of course, impressive (certainly higher than I could jump) but not enough to really pop off the page, and the fact is entirely normal--every athlete beats some personal best for the first time at some point. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot at BRFA

I've finished coding DYKUpdateBot, and it's now at BRFA. It does everything that DYKadminBot used to do, with some improvements. Many of DYKadminBot's errors won't appear in DYKUpdateBot (like not archiving, not noticing {{DYKnom}}, not following redirects, tagging example credits, tagging nonexistent users, omitting characters if $ appeared, etc). I've also added a feature: DYKUpdateBot will tag DYK images/files with {{DYKfile}} (like {{dyktalk}}). Anyways, the code's here if you want to check it out. Shubinator (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That is wonderful! Let me be the first to say Thank you. Calmer Waters 05:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Great! Ucucha 12:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't believe it! This is too good to be true. I'll believe it when I see it :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For the next update (and only the next update), please leave the credits (article and user credits) to DYKUpdateBot. Shubinator (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific: do you mean 6am 22 Feb update? How the bot will pick up the credits (should we keep the queue untouched until he completes ?) I am available to do the remaining part of the update, but wouldn't it be better if you handle it yourself? Materialscientist (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I mean the 6am 22 Feb update (the one in 3 minutes). The bot's reading the queue from my sandbox, so you can just do the update as you normally would, but without doing credits. I can do the update if you want. Shubinator (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. Just not to step on the toes, I can update the main page so that you can focus on the bot. Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Something didn't go quite right, so I'll manually do the credits. Too tired to debug now. Shubinator (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow Shub, that was fast. I think that everyone should give you a simultaneous hug. :) Thanks man. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, don't start celebrating just yet. Still got some bugs to iron out. Shubinator (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's try this again. Leave the credits to DYKUpdateBot for the update in 22 minutes. Shubinator (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That looked good. The bot hanged at the end while trying to tag the file because the filename had two spaces. I'll code in stability for this condition later. In the meantime, I'll leave the bot running in my sandbox, but with credit tagging off (except for file tagging, since that hasn't been tested yet). Shubinator (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I'll also leave file tagging off; the bot was hanging because it couldn't edit the protected file. Shubinator (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Today's update was already good. Indeed, stability is important and we can think about possible scenarios of crashing the bot, such as extraneous space chars in various places, edit conflict at the nominator talk page, a temporal glitch at the toolserver, article moved after credit lines were written, etc. Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
K, let's do another full test run. Please don't distribute credits at 00:00. Shubinator (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the file tagging part of the bot, and right now it doesn't fit together with everything else. Tagging a c-uploaded image doesn't achieve anything since the image will be deleted later. I could, however, program the bot to delete the outgoing image if it's tagged with c-uploaded and doesn't have previous revisions, and then tag the image. This would reduce the workload on admins since they wouldn't have to deal with deleting uploaded images. Thoughts? Shubinator (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would support that if it is technically possible. That is bot deletes image after it is off the main page, provided it is tagged and has no past history. Sometimes the uploaded image is a c-uploaded crop made for DYK only; then deleting it creates a minor problem with archiving, but this isn't the bot's fault, and has to be fixed manually anyway. Materialscientist (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
If there is not an identically-named file in Commons, or if the file is not identical to the version in Commons, or if there is no {{c-uploaded}} tag, then of course the image should not be automatically deleted. PleaseStand (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't easily check for the files being the exact same, but the bot would delete if 1) the file existed on both en.wiki and commons under the same filename, 2) the file was tagged with c-uploaded, and 3) there were no revisions prior to upload. Shubinator (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to our newest admin, DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs)! Now all we need is Shubinator turning it on (I hope). Ucucha 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Up and running. Shubinator (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Great, that went well! (Except for the double tagging on one of the pages, which you corrected.) Ucucha 06:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep. I'll try and make a guide sometime. I've changed a few inputs for the bot: it reads from Template:Did you know/Queue/Next and User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates instead of the previous User:DYKadminBot/count and User:DYKadminBot/time. I'll run around the templates retargeting everything. Also, DYKUpdateBot will output errors to User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors; hopefully this will make it easier on you guys to debug if I'm not immediately available. Shubinator (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice work :-) Should we block DYKadminBot (talk · contribs) to avoid conflicts in case it comes back online for some reason? Regards SoWhy 11:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It also needs to be desysopped. Somebody from BAG can request that at meta. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Donald Wiseman & Bluebell in Fairyland

Guys caught the articles Bluebell in Fairyland and Donald Wiseman as having been approved for DYK by Trowbridge tim as "Accepted in Good Faith". Can anyone help me verify these articles? --TitanOne (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Both were created by experienced users, I think we can trust them to be okay. Regards SoWhy 21:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I find them adequate too, well based on the editors who created them. Anyone else care to sign-off on the hooks? --TitanOne (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Checked both article they seem to check out just fine, will now resume hook at AGF. --TitanOne (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK Hoax

See [12]. 4k views for a trainwreck BLP hoax. Ouch. 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HH Nobody (talk • contribs)

WP:POINT. There used to be a project page for people to do stuff like this and try to trick editors. It was shut down. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It may be WP:POINT, but it is a valid point nonetheless. I was the first to review this article at T:TDYK, but put the article on hold due to lack of inline cites. I didn't give the article a thorough review at the time because of this (saw no sources at first glance, so didn't look further). I guess the BLP problems could have been avoided if I had. After that I was busy and didn't get to take a look at the article or nomination until it was passed. So its partly my fault I guess. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Here it was promoted. I even get mentioned in the piece, for putting the update with this hook on the Main Page [13]. I guess it means we should remain vigilant on possible hoaxes. Ucucha 02:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure we should, (and I only glanced through this), but what I see is (i) There is no way to stop things like that - I could create DYK hoaxes which would go unnoticed for ages (ii) we are doing right and WP is becoming more important (iii) It is not the first attempt to paint WP in black (I saw a more serious one on global warming) - that is there are motivated individuals to do that - I don't know how damaging this could be though (i.e. potential legal threats) Materialscientist (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
As always, the BLP issue is the more serious one here (which could have legal implications for Wikipedia/Mediawiki in a real situation) rather than the hoax. The admins' workload will be reduced when the new bot starts running, so perhaps we could take a few minutes to check for any problems on at least the BLP articles before promoting them to the queues. That's not really a fail-safe measure though, and there's no way to completely stop this kind of thing, as Materialscientist said. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
(e.c) And we know that there are (won't say how) ways that anyone can sneak hoaks around. Sad someone feels they need to perpetuate a problem we all know exist. Another person taking WP:POINT into their own hands. Hope they read this as they give themselves a pat on their back. They did nothing but do the thing they so call are against. Calmer Waters 03:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Let us get practical, and, as Chamal mentioned, restrict BLP requirements with respect to WP:RS referencing. This story might be used as a justification (for complaining nominators). If somebody notices other WP departments issuing a policy stance on this, it can be added to support this measure. Comments on that? Materialscientist (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was a hoax perpetrated by someone with an intimate knowledge of the inside workings of Wikipedia, it could not have been done otherwise.

I also note that the article was approved in spite of several concerns raised by others, by User:Trowbridge tim, a user with only 13 total edits to T:TDYK. A look at Trowbridge tim's other edits suggests this user may be a dedicated "hoaxer", having created several articles (some of which have been featured at DYK) on sensationalist topics, all of which are sourced to offline refs. At the very least, I think his contributions need a closer look. Gatoclass (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is quite interesting that the editor's first edit was [14]. Not what one would expect from a new user and all account edit seem to be directed towards DYK article creations through would like to AGF. Nice observation. Looks like User:NuclearWarfare has attempted to reach out to User:HH Nobody, that seemed to have quite the understanding of the Meta aspects of the site. Maybe a checkuser could help shed some light ;) Calmer Waters 06:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I am also suspicious; I haven't been able to find confirmation for any of his articles (The Shoe Dog, Lulsley Court scandal, Dancing Hare, Ham font) in online sources. I am inclined to G3 them. Ucucha 06:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I started a thread at AN/I. Gatoclass (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
PS. how did what should be a non-confirmed user create a new page? Am I missing something? Calmer Waters 06:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
New users can't upload files. See Special:ListGroupRights. Killiondude (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Trout slap for me :( Thanks Killiondude. Calmer Waters 06:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest from this point that reviewers pay particular attention to submissions from new or unfamiliar accounts which lack online sources. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We also had newcoming reviewers in the past with inappropriate reports. This associated SPI case however suggests a motivated and knowledgeable individual, as the ANI thread indicated. Materialscientist (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mac (Doc) has suggested making changes to DYK process at ANI, here. Not sure that's the best venue to discuss, but I thought I'd let you know. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that we need some sort of restrictions. How about the admin promoting the hooks to a queue take a minute to take a quick look at the articles, and then another admin can add the {{DYKbotdo}} template to the queue after checking the articles again themselves? It would increase the workload, but it's simple enough to implement and would ensure a better review (at least until we can come up with something better). ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
As an occasional DYK contributor it strikes me that the bar is set pretty low for DYK contributions to make it onto the main page. There seems to be an expectation that, if a DYK submission is made, it will generally feature on the main page so long as it seems reasonably well referenced and of the right length. Obviously I know that a lot of hard work does go into checking and validating them, but apparently not enough as this episode shows. Should a higher standard - both of article content and degree of "interestingness" of the hook - be achieved before a DYK link is put on the main page? Is the flow of DYK articles too high - should there be much more weeding out of uninteresting / not particularly good articles at an earlier stage, so that those that are really worthy of consideration are vetted more thoroughly? Clearly more vetting is needed, of BLP articles in particular. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
"Degree of interestingness" is pretty subjective - I'm extremely interested in Mesoamerica for example, yet many people would view the archaeological sites that I find fascinating as boring piles of old stones. Likewise, I find many sporting articles to be of no interest to me but I accept that many people live for sport. So who decides what is interesting?
I'm not keen on everything being referenced to an online source - there is already systemic bias towards online sources. Many (indeed most) of my articles reference my fairly extensive real-world collection, some of these are reliable publications produced in developing countries that won't necessarily have been catalogued online anywhere. It seems that there is a general willingness to abandon the AGF concept without too much thought, based on the inevitable occasional hoax. A quick google should be enough to determine if the subject is genuine or not. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Not always. There are animal species that have never or almost never been mentioned on the Internet. Namibimys, for example, or Suncus hututsi. I could write an article on those using perfectly genuine print sources, but you would have a hard time verifying that the subjects exist—perhaps I also submitted them as a hoax to the few sites that do mention them. Ucucha 17:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This puts a lot of color in accepting edits in good faith. What's the guy trying to prove anyway? Any rule ammendment we can impose to prevent things like this from happening in the future? --TitanOne (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Just saw discussion on DYK control. Deserves a trout slap too. --TitanOne (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think all that can realistically be done is to continue AGF, and flag up any obvious hoaxes. There are hoaxes that have survived on Wikipedia for years before someone knowledgable enough has come along and said "Well, that's not right" and flagged it for deletion. It's true enough that not everything can be found with google (there are archaeological sites too that I have referenced in my books but that don't appear on the internet). So, realistically, what can be done? DYK is supposed to encourage people to write new material and tightening it up because of the odd hoax just doesn't seem the right way to go to me. It will do nothing except discourage writers and reviewers with more hoops to jump through. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
What about limiting reviewers to admins, rollbackers and autoreviewers? One of the problems of the hoax was that a sock approved the hook. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Too restrictive. We need the assistance of non-admins.
What we could do is have some sort of arrangement where only trusted users could verify BLP's. But mind you, this may all be taken out of our hands. The way the discussion is going at AN/I, that may well be the case. Gatoclass (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't Admins, Rollbackers, and Autoreviewers cover a large majority of DYK reviewers? (Rollback is trivial to get, but it does show at least a cursory vetting). Perhaps BLP's could only be approved with one online RS; how many living people that are notable have no web footprint what so ever? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Why not two reviewers for each hook? 82.41.26.17 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If a hoaxer is going to the trouble of creating sock puppets, as was apparently done in this case, the level of knowledge and effort required to create two socks is only trivially larger than that required for one. --Allen3 talk 19:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well even if this is an unwritten rule, most hook reviewers are Admins, Rollbackers, and Autoreviewers. What we need is a tool/notification/alert, when a new user or a user with only a few edits has approved a hook. What do you guys think? --TitanOne (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe changes in DYK isnt even the answer. Ive always felt that we needed some policy on existance as well as notability of an individual. Raw sources I suppose would be out of copyright from the 1800s/1700s they could be scanned as an image with appropriate aknowledgements for fair use if no online sourcing is available (Am i correct here or mistaken???) and if a source couldnt be verified offline by someone it wouldnt/shouldnt be promoted. There are even cases where sources can confirm notability of individuals who can be proven never to have existed as well. There are alot of issues with this that trickle into other things aside from DYK. Stray thoughts here though. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Potosi, Venezuela

Was the picture removed from Potosi, Venezuela, currently in queue 4, because it was not new?--Supertouch (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of nominations come with images, but we can't put all of those images on the main page. Usually, only the pictures that come with a suitably sized article (and of good quality) are chosen for the "lead hook". Also, in this case File:Uribantecaparo.jpg is missing source information, and may be deleted after a few days if that information is not provided. We can't put up an image on the main page when the source of that image is uncertain. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, image source was one problem. Another, we (better say I) expect the leading hook (one with a picture) to be an ample article on something which could be interesting to maximum number of people, and the last hook to be somewhat quirky. No slight to you at all, but Potosi, Venezuela is closer to a stub article, but it is a nice hook for the last position, IMO. Materialscientist (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Io image for Thor hook

In Queue 6, there is a hook for the Ionian Thor volcano. In the hook as it was originally submitted, I included a grayscale image of the volcano following its eruption in 2001, but this has been changed since the time it was in prep to here in the queue to a generic image of a full disk of Io that is not related to the hook as it doesn't even show the volcano highlighted in the hook. If a full-disk image of all of Io is desired over a specific image of the actual feature, might I recommend this image at right, which shows Thor during its 2001 eruption. --Volcanopele (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That was my No1 candidate. What stopped me is total lack of description of where is Thor and its activity there. That picture is treated as a fact, which should also be supported by reliable refs. Since we've got here, please go through other images and fix description, with refs. It is a great article, but at the moment, its images do give an impression as if a wikipedia editor, rather than NASA, said "its Thor out there". Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me on this. The paper discussing the Galileo SSI images of Thor, such as that low-resolution global image, was Turtle, E. P.; et al. (2004). "The final Galileo SSI observations of Io: orbits G28-I33". Icarus 169: 3–28. I have added a mention of the source (and explicitly said that the new eruption mentioned in the original caption which was written by the Galileo camera team before the feature was named) to the image in suggested above. I will add a similar description to the other images. Again, the issue seems to be that the name "Thor" was approved after these images were taken and they were released to the public by JPL. However, the description papers in Icarus were written and published after the name was given provisional approval by the IAU, so the name is used in those papers. --Volcanopele (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I have gone ahead and done the same thing to the other images used in teh article, plus I referenced the relevant papers where these images are discussed in the Thor article. --Volcanopele (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Updated the image. Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_54&oldid=1140163390"