Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 59

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

→

First time reviewer

Hi, I just reviewed my first hook, George Ballis, and intend to start helping out here. If anyone sees me messing up at all please feel free to let me know. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to DYK (and thank you!), Jo4n, and if you have any questions, just ask. cmadler (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Update regarding User:DragonflySixtyseven

Too much heat not enough light.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

After discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:DragonflySixtyseven_DYK_ban_proposal, recommend further talk with the user at user talk:DragonflySixtyseven, and possibly dispute resolution via Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Sanctions can be discussed again, if after consensus from RFC desired results not obtained and/or further disruption continues after that process. -- Cirt (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I hate to say 'I told you so', but I did say there was little point running to AN if we didn't first get consensus here about what to do regarding DS's behavior. (Actually I guess I don't hate to say 'I told you so'...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, like I said, there is always dispute resolution via Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm, who are you exactly to make such a comment? Please do not forget that your own conduct is hardly immune from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, just as for any other editor who choses to comment on this page. Physchim62 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this suggestion was originally proposed not by myself, but by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs), see diff. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And that the section on WP:AN was closed by Gatoclass (talk · contribs), not yourself... Physchim62 (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to note that I will be logging off shortly, and so won't be able to participate in any discussion with DS regarding his edits, but as an interested party I request that any agreement with DS not be finalized until I've had a chance to voice my own concerns along with everyone else. Gatoclass (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If I missed it all the postings on at least 3 different pages, please point me to a diff(s), but where in all this has DS conceded his view of "inappropriate" and "fiction tied to reality" is out of sync with the community's? I get the impression he still feels his view of this is all that matters and he seems to keep evading this core issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PS, if he removes one more approved hook I'll block him myself as at this stage that's just pouring fuel on the fire. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. DS still thinks he's removing "grotesquely-inappropriate hooks"? After all the examples of hooks he's improperly pulled against fairly clear consensus? It appears nothing has been "conceded" or resolved except that DS will be slightly more careful as he unilaterally yanks approved hooks that he'd otherwise ignored for a week or more. - Dravecky (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the place to settle this, not an RFC. This is primarily a DYK matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Healthy DYK hook nom count

I've been thinking a recent thread where we talked about the number of noms needed at T:TDYK for the pipeline to be healthy. Gatoclass said 180 on the noms page. I just noticed Oct 4, with 13 minutes to go, only has 15 noms. Keep in mind we now have 4 prep sets, not two, and they're generally full or almost full. With 9 hooks per set, that's 54 hooks, and 162 would give us three days. Likewise with 8 hooks per set, that's 48 per day and 144 gives us three days worth. Of course this is with all hooks getting approved in time. Now consider that it's 10 days appx for a nom to get to the main page. To me that's too long. I don't like days going to the pink or red zone. So I'm thinking the point where we need to go back to 8 hooks per set is when T:TDYK goes below 150 noms. That's my 2 cents. Thoughts anyone? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with assessment by Rlevse (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, personally I don't mind when it takes a couple of weeks for my DYK submission to make the Main Page, as long as it eventually gets there. When I have more free time I'm going to try to compile hit statistics for eight-hook DYK updates versus nine-hook DYK updates, to see if there is any significant difference between the number of page views for nine-hooks versus eight-hooks. –Grondemar 03:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Two hooks in queue

Is it just me, or should we really be avoiding colloquialisms like "dude" (Q5 last hook), even in an entry on surfing, on the main page? Not to mention that I had to reread this hook a few times to get it, there might be too little context in the hook.

Secondly, last hook in Prep 1 - does anyone else feel that mentioning the date of death is just unnecessary? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"dude" is no worse that "test" in all those cricket hooks. I still haven't figured out what a test in cricket is. I will remove the death date. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "test" actually refers to test cricket (as compared to, say, Twenty20). "Dude" here can easily be replaced with "man" or "statue" or "surfer"... Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed, but I am still confused about cricket. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have learned just about everything I know about cricket at DYK. I usually just wikilink the terms and words I don't know. I guess it is very familiar in other countries where it is popular.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording and the fact that it requires one to stop and read twice was why that particular hook was chosen. My preference was the more prosaic one, that it seemed, from events, that most people indeed didn't actually know. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Image in Q5

Crosspost from WP:ERRORS. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a picture currently in queue five, File:Javad alizadeh joking-on--amazing-formula.jpg, that we haven't received a valid license for. Admins, please remove the inclusion. We don't need to parade around our copyright transgressions on the main page. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It was already on the main page when I saw this. It has an OTRS pending but part is in Farsi. I've swapped it with another article and image in that set. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

150 characters?

I've seen a couple of recent comments to the effect that hooks must be at least 150 characters. Is this just confusion with the 1500-character article requirement, or is there actually a minimum hook length? 28bytes (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's confusion, as there is no minimum hook length requirement. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought, but I wanted to be sure. 28bytes (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know where people ever got that idea, but it's an idea that should be killed with prejudice. Personally, I believe that shorter is better when it comes to hooks, and I would venture to guess most people here feel the same. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with that, and as you say, "a hook with one interesting fact is better than a hook with two boring facts". However if a hook only has one boring (to me) fact, I often think that if a second fact can be included *briefly*, and introduces a contrast or other source of "interest", then it's better that way than just letting single-boring-fact through to the front page just because almost no-one rejects nominations on that basis alone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying, then, is that we need better hooks, and that better hooks are sometimes longer. True. What does that have to do with 150 characters? Ucucha 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a reply to Rjanag, as hopefully the indenting showed. Feel free to start a new section if it's especially important the distinction be made clear. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The backlog is shrinking

With most of the world's academic institutions operating at full strength right now, the production rate for new hook suggestions is tapering off again. Is it time to go back to 8 hooks in a queue? (Until December, when students go out on holiday again...) --Orlady (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not worried yet, it still takes 8-10 days for hooks to make it to the main page, even ones approved early. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I really think it's time we went back to 8 hooks. The burn rate has been quite fast over the last few weeks. Even if we go back to 8 hooks now, I have a suspicion we will soon be looking at cutting back to three updates a day the way things are going. Gatoclass (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with assessment by Rlevse (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is only about a week's worth of hooks right now including both the hooks in the queue and at T:TDYK - and that's assuming every single hook gets promoted. That isn't much at all. One needs a decent pool of hooks to create worthwhile updates, and time is required to properly review them. Winding back to eight hooks per update won't actually affect the state of play much in any case, but at least it's a start. Gatoclass (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see some of your points, but I don't think we're quite there yet IMHO. For one thing, I noticed last night Frida's Doom (sp?) approved a brand new hook less than an hour after it was listed, along with several other new ones, yet there are still some in the pink zone that no one has touched yet. This tells me we have enough noms still, ie, that people feel free to ignore so many noms for a week. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers always have the freedom of choosing which hooks they review, so your logic doesn't quite follow. If I were a newcomer, I would rather review hooks at the top of the pile because they're more likely to be easier to review. We shouldn't discourage reviewers from choosing; this would only decrease our reviewing manpower. Shubinator (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to work with older hooks; if it weren't for NuclearWarfare or Rlevse then I don't think I'd have the confidence to work in DYK. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:03am • 23:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Shubinator makes a good point. Eventually, these new hooks will become old hooks and they'll need reviews. Although it's preferable that people start with the older hooks and work their way up, hooks with issues can be daunting and I can understand why some people work from the top. Either way, if they're reviewing, they're helping to combat the backlog and I'm not complaining either way. Nomader ^(Talk) 00:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand the hooks with problems, but a ton of hooks get to the bottom without being touched. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:36pm • 06:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Reword hook in Q5

... that Peter Endrulat never played in the Fußball-Bundesliga again after conceding 12 goals for Borussia Mönchengladbach's record 12–0 league victory over Borussia Dortmund?

The above hook should probably be reworded; as it stands it makes it appear that Endrulat played for Moenchengladbach. Suggest the following:

... that Peter Endrulat did not play in the Fußball-Bundesliga again after conceding all 12 goals in Borussia Dortmund's record league defeat to Borussia Mönchengladbach?

Str Pby (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK and promotion of business entities

Has anyone ever discussed or proposed rules for DYK that would limit the promotion of entries about entities who clearly stand to gain from such promotion? For instance an author who has just published a new book, a company that does consumer business (perhaps launching a new product, etc.). Is there a more stringent vetting process for this kind of thing? I have to say that I've seen some examples of this recently, where the DYK is beyond trivia and really just calls attention to the economic enterprise of such entities, so I'm curious.Griswaldo (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give actual examples of DYKs that have been used? In general, I think as long as the hook is NPOV it's okay, such as "Joe Writer's book discusses social phenomenom blah" or such is okay but "Joe Writer's book is great, go buy it" isn't. Obviously the boundary needs to be somewhere in the middle. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me preface this by saying that I can see why entries related to contemporaneous phenomena (or recently notable people, companies, etc.) have a greater chance to end up in the queue by virtue of the fact that they will more likely have new entries. So I get that. It might be good to compare two hooks, both relating to something recent -- also, to be honest, one of these hooks is the reason why I posted here. See below (I've wikilinked only the relevant new articles). Did you know ...

"... that Elizabeth Turk was a Washington, D.C., lobbyist before she became a sculptor and was named a 2010 MacArthur Fellow?" (currently in queue 3)
"... that the TLC reality television series Sister Wives follows a polygamist family of four wives and 16 children living in Lehi, Utah?" (went live a couple of days ago)

The first hook is a current piece of trivia, related to not only Elizabeth Turk, but a very notable prize bestowed upon accomplished people. The hook is clearly NPOV and informative. I also wouldn't see this as promotional for Elizabeth Turk's art since I doubt the hook will have much if any impact on her notability, especially within the art world. The second hook, however consists of nothing more than the description of a brand new television show. It is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, that is without doubt, but it is, like any other new TV show (how many hundreds of these are there this season?) going to benefit greatly from any amount of promotion it gets. Main page on Wikipedia isn't so shabby. What business do we have promoting this new TV series and not others?

My involvement with the entry for the TV show stems from the fact that I edit marriage related entries, and watchlist them because of it. Before the show even aired someone plugged it into the main entry on polygamy, which is pretty absurd given the breadth of that subject, and the minuscule speck of a dot that "plural marriage in popular American culture" is the grand historical and cross-cultural breadth of the subject of polygamy. I'm mentioning this because maybe I was additionally sensitive to the fact that it got a DYK recently, I don't know. But this is as good of an example as any. There is clearly a gray area here, since anything that goes on the main page will receive more attention naturally, but this is why I wonder about the standards for inclusion. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that because of the abnormal nature of DYK (both in its "recently created" requirement and it's promotional effect), simply applying general entry policies and standards to the list doesn't make sense to me.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about the TV hook but I also think it's not blatant. I'd like to know what others think. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's the thin end of the wedge. Where do we end up drawing the line once we start banning articles because someone might benefit ever so slightly from them?

IMO our current system works fine. We only decline hooks and articles that are overtly promotional. I don't think we need to do more than that. Gatoclass (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK what do you consider overtly promotional? IMHO a TV show that is on episode 2 of its first season having a DYK hook that consists of a brief description of its subject matter is "overtly promotional". I also don't know what you mean by "start banning articles". Did you mean declining hooks? As you say you already decline hooks that are "overtly promotional". How do you determine what fits this bill? Are there any guidelines available for that? It would be helpful for me if you would at least respond regarding the example so I can understand if you agree or disagree that it was probably not a good hook to approve based on its promotional nature. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick glance at the article suggests to me that it's well written and NPOV. I wouldn't consider the article promotional because it includes a critical reception section that isn't all that complimentary. Gatoclass (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And the article is not promotional, but that's not what I was asking. Do you think the hook was promotional? I'm trying to discuss issues surrounding DYK hooks and not article content. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

From one point of view I agree it's promotional, in the sense that it's basically a bit of free advertising for the show. Possibly a less promotional hook could have been found. Quite possibly I would not have approved it for the same reason. Sometimes it's hard to get the balance right between an interesting hook, that makes you want to click the link, and a promotional one. In this case, I guess someone thought the notion of a reality show about a polygamous family was interesting and unusual enough to outweigh the promotional aspect. In any case, I think the important thing is that when you go to the article, it's well presented and NPOV. Gatoclass (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is of utmost importance to have well written and NPOV articles in an encyclopedia. I just wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea not to do things like, promoting brand new TV shows (at least 99% of them) to DYK, however well written their articles are.Griswaldo (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think you have a point. We could have done better on this one. I'll keep it in mind next time I find myself reviewing a similar hook. Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with your point of view, as I often have concerns about hooks for similar reasons. However, if we have a rule about hooks that can be seen as promoting recently released products, should we then also have another rule about hooks that can be seen as pushing a POV on a controversial topic area (climate change or Israel/Palestine, for example), another rule about exactly what level of "fictional" content a DYK hook can have, another rule about the extent to which hooks can consist of trivial sporting statistics, another rule about hooks only concerning trashy "pop culture" information, and yet another one about exactly how "interesting" a hook fact has to be and when hooks about obscure species or obscure warships satisfy that.

In all these cases, if there is a perceived problem with the hook, I think it's fine to raise it at the relevant entry at TT:DYK, and a concensus should then be reached - "well there isn't a rule against that" shouldn't be an automatic response. Options for dealing with a perceived problem, that any of us can take, include asking the nominator if they can provide an alternative hook, providing an alternative hook ourselves, re-writing the article for NPOV or other issues if necessary, putting forward the article at AfD if necessary, suggesting that the hook is not suitable for the main page at all, suggesting that the hook is not suitable for the main page on a particular date, and more.

In particular, it has never yet come to the point where a "proper" hook nomination has to be unreasonably delayed because there are too many "problem" hooks (whether promotional or political or sports trivia any other perceived problem area). Nor has it come to the point that any type of "perceived problem" hook dominates the DYK area on the main page, or makes the main page look bad or trashy. (Think about how it compares with, for example, the front page of a major broadsheet newspaper.) That's partly thanks to the people arranging the choice of hooks for each update, but also it's partly because most people are not writing hooks (or articles) that can be perceived as promotional, or as problematic in any other way. In fact, the variety of topics and styles of hooks continues to be extremely varied. Suggesting better hooks, or even challenging hooks, can help to keep it that way - or so I think - but it doesn't need extra rules at the moment.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, i'm confused, in the case of the television show, isn't your argument that, no matter the hook, if such a show is nominated for a DYK, it's going to get some promotion, so it shouldn't be let through? I mean, the hook isn't going to change the existence of the article on the front page and dumbing down the hook doesn't really coincide with our "make sure the hook is interesting" rule. What exactly are you arguing here? Silver seren^C 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Silver at whom is your comment directed? I don't think hooks like this ought to be dumbed down, I think they ought not to exist. The one EdChem has mentioned below is another good example.Griswaldo (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Another recent TV-promotional hook was:

... that Glee co-creator Ryan Murphy predicts that the upcoming episode "Grilled Cheesus" will be the "most controversial episode of the series to date"?

Now, this hook strikes me as fairly blatant advertising. But, the hook has qualified for Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#Non-lead hooks with over 11,000 views and received 18,400 views, so it clearly was interesting for a large number of people (and it received over 45,000 views the following day). Perhaps if hooks like these are highly popular, we should give them some slack despite being promotional (assuming the articles themselves warrant it). EdChem (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This example seems even more egregious than the one I brought forth. This type of hook, no matter what the intentions of the nominator or those who approved it were, is absolutely "blatantly" promotional. The piece of "trivia" in the hook consists of a mysterious comment made by the show's creator in order to drum up interest, in other words for the explicit purpose of promoting his enterprise. What does that mean for us? Hook, line and sinker folks. I am clearly not the only person who thinks this type of hook is promotional or tantamount to advertising for the show, but am I the only person who 1) thinks that it goes against core principles of Wikipedia to engage in such activity and 2) that something can be done to better prevent this type of thing?Griswaldo (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

One suggestion that occurred to me during this discussion was that it might be helpful to have a bot tag an entry that has been suggested to DYK when it is suggested and not only after the fact when it has been promoted. Alternately people suggesting DYKs could be tasked with the job of tagging the entries. This would mean that other people editing the entry would at least know about the suggestion. There could be DYKs that are controversial for all kinds of reasons and that would be spotted much more easily if such a practice were in place.Griswaldo (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYKexpand

I have a question about the {{DYKexpand}} template. It doesn't seem to exist, but a reference to it is created ~~every time the NewDYKNom template is subst:ed with an "status=expanded" parameter~~. Is there a particular reason for this, or is it just a template bug? 28bytes (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example? I can't find what you're talking about. There is no {{DYKexpand}} within the NewDYKnom template itself, and I just tried it and there is no reference to any such template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these templates are coming from {{NewDYKnom}}. They appear to be being added by User:Yoninah: [1][2][3]. I don't know why, given that they are probably going to break something if they make it into the queue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was about to list a couple of examples and they weren't there anymore. Thought I was losing my mind 'til I checked the edit history. 28bytes (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And yes, they do break the prep areas at least, I've copied in a couple of prep sets and had to manually change them after noticing the redlinks in the preview. 28bytes (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick fix would be (maybe) to make {{DYKexpand}} redirect to {{DYKmake}}. But if Yoninah is the only person doing this, then that probably won't be necessary if we just ask him not to do it anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend NOT creating such a redirect until a clear determination of how DYKUpdateBot would handle such a change is made available by the bot's owner. {{DYKmake}} is utilized by humans via template transclusion. The bot however reads and interprets the raw source code and adding this redirect would be the same as adding a new and undefined instruction. --Allen3 ^talk 06:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Allen3's spot on. The bot parses wikitext directly, so wouldn't recognize a {{DYKexpand}} redirect. It only recognizes {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}}. Shubinator (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I'm really sorry! I guess I misinterpreted what I read while I was trying to stick to the rules. On the New Nomination string I saw two different categories:

status = new

Then I starting noticing that the bot was inserting the "make" designation and adding, "Please make sure that these bot-generated designations are correct." So I changed them to "expand" if it was an expansion. I will certainly stop doing that. Yoninah (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd noticed this recently too and we have to manually fix them in the prep queues. DYKmake is used for both expands and new creations. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Query regarding hook currently on main page

There is currently a DYK know entry linking to Black people and crime in the United Kingdom. There are two problems with this. Firstly, the article was moved yesterday to Race and crime in the United Kingdom. Secondly, I don't think the hook had actually been approved at Template talk:Did you know. The last version of that page before the entry was moved to the prep area is here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The alt hook was approved and promoted simultaneously by User:Rlevse. I agree that it's not clear that consensus had swung around to approving either hook but the article is somewhat improved since it was first nominated. In any case, I have corrected the linked article to avoid the redirect from the old name to the current one. I am not going to yank it off the main page but another interested admin might feel more strongly that I do. - Dravecky (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary Rlevse provided with that diff shows he did approve it (and hence carried out necessary checks and exercised reasonable discretion in choosing to promote). I have recently asked about his practices for moving hooks to prep at User talk:Rlevse#DYK approval Question, and learned that Rlevse does carry out all missing checks before moving hooks. With the amount of work he does both at DYK and elsewhere, asking that he post an "approved" tick moments before moving a hook to prep seems pointlessly bureaucratic. So, I suggest we take note of the approval comment in the edit summary and consider that sufficient for indicating the necessary checks were completed. EdChem (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, that reassures me somewhat although I think that in cases where there has been considerable dispute, providing a fuller explanation of the decision to promote the hook might be a good idea. Thanks for fixing the link, Dravecky. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ed here. Of course, it's always preferable to leave a tick and wait for someone else to promote, if there's time (provides some checks & balances) but if you're racing the clock to assemble a new batch for the queue then you might need to take what you can get. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If I read it correctly, most of the opposition to the DYK was towards the first hook I proposed. After I changed the article and proposed a new hook (one I think another editor suggested), opposition to the DYK would be expected to drop. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, true, the hook that was eventually used was clearly less controversial than the original suggestion, which was what most of the opposition was directed towards. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the ALT was much more acceptable. I had no problem.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantata for Sunday (again)

Ringing the bell again for Sunday's Bach cantata, which should be in prep now in order to make it. In Bach's time the cantata was performed Sunday morning, smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In prep set, remind me if it looks like it won't make queue for 10 Oct, I'll move it up. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Should appear at 1pm 10 Oct UTC. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for admin help

Could an admin please fix the pic in Template:Did you know/Queue/5. Also, Template:Did you know/Queue/2 can now be updated from the prep area. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-standard image code has been replaced and Q2 has been loaded. --Allen3 ^talk 09:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

5x expansion and plot summary

I am fairly certain that we've had a discussion on whether a plot summary should be counted when judging the 5x expansion, but could anyone tell me what consensus we reached back then, if any? --BorgQueen (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

According to this archived thread, it appears to be counted. ("Furthermore, plot summaries exist and are counted.") --BorgQueen (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How to add a suggestion under Articles created/expanded on October 10

I'm not sure how I add a new subsection Articles created/expanded on October 10. I ask this because I'm unsure how I should push one of the earlier dates to older nominations. Can someone help? Mspraveen (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need to put an earlier date to an older date? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. What I meant is that I need to add a new suggestion for an article that was created on Oct 10. However, the hooks of Oct 4 should go to the "Older nominations" and so on. Right? So do I just create a new subsection for Oct 10 and forget about the rest? Mspraveen (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not Oct 10th, not even in UTC time. So nothing has been created yet on Oct 10th. Articles go under the date created UTC time. Older nom moves happen on their own. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Got it. Thanks. Mspraveen (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse beat me to it, but yes: if you're going to nominate an article created on October 10 right now, you will need a time machine. You may want to check with User:Shubinator, he is the most experienced programmer here, he's good with that kind of stuff. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is Oct 10 morning here, in my time zone (Japanese Standard Time). Probably Mspraveen missed the fact that Wikipedia is run on UTC. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good point. I take back my snarky comment! rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. In this particular case, the date of creation of the article is Oct 9 UTC. It was only in my Indian timezone that the date shows as Oct 10. Hence the confusion. Mspraveen (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Final hook in Queue 5

The present final hook in queue 5 is:

... that some early visitors to the world's largest—and India's first—snow-themed park, Snow World, became dizzy after accidentally breathing residual nitrogen?

The Times of India reference supports the hook, but unfortunately it is scientifically inaccurate. Air is about 78% nitrogen by volume, we breathe it all the time, and suggesting a 'residual' amount of it would cause dizziness is ridiculous. I suspect that what actually occurred was that the nitrogen used in making snow being released into the air produced a (comparatively) low oxygen atmosphere in the facility, and it was oxygen deficiency that was causing the dizziness. The snow consultant who said of the nitrogen that "the quantity would have been far too small to affect the health of a person drastically" is talking rubbish.

I know we are supposed to focus on verifiability rather than truth, but putting on the main page that people were breathing 'residual' nitrogen when nitrogen is approaching 80% of every breath we take makes us look more than a little foolish, IMO. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree. I'm no scientist, but I know enough flying, high alt backpacking, etc to know I have to agree with EdChem here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this is going to the main page in 90 mins, I'll put it back in the noms page and put another hook in its place. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment on my thought process with that hook which is similar to what Ed stated. From the source, I assumed they were using liquid nitrogen to make snow. When liquid nitrogen evaporates, it increases the amount of nitrogen in air which subsequently can cause asphyxiation. Residual, in the sense of whats left over, probably refereed to what evaporated. I didn't think it was a terrible hook in the sense, although I agree that consultant is a tool.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(Worthless comment) Had this hook stayed, it would've been the first time that two of my hooks featured in the same DYK. Sigh. Mspraveen (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding self credits once article in prep

Just doing some last-minute stuff on Wikipedia before my wikibreak kicks into effect. What are people's views on users editing prep areas to give themselves a DYK credit? This edit in question I'm talking about. Milk strike was promoted to the prep area around 1900 UTC on October 9. Geschichte (talk · contribs) – who had two gnomish edits to the article at that time – added about 2,000 bytes worth of information around 1000 UTC on October 10, then proceeded to add himself to the credits list. Am I the only one in thinking this isn't looked upon very well at DYK, or do we not care that much? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It think that'd be case by case. In one way it's no different than someone starting an article, person B adding to it then B nom'ing it with both of them having DYK makes. But on the other hand I don't like how late to the game this one was. GIven the prior version had 5.8K, another 2K would warrant a DYKmake. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, it was an expansion from 1892 to 2444 characters of readable prose. That's a roughly one-third expansion and a significant contribution to an article of that size. - Dravecky (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem in Prep 4 convert template

Can someone figure out what is wrong with the convert template in Prep 4? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This same error is all over the Template:Convert page, so it's coming from the template itself. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what happened, but when I tweaked hook 3, the Convert error in hook 5 disappeared. I see also that {{Convert}} hasn't been touched since August. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Tis strange--that tweak would fix it and what is causing the same thing in the convert template page? Halloween ghosts? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It was probably an error introduced in one of the many templates that {{convert}} transcludes, which would explain why it didn't show up in the template's edit history. The change was probably fixed and then Bruce1ee's unrelated edit had the effect of clearing the cache and showing the proper template again. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My experience with the template is that it gets funky every once in awhile. Sometimes it converts wrong or irregularly uses scientific notation. Nothing ever permanent though.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that for nine crazy minutes this morning there was a typo introduced to {{Precision}}, one of the zillion or so templates transcluded by {{Convert}}, and that typo might just have been the culprit here. - Dravecky (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh...crazy indeed. Still, it's not the worst thing that's happened to a widely transcluded template :) rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is an article being an orphan reason for rejection

I have noticed that from time to time a reviewer will object to an article on the grounds it has been tagged as an orphan, often citing rules D6 or D7 as justification. The addition of the {{orphan}} occurring after a bot notices the new article has less than three articles link to it. Is the existence of this template a valid reason for rejecting a nominated article?

Reasons for my concerns are:

DYK deals with newly created articles. As most subjects that are well known to a large percentage of the community already have article, we tend to receive articles on more obscure or specialized topics. These topics are the same ones for which fewer incoming links are to be expected and thus more likely to be considered an orphan.
While Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules#D6 bars articles with unresolved edit warring or having dispute tags, an {{orphan}} tag does not indicate any type of dispute.
Additionally, Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules#D7 bar articles with significant missing parts. The {{orphan}} tag however indicates potentially missing links in other articles without an indication of a actual problem in the tagged article.
As indicated by Wikipedia:Orphan#What if I can't de-orphan it?, some articles can not be de-orphaned because appropriate articles do not exist.

Should an explicit exception be added to the rules to ignore {{orphan}} tags when an article is being reviewed for DYK eligibility? Conversely, will DYK now require all articles to now be on subjects that allow for the creation of non-orphans? --Allen3 ^talk 12:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. We shouldn't feature articles on the main page which have maintenance tags or have the potential of having a maintenance tag added (i.e. if its an orphan without a tag then it is likely to be tagged once it has arrived on the mainpage). Frankly, the vast majority of DYK noms are not orphans so I do not think this is a big issue. The few that are can usually be remedied easily with a minor amount of thought and creativity, and those that can't... well tough.4meter4 (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Allen3. Orphans should not be a reason for rejection. Also, even a new article should be able to find three other articles to link to it, should usually be an easy fix. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to side with Allen here, orphan is not really a big deal. A lot of people don't even bother tagging {{orphan}} anymore, or they put it at the bottom. Sometimes adding an orphan tag to an article just prompts other editors to add a bunch of irrelevant or barely relevant links elsewhere to get rid of the tag. There are perennial discussions about getting rid of the {{orphan}} template altogether or relegating it to a talkpage (see, for instance, Wikipedia_talk:Orphan#This_maintenance_template_should_be_placed_on_the_talk_page, Template talk:Orphan#Proposed usage change, Template talk:Orphan#Time to welcome orphans with open arms); while these discussions have never yielded a consensus as far as I can tell, and have just petered out, they still provide some evidence that the status of orphans is controversial. Besides, as Allen points out, sometimes you can't deorphan an article without disrupting something elsewhere, and there's no reason to punish for that, as it really shows more of a problem with the rest of the encyclopedia than a problem with that article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't rejected any noms or seen any rejected for being an orphan. I don't think it is grounds for rejection, just repair. They nomination can be halted until the problem is fixed. Usually it isn't hard. New articles usually get tagged orphan fast by one of the many editors using AWB. If the tag is just removed so it looks nice, chances are, it can be added again. When I make an article, the first thing I do after is interlink.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 4meter4. I regard this as somewhat akin to bare URL references and stub templates. It's an easy fix, and for a new contributor, if I notice that an article is orphaned (whether or not it's marked as such) I'm likely to just fix it myself. But if it's an experienced editor I'd ask them to fix it. cmadler (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions with pictures

Hi there. Can anyone tell me how and why some pictured hooks are favored over the others? Mspraveen (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's how I do it and I think it's pretty close to standard procedure...

It must look good in the tiny 100x100 DYK picture window, not all pics meet this
I try to choose a diversity of topics, ie, not too many of the same thing in a short time span (example: we get lots of old British and American houses/churches/etc so lately I've not used a lot of those)
If I notice User:XYZ has had lots of pics used as the lead lately, I'll tend to favor someone that hasn't any many or none
considering all that, there are simply way too many hooks that fit the bill to use all of them and the sad fact is some will lose out simply because person X putting a prep set together chooses deserving pic Y over deserving pic Z. That being said when I see a nom and pic that I think are really good, I'll leave it on the noms page hoping someone else chooses it or I'll choose it in a subsequent set if it's still around. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting how editors like you select pictured hooks. Since the procedure appears to be quite subjective, I'd only hope that my suggestions are selected. Mspraveen (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever had a DYK as the lead hook with its picture? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Though it's only since the past 2-3 suggestions that I attempted pictures with hooks, the picture were removed before moving the hooks to the prep area. I wasn't sure about this process, and hence I asked. Mspraveen (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Unless the pics were non-free, they should not be removed prior to being moved to a prep set. DYK pics, since they appear on the main page, must be free and they must appear in the DYK article, not some ancillary related article. Next time I see a nom of yours, I'll keep you in mind. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that in a prep area # x, there can be two pictured hooks at the same time? If that's correct, then I've not seen my pictured hooks in the prep area. Of course, the pictures were free to use. In one case, I've used a pic of a related article. Perhaps that's why it wasn't selected. In other case, it was used in the article. It might have been removed based on subjective opinion. Anyway, I'll bear these points in mind for the next suggestions. Thanks again! Mspraveen (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A set cannot have two pics. I meant the pic should not be removed from the noms page prior to the nom being moved to a prep set. If a nom with a pic is not selected for the lead hook with pic, the nom is moved to the prep set, but without the picture and as with all approved hooks, is deleted from the noms page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Fair enough. Then I'm sure that the pics weren't removed from the noms page. Just that they weren't chosen for the lead hook. Mspraveen (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a lottery whose picture hook gets selected, but obviously the better the image the more chance you have. Gatoclass (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It also has to do with how many contenders, i.e. hooks with pictures of the same topic, you have. I really don't want to see five U.S. building images in a row, no matter how professional or "pretty" the pictures are. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It also has to do with how closely an image relates to the article in question. Given two equally "good" images, the one that relates most directly to both the article and the hook is more likely to be used. cmadler (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

While working on one of the articles in a hook currently in prep 4 (... that Archaeomarasmius, Aureofungus, Coprinites, and Protomycena are the only four genera of agaric mushrooms known from the fossil record?), I discovered a publication about another agaric fossil find in 2007 that renders the hook inaccurate. I have alerted Kevmin (the creator of the hook, and all four articles), and he has already downloaded the article and begun work on a new article for the 2007 fossil species. Was wondering if the hook could be removed from prep, back into the waiting area for a little while until he completes his work, and has time to reformulate the hook to include the new species. I don't imagine it will take that long. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

P4 goes live in about 2.5 days. What's your idea of long? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, didn't think about the P4->live time delay. That will probably be sufficient. We'll post the new hook here when ready (or do it myself, if it's still in prep). Sasata (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the article for the the 2007 agaric and would suggest this as the updated hook: "... that Archaeomarasmius, Aureofungus, Coprinites, Palaeoagaracites and Protomycena are the only five genera of agaric mushrooms known from the fossil record?" --Kev min § 07:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated on the Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hook in Prep 1

The hook for Wellington Fault has been change somewhat from my original - there are two issues

It now reads as if the offset of the terraces caused the movement - I used 'from the offset' in the original. which was change to 'due to the offset'. 'From' isn't perfect I admit, but 'due to' just doesn't make sense. I suggest 'shown by the offset' as an alternative.
For the rate of movement, my original hook used '6.0–7.6 mm/yr' which has now changed to '6.0 millimetres (0.24 in) to 7.6 millimetres (0.30 in) per year', rather long-winded in my view. Mikenorton (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We do have American readers who don't think in metric terms. I for one understand inches much better than millimeters. I removed the conversion template and wrote it more concisely. I also fixed the language per your note. Yoninah (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly an improvement and thanks for making the change to 'shown'. However, the amended hook is still 218 characters long, which some may find a problem with, if not I'm happy with the changes. Mikenorton (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's only 213 and it's already in the queue. Let's leave well enough alone. Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on lists

When calculating total characters in list articles, are substantially sections of prose within the list counted. As an example, here under the "Description" section. Grsz¹¹ 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, where the list contains a good amount of prose (even if it's in a format which isn't counted by the automatic character counters) I would inclined to let it through. However, if there's a lot to say in the body list, then there is probably plenty of reason to have a decent-sized lead section, which would get it past the 1,500 threshold for a new page anyway! Bencherlite ^Talk 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes to article while on the Main page

Example: BWV 48 was on the Main page on Sunday 10 October. One editor broke a link by beautification, and another one replaced "chorale" by "cholera", - chorale was a key word in the hook. I was traveling and noticed only later. Could articles on the Main page perhaps be protected around that time? And/or watched? New articles are not typically watched by many yet and vulnerable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is part of having an article on the main page and page protection would apply if there is excessive vandalism. To automatically protect every article would defeat the "anyone can edit" pillar of Wikipedia. If you can't watch your DYK maybe ask a friend to?--NortyNort (Holla) 09:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Or if the article topic belongs to any Wikiproject you could ask its members to maintain the article. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the point of the entire section is to encourage edits to new articles. If they're protected, it just turns into a pointless pat on the back. If we ever started protecting DYKs as a matter of course, I'd probably switch my views on the perennial debate on whether to replace the section with "Today's Featured List" or similar. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:PEREN — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And you linked that because...? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:PEREN#Protect featured articles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I didn't want to warm up a perennial, just brainstorm how to watch better for unwanted changes. (I didn't say vandalism. A change can be made with good intentions but still be wrong.) This happened to me the first time. I'm thinking in the way of a temporary watchlist fot those articles, rather than loading a burden on one friend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Which article is featured?

The second item on prep area 3 has no bolded link and only one link, to Isabella Markham. Did someone forget to bold the link to Isabella, or was there formerly a bolded link to something else in the hook that's been removed entirely? Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cloud gaming in Prep 1

It was descided in the T:TDYK discussion that Alt 2 would be used, but Alt 1 has been placed in the Prep Area. Could this be fixed? Silver seren^C 19:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed. This is what I get for believing this comment and not searching for a retraction;). --Allen3 ^talk 19:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Silver seren and Allen3 for spotting and fixing (respectively) the problem. This is the second or third time recently that I've seen a nominator decide they'd prefer a hook later suggested by someone else, but it ends up in prep or on the main page with a different hook to what's intended. Up to now, I've usually just put forward a hook and then assume that whoever is preparing the prep will read through everything and decide appropriately. But in reality I guess most people doing that task are looking to assemble what's needed fairly briskly, and may not have time to analyse longer discussions. I might therefore become a bit more bold in using strikethrough on hooks that have become "non-favoured by concensus", and other nominators and reviewers might want to do the same.

There are, of course, also cases where several hooks are put forward and the nominator is happy with any of them or with their original hook, in which case it's all best left for the person preparing the prep to exercise their judgement.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Still not fixed!

Cloud gaming is now in Queue 6 and it is still not changed to Alt 2. Can this please be fixed? Silver seren^C 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For convenience, Alt 2 says "ALT2 ... that cloud gaming developments allow players to access their saved games at multiple locations, using the same game data on platforms ranging from desktop computers to tablet devices?" Silver seren^C 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

fixed J04n(talk page) 20:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

An interesting case

I just finished rewriting Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre and histmerged it in from my sandbox, but another person rewrote it on 3 October (version before (30 Sept), Berstein's rewrite (3 October)). I was wondering if the article could be DYK'ed under IAR, seeing as it is now 100% cited from reliable sources and I had no hand nor control over the first rewrite? If it means anything, I've got a juicy hook for the article... ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed, you've got nothing to lose by suggesting a hook. Be bold! Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've suggested three at T:TDYK#Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre – let's see what happens! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Errors in hooks going to main page

How does one go about "unverifying" a hook? I commented on 10 October that a hook was incorrect, but the hook was still placed on the main page as it was. Should I have used a template or something? I realise that I could have fixed the hook myself, but I wasn't exactly keen on it running anyway as it didn't seem very interesting to me. I appreciate the work that goes into verifying and prepping the hooks, and in this case it was only a minor detail that was incorrect, but maybe comments under the nominations could be checked more carefully? --Beloved Freak 10:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate blunder, but it should not discourage you from further review. I would have placed

or

before that comment, and that might have stopped the promotion. Materialscientist (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I will do next time (hopefully there won't be a next time!). --Beloved Freak 15:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK entries lost while updating template

It looks like several DYK entries were lost when somebody was trying to update the template in this edit. Can this be easily fixed? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd fixed this [4] - are there any still missing? January ^talk 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you got them all. Thanks. Sorry for the confusion. I'm on a 28k dialup connection so it takes me 8-10 minutes to load the DYK page and the diffs. - Hydroxonium (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Prep 3 +

The hook for Grandview Apostolic Church, currently the eighth hook of Prep 3, uses the word "arsoned". I don't think "arson" may be properly used as a verb, and I don't think such colloquial usage is appropriate for the Main page. But I didn't change it myself in case others disagree....

Also, Preps 2, 3, and 4, as well as Queue 4 all have nine hooks. Were those accidents, or are we returning to nine? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that arson should not be used as a verb in this context. cmadler (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Personally I think we should return to 9 as the nom numbers are creeping back up. Not sure it the ones you ask about are accidents or not. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ike Robin double nom

Yesterday, I noticed that both User:Chzz and User:Fetchcomms nominated Ike Robin. Fetchcomms nominated it here and Chzz nominated the article a day later. I left a note on Chzz's hook, but it was still promoted to prep4. Fetchcomms hook is still on the suggestions page. What happens in this case? Does the first nomination approved get credit or, what I assume, the first one to nominate it?--NortyNort (Holla) 03:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care which hook gets on, but I'm still very interested in what should happen here. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I find the hook by Fetchcomms more interesting, but that is personal; earlier nomination is more important issue here. IMO, the hook by Chzz should either be returned or replaced by the Fetchcomms' hook (its source is reliable). Materialscientist (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, completely. Please give credit to Fetchcomms. I'm sorry; I should have checked if it had already been nominated.

What happened was, I accepted it as an 'Article for creation' on the 9th, and took a note to myself to improve it a bit before nominating it for DYK, because although I thought it an 'acceptable' article, it needed work; I checked back on 12th, and others had improved it (inc Fetchcomms) so I thought it good enough for DYK and put in the DYK nom at that point, failing to notice F. already had. Sorry. Chzz ► 05:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, it has happened before. Well, the Fetchcomms ALT is good, but the other nom is in Q3 which I can't edit.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (and pleased with the tone of this thread). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

David Levy main page change

{https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know&action=historysubmit&diff=390980154&oldid=390971927} User:David Levy has changed the lead DYK photo almost an hour after it hit the main page. I posted on his talk page suggesting he participate in the queues, prep sets, and here as I find unilaterally changing the main page after a queue hits it is somewhat disruptive and unfair. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, I noticed that we had four architectural images on the main page, so I replaced one with a portrait (the only other suitable image that I saw for any of the current DYK items) to improve the variety. How was this "disruptive and unfair"? Since when are users who haven't participated in a particular page's creation barred editing it in good faith?

While we're on the subject of courtesy, I would have appreciated a pointer to this discussion. —David Levy 01:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise: Heres' my response to him on my talk page "I'm not being hostile. People put a lot of work into those queues (BTW I had nothing to do with that particular queue) and you're showing total disregard for that. What you should have done is posted at WT:DYK. Also DYK is separate from all the other sections on the main page. And what is wrong with 4 architecture images anyway? It was sheer coincidence. Some editor was happy to see his article with image on the main page and you just waylaid that. Why didn't you change the FA on the main page?"User_talk:Rlevse#DYK_edit — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

[replying here, as noted on Rlevse's talk page]

1. I'm showing total disregard for others' work by...editing it? Isn't this a wiki?

2. What do you mean by "DYK is separate from all the other sections on the main page"? We display them side-by-side and attempt to provide variety when possible. Along with other users, I've replaced images in DYK, ITN and OTD for this reason on many occasions, and yours is the first complaint that I've received.

3. You say that "some editor was happy to see his article with image on the main page and [I] just waylaid that." But I merely switched from one article's image to another. Won't the Kenneth North article's author[s] be happy now? (Of course, readers are our top priority.)

4. Is "Why didn't you change the FA on the main page?" a serious question?

5. Why didn't you notify me of this discussion? Was that not discourteous? —David Levy 01:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing which confuses me is why chose the section of the Main page that changes with the greatest frequency? It seems like changing the image displayed in the OTD/SA section from the one displayed last year[5] would have been a better solution. At the very least it will keep you from having to repeat this exercise in a couple more hours when another DYK with an "architectural" image is scheduled to be loaded. --Allen3 ^talk 02:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I checked Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 16 first, and I found no alternative images that were equally relevant and particularly recognizable at thumbnail size.

I also looked ahead to the next couple of DYK queues. The next one is fine, but the following queue's image should be changed unless the ITN image (also of a tunnel) has been replaced by then, which I'm hoping it will be. —David Levy 02:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, this is the first time I can remember when an image of a dead white man added to visual diversity. --Allen3 ^talk 02:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, yeah. For the record, the only other image that seemed reasonably appropriate for OTD also was that of a dead white man, and it illustrates the same item with less relevance. —David Levy 02:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Good initiative but I think changes are better discussed here, especially when they are on the mainpage. There is a rhyme and reason to the whole DYK process. Reviewers and admins usually respond quickly here as well and most often changes are made. I believe we will have two pictures of tunnels on the main page in a few hours which may be a little too much.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

1. What issue[s] should be discussed prior to such a change? This is a sincere, non-rhetorical question. (No one has ever complained before.)

Only one DYK item per group is illustrated in this manner. On what objective basis would someone oppose switching from one to another (provided that the latter image is free and meets our usual quality standards) for improved variety?

I mean, do you see anything wrong with the actual change, or is your objection purely procedural? (Even Rlevse has said nothing about there being a problem with the image itself.)

2. I noted the tunnel issue above. I'm thinking that if the ITN image hasn't been updated by then, we can temporarily revert to the rinderpest image. —David Levy 03:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, you swapped the order of the hooks on the main page and traded images; no hooks were removed. In my opinion that's fine; not much different from changing the order while it's queued up. Shubinator (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I've never known this to be controversial (and don't understand why it would be). —David Levy 03:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Following BorgQueen's addition of an item about Walt Disney to OTD, I switched that section's image to one of Mr. Disney (yes, a dead white man) and self-reverted to the Military Engineering-Technical University image at DYK. —David Levy 03:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that I unknowingly helped the situation, which is great. :) --BorgQueen (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, once I did what David Levy did, and I immediately got this complaint. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

At least Victuallers was polite. I was a bit taken aback by the tone of Rlevse's message.

I honestly am baffled as to why this content should be regarded as sacrosanct upon reaching the main page. Like Shubinator, I understand why removing hooks (or adding brand new ones) would be problematic, but when it comes to swapping their order and selecting an image, I see no material difference between the live template and the queues. —David Levy 04:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

14 October - Scott Ashjian

Please, I respectfully request that this hook be confirmed for its normal time parameters, 5 days post nomination. It exceeds all of the DYK criteria:

Nomination: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_October_14
Article: Scott Ashjian

I expended quite a good deal of effort and research. I expanded this page over 5x from its prior version - expansion.
Every single sentence in the article is sourced to WP:RS sources.
The hook is sourced to two WP:RS secondary sources. They are online refs to check without an AGF check being needed.
The hook is indeed "interesting" - the fact that it took a unanimous decision of the Nevada Supreme Court to affirm the candidate's position on the ballot is most certainly unique and interesting.
We already featured a hook of an opposing candidate, Sharron Angle, [6].
Would really rather not stray into territory of extending this hook past the normal DYK time parameters, and risk it not being allowed to appear at DYK.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

not eligible anyway as it fails 5x expansion and is not new: * Prose size (text only): 10660 characters (1792 words) "readable prose size"

Article created by Kendrick7 on March 8, 2010
Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 76 edits ago on July 30, 2010
Article has not been created or expanded 5x within the past 10 days (78 days) DYKcheck does not account for previous versions with splits or copyright violations. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus the other person's hook had nothing to do with the election. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Um... 1548 chars; 10660 chars. I think it's a DYKcheck issue; definitely 5x expanded. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've never seen DYKcheck that far off before, but I still think we shouldn't run this as it's directly about a pending election. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

How about holding it until the day after the election? The hook can be reworded to reflect past tense. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not a special occassion. So eh. A non-election hook would be okay maybe. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, it's 5x expanded. The script was thrown off by this revision in its binary search. Shubinator (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

While I tend to trust DYKcheck when it okays an expansion, I've sometimes found it to be very wrong when denying one. I always manually check when it claims insufficient recent expansion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely why "always" is in bold red at User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Expansion. Shubinator (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what is stated above, the hook [7] here was not for the article Sharron Angle; rather, it was a hook for the article National Foundation for Women Legislators in which Angle was mentioned in the hook. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, it has been expanded well over 5x just prior to being nominated at DYK. I have proposed an ALT 3, at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Scott_Ashjian. Respectfully request that this be "confirmed" for usage, to be used on November 3. Thank you very much, -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Rlevse (talk · contribs) moved this hook to holding for November 3 [8]. Seems agreeable to me, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hook reappearing on DYK

Hi, I just noticed a hook that I successfully nominated (for Susisuchus) was shown on the main page twice; once at 12:00, 16 October 2010, and a second time at 18:00, 15 October 2010. Because of this, I got two different messages on my talk page saying that DYK was updated with a fact from the article Susisuchus. It doesn't look like any other articles were repeated. I'm not sure how this happened, so I just thought I'd bring it up. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's very weird, I can't find it on T:DYK – which currently has hooks updated at 12:00 16 October. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It was the 06:00 16 Oct and 12:00 15 Oct updates. Looks like the person who moved it to prep the first time forgot to remove it from the noms page. Shubinator (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, but not much to be done since it's come and gone twice on the MP, except for us to be more careful. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Back to 9 hooks

Several people, including myself, have been putting 9 hooks in the prep sets and queues. I'm guessing because the pool of noms is back over 200 after bottoming out at around 140 hooks. Consequently, I strongly endorse everyone going back to 9 hooks. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Last minute expansion

Sorry for a short notice. My hook is the lead in Queue 3, and I've just expanded the article Kamome Island (Heishi Rock) linked in it (pre and post expansion). Could an admin please verify the expansion and bolden the Heishi Rock if appropriate (The material is from the Prefectural Website, mostly in Japanese, I'll copyedit it in some 10 hrs). Many thanks in advance. Materialscientist (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, verified, bolded, added DYKmake. It is a 5x expansion, barely, but it does qualify. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Printing corrections and apologies

All major news organizations in the world (Wikipedia is one of them), have a way of informing their readership about errors... we don't. DYK hooks may contain false statements. Shit happens. -- So, the least we could do as editors, is to add a correction (or an apology) to the erroneous hook in DYK archives, and to the talk page of the article in question. The case in point is the DYK hook used for the article Isa Kremer, which appeared on the front page on 13 October 2010. Please see relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Did you know? 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC), and a comment made by User:Malik Shabazz at User talk:Dincher#Isa Kremer DYK, not to mention my own concerns from Talk:Isa Kremer#Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article has just been corrected, but the boondoggle remains unchallenged at Wikipedia:Recent additions#13 October 2010, and at Talk:Isa Kremer {{dyktalk}}. Could we develop a way of making it right, with an appropriate correction at the bottom of both? The article Isa Kremer has been viewed 4,124 times in October 2010.[9] --- Przemyśl (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

We're not a major news organisation. Further, we already have a system in place, called the general disclaimer. It's at the bottom of every page, including the Main Page. As soon as anyone clicks on that, they're greeted by a huge line of text stating that nothing on the site is to be considered valid or reliable. The areas outside of the Article space, like Wikipedia:Recent additions, aren't even typically viewed by non-insiders, so I don't really see how notes there would be of any particular benefit to anyone. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that came out a little harsher than I'd intended. I'll make a quick qualification: I don't personally believe that it's necessary, but if you want to take on the project of collecting corrections noted on WP:ERRORS, WT:DYK, and the edit summaries of T:DYK, I don't think anoyne would particularly mind if you edited the Archive pages to reflect any factual errors yourself. Be Bold, and all that. 109.246.239.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Er, it's been generally established that the archives should reflect what was actually on the Main Page. (And they do reflect corrections made while the hook was live.) Shubinator (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a note should be left in the archive next to the hook if it ends up being completely false or unverifiable. Something like "See discussion at...regarding this hook" After all, it is in the archive and is viewable. We wouldn't want to mislead and I can't think of how to create a substantive revision of some sort after that hook was already on the main page. The hook should have been different or used quotations but the chance for that is past. There seems to be a discussion about whether it was true on the article's relevant talk page and we should wait to see the outcome of that.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nort's suggestion seems reasonable to me. Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

DYKupdatebot broken

This seems broken. It moved what is still in Q6, the set with the ZETA device as the lead hook with pic, to the MP, tagged a few of the articles, but hasn't tagged all of them, did not seem to tag any users for credit, and hasn't cleared Q6. Can someone fix this? I've notified Shub. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Please leave the update incomplete; it'll be easier for me to debug. I'll finish it off when I'm done. Shubinator (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Okey dokey cowboy. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Finished off the update with a semi-automated run of the bot. I couldn't tell why the bot stopped; my guess would be underlying issues with memory. The bot's process was still running and it wasn't network connectivity or anything else wrong with the set. It's puzzling. (Oh, and I'll restart the bot in a few minutes.) Shubinator (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the prompt fix. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Shubinator (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

20 October

I've got an approved hook for 20 October. All four sets that will appear on 20 October are now in the prep area, yet my hook is still on the suggestions page. Would someone sort this please? Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Doing now. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Electioneering hooks

I just noticed on my watchlist an addition by User:DS to the WP:DYK rules section, which states "Articles and hooks which feature candidates in ongoing election campaigns should be avoided" ([10]). I can see where he's coming from with this, but I feel a hook that isn't about the ongoing election could be neutral and interesting about a candidate. Either way it seems to be oddly specific and should probably be listed instead at Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules if kept. Nomader ^(Talk) 07:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the basic concept is fine, ie, that we should avoid anything that seems to promote a particular candidate in an ongoing election, though perhaps we could tweak the wording. I'm neutral on moving it to Additional rules. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Support moving it to Additional Rules. It's an edge case and doesn't apply to the vast majority of hooks coming through. Shubinator (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer that this specify "candidates in an upcoming election (within N days)" (setting N at 30, 60, or 90 days), because -- at least in the US -- it's not uncommon for campaigns to start several years ahead of an election date. If the actual election (including primary elections) is more than three months out, I see little harm in using an otherwise qualifying hook. I think there's only a true concern where there is an imminent election. So, for example, US candidates in the upcoming November 2 election would currently be prohibited from DYK, but candidates for a 2011 election would be acceptable. cmadler (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to putting a limit on this if the suggested hook is not related to the election. If it is, then I'd be in agreement with restrictions. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Support the rule - even if the hook is unrelated to election, the article will inevitably be (and if the hook happens to have a photo, this would autopromote the candidate). Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if a rule like this is going to be added, it should have a time limit per cmadler's suggestion. I think 30 days should be more than adequate. Gatoclass (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I support a blanket ban, however– if multi-hooks with both of the main candidates are featured, should they be allowed? DYK features new content– I don't think that new articles about candidates should be excluded if they've been expanded or created recently. Nomader ^(Talk) 14:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess if you wrote articles about both candidates, that could be treated as an exception. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so that discussion above has been on candidates involved in elections. Anyone have any problems about hooks on elections themselves? I'm considering asking for Template talk:Did you know#American Samoa constitutional referendum, 2010 to be moved to holding for Nov 2, the day of the referendum. The hook doesn't advocate for either side of the referendum and I'm thinking that as long as the hook on an election didn't unduly support or criticise one candidate over another, it would be fine? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with it and think it is the perfect day to feature it. J04n(talk page) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've given the rules a tweak per the above discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK Contributor Ribbon

As far as I can tell, there is no ribbon for DYK contributors, which I think is a shame... editors who have just got their first DYK credit might appreciate a ribbon to display (should they desire). So, I created one, and uploaded it:

If there is general support for the idea, I propose a template be created that could make including the ribbon on a userpage easier. The template could add the editor to the DYK contributor category, as do the DYK userboxes. However, I'd appreciate some help in doing this, as might template writing experience is very minimal.

Also, would it be appropriate for the DYK bot, on giving a user his or her first DYK credit, to include a link to Category:Wikipedia Did you know contributors and suggest they consider adding a suitable userbox, should theu wish? Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How would the bot figure out if it's a user's first DYK? Shubinator (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a bot programmer, so I don't know what would be the best way. One possibility might be to check if the user is in the contributors category. Or, check that the editor has contributed to T:TDYK, or whether the bot has ever posted before to the user's talk page. Any of these might miss some cases, but it is better than maintaining a list of every DYK contributor. EdChem (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It might just be easier to update the text from DYKmake to say something like "You may now proudly display the [[DYK contributor ribbon]]!" and let the editors add it to their userpage themselves if they like. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The last idea is best. Many users don't use the userboxes, so the first would give a lot of false positives. The second is tough to guesstimate because the editor had to have edited T:TDYK for their first nom. The third requires less (no) guessing by the bot, so it's the best. (No opinion on the userboxes message/idea as a whole; just establishing that it is technically possible.) Shubinator (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice ribbon, Ed. I agree with Shubinator, a text line informing them of the ribbon is probably the best bet; trying to code something to add it automatically could be quite a pain. 28bytes (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like the ribbon. :) As far as the bot idea goes, I can accept if it's a practical non-starter, or if there is just a better way to achieve a similar end - it was just a suggestion. Is the template idea for use on a user page viable? EdChem (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can whip up a template for you, give me a few minutes. 28bytes (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Try this out: {{User:28bytes/DYK ribbon}}. Anyone familiar with templates can feel free to edit the code if there are problems with it. 28bytes (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait to see any other comments before putting it in template space. :) EdChem (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool ribbon, thanks. I am sportin' it in my sandbox right now. Works there, it is a simple template anyway.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have boldly move 28bytes' page to template space; the code to insert it onto a user page is {{DYK contributor ribbon}} Anyone think it would be worth creating a DYK nominator ribbon and a DYK reviewer ribbon? EdChem (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like there to be a DYK reviewer ribbon, but I'm biased :) An argument in favour of it would be that we never run out of DYK creators and nominators, but we do sometimes seem to be short of (enough) people reviewing. So encouragement of reviews might be a good thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I developed this GA reviewer ribbon quite recently. I was thinking of a DYK reviewer ribbon along the same lines. EdChem (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? 28bytes (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now developed a DYK reviewer ribbon. I have also added it to WP:RIBBONS. EdChem (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks nice! 28bytes (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on previously deleted articles

I currently have an interest in rewriting an article that was deleted as a blatant copyvio rather than have violating content removed (which would have left virtually nothing). Would this count as a "new article" for DYK purposes, as I can find nothing in the guidelines to indicate either way? Cheers. Rodhull andemu 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, articles deleted as copyvios and then recreated from scratch count as brand new articles for DYK purposes. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get on with it. Rodhull andemu 17:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3

The Oneida I hook is suffering the same problems as the Oneida II hook (Template talk:Did you know#Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State). The former has been approved and is in the queue, the latter has received several objections as to referencing.

We are saying the opposite thing here over the same referencing issue. IMHO, the Q3 hook needs to be pulled until the referencing issues of both articles have been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The queue 3 hook was approved. So why is one okay and the other not? There's obviously a difference of opinion on this pair of hooks. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This all appears to be a squabble over how to do legal ref formats. For other refs, there are several ref formats acceptable and standard on wiki. What are the wiki standards for legal refs? Not opinion of any one or group of editors, but the accepted legal ref standards, ie, what is allowed per wiki policy? — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

See my comment at the Oneida II hook, the linked webpage does not support any of the article's refs. Mjroots (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State with {{refimprove}}, and raised the issue at Talk:Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of legal articles on Wikipedia use legal citation (more specifically case citation style). Notwithstanding the fact that Mjroots appears to strongly dislike this citation style, it is actually quite similar to the general style of scholarly citation: [volume #] [abbreviated source title] [page #]. He seems to be raising two separate issues: he would like every citation to an external webpage (which seems quite contrary to WP:EL), and he would like legal citations to be cited as though they were not citations to official reporters, but rather citations to ordinary webpages. I have already provided a link to the Oyez Project in all the articles he has disputed. Apparently, he claims to be able to find no information at this cite, even though it contains not just the text of the opinion, but the oral argument. It appears that he has chosen to object to all articles written by me, even if the hook is cited to journal articles, rather that the case itself. It appears someone has already removed the Oneida II article as a result of his comments, even though I capitulated there and provided a link to the online text of the opinion in the very first reference. I do not have the time to continue dealing with this on dozens of different pages. It is unfortunate if new legal articles which are well-cited according to the generally accepted conventions are rejected simply because they have been singled out by someone with a broader agenda regarding legal citation style. Savidan 18:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You guys need to settle this elsewhere. I see nothing wrong with the cites Savidan is using. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Prep 4, last hook

I can't believe you're putting such an egregious and mysognistic quote on the main page. Never mind that Mark Twain is dead; it shows him in an extremely bad light. Yoninah (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is and to me it puts his employeed, not Twain, in a bad light. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine, though it might be better to use the longer quote in the hook: ... that author Mark Twain denounced his former secretary Isabel Lyon as "a liar, a forger, a thief, a hypocrite, a drunkard, a sneak, a humbug, a traitor, a conspirator, a filthy-minded & salacious slut pining for seduction"? That's 222 characters, but I'd argue for IAR, the more so since that update has several particularly short hooks. cmadler (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the longer quote better. The hook can be reduced to 203 characters: ... that Mark Twain denounced his former secretary as "a liar, a forger, a thief, a hypocrite, a drunkard, a sneak, a humbug, a traitor, a conspirator, a filthy-minded & salacious slut pining for seduction"? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated with Mandarax's version. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6

Hi, I think it would be more appropriate to write: Edward Gal and his stallion. Yoninah (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Crediting photographers

It just occurred to me — we have no way of recognizing the photographers whose images appear in DYK. Would it be reasonable to expand {{DYKmake}} to have a parameter for photographers? Not all lead images are photographs or the work of the uploaders, so I would see it as reasonable for the template to contain instructions only to give credit to the person who uploaded it if that person has an en:wp account. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Do other projects aside from TFP do this? I think if a user contributes a photo, they contributed to the article and should get make credit as well. I think, on occasions where the picture appears in the lead, such credit could be given.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This would be impossible to apply consistently, since obviously not every single image would have been taken by someone from enwp. It would also seem to me to be a bit of a hassle for the nominator to have to check who uploaded an image at commons, to see if they have an enwp account, just to use a 100px thumb in a DYK. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we require the nominator to do anything; instead, I'd just like to see it as an option. The article that led me to think of this is Winton Place Methodist Episcopal Church, which is scheduled to be in the lead tomorrow; the photo was taken by Greg5030, but he added it to the article more than two years ago, so I don't think it appropriate to call him a contributor to the article itself for DYK purposes. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction

{{edit protected}}

In Queue 6, it should read "Gabriel's Oboe" and not Gabriel's Oboe. 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. (As I understand, themes are not italicized). Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise for Nella Fantasia (same hook), which should read "Nella Fantasia". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Why didn't I notice it earlier? Materialscientist (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Tarakan riot

This found its way onto the Main Page, via DYK, while still in desperate need of substantial copy-editing (I've not finished yet) and also with at least one of its paragraphs completely unreferenced. I think more care is needed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK rules requires refs, but it does not require a ref for every paragraph. I think this is part of a trend to turn DYK into mini-GAs. I agree that this particular article should have had its grammar errors caught (I checked the two edits you made so far), but I also think some of the edits you made go beyond what is required for DYK, though they do improve it, they're not required for DYK. We need to keep in mind DYK is for new articles, not perfect ones. Yes, the standard should be higher than that for any new article, but we should not require them to be mini-GAs. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I had approved the nomination and prior to doing so, did some copy-editing; mainly spelling and basic grammar. There was a lot of spelling and grammar errors and I obviously missed some. The author clearly isn't proficient in English but worked hard on the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I understood that "one ref per para" was an accepted standard for DYK. Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Must be an unwritten rule because I checked the written rules and additional rules. Perhaps we should codify it if it is an unwritten rule. Sort of like "last hook must be quirky" is an unwritten rule. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's D2. Shubinator (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I'd searched for "refer" for reference and that D2 uses "sources/citations". — Rlevse • Talk • 14:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween Prep Sets

I started putting the 37 approved Halloween hooks into 5 queues last night. There are none left on the noms page nor holding area, all are in the prep sets. Links are at: Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Halloween_2010#Halloween_DYK_Hooks_-_Prep_Sets. I went with 5 sets as instead of 4 as we'll probably get more noms in the coming week, it gives us more diversity, and the 5th set will run when it's still Halloween in North America, which is a big Halloween region. (Now April 1st we need to stick to the UTC times strictly). Right now sets 1 and 3 have 8 hooks and the others 7. The set's number (1-5) is the order I think it best for them to go live in. More eyes appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Rule change proposal

the current rule stands at a new article or a massive expansion of 5x in 5 days, however, i think this is a little unfair on bigger articles. Currency war was 30k when i started an expansion, and that would require it to go to 250k to feature (which is massive, requires multiple splits and neary impossible), however, articels that are say 5k-10k have an unfari advantange that they need a much smaller expansion to 25k (which is still smaller than when i started the aforementioned article). Therefore i think somethign like an expansion of 50% for articles over some number (say 25k for thes ake of this) or 5x would be a fairer proposal.Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the idea at the very start was to lengthen stubs? f o x 13:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the rule is fine. I see no reason it should be changed, but if it must, perhaps a decreasing rate of expansion the larger an article is would suffice. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason for a 30K article to be 5k expanded. That's too big. It should be subarticle if there's that much to write about. The purpose of the rule is to get stub/starts expanded so they are in at least some semblance of decent condition. DYK's purpose is not to enable every article to possibly be DYK eligible. That being said, there is some leeway for the large articles, but for something 30K, I'd just say skip DYK and go to GA/FA. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT)The main page says: "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" Expanded a stub into an article is in essence making an article: what was there before was more or less a placeholder. Expanding something that started off at 30k is already an article. Therefore, it should be that much harder for it to qualify, because it's not really one of the newest articles, just an article with some work done. So, in summary, I don't really think it should be changed at all.Harrias ^talk 13:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good news, a 30K article would only have to go up to 150K to be 5x expanded. Bad news, I see no reason to change the rule no matter how large the size of the original article. Yes, this means many articles I've written or expanded over the years never had a chance at DYK but it's for "Wikipedia's newest articles" not "every article on Wikipedia". If you take a 30K article up to say 60K, go for GA/FA instead. - Dravecky (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Harrias has a good point: it's for articles that previously didn't exist in much of a decent condition. Occasional exceptions happen when bigger-than-stub articles get expanded greatly (look at Eastern chipmunk's history last December and January), but I agree with the idea of requiring major expansion for already-existing articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Rlevse and Draveky. For the occasional exception, we can always ignore all rules. cmadler (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is such a perennial complaint that maybe we should add a note to Additional Rules or something. DYK is for new content. If an article is already 30k, maybe you should focus on trying to improve it to GA/FA rather than DYK. (And to be honest, GA/FA are more "prestigious", in the award-collecting sense, than DYK, so I don't see why people complain about taking a GA instead of a DYK. It's not like the couple hours on the main page buried underneath other stuff is a huge deal.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That note is called Wikipedia:Did you know/Meanies. Art LaPella (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I knew it sounded familiar! rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Prep 3 hook topics

I think Prep 3 has too many scientific hooks. The lead hook is Earth's shadow, there's one about a mushroom, Mycena maculata, and three about marine animals: Protemblemaria perla, Marivagia stellata, and longhead catshark (the last two right next to each other). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Earth vs marine amimals vs mushrooms are vastly different. But I do think the three marine animal argument has merit, so I've moved Marivagia stellata to P4; swapping with a hook about cars. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Shared authorship

Just curious as to whether this page history entitles me to a co-authorship credit, or does it just go to the article creator? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you planning on nominating it or something? Credit is really something that is up to you guys. If you feel that you are one of the significant contributors, feel free to nominate yourself as one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's in Prep 1. I did mention it when nominating - but if it's been forgotten, it doesn't matter. Sniff. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You listed yourself as nominator rather than co-writer. In the future, if you feel you have made a substantial contribution and it's uncontroversial, you can just go ahead and list both yourself and the other writer as writers. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on DYK noms, including the declining rate

Gatoclass, myself, and others have foreseen the declining DYK nom rate and that we'd have to change the number of hooks per queue, queues per day, etc. However, not all agreed at what point we should do that. In that vein, here are some thoughts and observations:

right now there are 139 noms + several in on that page up for special dates, only 56 of those 139 have been approved
the problem of reviewers focusing on newer noms and ignoring older noms is perpetual and will never go away, towit: right now Oct 7 has 33 noms, 18 of which are approved (over 50%) but Oct 4 has 23 noms only 7 of which have been approved (less than 33%), likewise, Oct 5 has 20 noms, only 9 approved (not quite 50%), for both 4 and 5 Oct most of the unapproved noms haven't even been looked at
Halloween has two noms pending on the noms page, one of which has not been looked at, and over 30 on the special Halloween 2010 approved page
Oct 8 only got 17 noms, very low
Finding good quirky noms for the last queue slots is getting very hard

At this point, I now support changing the queues back to 8 for queues/prep sets not yet put together. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 8 noms per queue. Right now (as of 13:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)), there is an average of 17 noms per day. In regards to the old noms, ~~a lot~~ some are obviously problematic, even at first article/hook glance. I think that may dissuade some reviewers, myself included, but I have been trying to work through some.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Some are problematic, but many simply are untouched or have notes saying they're fixed and no one has rechecked them. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Count me among those supporting a reduction to 8 hooks/update. --Allen3 ^talk 17:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

One reason that newer hooks get reviewed over older hooks is that they are at the top of the page. Now, this may be a radical idea, but how about reversing the order of the hooks, so that the newer ones go to the bottom of the page. If this idea is adopted, I'd suggest an admin fully protects the page for the 10-15 minutes it would take to re-order, rather than keep getting edit conflicts. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this idea. Mspraveen (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea too. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral. This would encourage older noms to be reviewed first, but also has the potential of discouraging both nominator and reviewers when they see problem noms when they load up the page (not to mention the pitched battles that seem to happen every few months). Shubinator (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about how much effort will be needed to retrain nominators to place new submissions at the bottom of the page. Probably the best course forward is to make the change and see how many corrections need to be made after a week or so. As long as people are willing to revert to current practices if more problems develop than are resolved, then I am willing to support a trial to see if the reordering will help. --Allen3 ^talk 17:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt somehow that the page re-format will be of any real help. People are still going to review the same number of hooks. Wether a reviewer takes the time of doing one up top or down below, it all pans out in the end. If they only were going to review one article and that one eventually reaches the bottom then it all amounts to the same thing. What we really need is people taking time to review more hooks. That's the only real sollution to lightening the load on the regulars.4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

While the 139 hooks sounds low, it's not as bad as it sounds. If you factor in the six queues as well as the four preps (why do we have four now? That seems pointless imo) that's an extra 90 hooks, so 229 hooks really isn't too bad. Reducing to eight is a given, I'm actually not sure when or why it was raised to nine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the prep areas, I would support keeping four. I do lots of gnomish work, and I try to check hooks as much as possible while they're still on the nominations page, but there are so many that I can't thoroughly check everything. One can easily give better scrutiny to hooks when they make it to prep. They can be checked for typos, formatting problems, facts, hook appropriateness, etc. Before the expansion to four, hooks would go from prep to queue quickly and I'd have to post queue fix requests here, sometimes letting the most minor things just slip past. Since we went to four, I've had more time to review hooks and have been able to make all of the edits myself, without having to post any correction requests here. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The increase to nine occurred in early August (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 57#Backlog). With WikiCup in full swing, we were seeing 35 to 45 new submissions per day and had a backlog of over 370 nominations [11]. --Allen3 ^talk 17:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As consensus to go to 8 hooks per update appears fairly clear, I have modified Template:Did you know/Clear and placed only 8 hooks in the update at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. --Allen3 ^talk 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Are we gooing to try the dates inverted on the noms page? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Suck it and see, that's what I say! Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse asked me to comment here. In regards to the backlog, I think that not only do we need to go to 8 hooks, we will also probably have to go to 8-hour updates at the current rate of decline. As for reversing the order of hooks at T:TDYK, I'm not terribly keen on the idea myself for a variety of reasons, but perhaps it can't do much harm as an experiment. Gatoclass (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Support 8 hooks, and 8-hour update at a later stage. Will resume writing :) Other DYK problems mentioned at the very top are perpetual. I had once a thought that those editors who care about providing interesting hooks, images and articles tend to be auto-promoted by quick reviews, and those who post boring ones sink to the bottom (of the T:TDYK page). Maybe this is "natural selection", and at this state of my mind I'm hesitant to promote bottom reviews .. A second thought. The reversal idea has its merits and I would support it, but. Our conservatism is a problem here, and the mess with nominators keeping adding to the top will last for quite a while. Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's very much a case of "natural selection", which is one reason I'm not keen on the idea. I have my doubts it will change my own reviewing habits, and in any case I think too much fuss is made about clearing out the old hooks, but I don't feel strongly opposed to the idea and I don't think it can do much harm to give it a try. Gatoclass (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

One way or the other, they have to be cleared, we can't leave them there forever. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly they should be given priority, but the top priority of course is to create the best possible updates and if that means taking some more recent hooks, updaters should not be hesitant about that. When I was regularly doing updates I took them from anywhere on the page, and the "tail" never seemed to get any longer then. They all get processed eventually. Gatoclass (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually think the idea of placing newer hooks at the bottom of the page is more sensible. Another idea to increase new DYKs is to allow newly premoted GA and FA articles to be candidates. The idea of DYK is IMO to provide interesting facts from well written articles. However the current criteria of new articles or articles 5x expanded is a little specific IMO. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, the idea of DYK is IMO to showcase new content IMO, not fun trivia IMO. From WP:DYK: "The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles." It will require widespread consensus to change that, and such consensus has not been demonstrated yet despite numerous proposals (here and at WP:VPP) over the past couple years. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

One week trial

So let's try a one week trial with the "old noms on top" idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I like the idea of widening the DYK criteria as well (per LilUnique above) but I realise that is substantially more revolutionary and might need wider consultation and buy-in. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK is for "wikipedia's newest articles" and GAs don't necessarily qualify. This is a perennial proposal that has always been rejected. Gatoclass (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Then let's add it to WP:PEREN, meanwhile back to the "old noms on top" question. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A trial seems to be agreed, just need to work out when to try it. How about starting midnight UTC Monday 11th or thereabouts. Mjroots (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's make that specific, at 23:59 Mon 11 Oct 2010, as some may misinterpret what day midnight falls on. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed they might. I did mean midnight Sun/Mon, but Mon/Tue will be fine. Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Implemented. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on new format

I like the new format. I believe it will encourage reviewers to look at the articles that need some attention first. Also reviewers that are not inclined to get bogged down in a lengthy discussion over the merits of a hook can still do what they've been doing. I guess that might be the point. Dincher (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I dislike the new format and found the earlier system easier to navigate. This organization feels counterintuitive to me. I would prefer that we change it back.4meter4 (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment. One of the problems with the oldest-to-newest sequence is that the "Older nominations" section break is missing, which means you can't easily see which days are open for new nominations and which are closed. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "Older nominations" section as it seemed to be redundant. Maybe a "newer nominations" section could be added for hooks less than 5 days old. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do something like this:

2 Old nominations

2.1 Articles created/expanded on October 6

2.2 Articles created/expanded on October 7

3 Current nominations

3.1 Articles created/expanded on October 8

3.2 Articles created/expanded on October 9

3.3 Articles created/expanded on October 10

3.4 Articles created/expanded on October 11

3.5 Articles created/expanded on October 12

3.6 Articles created/expanded on October 13 —Bruce1ee^talk 10:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment - the newer and older nominations for a certain day are all over the place, this new system is completely chaotic, if a trial is to be properly started NEWER nominations on a particular day SHOULD be placed on the end since we're doing everything chronologically. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:31pm • 10:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment The reversed format seem to be encouraging the review of older noms first. Re the order of noms per day, I don't see it as a problem. As long as a nomination is under the correct day, what does it matter in which order they appear? Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Yes it's working fine as far as I can see. I already knew I had to scroll down near the end to find the new and exciting nominations to review. (Just kidding, I review half at one end and half at the other, whichever way up it is - but I know most people don't. And actually, for reviewing the older things, it really feels easier the way it is now.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I like the new format and think it is having the desired effect. It did seem as though it confused a few people though. I would suggest running for longer than one week as it appears that people are just now getting used to the new layout. I would also like to suggest that an additional note be added to the notice a few days before it gets switched back, to give people a chance to be ready for it. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I am of mixed feelings about the new format. On the plus side, older nominations appear to be receiving more reviewer attention. On the down side, I have noticed an increase in the number of new nominations being placed under the wrong date (e.g. [12] and [13]). As DYK regulars have the technical skills and understanding to adjust to different formats, I am more concerned with the format causing confusion for relative newbies about where to place new submissions. A secondary concern is the effective loss of the "Older nominations" header removes the visual reminder of which days are still open for new submissions and which days are beyond the five day window. --Allen3 ^talk 01:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We can put the older noms thing in and I'm sure Shub can do any code tweaks. Wrong placement of noms hasn't been that many and is fixed with a little time and people reading the notice and date headers. Also note the number of noms is creeping back up. A few days ago it was in the 140s and today it was over 180. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I also like the new setup, which seems to be working quite well. The older days seem to be being worked through a lot faster now than they did before. And I agree with Bruce1ee's suggestion of how the Old/New nominations format should be made. I think it would work better like that. Silver seren^C 01:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I've had a go at adding in the older / current noms split again. To do this, I've had to use lvl 1 hdrs for the main hdrs. The alternative was to move all hdrs down a lvl. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think that looks fine. I've tweaked the levels a bit and adjusted the TOC limit. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Support not that I see a vote yet, but this is definitely an improvement :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Support It works for me. Looking at other entries, I still added a nom at the top of a given date. If adding at the bottom was desired for chronological order, that should be stated clearly. I like about this order from old to new that it raises attention for the Special occasions section, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Support I haven't been during the trial, the new order makes a lot more sense to me and the page is currently a lot smaller than normal so it would seem to have had a positive effect. In particular, often the older hooks are those that are borderline for some reason, so having more editors see them and hopefully comment, can only be a good thing. Smartse (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Time's almost up

The one-week trial ends tonight, are we in agreement to leave it as it is? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Leave it as it is for now, but maybe make a final decision in a month. First impressions are that it is going well, but I don't think a week is long enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If I put my crat hat on, I'd say consensus is to accept the new format. But, whatever the group wants to do is okay. Right now I'd agree with MJR to go another week. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should make it clear that the newest hooks for a day should be on the bottom in the edit notice, the layout right now is muddled up. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:30am • 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters where within a day's section the nom's are as long as they are filed under the correct day. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like it that much...you expect to go to the bottom of the page for the rancid stuff. ResMar 01:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the whole point we've been trying to avoid. Under the old system, with all the stuff with problems at the bottom, very few people were willing to tackle it. By listing them at the top they get more prominence and, accordingly, more views; more second, third, fourth, fifth opinions. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the notice at the top of the suggestions page. Let's give it another week, then make a decision. Noms in the coming week will all have been made under the alternate system, rather than a mixture of the two systems as happened in the last week. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. I tend to just review whatever hooks are on top of the pile, and when the old hooks are on top, they are the ones I'm reviewing, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So it seems to me that it's doing what it was intended to do, which is bring more attention to the older hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm only a very occassional contributor to DYK so my opinion probably isn't worth that much, but FWIW I think the new layout is a big improvement. Giving the oldest hooks priority can only be a good thing. Interesting to note that the oldest nomination is only seven days old at present, which is about the lowest I've seen it, so it seems to be working. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely in support of the new format. Although I don't do much reviewing here anymore, I tend to glance through and see if anything of interest catches my eye (this is DYK afterall!) Having the old nominations at the top makes it more likely that I'll look at them and offer a view, help or review. I certainly haven't been confused by the change, and I think it is all pretty well explained. Harrias ^talk 13:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I like the new format as well. 28bytes (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to see that Wikipedia still can not make a concrete decision on anything, without a dither, blather, hang on a minute, etc. Good job we do not sit on the United Nations Security Council.... hell we do. So that's why ! 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I support. It's a step forward for those who just scroll down when reviewing. The only problem I have seen, occasionally, was a new nom placed up top. That should go away with time.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Support In full favor, it'll help with older nominations not getting lost at the bottom of the page. Miyagawa (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Support, seems to be going well so far, with little if any confusion caused by the change. -- Cirt (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Support, as commented above. Reviewers going for the new ones see the Special occasions more easily - where a 24 October hook is still waiting, smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Support, as this makes good sense. Schwede 66 02:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. Good change really. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. Page is definitely easier to navigate for reviewers looking for the older hooks. Yoninah (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. It is easier working from the top down instead of the bottom up – for reviewing and promoting hooks to the prep areas. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Permanent change?

I suggest that the experiment has worked, and that the "older noms at top" system be adopted permanently. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it's pretty much unanimous, looking at the comments in the subthread immediately above. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel the experiment did no harm, is a good idea and I support it but I can't say far certain or quantify for that matter whether it was a good success. Anyone notice an improvement?--NortyNort (Holla) 09:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

False messiah

At queue 5, does "Jewish false messiah" have a consensus here? 50,000 Frankists thought he was a real messiah, so should it be "alleged Jewish messiah"? Art LaPella (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "Jewish Messiah claimant". Gatoclass (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

8 hooks or 9?

It seems to me it may be time to go back to 8 hooks per? Since it's getting hard to find a sufficent amount without overloading on bios. (And 8 hooks makes it easier to go "half bios/American, don't put bios/American next to each other if it can be helped"). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Stay with 9. We went to 8 about a month ago at this point and hooks shot over 200, that's with 4 prep sets constantly full. I think we don't need to go to 8 until we hit 140 noms or so. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there are currently 36 Halloween hooks that will soon be moved to the queues. Combined with the current submissions, this means we are effectively around 200 hooks in the backlog. --Allen3 ^talk 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's 37 hooks, in 5 sets, slightly over a day's worth. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Althea Garrison

In regard to the hook for this article (an article I created and nominated), which is now at Prep area 3, I have been wondering for several days whether it is appropriate to use for a biography of a living person, in light of the fact that the person herself has never publicly confirmed the information. Granted, there are reliable sources which support the information, but I would appreciate it if some editors would take another look at the hook and the article itself before it goes live on the main page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As the nominator, I am formally seeking to withdraw this hook from DYK consideration. I have removed it from Prep area 3 because I have too many doubts about its appropriateness in connection with a BLP. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for exception

I recently created an article on the tenor Andrew McKinley and I could nominate it now. However, I have plans to create articles on baritone David Aiken (currently a redirect to another person) and the bass Leon Lishner. These three men were the three kings in the original production of the classic Christmas opera Amahl and the Night Visitors. I would like to nominate them together and perhaps have it up on Christmas Eve this year at DYK, since the opera premiered on NBC Televison on December 24, 1951. I'm not sure how soon I can get to the other two. It may be a few weeks, at which point McKinley will be past the nomination deadline.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a special occasions holding area on the nominations page. I would recommend nominating the McKinley article now and putting it in the holding area for December 24. I would also recommend adding a comment that you expect to be able to have an alternate hook later that will incorporate two other articles in the works about other performers in the same premiere of the same opera so that anyone reviewing the hook will understand your plan. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I followed your advice.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hooks for specific dates

With the change to oldest-first at T:TDYK, I am wondering if there is a danger that hooks for specific dates will be skipped when preparing updates because the hooks are being selected from the top of the page. There are presently two unreviewed nominations (disclosure: one is mine) that I think are now past their requested time-slots. There are also quite a few nominations for the next week or so in the special timing section, so it seems to me that there is a potential for further examples. Would someone experienced with preparing updates please have a look? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

EdChem, the 28 October hooks were only nominated on 24 October - less than 5 days before they are due to appear. So far, they still haven't missed a timeslot, but nomination for a specific day is best seen as a request rather than a guarantee. Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I do realise that my nom was only a request for 28 Oct, and that I may need to think of a different hook(s) for other dates. It is of course entirely up to reviewers to decide if my nom is even accepted. As for the more general point, Gerda Arendt's suggestion of some signal to remind editors preparing updates that a date-related request is pending sounds sensible and potentially helpful. EdChem (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions: a signal (at the top of the page?), both for unreviewed hooks in that section (disclosure: one is mine) and for the date of the next one coming up. One more suggestion: to place such hooks in the middle of the day when it is that day for most of the world. But in general I am quite happy, 1.2k for the last Bach cantata (BWV 109) was not bad. (That one was in the middle of the day, thanks!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I'm getting a little worried about the process now. Mine and EdChem's timed hook hasn't received a single review despite us asking for a slot in less than 24 hours. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you review each other's hooks? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The six-article multi-hook nomination was a joint nomination from Paralympiakos and me, so we can't review them. Paralympiakos' stand-alone hook has had a comment made, and I have made additions to the article to address the concern raised, so I consider myself ineligible to review it. Also, our collaboration over the previous month disqualifies me as a reviewer due to potential conflict of interest. EdChem (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination procedure for special timing hooks

A lot of the hooks in the holding area are yet to be reviewed. Should we make it clear (a written rule) that all new nominations, including ones for special timings, are to be nominated the regular way? The nominator can always add the request for the special time in his nomination. Once passed, he or the reviewer can then make the move to the holding area. This would seem to me to solve the issue of lack of reviews for special time hooks as has been raised here. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that may work better, ie, put them in the regular nom sections, only moving them to holding after approval. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Should probably be made clear in the instructions then. Str Pby (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I had done so, nominate the regular way a hook about the St John Passion, asking for Good Friday, - it got "on" well after Easter, which made no sense. Then I asked if I should nominate in Special occasions to start with, so I did, and with some reminders it worked for all but one. Well, too bad that the 22nd Sunday after Trinity is also Halloween. I skipped Reformation Day for this year, to not make it even more complicated. Should I nominate now for 31 October 2011? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a year from now. But if you want to wait that long, go ahead. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Question / Proposal re Prep 4

The lead hook in Prep 4 presently is:

... that ophanin, piscivorin, ablomin and triflin found in the venom of the King Cobra (pictured), the water moccasin, the Mamushi snake, and the Habu snake, respectively, are all cysteine-rich secretory proteins that can reduce muscle contractions?

I noticed it a couple of hours ago at T:TDYK and thought it was a nice example of collaboration (four articles from four different editors) and also that it was a shame it wouldn't have the fifth article to make it into the DYK Hall of Fame. So, I have started a new article cysteine-rich secretory proteins and I am suggesting that it might be added into this hook (assuming the other authors are agreeable, and that it meets DYK standards, of course).
I recognise that thie request is somewhat unusual - and I apologise if it is inappropriate. If the suggestion is unreasonable, I am willing to simply nominate cysteine-rich secretory proteins through the regular process and have it as a stand-alone DYK nom. However, I thought that combining it with the existing hook seems reasonable to at least suggest. I am suggesting the hook be changed to:

... that ophanin, piscivorin, ablomin and triflin found in the venom of the King Cobra (pictured), the water moccasin, the Mamushi snake, and the Habu snake, respectively, are all cysteine-rich secretory proteins that can reduce muscle contractions?

All of the venoms are mentioned in the CRISP article, all referenced. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I checked it out, and cysteine-rich secretory protein meets all of the DYK requirements. (Note: as a stand-alone, I think an interesting hook could be constructed about snake venom and human reproduction.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked PHFLai about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And PHFLai gives his STRONG SUPPORT to this proposal. Nicely done, EdChem. I was thinking of doing the exact same things this past weekend, but I ran out of time. (Spent too much time playing with Chinese scorpions..., now on Q3) It's always nice to see things done the way I want without actually doing it myself, and I don't even have to ask anyone. Excellent! Thank you. If anyone feels like turning this quintuple-DYK into a sextuple-DYK hook for even more awesomeness, please add 450+ characters to the Latisemin article and add this to the hook with the Erabu sea snake. This snake has a cool pic, too. (pictured right) Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Latisemin expanded (but will still need independent review / approval, of course), so the proposed 6-article hook would be...

... that ophanin, piscivorin, ablomin, latisemin and triflin found in the venom of the King Cobra (pictured), the water moccasin, the Mamushi snake, the Erabu sea snake and the Habu snake, respectively, are all cysteine-rich secretory proteins that can reduce muscle contractions?

Or, we could go with two hooks, one for now and one for the queue for later, being:

... that ophanin, piscivorin, ablomin, latisemin and triflin found in the venom of the King Cobra (pictured), the water moccasin, the Mamushi snake, the Erabu sea snake and the Habu snake, respectively, are all proteins that can reduce muscle contractions?

and

... that CRISPs are found primarily in mammalian semen and some snake venom?

This approach has the advantage of shortening the first hook, and it is still 5-articles, and allowing the catchier stand-alone hook for CRISPs. It has the disadvantage of being two hooks rather than one. Obviously, if the two hook approach is taken, the second hook would go back to the queue with a 28 October nomination to wait its turn. Either approach is fine with me. :) EdChem (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Latisemin Rules OK! And I support the Six-a-One Solution. ;) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mandarax, thanks for checking it out. As a stand-alone, I was planning to nominate the article with a hook like:

... that CRISPs are found primarily in two vertebrate products: mammalian semen and some snake venom?

or

... that CRISPs are found primarily in mammalian semen and some snake venom?

Whatever everyone thinks is best is fine with me. :) Thanks. EdChem (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll strongly support adding it to the Prep 4 hook, for great awesomeness! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the 6in1 hook in prep 4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Rlevse for updating the hook and The Bushranger for updating the Prep 4 dyk-makes. I was wondering whether PFHLai should also get dyk-nom credits for the two extra articles? EdChem (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, IMHO he shold for latisemin, since he suggested it here. But you came up with the CRISPS suggestion above. ;) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added a DYKnom for latisemin, as suggested. EdChem (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, EdChem. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I Hear You, I See You

I rejected this nomination earlier today for being submitted past the 5 day deadline... yet somehow it is now in the queue. Why is this?4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea (I didn't build the set), but can you post a diff of your rejection? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume that Additional Rule D9 might have been in play? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

checks* Yeah, pretty sure it was D9'd... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. See the difference here. I'm not incredibly upset over having it included, but it seemed a mystery to me that there was no comment made by the person who reversed my decision.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak Swahili, I enforce the 5-day rule. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I. lol Hence why I brought this up here.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The hook appears in prep 4 this time yesterday, so maybe there was a double nomination of it? Str Pby (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was originally nominated 12 hours after creation, and approved about five days later. Perhaps after it was moved to prep, the user didn't realize why it was no longer on the page, and renominated it with a slightly different hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

1366 Technologies

This article is currently in queue 5 but there was an unresolved issue with the hook (see the section in this version just before it was moved to prep). The "cutting costs for such cells by 40% and making the power generated from the cells cheaper than from coal" is not suitably sourced IMO as it is based on what the company has said and obviously they will be trying to big up their own product. I suggest removing this from the hook, but that makes it rather dull. Shall we move it back to T:TDYK so it can be discussed properly? Smartse (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just realised the 40% claim is totally unsourced in the article as well, so it definitely needs removing from the queue. Smartse (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3

{{editprotected}} T:TDYK#Dragan Tešanović has been reviewed and it is requested that it be on the main page on 29 October, 1:00am (queue 3). Can an admin please slot it in? Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with this. If a nomination is approved late, we shouldn't be bending over backwards just to accomodate a special request timing. Furthermore, the usage of the editprotected template and subsequent intervention by an admin who does not normally frequent DYK was inappropriate. A hook already in queue should not be retrned to the nom page if here is nothing wrong with it. Furthermore this hook has been waiting in the noms since Oct 21 and will now have an extra wait. I call for this action to be undone and consider this a very strong protest from someone not involved in that article, nom, review or promotion. Str Pby (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, the hook was swapped in twice, by two different people, and is now in Queue 3 twice. Also, the first time it was swapped, the credit templates were not taken care of, so there is an erroneous DYKmake and DYKnom for Mac Morgan. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we can make an effort to fit hooks into time-sensitive slots such as this. It won't hurt Mac Morgan to wait a few more hours; she's been in the queue for a week. And using {{editprotected}} for urgently needed interventions is also appropriate, although I apologise for forgetting to change the DYKmake templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As the author of Mr. Mac Morgan's article (he is male) I personally don't care when he hits the mainpage just as long as he does eventually. However, when swapping hooks please make sure you select topics which are diverse from the ones in the various queues. I had to move Mac again because there were too many opera singer hooks together. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

9 minutes to go and still not added to the queue

I hate to be "that guy", I really do, but myself and EdChem added our joint hook days ago, yet it has not received any sort of view. We asked for a specific time and that time is 9 minutes away, yet the hook hasn't been moved to the queue. Can someone please deal with this now as it is rather urgent. Apologies for the nagging, but this has been kept waiting too long. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, my other hook for Dragan Tesanovic is currently in queue 3, which wasn't what I requested. I requested queue 2, so if that change could possibly be made, it would be great, otherwise I'll have to change the wording of the hook, as the event will be passed. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dragan Tesanovic has been moved to Q2, and one of Q2's hooks sent to Q3. Courcelles 12:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But, as I mentioned two threads above, the hook was in the queue twice, so it's still in Queue 3 once. Also, the DYKmake now in Queue 2 is for Dragan Tesanovic, and I don't know if the bot properly handles the redirect to Dragan Tešanović. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Caught that. Removed it from Q3, and promoted something else. Resolved redirect for the bot. Courcelles 12:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Now there's an erroneous DYKmake left over for My Week with Marilyn in Queue 2, as well as the two credit templates for Mac Morgan in Queue 3 which I mentioned in the thread above. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you suggest now for the joint hook with me and EdChem? Are we going to have to alter the hook wording and apply for another slot? Paralympiakos (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't have two MMA hooks in the same queue, sorry. Courcelles 12:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not much we can do now, but the original slot requested for the joint nom was the update that is presently live. Just noting we didn't ask for two MMA hooks in one queue, FYI. EdChem (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Paralympiakos, I agree it is disappointing that the hook will need redrafting, but it's not the end of the world. We can redraft once the results are known fairly easily. Remember that everyone here is a volunteer, and we should have made the nomination a couple of days earlier - blame me if you like. Reviewers are free to review what they choose, and I am certainly grateful for their efforts. I think the issue here (other than some tardiness on my part) is the change in page layout making the date-specific nominations less prominent. I am glad your Dragan Tešanović hook will get its requested slot, it was nominated in plenty of time. Moving our nom back to the regular queue isn't too difficult. Personally, I think the concern here is whether the new layout of T:TDYK makes the DYK community less aware of those date-specific nominations, and how to reduce the chances of nominations like yours of Tešanović slipping through the cracks. EdChem (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether something on the page has changed or whether I monumentally screwed up, but the Dragan nom is now in the wrong queue. If this is my fault, then I apologise wholeheartedly, but I hoped for the London 1am queue, whereas it is in the 7pm queue presently. If possible, could you revert the previous changes and put it back in queue 3? I'm sorry about this. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts, it's going to create too much hassle for admins and too much displeasure towards me, so if things are in order at the moment, then just leave them as is. We just need to sort out the joint hook that is still over the time limit. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So Adabow's original request above was actually correct? I'd change it over but I'm afraid of making a mistake again! And anyway 6 hours does not make much difference I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think so, yes. That was some terrible eyesight by myself and I take full responsibility for this screw up. Anyway, as before, if someone could recommend the next course of action regarding the 28 October 1AM hook, I'd appreciate it. I'm no longer in a rush since the event is taking place now, but I'm keen to avoid the hook being disqualified for hook timing reasons. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to stress about the hook being disqualified for hook timing reasons as we have until the end of 29 October (UTC) - more than 24 hours from now - to place the nom in the regular queue and still fulfill the rules, assuming it presently being in the special area were taken as insufficient for satisfying the 5 day rule. We'll soon have the fight results, and we can re-cast the hook, update the articles, and hopefully get the hook into the queue. EdChem (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Queue 3 fix

Queue 3 has an erroneous DYKmake and DYKnom for Mac Morgan. The hook was moved and is currently in Prep 2, with the proper credits. (I mentioned this above, but I guess it got lost among other discussions, or people assumed someone else had fixed it.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

removed. Courcelles 19:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween Hold on Prep Set building

The two queues (4 and 1) just built by Alansohn will go live on 31 Oct, which is when the 5 Halloween prep sets we have saved up will start going live. Therefore, I'm putting the two he built into temp holding pages and will start moving the Halloween sets in. Of course, others are welcome to move the Halloween sets in too, but keep in mind I built them in the order I thought best to see them on the main page, ie, Halloween P1 gets loaded first, HP2 loaded second and so on. The 5th set will appear on 1 Nov UTC time but it'll still be Halloween in North America. Cheers. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to where I've stored the two sets he created is here: Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Halloween_2010/After_Halloween — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize how far ahead the entries I put into prep would appear. I'll hold off until the Halloween DYK sets are completed. Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Go to T:DYK/Q and near the top you can see a sked of when the queues will appear on the main page. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I knew that already, but knowing and remembering are two different things. My bad. Alansohn (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No biggie. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Malta Test Station

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Malta Test Station, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from {{{url}}}, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Malta Test Station and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Malta Test Station, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Malta Test Station with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Malta Test Station. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Malta Test Station saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Not a very good stock template, but apprently I was expected to notify, so I'm doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

See thread at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm starting to feel that it's a tad bit more than grating that you appear to attack DYK at every chance you get (at Utahraptor's RFA, and then this thread at ANI). How about trying to help instead of randomly accusing us of not doing enough on X, Y or Z, or that we're too lax on A, B or C? For what it's worth, when I review DYK nominations I do check for close paraphrasing and possible copyvios; as can be seen from the talk page archives of one of our more prominent copyright-dealing admins, I've approached her before for advice when reviewing DYKs. Str Pby (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be dificult to know where to start, and a waste of effort anyway given the resistance to change everywhere on wikipedia. I've looked at a significant percentage of main page DYKs over the last six months or so, and too many of them are absolutely dreadful. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(ecx3) Given our turnover rate (we have 140–200 nominations at any one time), DYK (correctly imo) works well on WP:AGF (including WP:AGFC). Those that do slip through can be brought up as Sandy did, albeit not in the "the world is ending, DYK is the problem" manner that she did. Str Pby (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

MF-No article starts as an FA. The FA you helped so much with, Grace Sherwood, was a stub when I expanded it 5x, made DYK, and then FA and will be the TFA in less than three days. If we required new articles to be at FA level, hardly any would get written. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well blow me down, I never knew that; is this "patronise Malleus week"? Believe it or not, despite what Camelbinky says and others appear to believe, I've created articles and taken them all the way to FA, more than just the one. Who knows, I may even do it again one day if I can be arsed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You should remember that a little more often. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I should remember what a little more often? So far as I recall I didn't drop any of them off at kiddies corner, aka DYK, didn't see any point. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

StrPby, try reading through Sandy's comments at the ANI rather than just looking at the header. She specifically said she's not out to bash DYK and that the problem is not with the reviewers but with award-collecting editors who abuse it. There's no reason for everyone to start fighting here. In fact, I'm not sure I see any reason to be having a discussion here at all—is there an issue that needs to be discussed? rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she did say that. But coming right after Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Utahraptor 2#Oppose, it's a little hard to buy. It's probably unfortunate that my last two interactions with her have seen her taking a very negative view against DYK. Str Pby (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange Passerby, if you will read critically and adjust your AGFometer, you will detect that I am trying to help. At FAC, we had to change the instructions to put the brakes on the effect the reward culture was having on production. We're a smaller community, so we were able to do that. DYKs are a much bigger part of the reward culture, and those people are demanding their DYK prize, while turning out shoddy content and overwhelming your review process. But we can't blame it all on the reward culture, the wikicup, RFA, whatever, because long-time participants who have come and gone from here tell me it has always been a haven for plagiarists. You need a change in process here, or for a light to be shone on the problem so the reward seekers will stop, and we can have "real" DYKs. You're welcome for the help. And drop the Utah RFA biz-- it's not my fault y'all passed a DYK that was not only plagiarism but didn't even use a reliable source. Address the problem, not the person who pointed it out. Unless you really think Utah needs to be an admin, in which case ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But here's where you're missing the point, Sandy. There is no "y'all". More often than not it's just one reviewer on each nomination, and the people compiling the hook sets simply AGF and take the reviewer's word that there's nothing wrong. My point all along has been that you seem to be tarring all of DYK with the same brush when in reality it's likely only one or two reviewers who aren't getting caught. Str Pby (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not true; it's been happening for a very very long time. Detecting plagiarism is not part of your process. DYK is being gamed by the reward culture and RFA-- I don't pretend to know how to tell you to solve the problem, but I know you can't solve it by ignoring it, you will solve it by recognizing it and by shining a light on the abuse that has been hoised upon you, and the mainpage shouldn't display plagiarism and non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

At least we agree on something. :) No, ignoring it isn't going to work, but simply complaining about it isn't either. Maybe a good place to start would be to require each nominated hook to have two reviewers pass it before it gets approved. Just throwing an idea out, might not be feasible but it's a starting point. Str Pby (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should reduce the number of DYKs and make them of higher quality. Maybe change to 8-hour intervals and increase min number of characters. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That won't necessarily solve the problem of copyright issues or non-RS. With our 160-200 article backlog at all times 8-hour sets with less hooks in each is going to result in a growing backlog. 8-hour, 8-hook sets do happen, simply not at the current time. Str Pby (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Christopher: how would increasing the minimum number of characters increase quality? Do you think someone who is willing to plagiarize 1500 characters (or write 1500 characters of junk) wouldn't be willing to plagiarize 2500 characters?

The problem is not in how DYK is handled, but in how people use it and what people think it means. There will always be a problem with award-seeking editors flooding the project, as long as people believe that having DYKs is a ticket to RfA success or something like that. Get the word out at RfA that having DYKs doesn't automatically get you the bit (and back up that word by actually rejecting candidates who have a lot of DYK but wouldn't make good admins) and you would much of what motivates bad writers to submit DYKs. (I suppose WikiCup is also one of the big problems, so something would have to be done about that too.) But increasing the length requirement is certainly not going to change anything. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Get the word out at RfA that having DYKs doesn't automatically get you the bit (and back up that word by actually rejecting candidates who have a lot of DYK but wouldn't make good admins) and you would much of what motivates bad writers to submit DYKs. That's the ticket :) DYK is being abused by incompetent editors who want to climb the ladder at RFA, so shine a light on it. It is embarrassing to have plagiarism on the main page, and there are many competent editors who run their articles through DYK-- let them have more time again :) That may slow things down here, and give you all more opportunity for scrutiny. Anyway, I'm unwatching now, and I do hope this turns out to have been helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(redent) I can't see any way round the problem while DYK is seen as some sort of a right for articles, judged solely on supposedly objective standards. There are enough nominations and enough editors to choose the best eight articles/hooks a day and keep them up for 24 hours, but that would obviously be a very radical change and one for which I've never seen any real support around here. Physchim62 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you in spirit, Physchim, and I too have often told people that I don't think DYK should be an entitlement and that uninteresting or poorly-written articles shouldn't get promoted. But, as you suggest, I don't think any of the ideas I've ever had along those lines are workable. In particular, interestingness criteria would be prone to gaming ("i'll review yours and you review mine") and this page would quickly get filled up with people throwing fits about how their article wasn't promoted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much the idea I see as unworkable as the change it would involve. DYK isn't starting from scratch but from where it is today, with the accumulated expectations of editors (both those who write the articles and those who review them). Any change that would address the problems you mention (and that are mentioned above) would have to be stepwise. Either that, or we just shut down DYK altogether and replace it with something else. Physchim62 (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A higher character limit would mean less submissions and so more time for reviewers to check articles properly. It'll also make it harder for hat collectors to get articles through. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK isn't a hat.... those are crats, and meaningless job titles by people who are actually inactive. But on that note, I bet if you gave out silly titles, "Inspector-General of DYK", "Sub-editor", "section-editor" of DYK, then more politicians would join in. Whether they would bother to actually check anything or just claim membership of some steering party on their worthless CV.... well... YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a higher character limit on its own is the answer. For a start, number of characters is a fairly poor measure of article quality, especially when DYK discounts things like lists, infoboxes, picture captions... Nor do I think that reviewers would automagically spend more time on each submission if there were fewer in the queue: I think that many reviewers would just review in the same way as before and use the time saved for something else. One possible first step would be to get every article reviewed by two separate editors before it is posted. Physchim62 (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Increasing the minimum article length definitely wouldn't prevent plagiarism/copy-pasting in DYK nominations. Indeed, I believe it could encourage more plagiarism, because contributors would be eager to pad their articles. I just checked the history of a particularly egregious piece of plagiarism that I encountered as a DYK reviewer back in 2008, and I find that it was over 28,000 characters of readable text (much of which was complete paragraphs copied verbatim from copyrighted sources -- not individual sentences copied primarily from public domain US-government sources, as is the case with the Malta Test Station article). --Orlady (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

When I review a DYK and check the refs, I do look for plagiarism, as I am sure do many other reviewers. When I saw a borderline case, I raised it and other editors expressed a view. So, I hope that we can avoid tarring all reviewers with the actions of (what I hope is only) a few. I believe that most editors here would support avoiding putting plagiarism being posted to the main page. As a suggestion for detecting plagiarism, could a bot that works on this problem (such as CorenSearchBot, for example) be adapted to check a single article on request? That way, reviewers would have a test they could add to their standard review practice. Alternatively, maybe a check could by added to the DYKcheck script? EdChem (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The truth is that most reviewers don't even check for basic spelling and grammar. There are some phrases that just jump out as having been copied from somewhere, and it usually only takes a Google search to find out from where. Hardly rocket science. Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

He he, WP:FAC has shown itself incapable of detecting blatantly ungrammatical sentences in the opening paragraphs of articles before now, as well as many other obvious article problems. It also recently promoted an article which was heavily "plagiarized" from a PD U.S. government source, not that I consider that anything like as much of a problem as some other editors seem to. So I shouldn't take those high falutin' Southern manners too much to heart, but rather concentrate on trying to improve the service we provide to our readers. Physchim62 (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of spelling, I managed to mis-spell plagiarism three times in one post... embarrassing. :( Now corrected.

Malleus, I can assure you that I wouldn't pass an article full of spelling and grammar mistakes. Have a look at the x5 expansion of actinide that is presently in the DYK queue, or my expansion of the Hans Freeman stub or the rhodocene DYK (now a GA)... there is some really good work highlighted by DYK. Please try to recognise that DYK has both wheat and chaff. EdChem (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll consider that when you agree to consider the possibility that DYK is overwhelmingly chaff. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I rather get the impression you would consider the possibility that Wikipedia as a whole is overwhelmingly chaff, so the distinction seems meaningless. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't share my view then I will have to consider you an idiot. Do you really believe that the overwhelming majority of the 3 million or so articles on the English wikipedia alone are worth spit? Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, children... Physchim62 (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do (think they're worth something). And somebody who says "If you don't share my view you're an idiot" is somebody I will speak no longer to or with. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your loss, not mine. Blocking your ears to what you don't want to hear can hardly be considered to be the response of an adult though. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I certainly accept that there is good stuff featured on DYK – and not just in chemistry ;) So why is it only featured for six hours? So that DYK can also feature the "chaff" as Malleus puts it, or the "Did you care?" hooks as I tend to put it? Surely not. So DYK needs a better wheat–chaff separation procedure. In my mind, the process should be more focussed on throwing out the chaff than on not risking to throw out a bit of wheat with it. And, of course, no process is perfect, nor can it please all the people all of the time. Physchim62 (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My three cents: DYK is not overwhelmingly chaff, however there are too many editors who are RfAming the system with chaff, alas; raising the character limit wouldn't help (as it is, sometimes a article on an obscure subject at 1000 characters is better than other articles at 3000); and I for one make a point of not plagaraising, never want to be an admin, and submit every article I possibly can to DYK. Why? Becasuse it's fun, and because it helps people learn things about things. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

<-I just gave a cursory read to the rules and additional rules. Apologies if I missed something, but I didn't see any admonitions to check for copyvios. I fully understand that all article submitted for DYK must meet all policy requirements for articles, and it is not feasible to repeat all those requirements in the rules for evaluating a DYK. However, given the strong allegations, and the prominence of the DYK articles, perhaps it would be good to remind DYK evaluators that checking for plagiarism should be one of the steps. I confess I've evaluated a number of suggestions, concentrating on length, timing, hook, verifiability of hook, general readability, and only pursued copyvio possibilities if it reads too good to be true. I plan to check more carefully in the future; does it make sense to encourage others to do the same?--SPhilbrick T 17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween queues - wording

Should "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" be rephrased for Halloween to something else? They aren't technically our "newest articles"... Str Pby (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"From recent spooky articles on Wikipedia:" ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK as it currently operates makes no real sense if you think about, not for any day of the year. Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Object, "my" Bach cantata among them - intentionally so - is new and not spooky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bach is long dead, so he is now arguably a spook, in some sense. :P EdChem (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Did my October 23 nom get lost?

Hi folks. I nominated United States Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture, created on October 23. It was approved and then in this edit and this edit yesterday moved to the prep 4 area. Then in this edit later yesterday it was replaced by a set of Halloween items. But I've looked at all the queues and other prep areas and I don't see it anywhere now, unless I've missed it. Did it get lost in the shuffle? Thanks! Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2010/After Halloween. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that's fine. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hook with Oct 28 request date

As those who follow this page would be aware, Paralympiakos and I had a six-article hook in the time-specific section with a request for an Oct 28 date. It was not reviewed in time and cannot be used in its present form on any other date, so we have been considering what to do now. I had intended to do a small redraft of the hook, but events have made that impossible (one fight was postponed, and hence two articles no longer fit in the hook). So, I am posting here to outline our suggestions / requests in the hope they will be found satisfactory. Our intentions are as follows:

Move the existing hook to the regular queue, with a 24 October nomination date (the date the articles were moved to article space).
Recast the hook to take account of the now-known results of the championship bouts, and remove the two articles relating to the bout that was postponed.
Move those two articles to a nomination for the date of the new bout (10 December) - we would ask that these not be disqualified later on timing grounds, as they were nominated on the day they reached article space, but the nomination has since been overtaken by events.
Hold off on reviewing the hook in the regular queue for 24 hours, as I think a x5 expansion of an existing article may allow us to make that hook back into a 5 article hook, and hence eligible for the DYK Hall of Fame. With the Halloween hooks being added to the queues presently, we hope there is time for this period of grace to be allowed.
It is our intent that the 11 December nomination will be expanded closer to the date, as there are Championship bouts in two other weight divisions to be included at that event. This would make the 11 Decemeber nomination potentially a 6-article hook.

Is this an acceptable way for dealing with the existing Oct 28 request? Paralympiakos and I thank you for considering our suggestions / requests. EdChem (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Some feedback / comment on this proposal would be very much appreciated, or should we just go ahead? EdChem (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're willing to wait six weeks, yes, otherwise tweak the hook as necessary and it can go into a queue now. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I will start making the changes now. Paralympiakos and I are happy for two of the articles to wait until 10 December, as outlined above. EdChem (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

1366 Technologies hook presently on the main page

There is a discussion at talk:Main page about the hook for 1366 Technologies. It contains a claim reliably sourced to the New York Times, but if you read the article the 40% saving stated in the hook as definitively occurring is actually just a claim / prediction from the management. We should either take this hook down and re-assess / re-draft it, or at least change it on the main page to show that the saving is a prediction, not a fact. Someone please intervene quickly, this looks like a really dubious hook to me.

Details: The hook presently on the main page is:

... that 1366 Technologies has created a technique to cast solar cells directly from molten silicon, cutting costs for such cells by 40% and making the power generated from the cells cheaper than from coal?

1366 Technologies article:

"The company's management predicts that the new approach will be able to produce wafers at costs 40% below current methods" (followed by NYT reference)

and

"Company president Frank van Mierlo estimated that solar power generated using wafers from 1366 Technologies would be cheaper than power generated using coal" (followed by NYT reference)

These statements do not support the hook, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I pointed this out at T:TDYK and further up this page yesterday. Materialscientist has removed the "cheaper than coal" but I think that the 40% should also go. Smartse (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Materialscientist for making a change, but I suggest the following:

... that 1366 Technologies has created a technique to cast solar cells directly from molten silicon which they predict will cut the costs for such cells by 40%?

would be a reasonable and accurate new version of the hook. EdChem (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks ok to me. Smartse (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Immediate problem resolved - Materialscientist has changed the hook to:

... that 1366 Technologies has created a technique to cast silicon wafers from the melt rather than sawing them from an ingot?"

which addresses my concerns. Smartse's point that we dropped the ball in passing the hook in the first place remains, however. EdChem (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

I know we've had GAs on DYK before, but I wonder what list of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners will make it to first, FL status or the Main Page? :) On a more serious note, in the unlikely event that it is promoted to FL before approval here, it wouldn't affect its eligibility, I hope. Str Pby (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh - Tillson Harrison was made a GA four days before it was DYKed :) Arctic Night 06:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Are we now applying stricter standards for reference formatting? If so, that must be fully disclosed in the rules. I don't think we should, as that would have the effect of excluding newer users who may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with fancier techniques such as citation templates.

The review for the General Union of Ecuadorian Workers hook stated that "the bare URLs need to be formatted per WP:Citation templates before this nomination can be approved." I pointed out that there were no bare URLs. But the hook was removed with the edit summary "yes they are bare urls, disapproved".

Am I missing something? http://abareurl.com is a bare URL. Not a bare URL isn't. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should not demand citation templates at DYK for the reasons you said. I don't understand the decision to reject General Union of Ecuadorian Workers. Perhaps it needs to be discussed and reconsidered. Offliner (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

While we should not require use of citation templates, we can and do require citations contain enough information to locate the cited source. Vital information missing from the majority of this articles citations includes who authored the source, who published the source, and when was the source written/created. These are vital because titles are not guaranteed to be unique and there could be multiple sources with the same name, author and publisher are required for Interlibrary loan requests and many other forms of library searches, including them in the citation allows an article reader/reviewer to determine the nature of the source before obtaining access to the actual source. --Allen3 ^talk 18:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Allen3. Templates aren't required, but proper formatting and basic info are. Furthermore, while we don't need to require GA/FA level of standards, we do need to set a certain level of standard to ensure quality new articles are on the main page. Look at all threads on this page right now about junk that made it through. DYK has enough reputation problems without us adding fuel to the fire. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my main point. The author of the article was told that they had to add citation templates, which is not true, to fix the bare URLs, of which there were none. Then the hook was removed with a reason of "bare urls", which, again, is not the case. It is extremely unfair that the hook was disapproved after the author was told to fix a specific problem which doesn't exist, without being informed of or given the opportunity to correct the true concerns. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yoninah also said there were bare URLs and I agree with her that there were. So there's a difference in the definition of bare URL. Also, the author's last edit was 24 Oct and he/she made no attempt to answer the concerns, including not asking questions if there was confusion, and we disapprove hooks all the time for that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There were bare URLs in the article and while it doesn't need citation templates, at least the title of the reference and the publisher should be present. Per the recent concerns of using reliable sources, having the publisher easily seen for reviewers and readers should be required.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Mandarax, I make a special effort to format the references on most articles that I review. Too many first-time nominators have simply never read WP:Citation templates. I spend a lot of time tracking down ISBN numbers, too, for people who cite "Google Books" as the publisher. When it came to this article, however, I was stuck: All the references were in Spanish. That's why I asked the nominator to format them himself. I've been monitoring the suggestions page ever since to see if he answered me, but received no reply. I wasn't online when the nomination was removed from the page. Yoninah (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Your efforts are greatly appreciated. (I, too, format refs when I see the need.) As mentioned in my post at the end of this thread, I felt that the author may have believed that they had already fixed the problem when they edited the article to convert the barest of bare URLs into their current form. But their lack of responsiveness was problematic. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the five that I looked at Jameela Jamil (BLP) had no article title on the third source, just a publisher. I'd be less worried about how pretty the article looks (in terms of formatting the citations) then whether the information meets WP:V if we don't even have an article name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V example: information has to be published and verifiable, whether that involves a trip to a library, it has to be something in print somewhere accessible somehow. Where the heck does one find this source at Acheron class torpedo boat?

Naval Historical Society of Australia

That is all of the information given. No title, no date, nothing to indicate anything was published. Are we expected to call Australia to verify this article's content? This doesn't meet the barest policy requirements of WP:V, and it's on the mainpage now, I think. I'm worried that you all are verifying only the hooks, but passing on articles that shouldn't even be ... well ... articles yet, because they don't meet core policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I googled "Naval Historical Society of Australia" and this first hit was their website (www.navyhistory.org.au). I could also have found their website from the wikipedia article Naval Historical Society of Australia. I went to their website and searched "Acheron class torpedo boat", and found this:

"Australia's First Warship - The Torpedo Boat Acheron". navyhistory.org.au. Retrieved October 30, 2010.

I am guessing that will give you more than enough information to go on with, and it has taken longer to type this post than it did to find the information.

Maybe you will take some friendly advice... if you want to try and improve the situation with DYK referencing, you might consider an approach that is less likely to put everyone on the defensive. I think you have some relevant points, but I am also finding some of your comments irritating, and I suspect I am not alone. Telling us that everything DYK does is awful without recognising the efforts of the editors here (both in content development and in reviewing) is not helping you towards your stated goal (at least, not efficiently). EdChem (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It was nice of you to do that editor's work for him, but teaching 'em to fish before giving out prizes rather than giving them the fish might be more beneficial to them and the Wiki in the long run. And, the editor who adds the content has to say where they got it, and neither of us has any idea if his source was a website or a hard-print publication. Nothing here is about my stated goals; it's about Wiki policy and how it's being undermined by the reward culture. If DYK wants to further that (and plagiarism), I'm really not inclined to be offended if we don't see eye to eye on the overall goal. Editors should be here for common goals-- don't shoot the messenger. I ended up peeking in here because of plagiarism, and that's a serious matter, not to be taken lightly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually sent you a post on your user talk already, but for the record here, the entire citation regarding the Acheron class link in question was present originally, just below the inline cite in the next sub-section below, with a link to the article. The inline cites using the {{reflist}} showing were in "Notes" under "References", while the link was just below in "Bibliography" under "References". - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

← Getting back to the original article in question, I'd like to apologize for some assumptions which I made. I took the term "bare URL" literally and assumed that it referred only to links which look like unadorned URLs. Because of the crude ref formatting, I assumed that the author was an inexperienced user submitting their first DYK and that they were thus in need of a little extra support and nurturing, when in fact, according to their user page, they've created over 3000 articles and received 244 DYKs. Because the author originally used unambiguously bare URLs by anybody's definition and then changed them to their present form after nominating the article, I assumed that they thought they had already fixed the bare URL issue, perhaps thinking that the comment in the review was based on the earlier version. It is regrettable that they never responded. And finally, I'd like to apologize for inadvertently adding links to a porn site! When I provided an example URL (which I've now modified), I should have realized that anything beginning with "bare" would be trouble. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Y'all can't be putting BLPs sourced to "guampedia" on the main page-- I just blanked most of José Sisto, which is on the mainpage now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed it from the mainpage. It's negative, but it's actually not about a living person... I transposed the numbers when reading it. Whoops. Courcelles 19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nor can Sandy go blanking large parts of content linked from the main page with out the most basic of research or discussion. A little bit of research would show that Guampedia entries are peer-reviewed under the auspices of the University of Guam, and so just as acceptible as any other webpage. But no, Sandy thinks she's above all that sort of hard work... off to WP:ANI, blanking, anything to get her way without ever considering she might actually be mistaken. All of that while claiming that this is a BLP issue, for someone who was in political office in 1899! If this editor were not so troublesome, the whole thing would be laughable. A newbie would be blocked for this sort of stuff. Physchim62 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WHOA José Sisto is DEAD, he was in office over a hundred years ago. This is NOT a BLP. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict), I put it back, with the date added to make clear this isn't a current issue or a living person. Courcelles 19:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to SandyGeorgia's concerns at the article's talk page; even though the article was removed as a mistake (the man, though I could find no date of death anywhere, has most certainly been dead for awhile given his time spent in office) it is still nice to see what was thought of as a negative BLP on the main page removed so quickly. A mistake made in the interest protecting the encyclopedia and its rules to protect BLPs is a mistake made in the best of faith for sure. And I say that as the creator and nominator; I suppose what I'm saying is that removing the entry and THEN the inquiry happening AFTER was the right thing to do given what Courcelles believed the issue was. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

First, my apologies for the BLP misunderstanding and the resulting kerfuffle-- I wasn't aware we put up bios of dead persons without dates in the lead-- I thought that was standard. Second, my first click led me to one of those horrid webcitation links, which don't take you to the original source, so I thought I was at archive.org. Third, Pyschim, get over a wayward "s" that no one but you saw years ago on a FAC (or donate to my new eyeglasses fund) and lay off of the personal attacks like telling me to Shut the Fuck Up-- we have WP:NPA and WP:AGF for reasons. At Talk:Sisto, though, what makes Guampedia not a tertiary source? Wiki articles should be built around mostly secondary sources, but we can resolve that at Talk:Sisto. Courcelles, my apology for putting you through extra work ... and Scapler, too! Phsychim, get over yourself. PS, why do y'all put up DYKs without the dates in the lead? Isn't it good practice ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many things that are good practice. DYKs are not supposed to be perfect (the mythicial "mini-GA"). We'd rather use our reviewing manpower checking for things like copyvios. You're welcome to help out. Shubinator (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, missed this (specifically the last sentence). Thank you; we appreciate it. Shubinator (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you can also screen articles up to 2.5 days before they get to the Main Page here. Shubinator (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Shubinator, but that (very long) page isn't helpful for screening for plagiarism, sourcing, BLP issues, etc., because it doesn't show editor name-- I'd have to click to the article and then to the history to see who wrote it. When I check the DYKBot's contribs and see accomplished writers whose work I'm very familiar with, I don't have to check those, so it's faster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Clicking any of the headings for a queue will show a list of authors below the hooks. 28bytes (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ha ... I see! So, if I always check Queue 6, is that the farthest away, so there is plenty of time if I find a problem? And if so, would it be helpful if others checked Queue 6 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The farthest will be whichever of the Prep queues is at the bottom of T:DYK/Q (Prep 1 as of now). Those get rotated as the queues go live. But yes, the more eyes the better! 28bytes (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep troubling you, but I'd like to have one place to click for the farthest away to look at-- are you saying the number of the next Queue up constantly changes? Sorry, I've never followed how DYK works-- is there any way I can one-click check the farthest away? Just looked at Black Eyed Kids, and it is doesn't meet WP:V; this is a volunteer community contributor site (with a misleading name of "Sacramento Press") and this is certainly not a reliable source. So, more than half of the article isn't reliably sourced. It's in Queue6-- when does it go up? Should I tag the non-RS now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Queue 6 will go live just over 24 hours from now (there's a little chart at the top showing the schedule), so fortunately there's a little time to look into that one. There are really two sets of queues: the "main" queues (Queue 1 goes live, then Queue 2, through Queue 6 and then back to Queue 1), and the "prep" queues that populate the main queues as their contents are transferred to the live T:DYK template. 28bytes (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If the queue numbers change, it sounds like there's no way for me routinely look at these way in advance with one click, unless I follow all of DYK, which I really don't have time to do. I was using the BYKbot contribs, because it gives me one click to look them over, but by then, they're already live. Don't know what I can do except periodically peek in at the different queues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It'd be 4 clicks, not 1, but checking the 4 prep queues on a regular basis would show all the hooks that would eventually appear on the front page. Some template could probably be worked up to always point to the "further back" prep queue, but since each prep hook is refreshed every 24 hours that might be overkill. 28bytes (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, in the future, I'll try to work in advance, but Jameela Jamil is a BLP on the mainpage now, and it's sourced to online blogs and gossip rags. Nothing highly derogatory, but I think it still needs to go per BLP. But I'll let Psychim62 the expert handle how to solve the problem, since he has such a good faithometer, and I wouldn't want to cross him by, um, actually engaging our BLP policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not BLP but WP:RS. Thank-you for raising your concerns about the reliablity of the following sources: Sky (UK & Ireland) and the Internet Movie Database. At least you didn't just do a drive-by tagging of an article on the Main Page. By my estimation, the sources you tagged as possibly unreliable are actually reliable (in the Wikipedia sense): they are certainly at least as reliable (in the general sense) as other sources we would accept for this type of article. Hence, disagreeing with your tagging, I have reverted it. Physchim62 (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)2

Not BLP? Drive-by? Physchim, you are one exceptionally fine fellow. OK, we put BLPs with piss poor sourcing and plagiarism on the main page; I guess my work is done here, and rather than trying to collaborate with y'all in advance, I'll just deal with the egregious issues as I see them, come what may. Phsychim62 already assured that a POV article ran on the mainpage of ITN, told me to STFU rather than use high quality sources, and reverted due weight sourcing there, resulting in POV and the article being removed, and now he's assuring piss poor citations on BLPs here. Ok, carry on then, but the criticism I've seen of DYK is most certainly valid, and y'all need to clean up the process here to check sourcing and copyvio. Bye. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes shows the full ordering of the sets. Here's a 1-click link for the queue set furthest from going live: queue 5 (you have to copy the wikitext since the link changes as the sets go live). Shubinator (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Neat! I didn't know about that. Is there an analogous template for the prep queues? 28bytes (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@SG Pulled for discussion. It's borderline; the article is well-referenced for a DYK. The sources aren't the best, but they aren't terrible either.

@28B Prep area 4. They're both helper templates for the local update times table. Shubinator (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Shubinator. Sandy, I think that's what you were looking for: the farthest back queue. Catching bad hooks/articles in a prep queue is the optimal approach since it allows the most time for fixing the problem, and more editors can fix/demote a problem hook since the preps aren't fully-protected like the main queues are. 28bytes (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Shu and 28-- I posted above before reading this, but I can't work collaboratively in any area where Psychim62 is present and gets to tell me STFU and revert my work when I'm trying to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm AGFing too much, but have you two tried to have a calm discussion about this? Shubinator (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup :) Physchim62 has an eons-old beef with FAC because he once found a wayward "s" after a word (making it plural rather than singular) in a featured article that no one else saw. The horror! After telling me to STFU, he's now decided I'm "traipsing around Wikipedia like a little diva", and it's unlikely that further conversation with him will improve anything. At any rate, regardless of his behavior towards me and that I won't be collaborating here, y'all do have some issues to clean up here. You put content on the mainpage, so it should be BLP- plagiarism, and copyvio-clean. Standards for DYK should at least conform with core policies, since the articles go on the mainpage. If the "reward culture" is affecting you all too much, then I hope you can find a way to slow down the turnaround to allow better scrutiny of what you do put up. Or, discourage participation here of abrasive editors so that others will want to help. I've been hearing about the bad rap DYK has for a long time; it's unfortunate that when I came over to see if it was true and how I could help, I found Physchim62, but the BLP and copyright problems do need cleaning up anyway, as the DYK reward culture is fueling the grease pole at RFA and WIKICUP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I hate to revive an age-old discussion, but I'd suggest it's the WikiCup's "reward culture" that's affected DYK negatively, rather than us fuelling them. But I digress here. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't disagree-- I thought/think we were saying the same thing. Unfortunately, DYK is the easiest place for "reward culture" adherents to get their points, so you all may need to figure out how to account for that. FAC had to put procedures in place to lower the effect they were having on us. But Wikicup is subsiding now, yet the DYK issues are continuing. Recent cases I've found aren't related to Wikicup, and Physchim62 is assuring that progress won't be made here. RFA candidates are also using DYK as evidence of their writing ability so the "reward culture" effect goes beyond Wikicup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope Sandy and I have been able to smooth off some of the sharp edges on my User talk page so I shaln't reply to those comments directly. I do think that many of the problems with DYK are caused by the fact that it "promotes" too many articles without sufficient oversight (in practice). Physchim62 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And it can't be entirely blamed on the reward culture or Wikicup, because RFA candidates also seek the DYK prize. I hope you all can find a way to slow it down and get better review; I don't understand why editors think they're entitled to their day on the mainpage. BLP vios, plagiarism and copyvios are serious, and if I've only been looking at this for a few days and have found five problems, it's a problem. (User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Identified DYK problems) Non-notability and non-reliable sources is another problem; why reward for article expansion if the expansion is based on a non-RS? I got interested in this is because I'm concerned about the decline in the admin corp and the lack of adequate scrutiny of candidates at RFA, and I kept seeing DYK being evidenced for writing ability and offered up as "prizes", and finding big problems in those DYKs. Standards were raised at GA by shining a lot on some of the one-editor passes years ago, GA is now respected, and standards are always increasing at FAC. Methinks y'all need to turn some people away, focus on screening in the truly worthy content, and slow down the turnover. FAC changed to address the effect of the reward culture and the increasing number of children on Wiki-- so can DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am just getting caught up with these discussions - I became an uncle yesterday. I have reviewed a bunch of nominations on DYK and have been active here since July. I have seen some blatant instances of copyvio (cut/paste), not an enormous amount though. I address them within the review but it is surely difficult to catch every one. I used to c/p then reword/format some text with my first few article starts but I stopped because it was too easy to mess it up. Normally when I review, aside from the basics (1500+, etc), I check to see if the article looks sound, has formatted citations, grammar, spelling, etc. Note: I am not perfect. The only references I open and really look at are those pertaining to the hook. I do look through the list of references and if I see a wiki, forum, social network or blog, I bring that up in the review. Aside form that, I sometimes cannot tell what is/is not a reliable source. If the source is in my area of interest, yes I can pick out the good and bad. Otherwise, it is difficult.

The problem posed at DYK is the amount of hooks, reviewers and time. At GAN, some nominations can sit for a month or longer while here at DYK, they can become a problem or even eye sore as queues are rolling through the main page. This occurs well within a month. In regards to reviewers, there are not enough to double-check every hook. With that, DYK assumes a calculated risk, just like this entire encyclopedia does. The goal of DYK is intended to encourage new content, so there is a level of courtesy one has to use when reviewing hooks and articles. The review has to occur in a relatively short period of time and there are a lot of nominations to go through. The only real solution would be to slow everything down and increase the standards or recruit reviewers. Some people abuse the system and often here at DYK, it is highlighted and handled accordingly. Other users create great content deserving of a main page appearance. DYK is reward-based and users have made great content and deserve a pat on the back for their effort. Using DYKs in an RFA can be the same as highlighting one's edit count, it can mean ~~absolutely nothing~~ little. Only the users that work with the potential admin know the quality of their work and can attest to it. DYK isn't perfect but users are also invited to review nominations and the queue as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on the new nephew! Your post makes a good argument for slowing the process down. One thing confuses me: it is my understanding (I helped on the DYK Dispatch years ago) that to qualify for a DYK, certain word count or expansion is required. Well, if that expansion is based on non-reliable sources, how can it count towards meeting the rules? How can you verify that a DYK meets the criteria if you don't check that the expansion is based on reliable sources? If it's not based on RS, it's just garbage anyone can put up. I looked at one that is still in the queue, and unless someone has some offline sources, it needs to go to AFD-- there are only a few sentences based on reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it is was my niece. Boys are better though, right? In the few cases where I noted a non-RS that wasn't cited in addition to an RS, I asked the nominator to provide an another reference. I personally haven't come across an instance where a good portion of an article was cited to a non-RS. I would assume the information could be challenged and removed, taking away from the character count. I remember some instances were nominations were refused because of this but I was not involved in them. Then again, it takes someone to recognize the validity of the source and flag the nomination. Not every reviewer can do that every time. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a short and basic check-list accompany every nomination (like GAN) to make the standards more clear to nominators and reviewers. Such a checklist can be fit into the nomination template.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Basics (if you've never heard of a source) are just to go to the source and dig around for a page that looks something like an "About Us" page to determine if they have any info there that addresses WP:V (fact checking, journalistic oversight, etc); if not, query the editor to provide that-- if not, send them away ! Somewhere at Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)'s subpages, you will find a list she uses for sources that have already been challenged at FAC, but sourcing always depends on the statement being sourced, and sourcing requirements at FAC are much more stringent than they will be for DYK, so you won't be able to directly use her list, but it may be a helpful starting place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This type of verification for every reference is hard with limited reviewers and time. The obvious non-RSs and implausible statements are one thing. I remember one time an editor used a blacklisted site as a reference but altered the URL so it couldn't be filtered out. I think the only way for such attention would be to slow everything down. I am grateful that the articles at least do have references, when compared to other material on Wikipedia without references that can be equally dubious.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As an intermittent regular nominator and reviewer/toucher-up both at DYK and FAC I have a lot of sympathy with both positions here. One thing that I have hardly ever seen before is Sandy's brutally effective raising at Rfa of specific new concerns over the content created by two editors. I think Rfa is much too prone to examine interactions with other editors minutely & take a record of content creation at face value. I'm not sure how much DYK is being used as a launch pad for RFA, but if it is these sort of challenges to actual RFAs are probably a much more effective way of stifling this. On another point, quite a large % of DYKs (like FAs) are by a small number of regular contributors, nearly all I think to be found at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs (headed by Alansohn at 813). If someone were to audit random contributions by people on the list, and pursue concerns, it would over time be likely to improve quality, perhaps more effectively and easily than trying to search the traffic flashing by on the suggestions page. Regulars will recognise that this has been done in the past with some people near the top of the list, with varying degrees of eventual success. Johnbod (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

<eeek> Brutal :/ But Johnbod, you've got my number on the ultimate issue I'm trying to address, which is the reward seeking path that ends at RFA or WIKICUP. I'm trying to help stop the flooding of marginal content here by reward seeking editors who don't know diddly about Wiki policy, but use DYKs to pass RFA. (And the poor article writers who do know policy get the crap beat out of them at RFA because they have actually, ummmm, engaged and maybe even lost their temper.) GA used to have huge issues, and when lights got shone on the problems there, it turned around and became a very respectable process, and editors realized they couldn't game it on the path to RFA. I've been hearing for years that the DYK rules reward editors who plagiarize and doesn't detect plagiarism, but I don't read the mainpage and never even checked for myself; I've been surprised to find WP:V and WP:BLP breaches here as well, but I also believe there are some great editors working here, who simply are turning the queue too fast and being overwhelmed by the reward seekers, so if they recognize the problems here, they may get solved. Also, the reason I'd rather check the DYKbot contribs than the six queues is that I know who most of the quality editors are whose articles don't need review-- it's much faster for me to follow the bot and watch for names I don't know and BLPs in particular. But, that's not fair to DYK, because by the time they show up on the bot, they're on the mainpage already, which doesn't do these folk much good; checking 'em days before would be better, but this queue business is labor intensive! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)