Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Queue 5 issues

Prep 3 was loaded and then moved to Queue 5 before I had a chance to correct some errors:

• In hook 2: "built by the same man that" should be "built by the same man who"
• In hook 6, there is a double "the"

—Bruce1ee^talk 06:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Fixed. Thanks, as usual :). Materialscientist (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Where does the image link take the reader?

Clicking the above image takes the reader to the tiny cropped photo.	Clicking the above image takes the reader to the larger photo.	Clicking the above image takes the reader to the article in question.

In my recent DYK entry "Bloody Saturday", I provided a small 100-pixel-wide detail of the main image. Some 10,800 readers clicked on the cropped image detail, probably to experience some degree of disappointment, irritation or confusion. Using the link parameter, I propose that clicking on a purposely cropped image at DYK should take the reader either to the larger image or to the article in question. My preference is for the latter. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about the licensing issues but I imagine linking to an image is preferable to linking to an article, where possible, because of license stuff.

But why is this cropped image being used anyway? I was not aware of any requirement that cropped images be used for DYK hooks; in the past I often used normal images (the <div> used on T:DYK handles the size), and the only time I was aware of new images being uploaded was so they could be protected (if the original image was on Commons). Have things changed recently? rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes images are cropped for clarity at 100x100px. I think linking the cropped image to the uncropped image would be nice. I'm undecided about linking the image to the DYK article. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to avoid.

I have used purposely cropped images twice before in my 90 DYKs, for the purpose of having a more arresting image in the very small space allowed by the 100-pixel limitation: File:Richard Henry Savage 100px.jpg and File:Boeing SB-17G 100px.jpg. I have also helped improve an image destined to accompany a Featured Article appearing on the Main Page—Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett—by creating a 100-pixel-wide crop of a much larger image, and the article's editors subsequently decided my cropped version was the best available for the infobox: File:Norman Birkett 100px.jpg. At any rate, cropped images are not that common at DYK, but they are not unknown. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. You're right; I didn't noticed beforehand that this is a cropped version of the other one. Cropping here does make sense (since the whole image reduced to 100px would just be a blob). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the expected blob can be viewed here on the right. So, I understand you are okay with linking to the larger image via the link parameter? Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with linking to the larger image. Like Bruce1ee, I don't think I'd like linking to the article—both because of the potential of licensing issues, which I mentioned above, and just the fact that users who are used to Wikipedia will already expect that clicking an image leads to an image page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. If I crop a photo again I'll link it to the larger version of it. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Review requirement

I've tagged a couple of nominations, where an editor put forward somebody else's new / expanded article. There was no indication of a review of another article, so I queried what it is that had been reviewed. The answer was that a review is only required for self-nominations. I'm surprised!

I've had a look at the rules and the additional rules. Nothing appears to cover the review requirement. The only place where it says something is the yellow box at the top of the nomination page: "reviewing another editor's nomination is now part of the nomination process for self-nominations" And yes, that would indicate that this requirement applies to self-nominations only.

Surely, what is meant is that if you don't nominate your own article, then you don't have to review something (after all, you might never have heard about DYK before). I would have thought, though, that the person nominating somebody else's article IS required to review another nomination (if they have five or more DYK credits). But that's not really what it says in the yellow box.

So the questions are:

• Is my understanding of the intention of the rules correct?
• Should the review requirement be added to the rules (or the additional rules)? Schwede66 02:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is only for self-nominations. It seems rather silly to expect non-self-noms to have to review another DYK, since they would have little to do with the article that they are nominating. Also, you can end up with situations where there were multiple people involved in an expansion. Which one of them do you expect to have to do a review? That's why it is just for self-nominations. This isn't really an issue though, since a large majority of DYK nominations are self-noms. Silverseren^C 03:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying if I get somebody else to nominate my articles, then neither I nor the nominator are required to review another article? Schwede66 03:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a) deceitful and b) easily found out. Silverseren^C 03:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing one article is pretty easy, and takes a lot less time than writing one in the first place. Is anyone really that lazy that they would go around colluding like that to get out of such a small thing? rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Since some of my non-self-noms were the ones queried, I'll clarify that I asked and was answered here about that awhile back. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that link. It seems that indeed, only self nominations trigger the review requirement. So if somebody doesn't like reviewing, but likes to collect DYK credits, all that's required is to nominate other editors' work. For the record, I for one find it rather odd that this is supposedly what we agreed on.

And nobody has yet commented on my query whether the review requirement should be added to the rules. Schwede66 16:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And chipping in late once again - DYKnom credits are tracked seperately from DYKmake credits. So you can't "[just] nominate other editors' work" to 'run up the score' of your DYK credits, sensu stricto. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Organised reciprocal nomination of articles is not a good idea, and will probably be found out fairly quickly. You might get away with it once, but a pattern would soon emerge and be spotted. An article I wrote recently (Marden Airfield) was nominated by another editor without my knowledge, and I was not notified it had been nominated. That editor then went on to review another article and provide a diff. There was no obligation for that editor to review another article, so I think the notice may need a slight rewrite to state that if you nominate someone elses article then you do not need to review, although reviewers are always welcome at DYK. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So you agree with me that the nominator should provide a review, and we should make that clear in the rules? Schwede66 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A Self-nominator should provide a review, and a diff for same. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

But in someways a nominator is doing a review when they nominate someone else's work since it makes little sense to nominate an article that is not likely to pass. For instance, a fellow Wine Project editor was having a hard time coming up with a hook for an expansion of Stag's Leap Wine Cellars and asked for help. So while looking for a potential hook I reviewed that it did meet prose expansion and date requirements as well as verify several references for potential hooks--essentially a review. When I nominate this article it will already have one look over but will benefit from a yet another set of eyes doing the "official review". Like others have said, I don't think there is much to gain in gaming DYK since one way or the other we all end up doing some work. :P Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not always the case. There have been times when someone nominates an article and it's blatently obvious that they never even read it [1]. - PM800 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

But do you really that is the rule or the exception? No doubt bad noms happen but I really think most editors that take the time to nominate another editors work are doing it with good faith after making a sincere attempt to insure it qualifies. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with you, Agne. Firstly, if I write my own article that qualifies for DYK, I might use your logic and claim a 'self review', since I obviously strife to get it right. Secondly and more importantly, if I wanted to submit other editors' articles for the sake of getting DYK credits without having to do a review, I would submit 'as is' without any fixes that are required, as those fixes would make me a co-author (thus triggering the review requirement). So I'd wait and react to the review comments.Schwede66

My logic is referring to a second set of eyes on the article that are different than the author. (so, no, you can't claim it for a "self review" :D ) The basic logic of doing reviews in the first place is that extra set of eyes are likely to see something that the author, who is very close to the article, might miss. While bad noms happen, (as I mentioned above) I think we can safely WP:AGF that most nominators are not gaming DYK and have taken the time to do look over the article before nominating. Obviously these hooks should still get the "official review" (because a third set of eyes is even better) but my original point is that nominators do reviews naturally when they nominate a hook. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Schwede66, I am not convinced that a nominator doing some fixes makes one a co-author. For example, I nominated David Kato and listed as authors the editors who had contributed about 2000+ bytes each. I have made additions, fixed refs, fixed the unref'd paragraph etc and added about 2000 bytes myself, but I still don't consider that I qualify to claim co-authorship. Perhaps others would see it differently (input welcome) but I certainly think that simple fixes from a nominator are not sufficient to fairly claim co-authorship. EdChem (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: Re Should the review requirement be added to the rules (or the additional rules)? My answer is absolutely it should, it makes no sense for a requirement not to be codified formally. If you propose a codification it might also help to clarify the consensus on exactly what requirements apply, because I think there have been changes since the original discussion. For example, significant contributions without giving a tick now seem to be acceptable. EdChem (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Draft rule amendment

Ok, taking up EdChem's suggestion, I've had a look how this could fit into the rules. It hasn't got a logical home and I've concluded that it fits best with the basic rules. So the following would be added to the heading Selection criteria (additions in red; deletions struck out), and the yellow template message would also be amended:

Did you know

Five basic criteria are used to determine whether a nomination is eligible for DYK, plus there is a review requirement. Other criteria may arise as a result of community discussion or policy (more details appear at Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules), but the following five criteria account for most cases.

6. Review requirement – The DYK nominator is required to review another editor's nomination. This helps us make sure that all nominations are reviewed in a timely manner. You may add your nomination before you undertake a review, but before it is approved, please review another editor's nomination and then indicate at your nomination which nomination you have reviewed, and (if you know how to do this) provide a link to the diff for your review. New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits) are exempt from this review requirement.

DYK rules change

Effective January 1, 2011, reviewing another editor's nomination is now part of the DYK nomination process for self-nominations. This helps us make sure that all nominations are reviewed in a timely manner. You may add your nomination here first, but before it is approved, please review another editor's nomination and then indicate at your nomination which nomination you have reviewed and provide a link to the diff for your review.

What do you think? Schwede66 19:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The rule as-is is for self nominations, and there's no reason that needs to change. As noted above, by nominating an article that isn't yours you've de facto given it a quick review already; the argument that that argument could be applied to your own articles is a strawman, as with your own articles there is a conflict of interest, whereas with others', there is not. Applying the QPQ requirement to non-self-noms is fixing a problem that isn't a problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hunting down other users' good-quality new articles, reviewing them, and nominating them here is a fairly selfless contribution to DYK that should not require quid pro quo. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Honestly, I think the number of added reviews we're getting from the self-noms alone is sufficient; I don't see a need to expand the requirement at this point. Plus, what Orlady said. 28bytes (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons I stated above and Orlady's point. I know a lot of DYK regulars, myself included, who got their introduction to DYK by some editor stumbling upon a new article of theirs and nominating for them. It's one of the charms of DYK that still keeps it relatively newbie-friendly in that veteran editors can seek out these new articles and take them through the nomination process. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose On top of what the others have said, the self-noms seem to be taking care of the backlog that we had before; I'm afraid that if we added this requirement, there really wouldn't be enough DYKs for people to actually review. Seems like a silly concern, but it's getting a bit tough fulfilling the requirement that we have now sometimes. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Nomader which includes the others. Finding an unreviewed fact which you want to make known - the reason why I go for DYK - seems to take almost longer now than the actual review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there's no wikilove for my suggestion. I've thus tried to craft the self-nomination bit into the rules. Please see WP:WIADYK and tweak it further if needed. Schwede66 05:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue 2 fixes

In the last hook of Queue 2, Solsidan should be in bold italics and "who" should be replaced with "which".

(Note: Even after previous cleanup, the article still had lots of typos which I've now fixed. Also, the article only has 1246 characters of prose, but I guess someone decided to IAR the text in the table.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Quickfixed the hook. Thanks. No (time to) comment on the article. Materialscientist (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd pull it from the queue as being too short. To get 1500 bytes of prose isn't really that onerous and I can't see why that should be IARed. Schwede66 21:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I expressed all these concerns about the article before, including the fact that it was 13 days old when nominated, but HJ Mitchell basically ignored everything and then moved it to prep. - PM800 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that doing a significant amount of work on an article should preclude you from promoting it to a queue. Schwede66 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but those copyedits you've shown, whilst extensive, don't disqualify HJM from picking the article. It's the same content before and afterwards, just better Englished. Bencherlite^Talk 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Queue 5: not enough variety

Queue 5 has too many hooks about similar subjects. The lead hook is about a naval vessel and a tanker, the next one is about a guy who built many boats, and the fourth hook is about hundreds of naval vessels. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I switched out the second hook for a non-naval one. How do things look now? --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not enough articles about [insert joke here] but otherwise fine. Bencherlite^Talk 16:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

How strict should we be about the five day limit?

I only ask because we have article that have been nominated for 3 or 4 weeks that still aren't ready to go on the Main Page. I'm fine with turning a blind eye to the rule for nominations of eligible articles that are a bit more than 5 days old, but, if an article is getting to two weeks old and isn't ready for DYK, then I think people need to face the reality that it's not going to get on and reviewers need to be taking a harder line on ancient nominations that still have issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO (and YMMV):

• If a hook has not yet been reviewed, it should stay on the board until it is, no matter how old it is.
• Once a hook has been 'reviewed', if concerns aren't fixed within, call it a week, it should be subject to pruning.
• Once a hook has been passed, it should stay on the board until moved to prep, no matter how old it is.
• If a hook is pulled from the queue, it's on the 'week clock' for fixing.

Just my two simoleons... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean start zapping hooks that have been reviewed but still have issues a week after the review? That seems entirely reasonable to me... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that'd be it. Now, if the issues are in the process of being worked through, it could always be IAR'd of course, but if it sits with nothing happening...sayonara. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I second Bushranger's recommendations... as long as the nominator has been notified of the problems. I'd start the clock upon notification: a week is quite generous, especially if the nominator continues to edit other pages in the meantime. 28bytes (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would make it 5 days, equal to the submission terms - this gives a margin for lenience (new, different comments can pile up, extending the term too long). Notification of the authors is obligatory for starting the count, off course. Surely, this can fall on weekends/holidays, etc, but 5 days are enough for leaving a note, asking an extension. Materialscientist (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we should add something about this to T:TDYK and then start pruning the really old nominations that still have issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, except with some flexibility where where the nom has said they are going trekking or something & will be unavailable. You might put up the nom a week before you go, then have no comment for 6 days, then.... But abandoned noms just need to be cleared. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I support Johnbod, remembering my recent experience of nominating (Joanne Lunn) for 23 January 5 days before that date, the first review 24 January when I was traveling, finally appeared 31 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always used 5-7 days after nominator notification. If it's still actively beeing worked on at that point, then give it more time, but if nothing's been/being done (and particularly if the nominator has continued to edit other articles in that time), then I'd call it abandoned and remove it from the nominations page. cmadler (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As an additional note to this, people need to be more diligent about notifying editor of issues. Lately there's been a few times where the only reason I've known there's a need for attention to one of my hooks is because I check up on them on the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

2 February

Again, sorry I'm so boring: I miss the special occasion hook in the line-up for the day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue 1

There's a typo in Queue 1, Hook #5. It should read: "an anti-slave patrol". Best, Yoninah (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue 4

There should be a question mark at the end of the entry for tourism in Malta in Queue 4. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 13:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this should be fixed: in queue 3, should the b in "battle of Grochowiska" be capitalized? I'm pretty sure it should be. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 13:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Shubinator (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

warning about queue 2

I just noticed that the immage for queue 2 is a depiction of Muhammad. I'm not suggesting we censor it, just warning everyone about the onslaught of messages there will be on the main page talk, and probably here, that will need to be fielded. Good luck.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

As far as I know, we want to avoid redirects in hooks. If that's right, how critical is this? I note that the three queues that are currently in the system have a combined total of seven redirects. Schwede66 00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no rule against having redirects in hooks (see Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Additional_rules#F9). And, given WP:NOTBROKEN, there is not really any reason to be concerned about redirects. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Schwede66 00:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No big problem, yet, I would fix them when noticed, to avoid intense traffic to redirect pages. Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem with intense traffic to redirect pages? Ucucha 12:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It can skew the stats. If an article is getting, say, 2,000 hits a day to its main page, but only 5 to a redirect, linking to the redirect for DYK might boost it to (for example) 6,000 hits as a result. Which would be 4,000 "DYK hits" corrected for normal traffic, but since the redirect was used, it looks like an "honest" 6,000. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we baseline-correct DYK hits for normal traffic? I've never seen that done before. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Only when there's a high level of traffic to an article already. If an article is only getting <500 or so hits, then it's not bothered with, but Chengdu J-20 got pulled from the "non-lead hooks with over 11,000 hits" list becasuse, each of the few days after it appeared on DYK, it got more hits then it did while on DYK - ! (Then it hit ITN and skyrocketed...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Before "fixing" a redirect, consider why the reader is being redirected. Was it because an editor was lazy with regard to punctuation or terminology? If so, then by all means, fix it. But many redirects point to a section of an article or deal with a subtopic that may eventually have its own article, and if that's the case, the redirect should probably be retained. cmadler (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I generally "fix" redirects unless the reader will be surprised at the page they're on after they click the link. For example, in this prep queue I piped [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]], but I left Lava Falls alone, since it redirects to Uinkaret volcanic field and I thought the reader would be surprised/confused to arrive on such a differently-titled page without a "redirected from" hint at the top. But someone later "fixed" that redirect before it went live, so there are obviously different personal standards/preferences at play. 28bytes (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who changed Lava Falls, but reading your argument above, I see that perhaps I should have left it as it was. In future I'll be a little more discerning about which redirects I "fix". —Bruce1ee^talk 06:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sure I've "fixed" some that didn't need to be fixed as well. 28bytes (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Feast 2 February

Please look at Erfreute Zeit im neuen Bunde, BWV 83 for tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Done and moved to special prep area. Bencherlite^Talk 12:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! btw relief: next Bach cantata 20 February, because Easter is so late, two more, and then only one or two during Lent, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I thanked too early, that was just the move to Special occasions. All queues for the day look full now, and it's still waiting there. Hint: I nominated Elke Neidhardt without any urgency, that is in q5. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want a hook featured on a given date you should nominate it sufficiently in advance. At least 5 days (and probably even more, as from a cursory glance at T:TDYK it looks to me like hooks take longer than 5 days, on average, to get to the main page).

Also, as a side note, DYK is not mini-TFA, and there shouldn't necessarily be an expectation that a lot of hooks are going to be accomodated for special dates. If you look through the talk archives and find discussions when the "special occasion holding area" was first implemented (perhaps 2 years ago, I don't remember precisely), you will see that there was a resistance to having it at all, and at that time the idea was just to use them for major holidays. Getting using that holding area for individual anniversaries related to individual articles was not common. Certainly, if it is possible to get an article on the main page on a special day then that's nice, but I don't think the DYK volunteers should be expected to bend over backwards (i.e., rearrange already-assembled queues) to accomodate anniversaries, especially if the article was nominated relatively late (for DYK, 4 days is practically last-minute). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The holiday of Purification of Mary is a holiday, 2 February, which was celebrated by the cantata in question. The article was nominated in time and brought to Special occasions timely enough to appear on February 2, and I asked before (s.b.) when the queues were not yet assembled. How about having it late but with the pic, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If I may attempt to "split the baby" again: why not allow the special-occasions holding area to hold a hook, after nomination (NOT approval), for up to 30 days, with the exception of April Fool's. If a hook (ApFD aside) would be "held" for more than 30 days, it should go ahead and run. Thoughts? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

To my understanding, at present only approved hooks should go to the holding area. I nominated one for 20 February normally, it was approved and moved to holding and will hopefully be noticed by someone observant when the preps for that day get filled. So far so good. The one for 2 February is now in q6, it will say for most of the world 2 February on 3 February, but not for the US, what can I say, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue issues

"Quirky hooks" seem to be lacking for final hooks in the queues recently...

Queue 3: suggest the "Funtime" hook be moved to the final hook.

Queue 4: suggest the Farman hook be moved to the final hook.

Queue 5: suggest the Mario Moraga hook be moved to the final hook.

Queue 6: suggest the Charlie Webb hook be moved to the final hook.

Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And another one: Queue 3 hook 3 needs to have the "(pictured)" removed. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

All fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet another one in Queue 3: in the fifth hook, the title of the film Concrete should be in italics. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed that too. Materialscientist (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• And more:

Queue 5: the Chris Marcus hook should probably be last.

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3:' the "iceberg watching" hook should probably be last. Also, eight hooks?

My minerals hook is surely not quirky, but neither is iceberg watching (kind of "what else to do there" :). Maybe Amala or maybe Russel House is a bit better (?). Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, a fair point. Amala would certainly be quirkier in a gross sort of way! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify-- I know quirky hooks is kind of a tradition around here, but I've never really seen it written down anywhere for people who might want to start moving hooks into queues. Can we put it down somewhere, maybe in the DYK guide or something? Nomader ^(Talk) 06:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:DYKNN, it gives guidelines for preparing updates, and discusses quirky hooks. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(The same rule is also J7 under "Rules of thumb for preparing updates" on the "Additional rules" page.) While truly "quirky" hooks may not always be available, it should usually be fairly easy to find a relatively "upbeat" one. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't even notice it in either place. Looks like I have some reading to do-- thanks for pointing those out. Nomader ^(Talk) 06:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Repetitiveness

Why is the Did you know section so repetitive? Looking at the archive, I see that 16 pictures of churches were featured in January, plus at least 17 additional non-pictured items about houses of worship. There were 9 items about cantatas, 8 for lighthouses, about twenty for ships, etc. It's wonderful that people are writing all of these articles, but does each and every one of them have to boringly appear on the front page? 159.83.4.148 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This just reflects the kind of articles that people are writing and nominating for DYK at the moment, the project can only work with the material that it gets. You may find them boring, others will find them interesting. Mikenorton (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This has been discussed to death, I'm afraid. "Boring" is relative. Hooks you find "boring" are very exciting to others. DYK puts up what its gets, if people want other kinds of articles to appear, they should write them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That we still are missing articles on Bach cantatas, for example, shows that there is still a lot of work to do here, and every article the particular talented editor in question contributes helps to redress the balance. Our coverage of English and Welsh historic churches is also similarly thin, and a few editors (including me) are coincidentally going through our own target lists of missing articles. A few months ago, the complaint was that there were too many articles about US college sports team seasons – not my cup of tea, but there we go. We aim for variety within each group of hooks, but with 7 or so hooks every 8 hours, there would have been in the region of 1,736 articles at DYK in January (and probably more as there would have been some multiple-article hooks). 8 lighthouses is a laughably small proportion and even 33 churches (or about 1 per day) would be less than 2%. Bencherlite^Talk 23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree "Boring is relative". However, the anon IP's concern about the lack of variety in the lead picture hook is valid. Featuring 16 church articles in one month for the lead slot seems like a lot. Assuming 6 rotations a day that mean that around every other day this month we had a lead picture hook about a church. While I'm sure that wasn't deliberate, and it certainly doesn't happen every month, this is one area that we can consciously control by what we select for the lead hook. Just a thought. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I do try, when making preps, to choose a picture/lead-hook subject that isn't already in preps waiting for promotion. Not sure about others though. Of course sometimes the only approved hook with a pic is a "repeat" (and I try to avoid the "this is a green grassy field" pics in all circumstances!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There were about 125 sets in January, so those 16 churches account for over 12% of all Did you know pictures for the month. Many of the sets for the month had 6 or 7 items, and the total number is not even close to the estimate of 1,736 mentioned above.159.83.4.148 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason I had a brain failure and thought that 7 hooks every 8 hours = 56 hooks, not 21... Sorry. As penance for my dodgy maths, I thought I'd get a more accurate figure than my last attempt FWIW. Copying the January archive into MS Word and then using "find and replace" suggests that there were 827 hooks with a total of 854 articles. Bencherlite^Talk 00:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that the majority of hooks don't have pictures, I'd venture to say that having a single subject with 10% of the pictures actually isn't that bad. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

12% pictures from one topic area is more than I would expect. Not a big issue, though, just something that now that we are aware of it will be easy to address. Schwede66 00:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no time, just brief comments to explain why: (i) a few editors regularly write about buildings and always provide a photo - this does not mean that nom has to be selected for a lead, and these nominators know that; (ii) buildings are easy to photograph (or find a free image) for the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the cantata writer (thanks for the compliment above), so far I could supply a new fact about each cantata, and will continue to do so until that is no longer true. I supplied pictures for the last three which were not taken. Next chance: 20 February. For variety: I had suggested a pic for Opernhaus Dortmund which was not taken, and one for Ignace Michiels which had a copyright problem. How about Musiktheater im Revier, nominated yesterday? - There will be no more than six cantatas until Easter because the time of lent was quiet time in Leipzig, so don't be afraid, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not because of the slow time but because of these valuable contributions. For myself, I'd much rather have 9 items about cantatas than 9 articles about episodes of Glee, The Office, etc. But of course, Wikipedia is a big tent, and we can fit all of them! cmadler (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also enjoyed the cantata articles and discovering them via DYK is one of the joys of participating in the project. While I don't click on much of the TV episode articles, I share Cmadler's view that there is certainly a place for them in DYK. It is a big reason why I tend to vigorously opposing adding any subjective "interesting criteria" since it is so relative with our global readership. If a topic was interesting enough for someone to write about it, surely someone else will find it interesting enough to read about.

That said, it is curious to think about what people want to read because there is not really any place for readers to go to request seeing more DYKs on any particular topic. While we are constricted by what is nominated, I wonder if there is any value to having an area somewhere linked to DYK where readers like the anon IP above can suggest topics that are of interest to them (perhaps providing links to suggested articles from creation or stubs that could be expanded). It maybe something that Wikipedia editors can take as a challenge (like a sub project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation or perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias), since a request certainly provides motivation to respond. (And great curb on writer's block :P) At the very least I think it would provide a more constructive avenue for people that want to complain about repetitiveness or "boringness" to be pointed towards this page and asked "Well what do you want to see? Give us something to work with". (or at least more helpful then just giving them a WP:SOFIXIT or "do it yourself" response) It could also be a way to draw the readers more into the DYK project. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Second reviewer, please, and guidance would be welcome

I reviewed Limacina helicina (nom Feb. 1) but the creator has rejected my review, and seems angry about my suggestion, so could somebody else take a look? I am new at this. Sharktopus^talk 01:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just quickly (don't have time for a full review); the nominator is correct that one can copy from material that is not copyrighted, as long as one references it. It's a B class article (self assessed, but that would seem a reasonable assessment), so it's one of the better articles that you will see pass through here. Schwede66 04:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As noted, free sources are OK as long as they're cited, however they probably should be re-written. The submitter's tone, though, is pushing WP:CIVIL a lot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue 1

Hook #2 in this queue should say "17 years" (in numerals). I wasn't able to catch it and fix it because it was moved from the prep area to the queues so quickly. I liked the old way, where several prep areas were filled and waiting at one time, so they could be re-checked for grammar and spelling by other editors if necessary. In fact, I think that the new policy of asking often-novice reviewers to review the hooks is producing less "hooky" hooks, and the burden of fixing them is falling on one or two administrators. Yoninah (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Er...actually, my observation was that the old way, the prep areas usually got moved to the queues just as fast, because the queues spent a lot of time empty. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Tourism in Åland

Hello, a while back a reviewer requested another editor review the DYK nom for Tourism in Åland, but so far no second reviewer has showed up. The reviewer questioned the article as it didn't have enough secondary sources - I added several reliable secondary sources, and the original reviewer would like a new reviewer to step in. Is this at all possible? Thanks, Arctic Night 20:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Assembly of Vlorë

diff of nomination Assembly of Vlore for DYK Wikipedia:Recent_additions#4_February_2011 says that Assembly of Vlorë appeared on the main page. Why I was not notified that this article was DYK although I created and nominated it and why there is no information about that on article's talk page?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry, credits got lost underway. Materialscientist (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

American Football themed hooks: time to use them

I'm about to fix up a prep that will, presumably, go into Q2. Which is currently next scheduled to air at 7am New York City time, on the 6th. This means that the "Super Bowl" hooks in the special-event holding section should now be used in preps. Since (at last count) there's three of them, I'd suggest that one go into each of the next three preps, counting the one I'm working on now; that way they'd 'air' at 7am, 1pm and 7pm on the east coast of the United States; as the Super Bowl's kickoff time is 6:30PM ET, that should make them fit perfectly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• In fact, I'll go ahead and put them in the next two preps as 'starters'. Full dislosure, one was one I nominated (but did not write), so please feel free to triple-check it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to add co-authors for hook in queue 5 (state reptiles)

Will an admin please add RexxS, PresN and Miyagawa to the author list for state reptile in queue 5? Had requested earlier, but think the adds never happened. Not trying to pack the house, but just not to slight a contributor. (I am main author). Miyagawa did the map, so he does not show up in edit history. Thanks in advance for the good will!TCO (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, this needs discussion. Currently, TCO, NYMFan69-86, SunCreator, Wehwalt and Miyagawa are listed. According to history, TCO and NYMFan69-86 expanded the article, but, with no slightest disrespect, I would remove others. PresN, SunCreator and RexxS just brushed up the table and prose. I don't see the contribution of Miyagawa. Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As was noted, Miyagawa created the map that is used in the article. Since the map wasn't used in the hook, the hook not being a lead hook, I'm not sure that's sufficent to merit credit here, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Miyagawa painted US states on the map created by another user (quick technical operation). Don't take me rude, I routinely issue missed credits and have deep respect to the past work of Miyagawa and RexxS (which I happen to review), but we need to keep some standards. Materialscientist (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I thought Miyagawa in particular gave us a fair amount of work for the article. That image is in lead spot in the article. And we had no idea how to paint those states. And it had to be reworked as can be seen from file history. He didn't do the "plop" of dropping it in, but that seems a technicality. SunC has been helping the whole way along. Actually if this were a paper, I would just throw them all on. Not trying to discombobulate your systems, but just want to honor co-authors. And we turtle people are pretty collaborative as opposed to single author. We align in cubic close packing, face-centered usually, occasionally hexagonal or random ABCABABA whateva, and just help each other as nearest neighbors. But please run the hook with who-ever you allow, MS. Want it to run.

Please understand that the hook will be featured, that I am keen to encourage editors for improving wikipedia and have no problem with crediting any constructive editor. My only concern is to keep some standards so that DYK credits retain some value, and I brought this up so that others could comment. Materialscientist (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Okey-doke. You have the perspective on what you want here. I'm not trying to game things, either. Just don't want to slight helpers. Please at minimum leave SunC on as his edits have been ongoing and he did a huge amount of negative research (needed) to check all the 24 "none" states to double check they were not having a SR. (and we still have a source for the 26 and all, but we really wanted to go primary here and he did, to make sure there was not a mistake.) See talk page.TCO (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

More editors means more to consider...

What I mean is that now that many more editors (some of them relatively new here) are participating in the discussions on the Suggestions page, not all of the entries are exactly according to the earlier (simpler) formats. If you move a hook to the prep area, please be very careful to check if the discussion has raised issues on the hook, or if an alternate hook is proposed and approved--even if it doesn't have the layout (with indented, bolded "ALT", for instance) you expect it to have.

Also, please be careful not to edit for punctuation until you're absolutely sure what you're doing: my hook today, "... that the collection of jams, Nine to the Universe suggests that in his final years Jimi Hendrix was moving toward jazz?", has an added comma (after "jams") that's incorrect (see Comma#Parenthetical_phrases, or just take it from a grammarian).

I have also found that the increase in the number of editors makes things a bit messy--more discussion, more issues, less speed, sometimes--but I also think it makes for better oversight, even if it does increase the burden a bit on those who move hooks to the prep areas. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding promoting hooks to prep areas: yes editors should be careful to select the correct hook, but it does help if rejected hooks are struck-out to make sure they are not selected. See also this discussion here. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue 3!

Is there any way that this hook could be dropped into Queue 3 so it's on the front page when the Super Bowl kicks off? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to run, but might get back by the time of Q3 launch. My problem is notability of the article. Comments? Materialscientist (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, it's borderline, but it is reliably sourced... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's borderline. I have no concerns about notability. Every source is reliable and the group is primarily national-level sources. Royalbroil 06:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, these guys would pass WP:CLUB as far as I can see. The Interior (Talk) 06:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still skeptical about notability, but placed it in Q3. Materialscientist (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way that the hook can be changed to, "...that the Never Miss a Super Bowl Club will not only lose a member at the kickoff of Super Bowl XLV, but the person will not be able to root for their favorite team?" I meant to change it earlier last night but forgot to, and now I can't. Many thanks to whomever does this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Queues 4 and 6

• The fourth hook of Queue 4 is poorly worded: ... that young nymphs of the Moroccan locust can reach densities of several thousand individuals per square metre? It looks like individuals have densities of thousands of other individuals per m². Also "young nymphs" is redundant.

  Suggested hook: ... that the population density of Moroccan locust nymphs can reach several thousand individuals per square metre?

• In the fourth hook of Queue 6, [[Robert Indiana|Robert Indiana's]] should be [[Robert Indiana]]'s. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll fix em. SmartSE (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

More on Q6... we now have a [[Robert Indiana]]{{'}}s and a '''[[Charles P. Roland]]'''{{`s}} and if I understand correctly, I think they are both meant to be {{'s}}. EdChem (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark Stephens

Is there any chance this hook about Julian Assange's solicitor can be moved into a queue so that it is featured on the main page either tomorrow or the next day, when they are in court? SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In Q1 - short TFA today, thus we need to add to queues anyway. Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Tourism in Åland

Hello, a while back a reviewer requested another editor review the DYK nom for Tourism in Åland, but so far no second reviewer has showed up. The reviewer questioned the article as it didn't have enough secondary sources - I added several reliable secondary sources, and the original reviewer would like a new reviewer to step in. Is this at all possible? Thanks, Arctic Night 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Tourism in Abkhazia

Over at the nomination for this article, a user, who has a history of edit warring in touchy political areas on Wikipedia, has popped up and called the source used in the article "misinformation and propaganda" and showed me an alternative source, which he claimed to have the 'real' information (despite this source stating exactly the same thing as what the "misinformation and propaganda" did). Could somebody please come in and tick this one? It's been cleared by reviewers already, although no tick was given. Arctic Night 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributors. I think Pantherskin's point may actually be valid, and will comment on the nomination. Ucucha 22:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

While it might not always be wise to comment on contributors, this user's prior history in conflict-ridden areas really needs to be taken into account here. Arctic Night 18:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And why does a alleged history needs to be taken into account? Maybe just a little bit of mud-slinging, hoping that something will stick and you can collect a few more points for the Wikicup? Seriously, I provided several sources, including the original text of the law, and all these sources show that the hook is plain and simply wrong. That you insist that the sources actually support your hook is almost comical, if one can ignore that getting this on the main page is more important for you than factual accuracy. Pantherskin (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As I noted on the hook page, I don't see how the sources that are said to prove the hook erronious do so. I'm more than open to it being "once explained" (as Dr. Watson said); but I would like to point out that automatically blaming Wikipedia's ills on the WikiCup is a bit disingenuous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See my response on the talk page. And I am not blaming the Wikicup and the whole DYK process. Some great content is created through these competitions. But here the only explanation I have for the eagerness to get this article on the main page (despite good sources contradicting the hook) and the willingness to use personal attacks and mud-slinging, are the incentives set by the Wikicup and the DYK system. Same problem as last year (with different editors), and this was extensively discussed back then (probably a disingenuous debate, too). Pantherskin (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion, please

If someone could stop by Template talk: Did you know#Limacina helicina and provide a third opinion, I'd be grateful. The nominator and I are having a disagreement whether one particular bit of information is obvious/trivial or should be cited. Thanks. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 13:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I qualify as a third opinion, since mine was the first opinion (my suggestion was also rejected by the article creator) but "The Arctic sea butterfly Limacina helicina: lipids and life strategy" is the title of one of the reference papers he used, and I added a cite to that paper to the article lede where he says that it is a sea butterfly. Would this be an acceptable way to evade this problem? Sharktopus^talk 14:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

10 hooks?

Is there any reason why we have ten hooks up on the main page? I wasn't aware that we had upped the number that high before. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's because the TFA section is abnormally short, while OTD is a bit larger than usual. Therefore a seven- or even eight-hook DYK leaves the front page out of balance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. At the time of previous update, the DYK section was much too short, and I quickadded a few hooks to the main page and to the today's queues. I might have overdone it with the current set - it was hard to see how it would look like. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's quite alright, I was just taken aback by the sheer number that were up on the front page. Probably one or two less would've been better, but it's looks good either way. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue 6 fix

In the fifth hook of Queue 6, "[[Star Trek]]" should be ''[[Star Trek: The Original Series|Star Trek]]''. Note that that includes replacing the quotation marks with italics, as the reference is to music composed for the series rather than a song entitled "Star Trek". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This still hasn't been fixed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, after it appeared on the main page and I reported it to WP:ERRORS. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have picked it up here earlier - some posts are easy to miss after returning on-line. Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Another Queue 6 fix

In the first hook of Queue 6, the comma after "region" should be deleted because it precedes a restrictive clause. A. Parrot (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 19:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick fix needed for Q1 as well

A stray full stop has appeared at the end of the New Ulm Oil Company Service Station hook in Q1. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Allen3 ^talk 19:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Saying that you've reviewed something...

In the instructions for the 'new system' of review-one-nominate-one, editors are told that they should indicate which article they reviewed for DYK in their nomination with a diff and/or a link to the nomination. This isn't too difficult to do: it involves pressing maybe 20 more keys on the keyboard - not that difficult at all, considering that the nominator pressed at least 1,500 keys to nominate for DYK anyway.

I've noticed some editors not specifying which nominations they reviewed. Clearly, these editors think that they are exempt from the requirements of the rules. In addition, it is clear that these editors consider their 'fame' in DYK reviewing circles enough to exempt them from the requirement to indicate which nomination they reviewed (oh, I've reviewed so many, the reviewer for my nom will just assume I've reviewed something).

It makes it more difficult to enforce the review one, nominate one requirement if nominators don't indicate which nomination they reviewed! It's so simple, and causes so much trouble when not done.

OK, I'm finished :) It's just something that's annoyed me. I don't know, and can never tell, if an editor has reviewed a nomination or not to satisfy the review one, nominate one requirement. Editors exempting themselves from the indication requirement could also be sneaky and say, review one, nominate ten?

OK, now I'm finished :D Arctic Night 04:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, everyone needs to indicate what nomination they reviewed. If you're a DYK regular, it takes a very tiny bit of effort to pick one review and mention it on your nomination. cmadler (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree too, most DYK regulars are established editors. They should know how to provide a diff, and such diffs should be expected. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• As we all get used to the new system, perhaps the nomination template could an empty "reviewed" template with fields for article name and the diff. Seeing those blanks would remind most of us to fill them in. - Dravecky (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• That only works if you do the review before your nomination. cmadler (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I also favour a field in the nomination template. That could produce 'review to be done' if you haven't done one at the time of nomination, and this comment could eventually be replaced by a review diff or something similar. I suggest that this would make thigs more transparent. Schwede66 16:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• {{NewDYKNom}} already includes fields to specify the reviewed article and a diff; I added those options some time ago. Ucucha 16:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

* I see. The reason I didn't know about it is that I always use the Template:NewDYKnomination/guide. Thus, I've amended that guide to now include a section on reviews, too. Schwede66 19:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I realised that Ucucha, but many editors aren't using it. Arctic Night 11:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• People . . . it is onerous enough to require self-nominators to judge someone else's work. Please don't also chivvy people who choose to do it, and therefore to state they have done it, after nominating their own article. I did see that a field for tucking the name of the reviewed article is now provided in the template. But we are all volunteers. It can sometimes be quite hard to get an article ready for DYK review (and find an acceptably short and pithy hook) within the 5-day limit. And all you are going to get by pestering people to do their review of someone else's either before the nomination of their own article or right immediately hurry-up NOW afterwards is more resentment - and added incentive to do a schlocky job on the review. In any case, most nominations still sit on the page for a week or so before being judged. I appreciate that there might just possibly be a potential reviewer who would have reviewed it immediately had I done my quid pro quo faster, but I have other things to do and I do take that review task seriously, much as I disagree with the requirement; I probably take longer doing DYK reviews than some, just as I write articles more slowly than some. Please cool your zeal and just review a nomination when that statement has been added. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note the irony that Arctic is concerned about the laziness of posting a DIFF, but doesn't even link to the rule he's concerned about. I, for one, find the linking egregious. Just clicking Edit and Save takes about 30 seconds each, it's painful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Notifying editors

Just to make sure I'm reading the instructions right: we only need to notify editors if we tag their hook or , but not if it's tagged . Is this right? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be what is usually done. The point of notifying editors is, of course, to give them a chance to fix outstanding problems with the article or the nomination (such as cleaning up references or something like that), and there's not much point notifying them if the nomination is hopeless and nothing can be done about it (for example, if it's not a new or expanded article), which should usually be the case if something is marked . That being said, it's still good to at least let the rejected article sit for a few days before removing it so that the nominator or other reviewers might have time to object (sometimes it might turn out that you were misreading the edit history---missed the fact that the page was moved from userspace or something like that---or some other issue). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I place(d) only for really hopeless noms, and notification would not be needed for those, but I also saw quite a number of tags in my history for nominations which could easily be rescued. Materialscientist (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I never read the instructions that far, sorry, nor did I yet mark "uneligible",- I went for facts I would like to promote. But if I did, I would notify the contributor, to be polite, rule or not. I "recovered" from such a mark at least once for my own nomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing issue in Queue 6

Queue 6, next up on the main page, includes York Lions women's ice hockey. The first four paragraphs of the "history" section of the article are largely close paraphrases of this article (the first footnote). Not blatant word-for-word copying (althoug some sentences come close), but worth a look. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I just pulled it from the main page, it's obviously not main page worthy. In addition to being a close paraphrase, that whole chunk of the article is not encyclopedic (it's a point-by-point summary of a single game). Without it, this is not even close to qualifying for DYK in terms of length.

By the way, even though I assume you can't pull things from the queue (since it's protected), you could still go ahead and tag or edit the article in these situations. Also, if it's something urgent like this (the queue about to be posted) maybe we should encourage editors to post to WP:ERRORS as well, since there is a good chance no admin will notice here in time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've previously taken problems in the queue to WP:ERRORS only to be told that this is the correct forum for problems in a queue, as opposed to problems currently on the MP. But if problems like this will sit here for over five hours and hit the main page before being dealt with (I went to sleep after about two hours and just expected it would be dealt with before hitting the main page), then this is obviously not a good forum. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can start a discussion there and explain to them the issue (sometimes people don't see messages here on time) and see if we can get consensus for WP:ERRORS to extend their purview to the next queue as well as to the template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with that change, although I don't think the issue is WP:ERRORS expanding its purview, it's this forum being willing to allow WP:ERRORS to deal with issues in DYK queues. The most recent discussion was Reporting errors in queues and preps where it was suggested that WP:ERRORS was not an appropriate forum because it was "handled by main page admins who are often not a part of the DYK chain". I'm not sure what makes a main page admin any less qualified than a DYK admin to deal with errors in hooks, copyright violations, etc etc, especially if this forum is slower. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Frivolous requests, as well as those purely related to DYK rules and criteria (for instance, "the next queue has all US-centric hooks, needs to be changed") should of course not be dealt with by WP:ERRORS, but if there are DYK articles coming up that are clearly in violation of project-general rules (such as NPOV and copyright policies) any admin should be able to handle them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A by on this one?

The length of this article did not change much, but I think there's less that 100 words in common with the original... Photovoltaic micro-inverter. Can I list it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think no; the rules specifically address this scenario. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: BLP 2x expansion

The initial article has to be completely unreferenced, right? Or is it something where the article is mostly unreferenced, with lots of citation need tags, and one single footnote for a trivia item would qualify? I've never reviewed a BLP 2x expansion before so I'm not exactly clear on how this goes. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The BLP 2x expansion has been created to help address the issue that WP:URBLP is working on. An article has be belong to Category:Unreferenced BLPs to fall within their scope. If an article has a reference, then it's outside of the scope of that project. So yes, an article needs to be completely unreferenced to meet the DYK criteria. Schwede66 22:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. That's what I thought. Thanks. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that the article must be completely without inline references, I strongly disagree with the implication that it must be in Category:Unreferenced BLPs. Any unreferenced BLP should be eligible, whether it's been specifically tagged as such or not. Of course, you can take the silly step of slapping a tag on the article before beginning the referencing and expansion, but the article shouldn't be disqualified if you fail to do so. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that there aren't any existing uBLPs around any longer that don't belong to that category already. And of course, this just applies to existing uBLPs, as creating new BLPs now requires referencing, otherwise they get sent straight to AfD. Schwede66 23:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who wrote the rules in question (for what that is worth), I emphatically agree with Mandarax - inclusion in the uBLP category is not a requirement, being initially unreferenced is. That there should not be any non-categorised uBLPs does not mean that there are not any such articles. Newly created uBLPs being referenced should qualify for DYK under the existing 'new article' provisions. Improvements to poorly-referenced BLPs require x5 expansions. Long-standing unreferenced BLPs that are newly sourced can qualify under the x2 expansion rules. EdChem (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not all uBLPs are in that category, I can attest, having worked on one recently (Memo Rojas) that was not there. (It needs approval, BTW...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1

I'm not sure about the convention, so rather than changing things (as I might have it wrong) or using the Prep1 talk page (as that might not be watchlisted), I thought I'd ask here. WP:ITALICS does apply to album titles, but does it also apply to songs? If so, the three items in quotation marks in the On the Floor (song) hook should be italicised, and the quotation marks removed. Schwede66 00:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Songs are given in quotation marks. Ucucha 00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at about ten song articles chosen from the top of my head; all maintain quotation marks for songs, so I would go with the answer being "no" based on common practice. EdChem (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, italics are for longer works. So, for example, titles of albums, TV series, or magazines are in italics, but songs, TV episodes, or magazine articles are in quotation marks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue 6 credit problem

Queue 6 was recently trimmed down to size, with the removed hooks moved to prep2. However, a wrong dykmake was moved - Potomac Curling Club was the article moved, but the DYKmake was left in Q6, with the make for MXR Dyna whatsit being moved instead. So the PCC DYKmake remains in Q6 instead of the proper one... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. (Next time please leave the text to swap either here or in preps). Materialscientist (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

An unrelated note - there is no OTRS confirmation for the image in prep2, but it is nice. Maybe delay this hook? Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't catch that. I'll move it back and swap. Thanks! And also, will do next time, sorry bout that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for spamming this thread. This image (uploaded to Q5) keeps my mood up whole day. And I thought history is boring :-) Materialscientist (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

My review comment doesn't appear?

Can someone look to see why my comment does not appear in the page? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You accidentally placed it within a <!-- comment -->. I moved it to a proper place. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Noms page almost unusable

I used to find DYK fairly easy to handle. I would click edit, scroll down until I found the topmost section, paste in the template and fill it out.

No longer. Now I have to scroll through page after page after page of noms. You can't just go to the bottom, because there's page after page of noms for the distant future there. You can't use Find, because every date has hundreds of hits. So I click around and around looking for the right section, then have to click more to find the top of that.

Why did we do this? Was it to get more reviews on the latest noms, right? Isn't that what the other new policies are for? Do we still need reverse sort too?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

(1) To add a new nom, go to the table of contents, click on the section with the date relevant to your nom, then edit that section (new nom at the top)

(2) If you want to find your nom quickly later on, use find with your user name or the article title.

Regards. EdChem (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

+1 on #2. I search for my user name to follow up on my nominations as well as any I might be reviewing. It makes things much more manageable! cmadler (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Maury, what "right section" are you looking for? If you want the Feb. 12 nominations, you can click on the "Articles created/expanded on February 12" in the table of contents. If you want a specific nomination, you can use the expanded table of contents page that will list each nomination in the TOC. (But as EdChem and cmadler say, searching for your username is a neat trick too, and one I use quite often.) 28bytes (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have either a TOC or Edit. The username I do use, but it's only useful once posted. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In your preferences page, under the Appearance tab, you can click a box to enable "Show table of contents". rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Won't do it. I hate the results. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, then, I don't see how we can help, then, TBH. Since that's the solution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? That's it, you give up? How about an automated template system like the one for creating new articles? Or the one in Village Pump? Surely there's something better than this. I worry that we're not thinking big enough. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

An "automated template system" for what? Locating a particular section of the page? That is not what templates are for and as far as I know there is no way a template can do that (and it's not even clear to me what we're asking for). More generally, there is no need to make a large overhaul of the system just to humor one editor who has created a problem for himself (by choosing not to use the TOC) when there is no evidence that anyone else has this problem. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have either a TOC or Edit. What do you mean by "Edit" in this context? The "section edit" links? 28bytes (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to the real point here: IIRC the reverse sort was introduced to get more eyeballs on the soon-to-go noms. Right? Then we introduced anothernew rule demanding reviews on noms. So do we need both? Neither? It seems we're introducing lots of changes to DYK with little follow-up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think both changes have been helpful. 28bytes (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Useful to who? Article creators or admins of this page? It's clear the people who are already here like it just fine, but that's not what I'm worried about. We're making lots of CREEP to help the wrong people? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as both an article creator and someone who helps out by reviewing and building prep queues, I think the changes have been positive, but it's certainly possible that others might feel differently. Regarding the wrong people, I would expect 99+% of newcomers here not to have TOC disabled in their preferences, which I will admit makes jumping to the desired nomination date more difficult. I know I'd certainly be open to ways to make the process easier and more intuitive. "An automated template system like the one for creating new articles", like you suggest above, could certainly be helpful, and I'd be happy to help out with such a thing if others agree it would be handy. 28bytes (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And I have to agree. It's only logical to have the oldest at the top, and the QPQ (on self-noms, just so it's clear) is working well. I either do the username-search or click on TOC links, no issues at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If searching for the date is not possible because of dates in signatures, you could always open the edit window and search for, for example, "January 27===" (with the header formatting in there), that won't give false hits. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Even searching for just the day and "=", like "27=", would find that section as the first hit most of the time. Ctrl-F plus three keystrokes and there you are. 28bytes (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. What I've been doing is searching for "on February 1" and so on. Luckily the dummy templates appear at the top of the edit version as well as the displayed version of the page. But getting a review in the right place tends to require searching on the article name because for some reason clicking "edit" on a particular nomination often takes me to the wrong nomination. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That is because of section editing. Each section is given a number and when you click a button to edit that section the edit window takes you to the appropriately numbered section (for instance, if you click to edit this section, the URL in your browser's address bar might look like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&action=edit&section=23 ; see the section number at the end). But if, after you opened T:TDYK and before you clicked the edit button, someone else edited the page by adding or removing a section above where you are editing, then the section number of the section you want to edit will have changed in the meantime. You can deal with this by backing out, refreshing the page, and editing again; or, if you know the section you got taken to is, for example, 1 section above or below the one you want, you can just manually change the section number in your address bar to the one you need. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Local update times

I was thinking that, due to significant number of wikipedians in China, the Philippines and Singapore (see Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality) - all of which are within UTC+08:00 timezone, compared to Tokyo's UTC+09:00, we ought to replace (or add?) Tokyo timezone listed in the table with either: Singapore, Hong Kong or Manila. How? ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 06:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we have more (or more active) Tokyo timezone editors than Singapore, Hong Kong, or Manila, which is why Tokyo is there. Shubinator (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry, i used the wrong category to count the number of editor. I should have used Category:Wikipedians by location. However, based on this, and based on my calculations, there still would be more wikipedia editors in the UTC+08:00 timezone compared to UTC+09:00 timezone. Based on the categories, here's my findings (subcategories already included):

• UTC+09:00: 562 editors (422 in Japan; 140 in Korea)
• UTC+08:00: 1127 editors (477 in china; 41 in Taiwan; 33 in Philippines; 200 in Malaysia; 175 in Singapore; 201 in western Australia). ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 10:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Advice on adding an article to an existing hook

Hi fellow editors, I need a little advice. I have nominated Dent Island Light and the article itself passed, though the hook was found a bit on the bland side. I now authored Double Island Point Light and I could probably come up with a reasonable hook for it, but not something to write back home about. I'm thinking maybe combining the two, something like "... that W. P. Clark constructed Bustard Head Light, Double Island Point Light and Pine Islet Light, and started but did not complete the construction of Cape Cleveland Light and Dent Island Light?". First, can I do this? The articles were written five days apart. Second, is it any better? Third, if it is possible and better, how does one go in adding another article to an existing accepted hook? I never did that before. --Muhandes (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You can do it. Just leave a note in the same section, below wherever someone checked off the previous hook, explaining that you'd like to nominate a new article, and give the new hook (as an ALT1 or something like that). If the new hook is accepted, either you or the person who promotes the article should also add the relevant {{DYKmake|Double Island Point Light|Muhandes}} credit template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

For an example see Template talk:Did you know#Handel Festival Halle in the Special occasions for 23 February, Handel's birthday, the new hook ALT2, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I got it. I'm still not sure the new hook is any better, but I added the ALT at Template talk:Did you know#Dent Island Light. --Muhandes (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

February 15

Just a heads-up that once the current preps are promoted, the February 15th hooks should start bring used. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Queues empty, preps full

Hi there, all the queues are empty and all the preps are all full. Could an admin promote some preps, please? Schwede66 20:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Y Did rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Preps are full again (and all queues almost empty). Schwede66 18:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved one set from prep area to the next queue... --Orlady (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Aaaand, again. (Note also that the preps need to be moved to the queues in the order they're in, since 3 and 4 have the first of the 15th's hooks) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I don't want to tread onto anybody's toes, but it's maybe not ideal when queues are empty, preps are full, and keen DYK editors can't put further preps together because of the backlog. I note that there seem to be some senior DYK editors who might well be keen and would certainly be capable of shifting preps to queues, but it's a job that requires admin permissions. Short of those editors jumping through the hoops and becoming admins themselves, is there a way of granting those permissions to the select few non-admins who know what they are doing? Many hands make light work. Schwede66 08:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Creating a new class of editors would complicate the WP hierarchy and would need a centralized discussion. Filling up all queues and preps has its downsides, and when I was composing I was keeping them nearly empty - the longer the nom spends at T:TDYK (well, in preps too, but not so many look there) there higher is the chance to find blunders and fix errors. The rate of WP:ERRORS comments is quite high recently. When reviewing is well done, composing one prep set takes several minutes. Materialscientist (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. How about 4 queues, 6 preps then? Plus asking editors to carefully doublecheck the preps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter that much, 4 or 6 queues. The project was running earlier with 2 preps or even without them (composing in a sandbox; it wasn't inconvenient actually). The magic trick is to motivate people to spend time on reviews. Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about expanded articles

When the criteria says "expanded fivefold within the last five days" does that mean the entire fivefold expansion happened in the last five days or that it was complete within the last 5 days? I've been working on the Tops In Blue article since 7 February and I am having trouble finding information from the Air Force Historical Agency. Is this article no longer qualified since the edits have happened over 6 days so far?--v/r - TP 21:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It means you started editing the article within the last five days, and the version now is at least 5 times as big as the first version you edited. See Wikipedia:Did you know/Article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that additional rule D9 gives a bit of wiggle-room to the "five days" rule. If you get it done tomorrow (i.e., a week or less), as long as there's still older unapproved/unreviewed hooks in the queue, it shouldn't be too much of an issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that the bulleted list under "Notable events" is not included in the "prose" count for that article. Converting that information to prose would not get the article up to 5x, but it would increase the prose count, while enhancing the quality of the article. --Orlady (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'll convert it into paragraph format and see if I can expand the history section tomorrow. *fingers crossed*. Thanks for the info!--v/r - TP 02:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it seems I got really busy today and I didn't have a chance to finish the article in time. Maybe next time. Thanks for the help.--v/r - TP 00:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer needed, please

Hi, there was a lengthy discussion about the DYK nomination of Jeanne Galzy (created on February 3). A hook was approved and promoted then pulled from the queue. The final standing seems to be that everyone is ok with a revised hook; however no one has checked off on it, and discussion seemed to be stagnated. Would someone take a look and see if this can be passed now? LadyofShalott 23:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like The Bushranger took care of it; it's in a prep queue now. (FWIW, I agree: the alt hook he promoted looked good to me.) 28bytes (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I took a look over the discussion and the consensus seemed to be that alt5 was acceptable to everybody, so I put it in the preps. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Baco Blanc needing DYK credit

According to Wikipedia:Recent additions, it appeared on the main page earlier today but the talk page doesn't have the DYK credit box. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hook in queue 6

I noticed a hook today that I felt a bit uneasy about, but by the time I remembered it I found it had already been put in queue 6. It is the one about the Schenecker double homicide. The whole thing makes me feel uneasy because it is all so recent, and the hook is, well, designed to scare children everywhere, is one way to put it. Really, though, it feels wrong to be putting allegations and "quotes" like this up front and centre on the main page. I'll notify the nominator of this thread, but wanted to see what the general feeling was about this, though I'm sure similar issues have come up in the past. Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC) PS. The hook is due to go live at 12:00 PM GMT.

(after edit conflict) Eh, I think the hook is worded as neutrally and simply as possible. I don't think it is designed to scare children nor do I think that it will have that effect. My apprehension comes more from the "in the news" feel of it though the news is really of interest only in the US so it would never actually appear in the ITN section. But, alas, if it passes Wikipedia's notability WP:GNG then there is not much you can do there. Maybe you can stretch this to a BLP issue since it is obviously focusing on a negative item. But then any crime article featured on DYK will to some extent, unless the hook removes mention of the suspect. However, I think rewording the hook to say something like "... two Tampa, Florida teenagers were allegedly shot by their mother because they "talked back and were mouthy"" actually would be more along the lines of what Carcharoth alludes to in scaring children, IMO. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was being slightly silly when I referred to scaring children. I've now worked out what concerns me about this, which is that it is not only ITN-like, it is also tabloid-like. It focuses on the 'shock' aspect of things, rather than taking a serious and sober approach. Also, any BLP concerns would be for the father (and other relatives of the children), who you wouldn't really want to stumble across the hook when it was up on the front page. They only held the memorial service just over a week ago. Any hook should focus more on that, than on the 'shock' aspects of the case. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure about this one - I can see the arguments both ways on it. What does concern me a bit is that it's remarkably similar to the last hook in the previous queue - nothing wrong with that, of course, just seems it would be preferable not to have similar hooks (of any sort, murder or not) closing two consecutive sets. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To not put too fine a point on it, that hook is about a fictional character, while this one is about real people who are doubtless still grieving. If this happened to your family, would you want a hook like that going up on the main page? Sure, it's been all over the papers, but why should we add to that with front page exposure and with a hook that isn't the most sensitive hook you could have? Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I see your point. But I don't think it is something to be too concerned about. The hook is significantly more neutral than the much more high profile news articles that were run. I reflected on it when BabbaQ nominated the article for DYK and am personally happy we have no BLP concerns here with regards to the father or mother. The hook it neutrally worded and well cited in terms of the mother's BLP concerns. And for the father, I think we are being sensitive enough that if he were to read it (and really we cannot predict that..) it would be fine (also, not really a BLP concern). My only ongoing concern is the recent-ness of the event, but again, it's been a couple of weeks now. No issues if the decision is to pull it. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think this topic is even notable per WP:Not#News and Wikipedia:Notability (events). I've nommed it for AFD and it should be removed from the queue. Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Returned from queues until the whole issue is resolved. Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't think we should run it anyway. I'm reluctant to run any articles dealing with crimes where someone has only been charged with something and not convicted; apart from which, this article reads very much like a news article with no indication of lasting significance. Gatoclass (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Post-Main page view stats

Has anyone ever tracked the view stats for a DYK article after it has been on the Main page? On February 3 Casper (cat) appeared on the Main page and picked up 2.9k hits. But look at the hits a week later. For the last 6 days it's been over 20k a day! Casper is almost as popular as The Beatles :) I can't for the life of me work out why there is this sudden interest. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have, and some post-spikes are easy to correlate with linking of an article from the main page (ITN, OTD, etc; or sometimes from an article linked from the main page). Some I could never explain, such as as Casper above. I guess a publication in a major newspaper (TV program, etc.) in a major country is enough to trigger such views. I guess there is a simple explanation to all such spikes [2] [3]. Materialscientist (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the hits could be as a result of this page. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about 5x for a particular article

I was thinking of expanding my college's pitiful basketball entry seen here and maybe get it up to snuff for DYK, but I checked with DYKcheck and it listed the prose size as 2014 characters. However, this includes a rather superfluous "Individual Career Records" section with numbered lists of random players. It's not very prose-like, as a matter of fact.

If I try to 5x this article, and in the process remove the list, will I need to get up to 10,000 characters? Or just the 314 characters left over after deleting them? Nomader ^(Talk) 08:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents would be to discard those numbered lists from the count - unreferenced lists which should normally be bulleted or tabled and thus avoid being counted by the DYKcheck. Materialscientist (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, but be prepared that you may still have to discuss it with a reviewer. A similar situation was resolved after a long discussion of several people by a final "exceptionally" for BWV 132 where I had removed simple text quotation before expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support what Materialscientist said. I suggest linking this discussion when you get around to nomming it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I was expecting to say "no", that the expansion should be from the 2000 character version. However, having looked carefully, the list characters are only counted by DYKcheck because the formatting of the article is so poor that that content isn't in a form that DYKcheck would skip. So, I fully support that returning this to about 2000 characters would be a x5 expansion. EdChem (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto what others have written, but you'll almost certainly need to point to this discussion, or at least point out that those lists wouldn't count if they were properly formatted. cmadler (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks everybody for the clarification. I'll be sure to link to this discussion once I nominate it. Nomader ^(Talk) 14:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK tools

As the recent rule change has created a much larger reviewer pool, it might be a good idea to point out that DYKcheck and prosesize, while usually very helpful, are merely tools which are not always right, and their results should not be religiously relied upon. Always use common sense and be prepared to check their results. In the case of the above thread, it's absolutely obvious that these tools are erroneously counting lists as prose. And for future reference, please note that one thing which should always be manually confirmed is when DYKcheck claims that an article has not been 5x expanded. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 14:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

April Fools!

Just to remind everyone April Fools is less than a month and a half away, and there is alot of work to be done Here. I have been the sole reviewer for most of the year and there are alot of articles still waiting to be reviewed. Plus, i know alot more will be nominated in the up coming weeks. It looks like this will end up being a pretty funny April Fools.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: do April Fools nominations count for reviews in the qpq system? They should, but I think having someone confirm it here would probably be best. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I already asked this question (now stored Here) in January and the two responses i got were both "Yes". Just make sure to state the review was done at April Fools and make sure you read and understand the rules there. They are different than regular DYK.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably mosey on over there in the near future, then. Thanks for clearing that up. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

5x expansion question

I just finished overhauling an article, and I was wondering if everyone thinks it would be eligible for DYK. The article is Flowing Hair dollar. I know it hasn't been expanded five times by bytes, but if you subtract the sections from the old article that list the specifics, there was about 1,000 characters. There is now about 9,000 characters. Would that be allowed to pass for DYK? Thanks in advance for the help!-RHM22 (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have passed by characters though. DYKcheck (unlike what it did for the article I brought up above) lists it as a 5x expansion. Well done, and feel free to nominate it. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Thanks! I thought it would be ok, but I wanted to ask first because I have never nominated a 5x expansion.-RHM22 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it's enough of an expansion. Probably because the bulleted lists in the prior version don't count as readable prose. cmadler (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A Technical Question

... about the Niqmepa article. Someone already started it back in 2006, but it was too short and unreferenced so it was made a redirect in 2010. I wrote the article again, to replace the redirect. Should this be nominated as new article or 5x expansion? (It satisfies both, but I'm just wondering) Yazan (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically, this is an expansion, because the article was converted to redirect only recently. Materialscientist (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. On another note, could we possibly add the "revieweddiff" and "reviewed" parameters to the default nom templates we have on the page notice for DYK? Yazan (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Inline referencing in larger context

A while ago we had a stimulating discussion (Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_63#Inline_referencing_in_DYKs). This issue is now being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#On_citing_every_sentence; I was motivated to change CITE after I run into another DYK situation where the author refuses to add inline citations beyond a paragraph level, and is encouraged in his attitutde by another reviewer (sigh...). The T:DYK discussion is here and author's comments on my talk page are here). Interested editors may want to join a discussion at CITE (or at T:TDYK, or even my page). PS. Just to be clear, I believe that we agreed that inline referencing all sentences is a good policy, but not required for DYK; and in this situation I am not requiring the inline density to be increased for the DYK to be passed - I just noted that it should be done in the future, with which some editors disagreed... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be an ongoing area of confusion, with a small minority of editors insisting on a standard that is far higher than even FAC (e.g., today's FAC has three paragraphs in the lead with zero inline citations, plus nineteen (19) other sentences without inline citations), and now there are allegations at CITE that Piotrus has been gaming CITE to win a dispute at DYK.

I think that at this point, DYK needs to introduce a statement that explicitly and directly says that DYK does not require an inline citation after every single sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... lead paragraphs are supposed to have zero citations per WP:MOS because they are a summary of cited content in the article body. I think DYK should clarify the cite rules to say not all sentences must have a citation, but all paragraphs outside the lead section must end with a citation. Paragraphs that dangle without a citation are just begging to be tagged by a discriminating editor when they hit the main page which makes DYK look bad. Also, all quotes should require citations for copyright reasons. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Quotes, yes, but I don't think "at the end of the paragraph" should be added. Meanwhile, Piotrus' attempt to force through changes to CITE seems to be sinking fast; the earlier discussion here had few contributors & was certainly not the place to start a major change. The MOS does not exactly say what is said just above on leads, & if a point isn't in fact cited elsewhere it needs to be cited in the lead. The lead/remaining text distinction is in practice much more flexible in short articles like most DYKs. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I was really more trying to point out why FA article leads have no citations. Having helped write/shepherd through a few FA opera articles (most recently Rinaldo) I found WhatamIdoing's comments incredibly naive. The referencing standards at FA are like the Olympics whereas the refencing standards at DYK are like a junior high school track meet. I still standby what I said about paragraphs ending with a citation (besides the lead). This is required at FA/GA review, and really its an easy eyeball way to judge an article's referencing for DYK purposes. Let's face it, those who don't add cites are just being lazy, writing original research, or copyright violating. Why should we reward/ignore any of these behaviors? They got the info from somewhere and they should say where.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You might want to go brush up on the actual rules. WP:GACN is clear that an article can meet GA's citations standards with zero inline citations if the article (or section, or paragraph) does not contain any of the five types of statements that require inline citations.

Additionally, many articles do require inline citations in their leads, particularly if the lead contains any direct quotations or any contentious matter about living people, and all are permitted to have inline citations, if the editors choose to include them. Consequently, the leads are not "supposed to have zero": they are only permitted to have zero (except when required).

While 'one to a paragraph' (excluding the lead, unless specific rules apply) is a reasonable rule of thumb, it is just a rule of thumb, not an actual requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should brush up on the rules again, but I still think what I said holds true in practice. Once you've been through enough peer/GA/FA reviews you begin to see that gathering support votes isn't just knowing the rules but understanding what sort of things other editors are going to complain about. I've seen people complain about citations in the lead for example. Certain referencing formats are frowned upon at FA even though they technically are allowed. Many GA reviewers won't support an article that has paragraphs not ending in citations. These are things you learn participating in the process. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said (and please note this is not a discussion about inline referencing in DYKs in particular, which are often just start-class, but articles in general). 4meter4, you may want to post a comment in the discussion I linked, as it is the forum which will make a decision on whether referencing each sentence is a good practice (as I argue) or not.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think referencing every sentence is necessary. Sometimes a string of sentences come from a single source, in which case only one citation at the end of the final sentence is required. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

But what if somebody inserts a referenced (or not) sentence in the middle of them? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What if someone vandalizes, or adds original research, or adds content with spelling error, or [insert problem]... In an encyclopedia anyone can edit there is always a potential that errors will creep in. This is why we have watch lists. Yes there are things we can do to prevent issues from happening. But I don't think requiring citations after every sentence is one of them. It's an overly pedantic approach which goes beyond what's required for published academic writing, which I think should be the ultimate goal for an excellent wikipedia article.4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What dispute? I clearly said that more inline cites are a recommendation for the future of the article, not for its current DYK eligibility. And I agree that lead does not need citations, provided it is written properly (only summarizes info that is properly referenced later in the body). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I fully agree with 4meter4 and I think WhatamIdoing's "burden of subsequent editors" discussed on WT:CITE sums up perfectly the dynamic that exists on an encyclopedia which anybody can edit. For DYK's purpose, the burden on the creator/nominator is to insure that their article is fully referenced, verfiable and presentable for the Main Page. We can not ask that editor to have omniscience on any future edits as much as we can expect them to predict any future vandalism. It is the burden of subsequent editors to ensure that their edits do not disrupt the referencing of what came before and, failing that, we have watchlists and article histories where everyone (including the original creator/nominator) can pitch in to insure article and source integrity. We will never be perfect but we have the tools and guidelines in place to make it work as best as we can. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixes in Queues 3 and 6

• The third hook of Queue 3 says "the grape may have actually came to the island". The "came" should be "come". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• The lead hook of Queue 6 says "between 1300 BC to 740 BC". This should be "between 1300 BC and 740 BC" or "from 1300 BC to 740 BC". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed both. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I just discovered a larger problem. The current hooks on the main page were from Queue 3, but the queue was not cleared after the update. The next update is scheduled to be from Queue 3 again, with the same hooks. Also, the first fix mentioned above should now be applied to the main page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the bot did not issue any credits for the latest update. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

hook comeback

I am well aware that you can't bring a hook of a certain article back. But what if there could be a exception if the hook was found out that it's not all the way correct. Like a hook stated a while back that X is going to happen at 2011 but it was 2012. It would be nice to put the correct version back for the hook creator just to clear the conscience of that mistake, to let the readers know the reliable truth of it and to have the fact version stored in the queue and the article talk page. After all that's what a true reporter would do. I want to know how possible is it for an administrator to approve that or maybe there's other options for that? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK notification question

I notice that a DYK for Castilleja septentrionalis is currently on the front page, but there was no notification to my talk page. Is the bot that usually notifies DYK contributors on vacation? Sharktopus^talk 20:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. See the Bot problem section below. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue 1 and Prep 4

Somehow SA-500D ended up in both of these...4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed... Oddly enough, it was nominated for a second time after the first hook had been moved to the prep area. --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I eliminated the duplication. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What's more disturbing is that the second nom, which would have been 5 days late (ie. 10 days old), was still approved by User:HJ Mitchell and then promoted by User:Miyagawa. Perhaps someone should mention this to them.4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps you should exercise a little common courtesy and notify the people you're bitching about behind their backs? It was obviously a mistake and, given that two experienced editors made it, it seems quite an easy one. As to your second point, allow me to point you to Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules#Other additional rules for the article, specifically criterion D9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Behind your back on a public page you are likely to read? I was merely hoping someone with more experience than me would contact you. I didn't want to get more involved than I have. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot problem

The bot did not clear Queue 3 after the last update and did not issue any credits. The next update is scheduled to repeat the same hooks from Queue 3. I mentioned this above but thought my note might have gotten missed up there. See that section for a main page fix which also need doing. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the bot quit working after adding the latest set of hooks to the archive. I've fixed the main page and cleared queue 3, but I did not issue any credits. Do you have time to do those, Mandarax, or would you prefer that someone else does them? --Orlady (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never done it before, but I'll see if I can figure out how to do it correctly. Note that the next queue still has to be incremented. I think this means that Template:Did you know/Queue/Next should be changed from 3 to 4. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Whew! Finally done with the credits. I never appreciated the bot so much! And I see that Materialscientist has incremented Next. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Incremented queue count. Thanks. Brackets were missing in credits in Q3 that possibly stopped the bot. Such formatting typos are easy to scan and are the first priority. Please shout if notice them (well I should have noticed myself :-(. Issuing credits is easy after some practice :-). Let me know if there was a specific hassle and I might hint how to speed it up. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I do a lot of corrections to credit templates while they're still on the nominations page, but I guess I missed that one. As for issuing the credits, I just went extremely slowly and carefully to make sure that I was doing it correctly since it was my first time (although it didn't really take nearly as long as my timestamps above may indicate). I know that I could have gone considerably faster if I'd omitted the hooks, but I figured if I was going to do something, I wanted to do it right. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the bot to wake-up itself and will update manually if not. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the manual update, Materialscientist. Here's hoping the bot gets restarted before the next update is due! --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Input urgently needed

Could someone with a working knowledge of conceptual art please provide some input? The two reviewers commenting on the Rosendale Village nomination have recused themselves, and I don't believe their proposed hooks accurately reflect the sources or the article.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Review requirement for multiple nominations

When I self nominate multiple articles in one hook, am I expected to review as many other nominations as I have nominated myself? Schwede66 03:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we had a discussion about that and consensus was to keep things simple, at least for the time being, see this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hooks for the 20th

Time to start moving them to preps, it seems. Since I created two of the three hooks for this date, somebody else should do the honors, I believe. :) (also, there's one more waiting to be approved for the date). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Said before. There are four (!) hooks in special occasions for 20 February, three of them pictured, the queues almost full. Since I created one of them I also think somebody else should do the move, soon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing concerns

The article is no longer on the main page, but an editor has brought up concerns that Cajetan J. B. Baumann, a DYK from last night, is an unacceptable close paraphrasing of its main online source. I agree with those concerns, and I'm posting this here just as a reminder to keep an eye out for close paraphrasing as part of the reviewing process. Articles that draw largely from one source are especially likely to fall into that trap, so it's something to keep an eye on going forward. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blanked most of the content of the article, which is clearly plagiarism. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rjanag, I think that was a good call. 28bytes (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Another article of concern: SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City). I notice some verbatim unquoted phrases ("they collected the $21,000 necessary...") copied from this source. 28bytes (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is distressing. :/ I have added a link to the policy section on selection criteria, here, since it mentions the issue. I've also added some material on it here. Do you think that might help? Is there any other way that we can encourage reviewers and nominators to be conscious of this issue? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl. Yes, I think additional emphasis on this as part of the reviewing guide(s) would be helpful. 28bytes (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Next update

DYKupdateBot seems down. I left a note to Shubinator, but if he doesn't appear, could an admin monitor the next update of 19 Feb 18:00 (and do it manually). Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot restarted. Shubinator (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hooks for February 20

There are 3 hooks on the nomination page which have been approved for posting on February 20. However, none of them are in the prep queues that are ready to move into that date. Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming into this chorus. Its four hooks, three of them pictured (s.a.), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Went and cleaned that up. so long as prep 4 is put into the next open queue it's fine. That's why I'm not a fan of the special holdings, this happens too frequently from what I see. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I wonder though why it happens with an alert (not by me) one day in advance. Question: if a hook is agreed to appear a certain date, might the nominator move it to prep if nobody else does? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphan eligibility

Are orphans, such as Rose Catherine Pinkney eligible?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If you expand the article 5x, yes. Ucucha 19:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a new article. I am going to nominate it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's eligible on the date/length basis. When I review, I normally request that orphans be de-orphaned before they hit the main page, but there's not (to my knowledge) a rule that says they must be. Additional rules D6 and D11 discourage dispute tags and stub tags respectively, but other tags aren't prohibited, although I personally prefer they be resolved first. 28bytes (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

They're fine. The general rule is that articles with cleanup issues (especially sourcing, NPOV, or copyediting problems) should be cleaned up. {{orphan}}, though, is a disputed thing anyway (e.g. some people believe {{orphan}} tags do not even belong in mainspace), and so I don't think noms can or should be rejected because they are orphaned. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that. I've had the "orphaned" tag slapped on quite a few of my articles - articles on pretty obscure topics that are difficult to link to other articles without violating WP:UNDUE. Some topics just by their nature are difficult to crosslink, so I think we could probably consider the orphaned tag an exception to the "no tags" rule. Gatoclass (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Musing...

It seems the 2x expansion for BLPs is having a benificial effect, and that's awesome. I got to pondering, though, and wonder if maybe - not necessarily now, but in the future - some sort of incentive for properly referencing unrefernced non-BLP articles might be in order. After all, there are a lot of them out there, and there's not much reward, beyond personal satisfaction of course, for referencing them; in many cases, it might not be able to expand them very much, and referencing an established but unreferenced article can be almost as time-consuming as writing one from scratch. So I was wondering if perhaps, there might be support for a rules amendment that states that if an article that is previously unreferenced ("no inline citations"?) is brought up to fully-cited status, perhaps allowing articles that otherwise meet DYK criteria but have only been expanded 4x, instead of 5x, might be allowed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a simple change that a 2x expansion of any article (with a minimum of 1500 prose count still aplying), BLP or otherwise, that was previously unreferenced could be nommed. I see no reason to make it a 4x expansion for non-BLP articles. Referencing articles of all types is important and a policy like this at DYK would help improve article quality encyclopedia wide.4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason that we have the 2x expansion for uBLPs is that it's a WP project to get rid of a significant problem. It's much less of a problem to have an unreferenced bio of somebody who is no longer alive. What Bushranger wasn't saying, but maybe is mindful of, is that uBLPs will be gone within a few months. The tracking tool would suggest that they'll be gone by mid year at the latest.

I'd be happy to encourage and reward editors who start referencing completely unreferenced articles. In my opinion, this should require more than a 2 times expansion, and we should only start with that when the uBLPs are gone. Schwede66 20:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We already allow 5x expansion. What sort of expansion were you thinking? There are many large articles which are unreferenced at wikipedia. By requiring more than 2x expansion for these, we're basically discouraging editors from fixing them for DYK purposes. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK is not the only way in which an editor can be rewarded. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of articles are created, expanded, referenced, or improved without ever coming near the DYK process. If an article is too large to be expanded 5x with new sourcing, the best hope for a 'reward' is the Good Article process. - Dravecky (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the "award" of a GA is useless in my opinion. GA articles have no real visibility, and as such many editors have no interest in participating there. If you are going to go to the trouble of GA, you might as well go for FA and have a shot at the mainpage. Regaurdless, the whole point of this conversation is to use DYK as a tool to help encourage editors to improve already exsisting articles. Could you imagine a wikipedia where every article has inline citations? DYK could help make that happen.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

if an article that is previously unreferenced is brought up to fully-cited status...what is "fully-cited status"? This standard seems a bit murky, I could see it becoming a battleground. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

While I have long been advocating that the Future of DYK is with expansions/rewrites, I agree with Rjang that we would need a more firm and clear standard than the vague "fully-cited". Heck, look at the frequent flare ups we have now between citing every line versus sourcing an entire paragraph to one cite at the end. Personally, I still feel the answer lies in a type of graduated expansion scale where (and I'm just tossing out numbers here so don't hold me to them) if the original article started out at 15,000+ bytes then it only would need a 2x expansion (along with full references, no tags, the same "main page worthy" standards we always try to noms to), an article that began with 7000-14,999 needs at least a 3x expansion, etc. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, by "fully cited" I meant the usual DYK standard; I should have been a bit clearer, apologies. The "graduated" system could be reasonable - there are plenty of subjects which, at a 1500-character start, it's very very difficult if not impossible to expand to 7500 (which is 5x from that); I threw up my hands on further expanding Harley J. Earl Trophy, for instance, after a certain point. I disagree that GA is useless, but whether "graduated" or not, I'd think that providing a DYK incentive would make more editors a lot more interested in cleaning up reference-less articles that it might be very difficult or impossible to expand to 5x, or even to GA standard, but can be easily cited and improved to a standard worthy of showcasing on a lesser stage - and, in the process, improving Wikipedia's appearance, reliability, and (perhaps just a little) reputation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK's "not exactly"

I am not sure if this is a misunderstanding of the rules, or misreading it completely. The article was created on February 16, it was nominated today (Feb 22). It is 6 days old, which means it is one day behind the deadline. But it is well within the margin of DYK's leeway. The reviewer seems to disagree. He is arguing that the "last day of older nominations" refers to Feb 16, rather than Feb 11. Any input is welcome. Yazan (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bushranger's comment on that thread is correct. It's a new article, created February 16, and it's close enough to 5 days (as per D9) to qualify as new. No expansion is required, and the article's size on February 16 is not relevant. 28bytes (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't see Bushranger's comment before I posted this. Yazan (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've always taken "last day" to mean the earliest date ("last" possibly being an artifact from when the nominations page had the most recent first and the oldest last), which as of the moment is February 11. But I can see how this could be confusing. Perhaps it could be reworded to clarify what is meant? cmadler (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, rewording might be a good idea to clarify the meaning. Yazan (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree; that's an artifact of the change from "oldest last" to "oldest first". The meaning of the term is, and always was, "the oldest day..."; it should be changed to reflect that since it's causing confusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I just created Tell Ghoraife, which might also qualify. Hope you don't miss the deadline. Thanks for all your help getting these noticed Yazan! Appreciated! Paul Bedson (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced "last day" in the rules (D9 in one place, P1 in the other) with "oldest date". cmadler (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also got a reviewer who must be applying a strange interpretation of the rules. The nomination was rejected, and the comment on my talk page is "does not meet 5x expansion criteria as the expansion was over 2 days" (note that it's the Merriman article that was expanded). I've commented underneath the nomination, but somebody else should go and have a look at this and confirm things. Schwede66 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it! Schwede66 03:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue 5, last hook

Hi, the grammar isn't great here. How about changing it to:

... that Nels Nelsen, at the time holder of the world's longest ski jump set at Big Hill, was not allowed to participate in the 1928 Winter Olympics because officials thought it inappropriate for an athlete to work for his fare on a freighter? Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Stats question

For DYK Stats, should the count for hooks with pictures include clicks for the article and for the picture? That seems fair, since the hook generated the clicks on the picture. Agolib 23:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Usually no, because the picture was not created for DYK, but what if it was created for DYK nom, I mean really created, not just copy/pasted from PD source? Materialscientist (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Prep4

please check the last article Pleasure Dissociative Orgasmic Disorder - I am slightly worried by its sources and capitalization. Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I note that the only instance of the article's title in the literature seems to come from the cited Perelman article, published in the 14th of this month. It may therefore not be a suitable title, even if the content is acceptable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The term is unknown to Web of Science or Scopus. Materialscientist (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I published the article on the 14th, but I'm assuming that you're sayint that the source was also published on this date? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Presently sexual anhedonia redirects to this article. I suggest this is backwards – the article should be at "sexual anhedonia" and "pleasure dissociative orgasm disorder" should be the redirect. This is not only because anhedonia is the natural parent article but also because some variant on sexual anhedonia is, I suspect, the common name for the condition.
2. The article needs a decent copy-edit, it is not main page ready IMO. For example, the sentence "There are a number of treatments available for those who suffer from this disorder, should it cause personnal distress."... leaving aside the spelling, this seriously minimises how distressing (and embarrassing) this condition can be. People fail to seek treatment for this condition out of embarrassment, not because they are not distrissed by it. Later, we have "Additionally, blood testing might help determine levels of hormones and other things in the bloodstream that might inhibit pleasure. Finally, treatment with drugs that increase dopamine, such as oxytocin, and other drugs."... the former sentence is poorly expressed and, I think, misleading; the latter sentence is not a sentence.
3. The article is obviously incomplete. One very major source of this condition is as a side effect of SSRIs and other anti-depressant medications, yet this is not even mentioned in the text.
4. There must be better references for this. How about:

• Comprehensive Textbook of Sexual Medicine
• A chapter on sexual anhedonia
• Kaplan & Sadock's concise textbook of clinical psychiatry uses the term orgasmic anhedonia
• Google books searches for anhedonia, sexual anhedonia, SSRI and anhedonia provide plenty of hits.

EdChem (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Working apparently simultaneously, Materialscientist has pulled it from Prep 4 and I have returned it to the discussion page. - Dravecky (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have addresses some of the issues now, but I'll get back to it later on today. I'll have a friend look over the article later but I may be delayed in any action on this until at least the weekend. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Videos in DYK

I suggest removing the video from prep1 for purely technical reasons: We are not technically ready for videos in DYK: look at prep1 with internet explorer, which is a major browser - our formatting creates excessive whitespace and we routinely get complaints on that at WP:ERRORS. Another concern - this video is 32 Mb and I don't know how the wikimedia software streams it. I know animated images are sent at they full size, which is why we have to crop them. We need to discuss the whole issue, maybe on a more technical page. Materialscientist (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. The video would ahve to d/l at full size and is then scaled. So yeah, don't do it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Videos have been used before, for example on 06:00, 16 April 2010, and Template:DYK watch has been created for this. But in any event if it is causing problems in IE it should be investigated. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see whitespace issues last time, but we got enough comments on WP:ERRORS about it that we should think twice (and check in all major browsers) before placing another video on DYK again. Also, as MatSci guessed, videos should be compressed to the display resolution and reuploaded since the entire file is streamed to the user (see Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Limitations and Implementation Issues). Shubinator (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1

Hi, the article creator of James Bucknall put in a special request to use the picture of the officer, since good free images of British commanding officers are hard to come by. Yoninah (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Good, but we've just featured Sir James Dutton, and I've seen quite a few pictured WP articles on British commanding officers recently. Thus my 2 cents is if an article (this included) is worth being a lead - surely promote it, but not just for the photo - speaking of images, I like the crab in prep1 better :-) Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well my preference of the two would be Dutton, because it's a better article and a better image, so I'm happy. It is rare to find free images of British officers, especially images of Main Page quality—Colin Boag is currently in the queue somewhere, but the image only shows one side of his face and Richard Barrons was on recently, but, having found an image, I'm still trying to get it released. It was nice to get Dutton on though, so thanks for that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have had a "sober" look and the issue here is not the image (its fine) but the hook for James Bucknall reads a bit plain to me for a lead. No slight. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1

Prep 1 now has a hook for Walter Coy which uses as a source an IMDB trivia section, surely not a very reliable source. --Muhandes (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of IMDb is the subject of much controversy, but, that aside, prep 1 can be edited by anyone, so you can just fix it o move it back to T:TDYK yourself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, credits, sales, things like that are sometimes considered acceptable. The trivia section? I can't recall a case where it was. I don't really know how to move it back to T:TDYK, help appreciated. --Muhandes (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've pulled it and moved it back to T:TDYK#Walter Coy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Second reviewer requested for Richard Watson (singer)

Could I please beg someone with access to books on the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company to go follow up on the nomination for Richard Watson (singer)? I've got into an awkward situation with being utterly unable to check the references provided for the hook, since they are either not online or only visible in snippet view and I don't have a quotation to search on. I've already had to disagree with the nominator's assertion that the actual hook sentence doesn't need a ref. and a contributor added 2 further refs - I don't want to continue being unpleasant about it but Google is letting me down here, so please, does anybody have dead tree access and can take over for me?? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No hard feelings, Yng. Gone are the days when we just wrote "offline refs accepted igf"? --Pgallert (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Er...I don't know why you say that, because the "offline references agf" is still very valid and used all the time? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They're all used all the time ofcourse. If we were to rely on sources available online we would never be able to write an encyclopedia. AGF is used across the board from Google Books to JSTOR papers. The main test one has is to make sure that the book "exists" (ISBN and such) and that there is a high probability it will be mentioning the fact, and that it is RS. More than that we'd just be asking too much. Yazan (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And that's why I'm asking for someone else to step in. It's one thing if I can check some of the sources and if as you say I can be pretty sure the hook fact is supported by the reference cited. But I'm utterly stymied on this one. I don't have enough to search on, and I can't possibly judge whether the hook fact is correct. I am in fact utterly unable to do that part of the review task. So since there was a decision that someone had to vet all our articles - testing whether good faith is justified - I cannot in good conscience say, "AGF the entire thing," much though I'd like to. It looks good. But even without getting into close paraphrasing - about which I've seen a couple of "oopsies" on this page over the past few weeks, and which one can't just guess about - that's the task the discussion imposed on reviewers. Not AGFing the entirety, but checking at least some of it out - and the hook fact above all. Otherwise why bother? Let's just go back to the old system where we're encouraged to help out, but in general we AGF so long as it looks ok. It does look ok. And no, of course we aren't restricted to online refs. I'm sorry I picked this one. I apologize for the trouble and mean no implication whatsoever that I don't think the article is just fine, and it now has 2 references on the hook fact (which it should be noted was not selected by the creator - someone else nominated the article). --Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Er. I'm not quite sure what you mean here by "So since there was a decision that someone had to vet all our articles - testing whether good faith is justified". What decision? What vetting? I have to confess I'm drawing a blank on that. There have not been any decisions that say "if an article has 0 online sources, it cannot be approved". The only change made recently that I'm aware of was to require QPQ reviews - there was no change that disallowed AGFing the entirety, or did I miss something? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, in this particular case (see Richard Watson (singer)) the argument seems to be "please provide a direct quote from the text so that I can use it to locate the page with the background info on Google Books" (I sincerely hope I did not misunderstand this). So "offline refs" is not quite right; the book is online. But it is a big step beyond proving that the book exists. Now the article needs to be rewritten to allow for checking of sources--in a way this is a good thing which in the long run will give more credibility to DYK, but on the other hand it makes life very difficult for someone nominating an article for someone else. --Pgallert (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Two cents When I do a review that involves offline/foreign language source, I focus on two things 1.) If it is a book, I check that it exists and is published by a reputable source (i.e. not some crackpot's self-published work, etc). If it is a foreign language website, I make sure it is a valid link and try to discern (as best as I can) if it is a reputable source (foreign newspaper, government site, etc) 2.) I do a rudimentary google search on the hook's claim to see if any contradictory sources pop up. (Such as if the hook says so-and-so did something fantastic in 1948 but there is a news article about someone else doing it in 1946, etc) Obviously I don't spend hours researching this but I do make a good faith effort and look through a couple pages of results. Sometimes I find different reliable online sources that confirm the hook completely. But even I don't, with those two points satisfied, I feel very comfortable giving it the tick. Yeah, reviewing an offline sourced hook requires a tad more effort but I truly don't think it is that difficult or worth stressing over. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice, and maybe you could take a look at the article. It just needs one person and you may have access to different things. I didn't set a timer, so I'm not sure whether I spent an hour, or more, or less, but I take these requirements seriously and I searched for sources every which way to Sunday. I cannot verify the hook fact. I cannot find any sample facts from the article online to check that they usually line up with the sources. I could AGF if I could verify a patch of sources, and it looks absolutely fine, but I cannot actually verify the sources. Unless I were to wait till next Wednesday and hope there is suitable material at the closest college at which I have library access. Bad match between article subject matter and reviewer, I'm afraid, but not for want of effort or good will. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers needed

We are getting behind in the reviews of the oldest noms. Also, one of the problems with the new reviewing policy is that many more mistakes are happening in the review process. I've caught several approved hooks which were well over the 200 character article limit and approved articles with less than 1500 characters to name just a few problems. Also, new reviewers often leave a comment if there is a problem, but then don't follow up with the nom process after their concerns were addressed. We need some old DYK hands to step up to help with shepherding through some of the more contentious noms, look over the shoulder/mentor newbie reviewers, and just help out more in general. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick, 4meter4, but one of the approved articles you "caught" was, as far as I can see, a case of you misreading the rules. That review was in fact done by an old DYK hand. This is not to refute your point, that more reviewers are always better, but I'm seeing an improvement with the flow compared to say last November/December. There seems to be multiple eyes on more noms, and this page is getting less nasty messages from users who have found sub-par noms on the main page. (This may be more an effect of conscientious users such as Materialscientist and others keeping a close eye on the prep queues and pulling bad noms, I'm not sure) Agree drive-by reviews have to be discouraged. The Interior (Talk) 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK The Monument of Matrones - can this be held over please

The article's creator had asked in the nom that this be held over until March 8th, International Women's Day. But I see it's already been moved to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4. Any chance this could be moved back to the "March 8th holding pen" instead? Voceditenore (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We certainly can, but it may not get as prominent of a spot as there are several hooks with pictures for that day. Are you sure the nominator wouldn't mind having it earlier? It is currently the lead hook in the prep area which will give it the best visibility (ie more readers). Also, we currently have a hook shortage so it is helpful being able to promote it now. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just contacted her on her talk page to ask, but I believe she's in California and probably won't see it for several more hours. It may be too late. I notice that she already has the DYK credit posted on her talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I don't mind when this appears, as long as we have other coverage for the day. - PKM (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify - the hook has been featured 24 hours ago, as a lead. Materialscientist (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Millennia

The Tell Ghoraifé hook is presently at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 but will soon move on to a queue file. It says Tell Ghoraifé shows "the evolution that took place over a millenia". In addition to spelling (it should be "millennia"), that word is plural. The article's infobox says c. 7870–5840 BC, so it might be "a millennium", "two millennia", or just "millennia". Art LaPella (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Here I am quoting the source: "... whereas at Aswad and near-by Ghoraife as already mentioned, wild-type barley rachis internodes are replaced progressively by solid type domestic rachis fragments. The period of time necessary to recognize these changes appear to be about a millenium." Yazan (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So we need to change millenia into millennium. That would be my fault. Thanks for spotting that Art LaPella! Yazan (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Art LaPella (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Queue 2 an -> a ?

At Queue 2, 5th bullet - not sure, is it "after an No. 101 Flight RAAF pilot" or "after a No. 101 Flight RAAF pilot"? --Muhandes (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell it should be "a". You only use "an" if the next word begins with a vowel sound, which is not the case here. Unless I'm missing something... cmadler (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• @Cmadler, the grammar rule is obvious, my concern was that this might be pronounced in a special way. For example you would usually see "an FTP connection" (as it is pronounced "Ef Tee Pee"). So if this would be pronounced "En Oh One Oh One" it might be proper to put "an" before it. --Muhandes (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't mean to restate an "obvious" (perhaps not to everyone, though!) grammar rule. When I look at that, I would read it as "number one-oh-one..." so I would use "a". cmadler (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't mean to say you restated anything obvious, just wanted to say I understand the grammatical rule and clarify my original question. My apologies if I was misunderstood. --Muhandes (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Recognition for Your Work

One of our contributors pointed out that authors and nominators might not know about Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. It's the only easy way to keep track of how many articles a person has written or nommed, and the only easy way to figure out who deserves the 25/50/100 etc. DYK Awards. If you have over 25 DYKs, don't forget to make yourself an entry so you can get some recognition for your hard work. Keep writing everybody, The Interior (Talk) 19:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I have 23 noms and 14 creations/expansions, but it seems i have to have 25 of one or the other to add myself to the list. Maybe we should have a third table? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be rare example of someone who noms and creates at a similar rate. As for now the Awards delineate between noms and creations/expansions, there doesn't seem to be a cumulative award. You're on the doorstep for one, and close to a 25 Noms medal (which are quite rare and must have a high cash value.) The Interior (Talk) 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So what's the value of my 27 noms, smile? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Further DYK restrictions

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

---

I know this has come up casually a few times, and forgive me if there's already been a formal discussion as well: would it be a good idea to require that an article nominated for DYK not be listed at AfD? There are half a dozen articles that have been nominated recently which were at AfD for various reasons including neutrality and non-encyclopedic content, and while sometimes they get cleaned up, I think it would be better for the whole process to just give this sort of thing a pass. Articles should be suitable for the Main Page before being nominated, and yeah, there are still often problems that need fixing, but "not up for deletion" is a pretty non-subjective guideline. (Unlike tags - I considered suggesting "is not tagged for NPOV, etc." as well, but that means one editor can sabotage a nomination.)

And yeah, it would mean that some articles wouldn't make the main page, but so do the length floor and the time limit on expansion.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the current rule ("D5: Articles nominated for deletion won't be used unless or until they survive the deletion process.") is sufficient. I had nominated a perfectly good article for DYK that a single-purpose account then sent to AfD. The AfD eventually closed as keep (as it should have), but it would have been a shame if the DYK had been derailed because of their actions. 28bytes (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I guess my problem is that AfD's concerns and DYK's concerns aren't the same. Of course there is the existing rule about it surviving the deletion discussion, but merely being kept doesn't mean it's good for the main page. I'm thinking of several recent DYK nominations related to the Middle East, where very serious concerns were aired at AfD - while in one case (Israeli animal spy conspiracy theories) the article was somewhat improved in the course of the discussion, I don't think that's what resulted in it being kept, and it would have been a shame for Wikipedia to feature an article that was essentially "lol Arabs are dumb."

Although your point about SPAs still being able to sabotage makes sense. Perhaps a loose guideline rather than a strict one could help.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Middle East article you're refering to, but if it's as you describe it, it could or should be excluded on the basis of NPOV concerns, regardless of whether someone AfD's it. As The Interior says, anyone can AfD an article for any reason, and unless it's an egregiously and obviously bad nomination, you're stuck waiting the week for it to close. The delay is frustrating enough; worse would be knowing that people could game the system by AfD'ing an article they don't like to keep it from ever reaching the front page. 28bytes (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see with restricting AfD'ed noms is that any new article can be nommed for deletion by anyone. Sometimes these AfD's are based on solid reasoning, and sometimes not. Many a worthy article makes it out the other side of AfD. Another problem is that sometimes the AfD process can result in strong improvement of the article. If an editor puts in the work to get something up to spec, they deserve a chance at getting their work on the main page. A no-AfD clause could also allow a critical editor to sabotage a nomination by starting an AfD on a nom after it appears on the Suggestion page, as 28bytes points out. The Interior (Talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like this proposal.

Confession: I am the brazen contributor who submitted a couple of those recent nominations for articles that were at AfD. In both cases, I had visited an AfD, researched the nominated topic and found good material, then undertook to rescue the stub article that was nominated for deletion. Those rescue processes caused both of the stubs to meet DYK qualification criteria. I nominated the articles because I thought they would make good DYK hooks and because DYK was (and still is) running short of hooks. By the time I nominated those articles, I was pretty sure they would survive AfD, but it was still necessary to wait for the process to finish on schedule. IMO, it's a good thing if DYK helps to motivate efforts like those that improve articles that previously were in pretty poor condition.

Most instances where a DYK nom goes to AfD aren't like that. More typically, they are new articles that are proposed for deletion (for good reasons or bad) by someone who saw the article on a new articles list (or saw the DYK nom). Since one purpose of DYK is to encourage people to develop new articles, DYK has always (at least in the years I've been involved with it) waited for those AfDs to run their course. If the article survives AfD, it's usually in pretty good shape by the time the AfD is done (making an even better DYK item than it might have earlier), and it's still plenty new enough for DYK. If it doesn't survive AfD, no harm was done in waiting. --Orlady (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, nothing is lost by waiting for AfD to finish. Since the time period for DYK obviously has to be extended for this to be feasible, nobody can sabotage a good DYK by filing an AfD, except temporarily. One also sees the same process with opposite sign, where an article in AfD is submitted prematurely to DYK possibly as a way to attract more supporters for "Keep." Sharktopus^talk 21:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Orlady and would add that a notification on my watchlist that an article in one of my interest areas has been AfD'd is the most common way I find out about an article I can greatly improve. I do think there needs to be more awareness that DYK with its 5-day deadline will wait for the AfD process, which is nominally 7 days but usually goes for at least 14. This happened to me with Kloster Berge school (I created the article in response to an AfD but then the AfD was relisted . . .) and it took some arguing by people who knew more about the rules than either me or the editor who wanted to simply throw out the nomination before it was established that yes, DYK waits in such cases. --Yngvadottir (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, y'all. ;) Shall I add close templates? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Weighing in a bit late, but also opposing. AfD can lead to substantial improvement in an article. The SS Timothy Bloodworth article was nominate for deletion not once, but twice. It is now an A class article. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mjroots, both being late and object the restriction, mainly because I watched several AfD discussions improving an article considerably, for example Grychtolik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Template_talk:Did_you_know#Special_occasion_holding_area

Can someone promote those already approved for March 1st, please? There is little time left to put them on Queue 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.54.66 (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Queue1

Can anyone translate to me the Eminem hook in Q1? (looking at its T:TDYK review didn't help). Is it "in the two years when the"? Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "when" works. I fixed it. I don't suppose you would have preferred the "during the two years the" language of the earlier version (which I edited) that said "...that American performing artists Nelly and Eminem won Grammys for Best Male Rap Solo Performance during the two years the Best Rap Solo Performance was split into male and female categories"? --Orlady (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what it meant to say. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

50,000th DYK

It looks like we are approaching the 50,000th DYK article. Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles has 45,535 articles, plus 3,219 in Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles plus 404 in Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured lists, plus 730 in Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles = 49,888 articles.

Should the 50,000th be celebrated in some way? Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but are you sure your additions are correct? AFAIK articles can be both DYK articles and good articles/featured articles, so I would have thought the first category would contain all the DYKs. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, it does look that way. So, we're over 45k articles, which means that in another 6-7 months we'll hit the 50k, assuming we soon return to 4 sets of 8 per day. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You were right first time, Mjroots! The categories don't overlap, because {{ArticleHistory}} has a switch in the coding that only puts the DYK article into one category, not more than one. If a DYK article gets to FA, it is only in the "DYK articles that are featured articles" category, and isn't also in the "DYK articles" category. See e.g. Talk:Aylesbury duck. However, as a number of DYK articles in the past have been deleted, we may have gone past the milestone already... (if you browse through WP:Recent additions, you'll find some redlinks in the archives). Bencherlite^Talk 09:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, but I would expect deletes articles to not appear in categories. If they do, that should be changed, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

One way to keep a count would be to create a subpage Wikipedia:Did you know/Complete list and add every article that's ever been a DYK to it, whether deleted or not, using a numbered list system similar to my articles sub-page. We'd then know exactly how many DYKs there have been. Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote in Prep 1

The last hook in Prep 1, for Luke Matheny, includes a quotation which disagrees with the source provided. According to the hook, he said "Wow, I should've got a haircut" but the source cited in the article claims it was "Wow, I should have gotten a haircut." And, the source for the "bouffant" part of the hook includes yet another version: "Ugh, I should have got a hair-cut". The current hook is 204 characters; substituting either quote from the sources would put it a little further over the limit. BTW, what I hear is "Uh... oh, I shoulda gotten a haircut". He definitely does not say "Wow". Maybe it would be best to rewrite the hook without attempting to use a direct quote. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. The "got" versus "gotten" was my mistake in not getting the quote precisely right. As for the "wow" versus "ugh" or "uh..oh," I think the hook works fine without the introductory exclamation. I'll go ahead and fix the error in queue, though someone should verify what I've done, since I was the hook creator. Cbl62 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hook shortage

We are now down to just 97 hooks on T:TDYK, with a number of them looking as if they won't make it, while there are also two empty queues. I'm thinking it's time we wound back to three updates a day for a while. Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We can always go back to four later if needed.4meter4 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We could also move down to 6 hooks per set. Shubinator (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO, that would make the updates too short. On the plus side, we do have 46 confirmed hooks ATM, so there's enough variety to choose from. But I think we will have to go to three updates pretty soon. 80 hooks would be a red line for me. Gatoclass (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good; tweak the update interval whenever you feel like. Shubinator (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

[EC] I would prefer to go to 3 updates per day (i.e., every 8 hours) instead of going to fewer hooks. Since volunteer workload in running the process is somewhat dependent on update frequency, a reduced frequency reduces workload more effectively than reducing the number of hooks. Less workload will give the regulars a little more time to write new articles and new hooks. :-) --Orlady (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

When did 97 become a "shortage"? I think the current interval works, we just need to get more people interested. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of 2010 was spent around the 300 range, so based off that 97 is pretty small. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know when the next Wikicup round starts? That is probably an additional consideration. Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The next round starts March 1 (tomorrow). Re Wizardman: I certainly agree - it is smaller comparatively. But I don't see why that means we have to decrease the interval. I see it as a problem of interest, not of process. I just don't see the connection. Lord Roem (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if Wikicup starts again tomorrow, we'd better wait to see what happens then, as we frequently get a surge of noms at the start of a wikicup round. The answer to your question, BTW, is that a certain number of noms are required to keep things running smoothly. The fewer the noms available, the harder it is to create balanced updates. Admittedly, this problem has been alleviated recently by the larger pool of reviewers, but it hasn't gone away. Gatoclass (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What is wikicup? Can somebody please provide a link? I might have my own wikicup going at the moment, with currently six new articles on the nomination page (all Christchurch buildings that have become earthquake victims). Schwede66 19:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CUP Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Drinks all around!

Exactly one year ago DYKUpdateBot started its first Main Page update. Since then it has updated DYK 1,419 times. Congrats to DYKUpdateBot, and best wishes for a (hopefully uneventful) future. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to a talk page with a friendly message.

Shubinator (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it only a year? It seems much longer than that - we've all grown so used to it by now :) Kudos to you once again Shubs for creating it - it has to be the single most useful contribution to this project we've ever had! Gatoclass (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Time on-wiki often seems to flow differently than in real life :) Thank you; the thrill of code combined with the visibility of the Main Page make the bot an amazing (and amazingly fun) project. (Not to mention saving DYK admins and regulars some sleep ;) ) Shubinator (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I spent many a sleepless night during the months between the death of the old bot and the birth of DYKUpdateBot and will celebrate this happy anniversary with multiple adult beverages. I love that happy chunk of code! - Dravecky (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a tempting-looking pint of beer, but I'm afraid of setting it too close to the bot, for fear someone will spill beer on the bot and cause it to stop working. Thank you for the excellent bot, Shubinator -- and I will gladly lift a pint to its anniversary! --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

All men are donkeys or men and donkeys are donkeys

Please, I am starting to look like a dick for not promoting this unilaterally. Could someone please either brush off my concerns (and tell me in case I was seriously off-track) or promote? Thanks so much, --Pgallert (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know#Thunderbolt (interface)

Could someone please point me in the right direction for reviewing this nomination? The edit history shows an IP user making the first major expansion, and then somehow the page gets reduced and increased numerous times after that by many different editors. Should I credit Maury Markowitz with a 5x expansion? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like no expansion to me. I've left a comment at the nomination thread. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: The next prep set to move into the queue is prep 41 <<<< ?

That's what it says above prep 1. Marrante (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. cmadler (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Clearly a typo. Nothing to get alarmed at. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Alarmed is too strong a word, but thank you. I suspected it was a typo, but didn't know how automated things were and knowing that "just a typo" is enough to prevent one from using a password, finding a URL, etc., I thought I'd mention it and just did the <<<< just to call attention to the typo. Marrante (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This page exists solely for the purpose of the prep set count. It's as simple as it looks, one number. Then there's a moderately complex bit of template wizardry on T:DYK/Q that displays the prep areas starting with that number. cmadler (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK#Sonja Barend

The nominator would like this up on International Women's Day (8 March) if poss. Could somebody see that it gets into the right queue at the right time? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the nom. to the special occasion holding area. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dayr al-Shaykh - Second opinion

Could somebody please take a look at this nomination Dayr al-Shaykh. Reviewer (User:Mbz1) is refusing to approve it, citing POV issues. Those "issues" were discussed at the talkpage, and all the offline citations were literally copied there, but she decided to refuse the nomination. A second opinion would be appreciated, especially considering the reviewer's history of involvement in the IP area. Also, please note that the hook was specifically chosen so it wouldn't be controversial. Thanks. Yazan (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass & I have both commented at the nom that it should be kept open, as the issues remaining are small and resolvable. But it would be good if someone with no Middle East involvement got stuck into the detail on the talk page. It's an Arab village abandoned during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War; you can guess the rest. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How did that happen?

Matthew Turner (shipbuilder), which appears at the top of Queue 3, is the same article (different hook) as the one appearing in second-to-last place in Prep 2. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken out the hook on P2. The same article was nominated twice by different contributors, and the two hooks were promoted to the prep areas on different days by the someone using the same account ([4], [5]). Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

All queues and prep areas are now empty

Yes, there is nothing in the pipeline. Considering this, plus the overall shortage of hooks, I am unilaterally increasing the update interval to 8 hours to reduce the pressure on volunteers. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Going to see if I can get some prep areas filled now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if Wikicup isn't nearly as competitive as last year, with some major contributors not participating this year. And the number of hooks appears to have dropped sharply in the last few days, so I think the switch to 8 hours is appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, I've never seen DYK this empty! Yazan (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, does anyone think the new QPQ rule had any influence on DYK submission? Not that I think it should go away but I'm curious if it has scared off any contributors. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It might have. But then, an article in this week's signpost noted that overall contributions to the encyclopedia have declined. Alansohn, who was contributing a couple of articles a day last year, has wound back to one or two a week, and I think the same can be said for a couple of other prolific contributors, like Cbl and Sturmvogel (correct me if I'm wrong). DYK has also been demoted on Wikicup - last year a DYK was worth 10 points, this year only 5. So my guess is that it's a combination of factors. If it's due mainly to QPQ, we haven't heard much about it here. Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Alansohn's output has not just dropped off -- it's shut down completely. He hasn't started any actual new articles in weeks.  :-( --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Beverly Wolff or 5* expansion

Beverly Wolff was expanded from 23xx chars to 100xx chars, which is a lot (roughly 5* of what is expected for a new article) but not quite 5* the former article. Would someone please assist me in letting that pass? I would go a step further and try to change the rule: if the original article has a certain size, 5* seems too much and out of proportion, expanding by 7500 chars should be sufficient to qualify, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Current expansion 11002/2318=4.75 might be Ok to pass, but only as an exception. 11k of prose is not much; DYK expansions to 30k are quite normal (surely when sources are plenty; for some topics it is nearly impossible to find reliable sources on the internet). Materialscientist (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

11002 was an overcount. The "Selected recordings" section was an improperly-formatted list. After bulletting the list, DYKcheck counts it at 9901, which is a 4.27x expansion. cmadler (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, then we should have bulletted "Selected recordings" in the pre-expansion version, that gives 9901/2022=4.9. DYK check only gives some indication of length. Materialscientist (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I just saw this conversation. I wasn't personally asking for an exception to the rules. I just wanted to know how much more I needed to write. I just added some prose to the article, raising the total prose count to 10180. 10180/2022=5.03 expansion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange

it looks like a Queue was not updated at the main page. Should be Queue#5 [6], but it is not. Am I missing something?Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You would appear to be correct. Let's see if the bot wakes up at 1900 UTC. If not, it'll have to be a manual update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Its updated. Simply south...... 19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it is time to mention the existence of User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors again and encourage DYK regulars to add it to their watchlist. The bot detected an error and logged it at 16:06, March 7, 2011 (UTC). The bot ran several minutes after I correct the indicated problem. --Allen3 ^talk 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about that page, so thanks for pointing it out! I;ve added it to my watchlist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminder: March 8 nominations

Please remember that all the March 8 nominations for International Women's Day should go into Queue 1 and Queue 2, not the sets that are waiting in Prep areas 2 and 3. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Should the hook set on Q6 now be taken down and reloaded to include some of these women's biographies? --PFHLai (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bach cantata in Q6 would be more appropriate on Ash Wednesday 9 March anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've returned the hook set from Q6 to P1. The Bach cantata hook is now on T:TDYK#March 9, Ash Wednesday. --PFHLai (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's use P3 & P4 to prepare the hook sets, and load the sets for March 8th onto Q6, Q1 & Q2. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and get those preps ready as well. Hopefully there are not too many in that special area (there are quite a lot) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that Q6 got reloaded without a single hook from the March 8 nominations for International Women's Day section. Are we ignoring IWD in Australia, NZ and the Far East? We now have 17 hooks standing by. That's enough to pack Q1 and Q2 completely. Shall we split the remaining hooks and put a few on Q6 and Q3? Q3 is not scheduled to get on MainPage till March 9th (UTC), but it will still be March 8th (local time) in the US West Coast, etc. --PFHLai (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Preps 3 & 4 are now packed with women's bio. Can someone review them and move them to Queues 1 & 2, please? I have to get off the computer now. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ. --PFHLai (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Petard (G56)

Hi, this is the first DYK nomination by User:RASAM. He expanded the article fivefold using a book which was not included in the Bibliography section provided by previous editors. I asked him to add inline citations to the article, and he did — all from the same book. Should I promote it, or wait for him to find inline citations from other books? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been DYKyes'd by Wizardman, but just a general comment on this type of situation - the rules require each paragraph to have an inline citation, they don't specify the variety of sources that must be used to achieve that. It's fine to promote an article in this situation, we can't go telling editors they have to get access to every single book in a Bibliography drawn up by someone else. (That might be worth doing at a GA review though, of course.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary powers

I saw a hook on DYK that had been approved and then rejected. The article was in question was Beta_(plasma_physics). I disagreed that this article should be rejected and said so at the end of the discussion and suggested that it be reapproved. Especially as experienced editors were just giving up the debate as they couldnt be bothered to fight the process (we need to worry if it gets that bad). I came on today and found out that despite my comment the hook was deleted from the queue with this diff. I hope this is a mistake as I do not believe we can just delete a hook because we don't like the way the debate is going. I will tell 4metre4 of this debate. There are two points here.

• Is Beta_(plasma_physics) allowed on the front page in the DYK section?
• Are editors allowed to delete a section that they disagree with? No signature was required as I signed it below Victuallers (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviosly the latter is the more important issue and has little to do with the first item Victuallers (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like the nominator had already withdrawn this article (that editor is, for what it's worth, a regular contributor but also regularly has hooks challenged or rejected for poor sourcing in the articles), and there was near-unanimous agreement that the nomination was problematic. Furthermore, in keeping with the general process, the editor who removed the discussion was not one of the ones who had participated in it. I don't see anything wrong with anything that happened here.

In response to your specific question: of course an editor can't unilaterally delete a nom that had no problems (or no consensus as to whether there were problems), but if others have already tagged it and it has sat like that for a few days, or if the nominator has withdrawn it, then it's acceptable (and, in fact, necessary, unless we want years' worth of rejected noms to be left on the page) for an uninvolved editor to remove it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag's analysis. Looking at the discussion, two editors expressed concerns about sourcing. While I'm not able to evaluate which technical statements do or don't need citation, the "Background" section -- approximately half of the article -- clearly falls well short of DYK's minimum 1 cite per paragraph rule of thumb. When this was pointed out, rather than adding citations or explaining why they might not be needed, the nominator simply requested that the nomination be withdrawn. Of editors involved, it appears that 5 agreed that the referencing did not rise to DYK's standard (this counts 4meter4 who removed the nomination after Maury Markowitz requested it be withdrawn) while three (two commentors, plus, presumably, the nominator) felt the referencing to be sufficient. I think 4meter4 acted in good faith to remove a nomination which several editors had expressed concern about and which the nominator had requested be withdrawn. cmadler (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed it from the page here. User:Orlady and User:Yoninah had expressed concerns over the sourcing which had not been addressed in 5 days. The nominator had withdrawn the nom. User:Victuallers wanted those concerns overlooked, but after taking a look at the article myself, I agreed with Orlady and Yoninah and went ahead and removed the article. This seemed like a non-controvercial decision based on the withdrawn nom and two reviewers rejecting the hook for reasons clearly supported in the additional rules. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I am surprised by the consensus here. I have seen articles hang around for weeks because one editor said they thought they could save it. I think it would take about 10 minutes. However I see no reason to fight the consensus unless someone thinks that it is unusual to approve a hook and then have it deleted within 24 hours because someone decides they are not convinced. As I said. I am surprised that you (plural) think this is reasonable behaviour and good manners. Victuallers (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Victuallers, you didn't actually offer to save the article. You said, "Please reconsider the decision to insist on this level of referencing for an article that is in my opinion well referenced and was already approved. Some may feel that fusion physics is hard and for them we do have other articles. I would like to see this approved." Per this statement, you never indicated any intention of improving the article. You merely asked that we ignore the sourcing problems (which were legit concerns as the article failed the D2 criteria) and promote the article anyway. If you had said you would take the time to reference the article properly than I wouldn't have removed it. As it is, I considered your request to WP:IAR promote this nom and decided against it. The real question here is, why you think one objection made by yourself should able to arbitrarily overturn the DYK rules and the consensus gained through discussion by multiple editors to reject a nom. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing word in queue 6

Shouldn't the fifth hook in queue six read "...manuscript of the Septuagint?" Cheers, LittleMountain5 23:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Added. Materialscientist (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1

I'm surprised Sid Ferris was promoted to Prep 1, considering the bald URLs in the reference section. I just did a copy-edit to get rid of all the single-quote marks, but I don't have time to fix the references. Yoninah (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of copyvio

I am working on Muraqqa, which was quite long before I started. I began by adding at the top of the article, but in the process have now realized that most of the existing material was far too close paraphrases of the references cited. By the time I will have finished it will be a 5x expansion of the non-copyvio'd stuff; I have not yet finished removing the copyvios (or adding), but I only started removals after I had already added a lot. I can recreate a non-copyvio "before" version temporarily to give a diff for the nom to be checked, but I wanted to see if a nom on this basis met the rules. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In my view, a total re-write of a copyvio should count as a "new article" and we should allow DYK noms of such articles to encourage editors to engage in such re-writes. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For sure. We should allow the copy-vio text to be subtracted from the original character count, and that new number should be the basis for the expansion. The Interior (Talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that we only allowed this for blatant (i.e., copy-paste) copyvio, simply because there is not time to conduct detailed sentence-by-sentence quality reviews of every article that is nominated. That is at least the traditional view; I haven't reviewed in a long time, though, so I don't know if that's still what people think. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios can be removed before the character count, per our Additional Rules. However, close paraphrasing is more subjective and you might want to get a second opinion before removing it. Copy-pasting of text that is in the public domain is acceptable so long as the text is encyclopedic in tone and properly wikified. Gatoclass (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt in this case. Compare for example the opening here with :

"The Ottoman palace which contained a royal workshop functioned not only as a production center for manuscripts but also for repair and conservation of the manuscripts. Ottoman patrons knew about the activity that took place around states that surrounded them such as patrons of art in the Islamic world. They were aware of how much those patrons produced, what they produced, the talent of their patrons and also amount of patronage extended by their ruler. One who has examined the historical documents attains the knowledge, that the collapse of these royal workshops was not due to the emerging trend of the conquests [19].

So when the cities fell, the manuscripts were simply collected and shifted to the conqueror’s library or kept in a safe place such as in a treasury. It became the responsibility of the new patron to take care of them. If need the manuscripts needed to be repaired he was responsible for taking them to the workshop. The would fill in any spaces left blank for illuminations or paintings. In any case if the books were unbound, they were taken to the conqueror so that the books are bounded according to his choice of taste [20].

All the members of the court, not just the Sultan took great interest in the manuscripts The aim in examining these manuscripts is to understand the diversity and the richness introduced to Ottoman painting by these acquisitions and through the additions to them by their new owners [21]."

- the "Manuscripts In Ottoman workshops" section. In fact the editor (who only edited this page, in 2008) has a remarkable talent for keeping most of the words but removing much of the meaning - other passages are much worse. Johnbod (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Now nominated. Johnbod (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article displayed at the main page now was tagged

Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen Is this how wikipedia readers should see the face of wikipedia?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is in quite bad shape. The Interior (Talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I don't like this article much myself. It's the kind of human interest story done by media outlets from time to time which in my opinion make pretty dubious content for an encyclopedia. However, it was !voted "keep" at AFD so the community had its say in that regard.

What concerns me about what has happened here is that Passionless waited until the article hit the main page to tag it, and when Mbz removed the tags, Passionless used that as a reason to get the article pulled from the main page. If Passionless thought the article required tagging, he had plenty of time to do that before the article was promoted - slapping tags on an article just as it reaches the main page smacks very much of gaming to me. I therefore think the article should be restored. Gatoclass (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading the article and its talk (with some unfortunate delay) I have restored the hook on the main page and removed the tags. I am by no means a fan or specialist in this topic (however, this makes reading easier). Articles may be tagged, but with a proper, constructive explanation of the problems, especially for the tags used. The talk page instead contains a clash between the editors. Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

After restoring the tags (not because I have an opinion on the article or had even read it, but because "articles on the main page can't be tagged" is not an appropriate reason to edit war over tags) and receiving this lovely message from Mbz1, I just want to make it clear to everone who is active at DYK: there is no Wikipedia policy against editing or adding tags to articles that are on the main page. (There is one exception that is not particularly relevant to this case.) Tagging articles that are linked from the main page is subject to the same expectations as tagging anything else (particularly, that tags should be accompanied by an explanation of the issues at the talk page), but being on the main page does not automatically make any DYK article except from criticism. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly articles can be tagged any time, but with an adequate explanation on the talk page, which was missing, and certainly "article is on the main page" is not a reason for tag removal. I tried to convey that to Mbz1. Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw my comment about WP:GAMING above as it turns out Passionless was blocked for the previous 48 hours and was unable to make any edits in that time. It appears it was just a coincidence that his block expired around the same time that the article went to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already said it at my talk page, and would like to repeat it here. A hook for a tagged article is rejected, and it is how it should be IMO. I compared posting tagged articles to wikipedia's Main page to going to an important reception half-dressed. What wikipedia readers would think about the encyclopedia that is displaying at its Main page an article that is tagged as "unenceclopedic" and "unbalanced"? Besides I did not act completely on my own. I saw how an admin removed the tags from DYK articles, and warned the user that added them.

Gato, you said Passionless did not do WP:GAMING? Maybe not, although my request to wait with tagging until the hook is taking off the main page was ignored by her and others, but she definitely demonstrated a battleground behavior. Please see her edit summary: "adding tags, how about you try and work with me instead of against this time". She also hounded my contributions that was a very low , but not surprising conduct on her part.

I believe that for the sake of wikipedia's reputation the policy about not tagging DYK articles should be added. If somebody cannot wait until DYK is over, he/she could rise the question at Main page errors section, but never tag Main page articles.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO if a article makes it through DYK with enough problems that this merits cleanup templates, then the problem is with the DYK reviewing process. I think the pressing issue is either a. incompetent reviewers at DYK or b. a bad faith tagger. I don't think there is any need for a policy about tagging articles linked to on the main page if the other relevant policies are followed. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear... rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As the "incompetent reviewer" who approved this article, I don't think the issue is DYK's review process. After looking through the article's history and talk page for stability/previous issues/clean up tags etc and seeing nothing, all I had was the AfD discussion which community consensus didn't uphold the nominator's concerns of propaganda and lack of encyclopedic material and ended as Keep. While I noted that, after reading the article, I personally felt this was a WP:BLP1E, community consensus established otherwise. With, again, the article's talk page and history showing no history of disputes or tags beyond the AfD and the week and half long DYK nom process yielding no additional concerns brought up from other editors, all that was left was to review the article based on DYK's criteria--which it passed. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No no, I did not meant to say that you were an incompetent reviewer, Agne. I was just saying that for a DYK to be templated there had to be an issue with either the reviewer or the templater. If the reviewer does his/her job there will be no need for templates to be slapped on a DYK. Even if a reviewer does due diligence on an article it doesn't ensure that an over-zealous editor won't put unneeded tags on an article, though. My point is that the existing policies that we have governing DYK are enough. Qrsdogg (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment- While I'm quite willing to extend good faith that Passionless is not WP:GAMING but the time to flag an article with clean up tags should happen before it is featured on Wikipedia's main page. Yes, I understand that Passion was previously serving a 48 hour block but this article was created and first nominated for DYK almost two weeks ago and sat in the DYK suggestion page throughout a full AfD (which Passion participated in over a week ago, her/himself) until it was approved and promoted to the queues a couple days ago. Looking at the article's history (which I and many other DYK reviewers routinely do while checking for stability) not a single tag was placed on the article until it was being featured on the main page. There wasn't even a talk page discussion until after the hook was already promoted to the prep areas. I don't think there should be a blanket prohibition against adding clean up tags for DYK articles, but if you're already involved with an article then you should be speaking up about issues LONG before it is being featured on the main page. It is not like DYK hooks are known for being rushed from nominations on T:TDYK to the main page in under 48 hours. There was time to have this discussion before it was featured. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well as I understand it Passionless added the tags because content he had added was reverted, so it's probably not quite as simple a situation as you suggest Agne. The bottom line is, we don't have a foolproof process for vetting articles or dealing with disputes here at DYK. I have toyed with the notion of writing a policy for dealing with these situations but have declined to do so because of instruction creep concerns and because of the difficulty in coming up with a workable process. Maybe there are some issues we need to clarify, but thankfully this sort of situation doesn't crop up too often, so we don't want to overreact either. Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The main point I was trying to make is, there is not and should not be any rule against people tagging DYK articles just because they are DYK articles. If someone is edit warring with tags then he's edit warring. The fact that an article is currently linked from the main page is not in of itself a reason to bar tagging, and shouldn't ever be used as a reason to remove tags. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Newly source BLP

I am not familiar with the newly sourced BLP version of DYK. Would a 2X expansion of Sydney Johnson before March 14 count?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe so as the article on March 7th, just previous to your editing, had 7 cited references. The 2x exception is intended for unsourced BLPs, not merely insufficiently sourced ones. - Dravecky (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dravecky. The article has been sourced (not necessarily well, but that's not something we evaluate here) since November 2007. The article would need a 5x expansion to be DYK-eligible. I get a pre-expansion size of 3792 before your first edit on March 9, so right now it's only at 1.32x. cmadler (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

By the 14th it will likely be 2x 3792, but I understand the explanation. This is my first BLP expansion since discovering the rule and I wanted clarification.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am discovering not only unsourced content, but incorrect OR such as "Johnson began his college career at Princeton after having played for 4 years at Towson Catholic High School in Maryland." It turns out he transferred to Towson as a senior. Any consideration for correcting an article with erroneous biographical content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. As has been said above, DYK editors generally don't have time to conduct an in-depth quality assessment of the old version of the article. If we opened DYK up to something like correcting inaccuracies, why not open it up to a bunch of other indiscriminate things like copyediting? rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony, there has been a campaign at Wikipedia to deal with the appallingly large number of articles about living people that cited no sources at all. I say "deal with" because there was disagreement on how to address them -- some folks wanted to address the problem by mass-deleting tens of thousands of unsourced BLP articles. In connection with this campaign, the 2x expansion rule was created strictly for BLP articles that previously were completely unsourced. It is my personal opinion (and I suspect you may agree) that many of the BLP articles that cite sources are actually a greater vulnerability for Wikipedia than the unreferenced stubs that the campaign has focused on, but no one has proposed mass deletion of those articles, and the special DYK rule is only for BLP articles that were previously completely unsourced. --Orlady (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I am grovelling for recognition:-!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Credits?

If I remember right, I nominated Le dernier sorcier with User:Voceditenore as co-author, but only the author got credited? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your credit template was present when the hook was moved to prep, when 4meter4 moved the hook to prep 3, and when Q4 was set to be moved to the main page. Finally, and most importantly, this diff is Voceditenore getting the make credit on their talk page. - Dravecky (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Prep 2

After a hiatus with no cricket hooks, Prep 2 has 2 hooks about the Somerset cricket team. Yoninah (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Swapped with prep3, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to discuss the lead image in prep2. As I understand, it is hosted on us.gov site, but there is no evidence it is taken by us.gov employee, and thus OTRS email is being sent/processed, and thus we can't feature this image, and thus have to replace the lead (?). Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the website doesn't say it's copyrighted and US Government websites are PD. I'd say it's a fair assumption that the image is PD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK credit

{{Editprotected}} This isn't really necessary, and up to the reviewing admin's judgement, however, it looks like the iPad 2 article was written by more editors than just Fetchcomms. Per the history, could an admin update the {{DYKmake}} templates here? Mono (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Qwertyus (talk · contribs) is on there, as well. Who else do you think should be credited? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ipad2 advertising

Resolved

How did such blatant advertising as "... that the iPad 2 is thinner than an iPhone and comes in black and white?" get approved? It might as well be a banner ad. Whoever thought it was OK to pimp Apple here needs a stern talking to, and possibly a bloody good thrashing. Mokele (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoah. Nobody will be getting bloody good thrashing, verbal or otherwise. Criticisms of the article's content should be placed on its discussion page. If you believe a specific editor is introducing promotional language into an article, take it up with them. If you believe this project is promoting bad hooks, show some iniative and start reviewing and vetting the prep areas. But don't come round here with violent language. The Interior (Talk) 01:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, while Mokele's language was less than gentlemanly, it is valid to point out the promotional tone of the hook. It could have been reworded to be more neutral. If I noticed the hook while reviewing I probably would have recommended stopping the hook at just "... that the iPad 2 is thinner than an iPhone?". A tablet PC being thinner than a phone is an interesting fact and fairly neutral-knowing what colors consumers can purchase is not. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1

• ... that Emilia Carr, a mother of four, is presently one of two women on death row in Florida? is basically saying that a certain living person is going to die, which is not just negative, but is hardly interesting. I think we need another hook here. Comments? Materialscientist (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I also thought the hook was uninteresting. The minute before the administrator moved this to prep, I suggested this alt, but it wasn't picked up:
• ALT1: ... that Emilia Carr, a 26-year-old mother of four on death row in Florida, is the first woman sentenced to death in Marion County since 1992? Yoninah (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• ALT2: ... that Emilia Carr is the first woman from Marion County, Florida to be sentenced to death since Aileen Wournos in 1992?--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why was the hook moved to Queue 5 as is? Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Updated with ALT2. Thank you for responding. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Prep 3 - 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting

In case this is a problem, the article has two naked links in the refs section. Marrante (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a problem, but I took a moment and properly formatted the references. (Oh, and it's in Prep 4.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I could have sworn it was in Prep 3 when I looked at it. Sorry, I didn't have time to fix the refs myself, so I just left the note. Marrante (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, so it is (prep 4). Sorry about that. Marrante (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

April Fools' Day proposal

I propose to run DYK for April Fools' Day for March 31, April 1, and April 2 (assuming we have enough hooks). That's way April 1 will get covered in different parts of the world.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A potential concern with this, I guess, is that in any given place, there will be three days' worth of misleading hooks, and only one of those will be April Fools' Day. (On the other hand, though, I guess that is maybe no worse than a situation in which misleading hooks are shown all day on April 1st in U.S. time but spill over to non-April-Fools' dates in other parts of the world.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It has my support. I thinked any baffled folks would understand why. Some people might enjoy the extended time and hooks as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can't do this. I tried it one year and there were a lot of complaints that the DYK section looked totally out of whack with the rest of the mainpage. After that a decision was made to only run special day hooks for 24 hours on UTC like the other mainpage projects. Quite a few people dislike the April Fools' day mainpage tomfoolery in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Gato) Running April Fools' Day hooks over 2 days (let alone 3) got criticised in 2009 so, in 2010, the decision was that it would be a one-day event only running by UTC. See last year's hooks (4 sets of hooks, although the updating quirk of Wikipedia:Recent additions makes it look as though DYK began the jokes late and finished on 2nd April, whereas in fact WP:RA updates when the hooks come off, not when they go on). Bencherlite^Talk 22:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We really should do something about that little quirk. Gatoclass (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no per Gatoclass & Bencherlite. I don't think that this year's group look strong enough to support more than one day anyhow. We need more articles on unusual topics to make this year better. Royalbroil 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see the case for (and would support) running for as much as from 10:00 AM on 3/31 in UTC (the earliest start to April Fools' Day, in UTC+14:00) until 11:00 PM on 4/2 in UTC (the latest end to April Fools' Day in an inhabited time zone, in UTC-11:00), which is 49 hours altogether. Going any beyond that would be hard to justify, but I'd be perfectly willing to argue in favor of going up to that point. I do not believe there is any established policy, guideline, etc. that Wikipedia only recognizes events/holidays based on their UTC observance. While it makes a convenient point for those Main Page sections that update once per day, looking back to the 2009 discussion, I really don't see any argument beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT against DYK celebrating 4/1 for the entire duration, not just the UTC duration. cmadler (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be more complaints if we try to run it for more than 24 hours. If you try to do it, it will just jeopardize the hooks outside the 24-hour UTC timeframe because someone will probably pull them early again. If you really think this is a good idea, I think you would probably need to start a discussion about it somewhere to ensure you have consensus first. Gatoclass (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Only running April Fools' hook for a 24 hour period also helps satisfy the principle of least astonishment. While there are always individuals who are shocked to learn that Wikipedia is not optimized for their local time zone, there is a simple and easily understood explanation that usually satisfies their questions (WIkipedia uses a UTC based clock). There is no such explanation for a 49-hour day. --Allen3 ^talk 18:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK photo not in the article

The photo illustrating List of international cricket centuries at Brabourne Stadium in Prep 2 does not appear in the article, as required by DYK rules. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Replaced image in article. (This one's better, anyway.) Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes in TV plot?

I reviewed a DYK for A Many Splendored Thing (Homicide: Life on the Street) and pointed out that it lacked footnotes. The response was "per WP:TVPLOT, they are not required;" - how do we resolve this conflict between WP:TVPLOT and the DYK criteria? It does not affect the sourcing of this hook, but leaves a large part of the article unsourced. Please help me because I am still new at this. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We generally follow the same rules for plot summaries, from DYK Additional rules: D2: The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. The Interior (Talk) 05:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have caught that exception. I cleared the hook. Racepacket (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

On additional note: that does not exempt the hook fact from requiring a valid inline citation, even if it's based on the plot. - Dravecky (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested re: possible addition of page view statistic to template

This idea may be completely absurd/impossible, but any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To prep composers

Please do have a look at the entire Queue - too many buildings in the leads. Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I just put a painting in the lead, but I think the problem we're suffering is that almost all the DYK picture suggestions are pictures of buildings, and many of the non-building pictures are attached to articles/hooks that are failing review. OCNative (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

One trick to avoid that is to check non-pictured noms - some authors don't bother adding a picture even if there is one. This takes time though. Materialscientist (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)