This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Awright… Prioryman states somewhere above that anybody can edit a hook as long as it's still in a preparation area. But what about if you see a grammatical error in the actual queue? In Queue 3, the hook "… that the wildlife of Libya include the Mediterranean monk seal (pictured), which is listed as Critically Endangered? needs to say includes. ("Wildlife" can occasionally be treated as a plural, but this is not one of those occasions, and there's nothing like it in the article.) But I don't know how to correct it—I don't understand where it is. Bishonen | talk20:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC).
I edited it (having been responsible for the error in the first place). Anyway, on the page you were viewing, there's an "edit" link immediately to the right of "Queue 3". That takes you to the template for Queue 3, which is transcluded in the page you were looking at. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Only admins are allowed to edit hooks once they are in the queues. Bishonen, being an admin, can edit queues directly, but this is not the case for most editors. For the rest us, we need to post requests right here on WT:DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, the other edit link? Got it. Not to say I'll remember next time. BlueMoonset, really stupid admins like me can't edit queues any more than the rest of you. Bishonen | talk21:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC).
True, Bishonen, but at least you might be able to misedit them if you worked at it. ;-) That's not even a possibility for me. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
So, is somebody going to approve this or do I have to jump through more hoops to prove that I (an editor with five featured articles and over 30 DYKs to my name) can write an article that adheres to basic policy and that a nominator with far more impressive credentials isn't trying to advance an evil conspiracy? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Glenn Duffie Shriver hook in Queue 2
Am I missing something regarding the hook "... that Glenn Duffie Shriver pleaded guilty to spying for China, although his North Korean fiancée called him "Mr. Patriot"?" in Queue 2? As far as I can see, the article never mentions Mr. Shriver's fiancée being North Korean. Manxruler (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right. In fact, I looked at the source and it just says he met her in South Korea; her nationality isn't specified. I've just snipped the "North Korean" from the hook, which I think solves the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. Large numbers of submissions from Ed program classes has been seen as problematic before, with some editors feeling they are a burden on reviewers (I assume you're not going to do nine QPQ reviews? It's not required for nom-onlys). If they are high quality and have been gone over fairly closely, I personally don't think it's a problem. But if each needs work, they may clog up the nom page. The Interior(Talk)23:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
They should probably be submitted on the date at which the expansion started, rather than all together; I haven't checked them all, but the first (ectoderm) looks to have been nominated substantially late. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that clarification is good however I think that that should really be added as a guideline to help people reviewing rather than as a policy because I think the character count is a good bar as it is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)12:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Some people use longer words, some use shorter. Not all articles will be "average". 1500 prose characters is very clear; I would not be in favor of replacing it with words. We use characters for both hook length and article length: it's nicely consistent. Most word count software gives character count as well. An "average length of an English word" does not take into account usage—a lot of short words, like "the" and "and", are used quite frequently. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Picasso wrote poetry at all may surprise some, but this article has a wealth of hook-worthy text to choose from, and essentially I don't know where to start. A few of my favourites are:
"One of the panels portrays Franco as "jackbooted phallus"
"Punctuation is a cache-sexe which hides the private parts of literature"
"my grandmother’s big balls are shining midst the thistles"
'"He writes poetry, very beautiful poetry, the sonnets of Michelangelo"
"concerns with oral deprivation and immense cannibalistic rage towards the breast.."
I also like the account given by Gerty Stein in which she basically advises the artist 'don’t give up the day job'.
I'm going off to review some DYK nominations now. If anyone could help with the formatting of the hookline or any other aspect, it'd be very much appreciated. Hillbillyholidaytalk22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you should state your opposition there at the nomination page, so that you can discuss with the nominator and original reviewer. ChamalT•C05:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
There wasn't any statement made, and the hook was promoted this morning by Allen3 to an early slot on April 9, the date requested. Five hours later it was moved by the article's creator, TonyTheTiger, to a later slot on that day—"moved to time slot coinciding with debut" was the edit summary—something I think is questionable under the circumstances: nominators should not be moving their own hooks around. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just taken a closer look at the article, and I frankly don't understand how it passed. This is about a reality TV show, yet the article doesn't even explain how the show works, how many episodes are envisioned, or what the ending is supposed to be: three bachelors, three matchmakers, 36 women contestants, and not a word about how the choices from among the women are made. WP:DYKSG#D7 says "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected", and the example given, about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, seems surprisingly apt here (over half of the article 1592-character article is about NBC rescheduling its debut and time period, and is mostly filler). Finally, the article is not only stublike, but has a stub template on it. I'm pulling it from the prep area until there's a decent amount of material about the show itself. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
DYK always tries to seem current and puts topics on the main page when they are most relevant. TV shows, movies and I suppose albums are often put on the main page coinciding with their debut. It is a long and honored tradition. If you think any article was written in a promotional manner raise that issue on the discussion page and tag the article as is appropriate. No article should go on the main page with a COI tag on it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Are they really necessary? It looks to me like that information is already covered by the third party sources given in the article. ChamalT•C04:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought you were talking about the references to the French Wikipedia page, Wikimedia etc. I don't think the article being about Wikipedia is a problem per se. ChamalT•C05:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not very comfortable about the idea of running this on DYK at this time, as it could be seen as sticking a finger in the eye of the French government. I've been in this situation myself when Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which I wrote, was the subject of controversy (the FBI issued a demand to Wikipedia to delete the seal image). The solution on that occasion was to accept it for DYK but to delay publication for a few months until the controversy was over. I'd suggest a similar approach this time round. Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This sounds like a reasonable suggestion. As they say, Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. We want to avoid even the suspicion that wikipedia might be using DYK as a weapon against people who piss off wikipedia. The DYK will be published anyways, and the author will get credit.
And there is no significant reason for publishing it this week. I mean, come on, "most read article" is not breaking news nor very encyclopedic. being self-referential adds to the problem If there was a significant date related to the subject itself, like the anniversary of its foundation or something, then we would some encyclopedic grounds to justify not delaying it. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It's topical now. If we delay the DYK and run it in a couple of months (say), could this be seen as trying to draw attention to the intelligence agency's actions again after they have disappeared from the news? I do recognise the issue being raised, but I wonder from the French government's perspective whether they'd prefer it to appear now or later. EdChem (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
There is one possible anniversary date that comes to mind - the article mentions that the station was established as a Chappe telegraph station in 1913, so there will be a centenary anniversary some time this year. Unfortunately it doesn't say when. If the date has already passed, or is imminent, or can't be established, then I suggest running it at an arbitrary future date - perhaps three months from when the nomination is approved? I don't think DYK should necessarily be influenced by when something is "topical", and there is too much risk of it being seen publicly as sticking it to the French. Prioryman (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
What about the possibility that bring the issue back and re-publicising it in a few months being seen as sticking it to the French? EdChem (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, in the case of the FBI seal it was not perceived in this way, as far as I know. I think this is the only past experience that we can use for guidance. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
If I recall corectly, the FBI seal delay moved the appearance away from an anniversary and thus decreased tensions. I'm just not sure that the same logic applies here. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
If you follow that chain of argument you could argue that having on Wikipedia at all could be seen as sticking it to the French. But look at it this way. If it runs on the Main Page in a few months' time nobody will care. The controversy will be long over. That was certainly the case with the FBI seal. Running it now, on the other hand, will look like a direct response to the controversy (which, in truth, it would be). There is a difference between standing one's ground and appearing to be deliberately provocative. I don't think that's a line that we should cross. Nobody would be harmed by delaying this for a few months - it seems like the best compromise available. Prioryman (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it could be seen as sticking it to the French. As a Wikipedian, I am appalled by the actions of the French agency in threatening a sysop in the way they did, but I agree with your motivation that avoiding unnecessary provocation is desirable. What I am concerned about is whether the proposed delay achieves that or not. I'm not opposing a delay, but I do thing the issue is worth exploring from all sides. I accept that some people think no one will mind in a few months, and that may be correct, but it is also possible that the French perspective might be to get it over with by running the hook now (assuming it passes DYK rules, etc) rather than have the issue re-appear in a few months. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
How about a different hook. There are plenty of more important and interesting facts about this station than that its Wikipedia article was involved in a contretemps. Something like Did you know... ...the station is 100 years old this year (we don't need the opening date to say that) or ...the station is part of the French nuclear weapons system and is hardened against NBC attack. Or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The best reason for delaying the appearance of the article (assuming it passes DYK, which is not at all certain given the number of [citation needed] tags on it...) is simply that it moves it out of the current news cycle. Right now the story is gathering steam, appearing in an increasing number of English-language sources as well as the existing French sources. If we run it on the Main Page, that will become part of the story and it's certain to be seen as a direct response to the controversy. Delaying its appearance will ensure that by the time it runs, it will be "old news". Nobody will care by that point. That's the lesson of the FBI seal controversy. Prioryman (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposal to delay publication of Pierre-sur-Haute DYK for three months
NO ACTION
The proposal is rejected. Considering the time-sensitive aspect of DYK, I close this now already, after a day and a half, with consensus running quite clearly (but far from unanimously) against the proposal. This close is not about whether the article is DYK-worthy or which hook should be used, I haven't looked at the article or the discussion. Fram (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
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.
OK, let's put this on a more formal basis. I propose that if the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station article is accepted to run as a DYK, its appearance should be delayed for three months from the date of the nomination's approval. I believe that this will reduce the chances of it becoming part of the current controversy and will avoid any suggestion that Wikipedia is seeking to be deliberately provocative in response to recent events. This was done before during the controversy in 2010 over the Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; see the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 63#Compromise proposal, in which I proposed a similar solution of delaying the DYK by a few months. When that DYK ran, there was no fresh controversy over it whatsoever.
Per Prioryman here, and in the earlier FBI seal discussion. Because of our (the movement's) involvement in the controversy, highlighting the article on our front page may reasonably be read as retaliation against an adversary in an off-wiki dispute. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned that it looks like we're engaging in political debate; and that the long term interests of the project would be better served by us avoiding even the appearance of that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong support. Putting this on the main page in the near future is just 'showing off' that we don't care about censorship; it makes Wikipedia look like an adolescent. We have over 4 million articles that could appear on the front-page, so delaying this specific one for a short time is no big deal at all. Putting it on the front-page would be pointy. 88.104.2.228 (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
OK. We'll discount him if you discount User:Tarc, a troll who who crows on Wikipediocracy that he takes deliberately destructive positions on issues like this "for the lulz". Herostratus (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. On top of the other points made, be reasonable. Yes the French acted beastly, but not to cover up some secret torture program or other wrongdoing. The station is part of their nuclear deterrent. If it's taken out, then the Russians or Chinese or whomever in the future (Iranians, North Koreans, who knows) have that much more confidence that they can freely strike France. All they want is that their citizens not end up on the wrong end of a Sickle nuclear missile flight path. This is admirable. Of course the Chinese et al are probably not getting their strategic info from the Wikipedia, but its understandable that they're touchy about the whole subject. Would you rather that they take a "whatever" attitude toward protecting France from nuclear immolation? Sheesh. Back off people. Herostratus (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Very very weak support. This is all so irrelevant. The only remaining relevant issue is what should be included in the article and what not. If it appears on the front page now or later or not doesn't make a real difference, it is currently all over the world news/press/media anyway, isn't it? If it hits our frontpage in three months it could be regarded as heating sth up that could have had already calmed down by then. If we don't put it on the front now although even if the majority of editors would like to, we would seen like we wanted to hide from the french secret service - what we don't have to! All the work for those sideeffects is wasted, the only focus should be on the content of the article, to make/keep it respect our WP guidelines and international/french law. --Trofobi (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Support per Prioryman. Don't run it for (at least) three months. And agree with 88.10... that there is an element of showing off. TheOverflow (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Three months won't hurt. Last year we refused to run articles during the US election campaign, so this is nothing new. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose. The French government has behaved disgracefully and it would be a mistake to kowtow to them. Run it as normal. --John (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I don't really see the need to care what the French government thinks. And I stand by my opinion as in the FBI seal situation, that trying to change the date of release because of outside influence would actually be biasing DYK more than just treating it as any other DYK nomination. Throw it in the middle of 5 other hooks, no one will care. SilverserenC07:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The story is now in Metro and so will be read by millions of commuters in the UK. As the English-speaking world likes to laugh at the French military and the oxymoronic idea of "military intelligence", I expect the story to appear everywhere soon, complete with references to Inspector Clouseau and 'Allo 'Allo!: "Listen very carefully, I shall say 'zis only once!" ... "You fool!" DYK will just be a drop in the ocean of ridicule. As it's breaking news, it would be sensible to let the story run its course first but three months seems too long. For now we should focus upon polishing the article as, when I read it, it still seemed too franglais. Warden (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
What does censorship have to do with it? I'm not proposing we kow tow to these thugs. I don't think that's what Prioryman is proposing either, though he can speak for himself. Censorship is when you're not allowed to say something in a forum. Or when you bow to intimidation. No one (I think) is arguing that we should avoid pointing to the article out of fear or deference to the French state, or concern that we might offend them. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Not running it for fear of seeming to mock the French government, or for fear of getting some English admins compromised; that's certainly "bow[ing] to intimidation" ("You're so big, don't hurt me"?), and as such is self-censorship. We are not censored. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
"Fear of seeming to mock the French" isn't what I'm feeling. Fear doesn't come into it at all. I don't care very much what the outcome is here, but I do care that you're conflating censorship with the exercise of discretion, that when I support delaying the DYK appearance so as to avoid the appearance of activism (and I'm starting to waver a bit - but that's beside this point) you straw man it into me responding to their intimidation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Per C of E, I don't think this issue matters as much to en.WP as the FBI shield issue did, but it's also a more nuanced case, and I'm less sure of my position. But the question is one of how we use our editorial discretion in the larger conversation. We have discretion; so it's nothing to do with censorship, all to do with ethics and the Wikimedia mission. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose on the merits. While I appreciate the concerns voiced above, I don't find them persuasive - of all the shenanigans surrounding this topic, having a DYK hook will be low on the list. One might assume that the man has bigger fish to fry, as it were. The Streisand effect comes into play as well; limiting exposure to the topic would be counter-intuitive in that light. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: I think we're taking this rather out of proportion. In the matter regarding the FBI seal, they made a legitimate and reasonable request to the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it through the proper channels. The Wikimedia Foundation denied that, also with legitimate reasons. In that situation, featuring that article on the main page could well have been taken as an "up yours" to the FBI. In this case however, the order of the DCRI was ethically wrong, probably illegal considering that it was done without a court order (unless the French laws are draconian enough to allow that), and was most likely carried out due to some senior officer taking his authority a bit too far rather than under the directions of the French government, judging by their response. The incident is notable enough on its own and is already covered by a number of reliable sources. Under these circumstances, a small matter like featuring it on DYK in the English Wikipedia can hardly be taken as going against the French authorities. We do need to make sure that as a neutral encyclopedia, we don't give the impression that we're taking the French Wikipedia's side. However, that matter should be addressed by making sure the article is up to standard, but not by keeping this off DYK for fear of upsetting the French authorities. ChamalT•C13:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
To add a little more, I'm not against the article being featured with an alternative hook if that is necessary to maintain neutrality on the main page. ChamalT•C14:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose. There is some sense to the gesture, but if there's anything that this incident teaches us it is that centralized control, disrupting the normal course of Wikipedia's operations for ideological reasons, is not merely bad but dangerous to those who would hold such power. Jimbo Wales himself couldn't delete the 'porn' because he felt like it - likewise the head of a national WM chapter can't pull rank and say an article has to go. When we send that message, we make it less likely that intelligence services or other agencies will pull other admins into offices to give them orders. That said, of course, this vote is the decentralized control in action one way or the other. We do have the power to position DYKs strategically; the main page is a competition, not a right. But a sense of simple consistency and Chamal_N's commonsense argument rule the day. However, I should change this vote if the centenary date becomes known. Wnt (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: It's irrelevant now. The article's made the front page of Slashdot twice, and is presumably circulating on other social media sites as well. Putting it on the front page of Wikipedia won't increase the visibility much. --Carnildo (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: I personally intend to be as deliberately provocative as possible to mock those who would attempt to use force and intimidation to suppress the publication of a well-sourced, NPOV encyclopedia article of this kind. I hope we all have the courage of our convictions, in every country of the world at all times, to do the same. Our work matters and we should take every opportunity to make it extremely clear to weak, frightened, and corrupt officials worldwide that it is an extremely bad idea to try to censor Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Per Jimbo and Demiurge; the behavior of the French government agency was disgraceful, and should not be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Would we withhold an article if the Chinese or North Korean governments demanded it? There is no difference between that and the action of France. It is time big organisations remembered the Streisand effect of attempts of censorship on public knowledge.Martin451 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose To be honest, I nominated the article for DYK in an attempt to put a thumb in the eye of the DCRI. RyanVesey03:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - The bigger the fiasco for the French secret service, the less the chance that their absolutely unacceptable extortion of WP volunteers will be repeated. Streisand to the max. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Hundreds of fellow editors have been working hard since last Friday to improve this article in more than 20 languages. We've been working hard on this one and this is not the time to let police bureaucrats impose their arbitrary wishes. Run, Forrest, Run! Bouchecl (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2013 (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.
Question, should discussion on whether to use the DCRI hook or the more neutral unrelated hook continue on the nomination page or should we have a similar discussion here to what we just had above? RyanVesey12:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Newness requirements still set at five days?
I'm sure there was a proposal a while ago to extend the newness requirement in the DYK rules. It still seems to be the traditional five days - what was the outcome of the discussion? Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Queue swap request for Land of Lost Content (currently in queue 3)
The hook for The Land of Lost Content relies heavily for its hookiness on two journalists well known in the UK but much less so elsewhere, and the subject topic (a book) is also a UK publication with very limited exposure elsewhere. This hook is currently in Queue 3 and thus scheduled to appear mostly during the night UK time. Would it be possible to swap it into another queue where it would appear in either the daytime or evening slots for UK time? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Anyone want to weigh in about the article age issues at the above linked nomination? It is a major expansion, 5x beginning with 7k characters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
part of the response I just posted--"SS, this excessive rigidity to the rules you are showing is one of the things that drives people away. We need to put our best articles up, not perpetually shooting ourselves in the foot" PumpkinSkytalk15:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Chamal, I've just rescued Kokis from an early promotion and placed it in the special occasion holding area under April 14—I've checked about half a dozen sources on the web, and they agree that the new year starts on April 14 this year. One of them even went so far as to give 1:29am as "Dawn of the New Year". If you want these to start appearing on April 13, when certain parts of the holiday celebration start, we can certainly do that. Should we try for the daytime there? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks, BlueMoonset. You're correct on both counts; the actual dawn of the new year is on 14, but there are several festivities on the 13 as well. Since there are only two hooks, I think featuring on just 14 is alright. Anytime during the day (GMT 5.30+) should be fine. ChamalT•C02:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The toolservers has been going up and down like a yo-yo for the last week or so. This has the effect of taking both DYKHousekeepingBot and DYKUpdateBot each time the server running out bots goes down. The bots' operator has been notified the bots are down (again) but has commitments outside of Wikipedia that can delay a response for the better part of a day on average. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Man down? for some of the discussion about the problem with the toolservers. --Allen3talk22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, and also for updating. The bots being intermittently down seems to have the side effect of making timezone scheduling impossible, sadly. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Not impossible, just (a lot) more difficult. The primary limiting factor when the bots are down is availability of an admin willing and able to perform a manual update at the appropriate time of day. Manual updates are not technically difficult to perform but do tend to be tedious. The basic procedure for a manual update is as follows:
Archive the current set of hooks at Template:Did you know to Wikipedia:Recent additions. The hook set (and associated image) are located between two HTML comments (<!--Hooks--> and <!--HooksEnd-->). The HTML comments are used by DYKUpdatebot and need to be left in place. You should be able to determine proper timestamp headers in the archive by looking at the existing examples from previously archived sets.
Copy the new hook set from the queue with the next set of hooks to Template:Did you know. The same HTML comments are present in the queue page are the template page, just copy and paste the lines in between the comments.
Update Template:Did you know/Next update/Time. An edit header will appear during the update a the current time in bot readable format. If you are unfamiliar with exactly how the bot works then just copy the provided string into place. For those more familiar with how the bot works, it is possible to skew the time till the next update at this time (just the way the bot does when it is working to resync with midnight).
Perform DYK notifications. Instructions are provided in the "Credits" section of the queue page. I find the simplest way to accomplish this is to first go down the list and use the "(tag)" links to update the various article talk pages and then using the "(give)" links the update user talk pages. For nominations with more than one associated person (e.g. articles multiple people created or with a nomination by a person who is not one of the article's creators) it is only necessary to use one of the "(tag)" links. You also need to copy the article name into the notification template on each of the user talk pages receiving a notification.
Clear the queue that has just been promoted to the main page, replacing the contents of the page with "{{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}".
If remembering all this seems a little difficult, an easy way to find the needed steps is to look at the edit history for User:DYKUpdateBot. The bot performs all these steps (in a slightly different order) each time it performs an update. --Allen3talk23:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I used to do it on occasion before the bot was created, but the process seems to get more complex (or maybe I just get stupider with age), and I always worry about the image protection. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hook in prep area 3
At Prep 3, there's a hook that says "... that visitors of the Ulucanlar Prison Museum, who ac`cept to be locked up handcuffed in an isolation cell for a limited time, may not leave it before the agreed time is up?" The word "accept" (and the stray mark inside it should be replaced with "agree". The commas around "who… limited time" should also go because it's a restrictive clause. And preferably, "visitors of" should become "visitors to", which sounds more natural in English. A. Parrot (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It turns out there were sourcing issues with the hook and article, plus it needs a copyedit, so it has been removed from the prep area for more work. I've suggested a slight variant of your changes as an ALT6 on the nomination template. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Gone fishing?
First I think trivia is great for the site and second if you restrict trivia for only new articles your missing out on many more fun facts and third the proper term to use is tagline . This help article is hardly about fishing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.196.19 (talk)
too ambiguous of a word. Thesis or intro is more specific 14:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.196.19 (talk)
Intro is not a term that properly describes the hooks used by DYK. If you want to see some intros then please visit Wikipedia:Today's featured article. A Thesis is an even larger entity, of which an introduction is one traditional section. DYK uses the term hook because it best describes the literary entities used by DYK. --Allen3talk18:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
You forgot to swap the DYK credits. What kinds of bookkeeping errors are likely to result in terms of Archive pages and talk pages. I guess on my talk page they will each be pointing to the wrong dates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the front image from Q3, File:Idopariente.jpg, because of copyright concerns (as it stands, it may be deleted on sight by Commons admins). I don't know the timing requests for this queue, and thus would prefer someone else to fix it, rather than just swap it with a completed prep. Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
No other hooks in queue3 was nominated with a picture, but you could change the lead-hook in Q3 with the lead-hook in Prep 3 so that non-admins could solve the issue. Mentoz86 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if running a photo-less queue is a good idea. If not, surely the lead hook from Prep Area must switch a spot from Queue 3 before the schedule. --George Ho (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I have added missing DYK hooks to the article talks, the rest seems Ok, except that the dates (9 and 10 April) are swapped in the DYK credits on your talk. Materialscientist (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I have further changed the dates in the DYK-credits on the article talks and I did an edit on Tony's talk-page, so that it looks the same way as if the bot updated it correctly. Let me know if I messed up. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"They" is apparently a reference to the author and his companions, but that should be made explicit in the hook. Apart from that however, the hook doesn't appear to be well sourced and doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the article, at least, not that I can see. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If the hook is not well sourced, then the hook's promotion should be reversed by an admin and the nomination sent back for more work. (A hook from one of the prep areas should be used to replace it.)
Can whichever admin makes adjustments in Q5 also separate the two bios (should not be together), and fixing the wording on Neville Page? I checked Page's own website bio, and it confirms that he did have a role on General Hospital (his first big break as an actor, in fact), so instead of the comma followed by "like", how about simply using "including": on soap operas including General Hospital? (I think "on" works better than "in" for this sentence.)
I think we all need to be a bit more active in fixing problematic hook wording when we promote noms to prep—or, if very problematic, send them back for more work. Both the builders of prep sets and the promoters from prep to queue are important guards against needing fixes like this in the queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Whilst being fully aware that coon cards were a thing, and that the watermelon stereotype is a thing. Could I just get a final a-ok before sticking that on something? PanydThe muffin is not subtle18:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like someone else stuck it in a prep, and more, made it the lead hook. Anyone care to bet on how long it lasts on the main page before it gets pulled? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, the subject is valid and the hook is factually accurate (...feel free to add your own intonation here...). Adding to that the fact that it was approved without an ALT. ALT please? Maybe? That'll fix it? Maybe? WP:NOTCENSORED and all. PanydThe muffin is not subtle23:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Considering I cropped the image for that hook, I agree with you about both points. The hook is valid too ("this stereotype is wrong") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Similarly, blacks is using an adjective as a noun, and I know it has to be succinct but seeing as the stereotype is limited to black people in America, and the exact wording in the article is African Americans - this might be something for consideration? PanydThe muffin is not subtle23:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) "... that racist "coon cards" ...?" as an ALT? This is certainly a valid article, and it makes it clear that the stereotype is dead wrong... even if people still hold on to it. Those who do not learn the lessons of history... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Or "that a racist stereotype that African Americans eat more watermelon than usual (example pictured) was proven untrue in 1996?" or something of the same ilk? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Not only is the stereotype wrong, but the data in the article indicates that it's backward, with 13% of the population accounting for 11% of the consumption. If we're going to give this a lead slot, something I'm not at all convinced it deserves, a stronger hook might be in order:
... that contrary to a racist stereotype that African Americans eat more watermelon than usual, they actually eat less?
At least we'll be removing the "coon cards" from the hook either way; I have no objection to Crisco's, if that's the one we end up using. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Either is fine by me. Should "blacks" be replaced by "African-Americans" in the article? it's not a stereotype I've ever encountered in the UK and I think it might be US only. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Crisco, assuming it's still pictured, I figured in the same place as yours, after "usual". Coming back to it, though, the word "usual" strikes me as not so great: how about "average" instead? And "much more" rather than "more" to better reflect the article's "inordinately fond"? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't quite believe that my DYK nomination for Picasso's poetry got through without me having to stand my ground or anything, i didn't go for some of the even more 'earthy' prose that was available here, but the hookline was pretty strong stuff - I congratulate you all on your minor act of bravery, and would give you all a barnstar but dont know who to award it to can't be bothered to search the template, so me saying it here will have to do.. Cheers! Hillbillyholidaytalk08:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for all!
The da Vinci Barnstar
Ha! I lied! It's probably not the right barnstar, but as da Vinci is a personal obsession of mine, i thought it appropriate. My love to you all! Hillbillyholidaytalk09:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
p.s. DYK? that da Vinci as a teenager, used to wear pink thigh-length 'dresses' out and about? Seriously! I read it in a book my 'ex' must have nicked, coz i cant bloody find it now..
In Queue 5 we have ... that Indian social worker and socialist politician Mama Baleshwar Dayal once led a literal "cut down the forest" movement?
Is 'cut down the forest' used as a metaphor or saying somewhere? If not, this hook seems to make no sense at all. Would we refer to a literal "protest march" when people actual walk along a street in protest? Kevin McE (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Long Churn Cave does not contain a cheesepress. This is not a hook: it is an untruth. The cave has a feature called the Cheesepress. Passing off proper names with indefinite articles is inherently dishonest and misleading. If there is interest in retaining this on hold for the farce of April Fools' Day, as originally suggested, it can be overlooked, but otherwise it should not be allowed on the Main Page. Kevin McE (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I just saw its promotion and came to ask if it could be removed so it can be used on April 1st as the hook I suggested would be inappropriate normally as it is misleading. Thanks --GilderienChat|List of good deeds18:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The nominator wanted it on April Fools' Day, but we have gone ahead and put a deliberately and acknowledged misleading hook on the Main Page on 15 April. Pull immediately. Kevin McE (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently upgraded and Queued up for DYK appearance very very soon, BUT... the image which was part of my nomination was suddenly not only dropped from the nom but also deleted altogether from the page. I'd become fond of the image being a part of the hook AND article, I'd like to ask for help/advice: Is it worth my while to request a delay in the nom's DYK appearance until I can sort out whatever permission/consent etc is necessary to have the image reinstated at Commons so I can reinsert it in the article AND hook?? Thanks in advance. Penwatchdog (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The image in question, commons:File:The_Mona_Lisa_Mosaic.jpg, was deleted as a copyright violation. A little web searching finds the image is owned by a company which sells computer generated composites ([1]). As the copyright holder has a direct financial interest in maintaining control of their work, so that they can continue to sell their product, it is highly unlikely you will be able to obtain the needed permission allowing free distribution of the image in the foreseeable future. --Allen3talk09:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't the fact that they uploaded it at Commons provide that they're giving consent to use the image? Why else would they have uploaded it there? If the problem here is that they simply chose the wrong licensing agreement, and were to re-upload it using the proper licensing, would the image be re-insertable? IF so, I'd be willing to put my Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations article back into the DYK nomination area and pursue it a little further (I've been in contact with the Commons administrator who deleted it, and will make contact with the copyright owner). Also, if I may suggest a replacement for this "Mona lisa" article: I also have the article Sophie Matisse in line at DYK noms (April 6th articles), and it seems to have been given a good-to-go review. I'm actively tracking this, so can someone please confirm with me which way to proceed? Thanks to you all. Penwatchdog (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Their website is quite protective of their copyright. Like Allen3, I don't think the chances are good, even for a small, low-resolution image like this one. (Are you sure they are the ones who uploaded it to Commons in the first place?) If you want to try, though, I think we need to treat this as two separate things: let Sophie be promoted when she's ready, and decide whether Mona Lisa should be pulled out of the queue in the hopes that the image can be restored to Commons—note that there's no guarantee that it will be given a lead hook slot next time even if the image is made available—or whether it should remain in the queue and be published on schedule without the image. If the hook is pulled back, then simply replace it with a hook already promoted to a prep area, as is our usual practice. In terms of replacing it with the Sophie Matisse nomination, I just took a look and only the original hook has been approved. None of the ALT hooks, some of which I think are more interesting, have been approved as yet, so I've used the "reviewer needed" icon in the hopes of attracting one, since the original reviewer has been involved in suggesting the ALTs. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Understood. Sophie stays where she is (by the way, I'd given my agreement for the ALT but/so the question of an apostrophe' is all that remains). As for Mona, I've initiated contact with the copyright holder but, being the weekend, it's possible I may not hear back from them on time. I'll continue contact about this with them though, because I'd still like to get the image back into the article regardless of DYK. About the upload, yes I'm sure they uploaded, because i put in the request upon coming across the image while compiling material for the article (by the way, I'd always meant to ask if there are rules about approaching people for image usage, yay or nay?). I'll leave Mona's DYK fate in the hands of you Pros and check here again soon as able, as I've run out of time to track this for the rest of the day. Thanks very much! Penwatchdog (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I've received a reply from the "mosaic" copyright holder. We'll pursue reinstating the image for use in the article afterwards. Sorry to've imposed here, I won't waste any more of your time, and anyway I notice Mona Replicas is in the on-deck circle. BlueMoonset: I've addressed the Sophie Matisse nomination separately; Chamal: yeah that's basically the procedure I followed, and that infrmation answers my concerns! Thanks for your time! Penwatchdog (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
that after Flamur Kastrati was injured in a match between MSV Duisburg and Energie Cottbus, both teams stopped playing football? But it is clear from the article that they did not stop. They played out the rest of the match, albeit in a non competitive way. If they had stopped playing, the match would have been abandoned: this is not what happened. Kevin McE (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
As the nominator, I'd say that they stopped playing even though the match wasn't stopped, but I understand that the current hook is problematic. What about that after Flamur Kastrati was injured in a match between MSV Duisburg and Energie Cottbus, neither team wanted to continue playing football?Mentoz86 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you are stretching the meaning of played beyond what is normally meant: maybe that after Flamur Kastrati was injured in a football match, the rest of the game was played out with no attempt to score?Kevin McE (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Néjia Ben Mabrouk's debut film Sama was delayed for six years because of a dispute with the production company: needs that indefinite article. Kevin McE (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
that the 2013 boxing-related death of Michael Norgrove was the first in the United Kingdom in 18 years? Talk of a time scale without knowing where on a time line those 18 years sit is less than helpful. Kevin McE (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Both done. I'm not very confident about my knowledge on capitalization, so I'm going to leave Queue 4 to somebody else. ChamalT•C06:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Bach composed Der Herr ist mein getreuer Hirt (The Lord is my faithful shepherd) in 1731 The translation of a title should be in title case: Bach composed Der Herr ist mein getreuer Hirt (The Lord is my Faithful Shepherd) in 1731. Kevin McE (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
German titles follow the grammar rules of German: English translations follow the grammar rules of English. However, I now see that our MoS for capitalisation of titles includes capitals for verbs including to be and for possessive pronouns, so it should in fact be The Lord Is My Faithful Shepherd. Kevin McE (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Just got a quick question r.e. my next nomination what I'm currently working on here.. The hookline I would like to use needs to reference the subject matter of a song by the artist Lord Flea - but the lyrics aren't published anywhere I can find, though a clip of the tune can be found on youtube. Is that okay? Btw, the song is about a 'monkey stalker' - Hillbillyholidaytalk15:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like a clarification about the eligibility of items that appeared on recent deaths (name only section of ITN), or to start a debate if none has previously occurred. On the one hand, such items have appeared on ITN in some form. On the other hand, they weren't really "featured" since only the person's name appeared without a blurb. Thus I can see it both ways (assuming other DYK criteria are met, of course). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
As items are likely to have main-page exposure in recent deaths for several days, I'd be opposed to giving them the additional exposure on DYK. There's nothing stopping someone from nominating the article for DYK (if it meets the rules) instead of recent deaths, if that seems to best suit the material. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Generally, a previous bold Main Page appearance makes an article ineligible for DYK. The articles in the "Recent deaths" subsection are simply listed and are not bold, so I'd say that does not disqualify them from DYK. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM23:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
Even though 73 of 251 nominations are approved, there are 47 empty slots, so we could conceivably use up most of the approved nominations in very short order. There are hooks from February and March that need work, either initial reviews or reexaminations, including over half a dozen still left over from last time. If you can try to pick older ones to look over, we would appreciate it. Many thanks.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Does a RfM impact a pending DKY?
Hi. There is a pending page move request for the Thomas Savage (died 1611) article. Several editors are citing a pending DYK for the article as a reason for not moving the article to Thomas Savage (goldsmith), the more proper title according to the usual disambiguation rules. Can someone who is familiar with DYK procedures comment on the pending RfM on the article talk page? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess the correct question (at least, the way it sounds as you are posing it) is "does a pending DYK impact an RfM?" My answer is no. The fact that an article is up for DYK doesn't mean it's somehow protected and set in stone; we don't even silly stuff like that for featured articles that are on the main page. A move creates a redirect; moving the article while it's at DYK is not going to break the wiki (or even break DYK). It might mess with some of the auto-generated links in the nom template, but that is easy for us to fix. It won't cause any problems at all for main-page readers.
And that article title is ridiculous. It should be changed; I'm surprised this is even a discussion. [Edit: I struck "ridiculous", because I see this isn't totally unprecedented--although that case I just linked was trickier than this one.]
that Armenian American biologist Greg Hampikian is considered one of the foremost forensic DNA experts in the United States? Why is his ethnicity of any relevance at all? Kevin McE (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
I have reviewed and rejected Template:Did you know nominations/List of Wikipedia controversies, which does not pass the DYK eligibility criteria and has a blatantly POV hook. Unfortunately another editor has intervened to reject and remove my review of the article. I've been reviewing DYKs for years and I've never had this kind of problem before. I'd be grateful if other DYKs regulars could take a look, as this needs to be dealt with. Prioryman (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone with a quantum of impartiality and knowledge of the circumstances REALLY think that Prioryman has any business reviewing this article? God I hope not. Prioryman tried to get the article deleted because he didn't like who wrote it [3]. It was snowed-Keep [4] as it was obviously a bad faithed nom. He brought that to AN [5]. He was told "it looks like a keep". He then couldn't let it go and brought it to DR. And now he's purposefully trying to torpedo the nomination of legitimate article. This is a text book example of disruptive tendentious battleground behavior.Volunteer Marek00:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I did not bring it to AN/I. Any half-sentient DYK reviewer can see that the list doesn't meet the eligibility criteria, the original proposed hook didn't even mention the article (!), the same hook was a blatantly POV attack on a non-public figure, and VM's alternative hook is a nearly as bad POV attack on what I assume is meant to be Gibraltarpedia. Both hooks fail the eligibility criteria's NPOV requirements. The only bad faith being shown here is by the people from Wikipediocracy who are submitting crappy DYK nominations, frankly, and it's completely unacceptable for Volunteer Marek to repeatedly delete my review. I've never seen anyone contributing to DYK behave in such a way before. Prioryman (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
If "any half-sentient DYK reviewer can see" then why are you so insistent on jumping in and poisoning the well? Let these other half-sentient DYK reviewers, who aren't way too involved and don't have a conflict of interest review the damn thing.
The list satisfies the criteria as listed here [6]. It is long enough and has more than enough prose. Only someone blind with rage could not see that. Likewise, the ALT hook (though not the original proposed one) fully satisfies here [7]. Only someone blind with petty jealousy could not see that.
As I've said at the review, I would suggest you both take a break from the review and from the discussion here and cool off. I'm not suggesting either is in the right or the wrong, but continuing the discussion now is unlikely to make anything better; have a break, come back to it later if you must (or trust other to form the right consensus.) Harriastalk00:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is just the latest in a series of recent incidents when DYK has been (ab)used by individuals for overtly activist purposes. We probably need to add something to the DYK rules to discourage such conduct. Prioryman (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is just the latest in a series of recent incidents when DYK has been (ab)used by individuals for overtly activist purposes. We probably need to add something to the DYK rules to discourage such conduct.. No. Fucking. Shit.Volunteer Marek00:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not referring to that at all, as you know perfectly well. I'm referring to the attempted use of DYK to post explicitly POV hooks and intervene in off-wiki controversies - thinking specifically of the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station article, which was nominated for DYK explicitly for the purpose of "putting a thumb in the eye" of one of the parties to the controversy. In short, the attention we pay to NPOV needs to be strengthened. Nominations such as that should have been shot down at the start as an unacceptable violation of neutrality. Self-referential DYK hooks should also be strongly discouraged. They are very rare in any case and I think feeling here has tended to be against them, not least because this is supposed to be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "the encyclopedia that talks about itself all the time". Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not referring to that at all, as you know perfectly well. - ok, but that just means that you have a serious double standard issue here. It's ok when you do it but not when you suspect others of doing it or something? Seriously? That's your guideline here?
As far as self-referential hooks go, show me the rules. You say that "feeling here has tended to be against them". Given how grossly you tried to misrepresent the article at AfD (did I mention you have no business reviewing this article?) I'm not gonna take your word for it. Anyway - there are self referential hooks which are probably dorky and there are those which are quite pertinent and... hook-y. This be the latter kind.Volunteer Marek01:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
In case you'd forgotten, Gibraltar-related DYKs are under restrictions which require two reviewers to check them for promotional and COI issues. Not a single one of those DYKs, and there's been about 85 in the past year, has been rejected on those grounds. And obviously there's been no attempt to post POV hooks or intervening in off-site controversies. That's very different to attempting to using DYK to attack living people or to spite organisations in dispute with Wikipedia. As for self-referential hooks, it's something which the DYK project has tended to dislike as inappropriate, in my experience, but we probably do need to say something explicit in the rules about them. Prioryman (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipediocracy are sponsoring the list with a competition. Perhaps a similar restriction could be place on the frequency of Wikipediocracy-funded competitions at DYK as exists for Gibratarpedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Did you know that Apr 17's Mabel Richardson DYK was poor (and how!)
Regarding the Mabel Richardson article's 17 Apr 2013 DYK ... that the father of silent film actress and supercentenarian Mabel Richardson died when she was seven?"... DID YOU KNOW that at the time of the article's DYK fact nomination (4 Apr 2013), its inline citation was a reflink to an archive news article requiring a subscription for full access and having no mention of her father in the news's free snippet (making DYK verification rather difficult...)? DID YOU ALSO KNOW that at the time of DYK nomination the article was listed for deletion (due to her being an "Actress who appeared as an uncredited extra in several films and shows no signs of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER"...)? It was eventually decided (15 Apr) to keep the article - but only because she was the longest-lived supercentenarian to have acted in a real movie before retirement (this unusual combination being her only real claim to fame). This enabled the DYK to go "live" two days later by the skin of its teeth! All quite fascinating, and FAR MORE INTERESTING than the TRIVIAL fact that Mabel was 7 when her father died!!! Compare the staggering insignificance of Wikipedia's DYK with Mabel's IMDB "Trivia" section, which instead just says "Was an extra in numerous films during the silent era. Believed to be the oldest actor ever in Hollywood, having lived to the age of 110." Did you know THAT? I didn't, until I became intrigued as to how/why Wikipedia ever approved a DYK about a little-known person being 7 when her father died (an obvious poor choice)! Seems like all rational "DYK suitability" considerations were put aside because of AfD-pending, and never resumed upon AfD-keep, instead just put-though on the nod in the late rush. DYKs are very useful - they're a great means of bringing attention to lesser articles and help to bring about article improvements - but unfortunately this particular DYK wasn't well handled. A useful lesson for future procedures. (#Note: I posted the above on the article's talk page, but am also posting it here as I hope the DYK regulars - who all do a fine job in general - will find it both interesting and useful to read. Cheers.) Pete Hobbs (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I will give you that the "longest-lived supercentenarian to have acted in a real movie before retirement" should have been suggested as a more interesting Alt. I also thought that being a stand-in for Mary Pickford and Bette Davis would be a better hook if for no other reason than to have a link to those B and FA class articles on the front page. However, I don't think you can take fault in the hook source being behind a paywall. Not every reference can be online and free, nor should we expect them to be. It would be a great disservice to DYK to not approve articles reliant on offline texts or sources behind a paywall. We have the AGF approval tick for a reason. If there were no other signs that put the nomination in question regarding accuracy, verifiability, avoiding close paraphrasing, etc than the AFG tick was quite appropriate. AgneCheese/Wine16:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There's nothing wrong with using a source that's behind a paywall, or nominating an article at AfD. Obviously it can only be posted after the AfD closes. As to the hook, YMMV. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
My apologies if I seemed to cricise pay firewall aspect, I didn't intend that, and just documented it as part of the 'fascinating circumstances'. Considering a DYK nomination has to be done-&-dusted within a very short period after a new article's creation, then time-pressures are inevitable if awaiting an AfD decision, and the pay firewall slowed their side. Unfortunately a clean-up at the start of the AfD removed nearly all article refs too, including one to a '100 Club website, topic 7088' leaving only the pay site as a single primary ref - yet the 100 Club page quoted the pay site's news-texts in full and had other reliable source-info too. I tried to restore a cite-ref to the 100 Club topic page yesterday but found their host's entire URL is blacklisted (maybe past site arguments? but there's nothing wrong with the topic 7088 page). I agree an AFG tick for verifiability, accuracy, phrasing etc was reasonable and appropriate - just an X for triviality that got missed?! The fellow who mentioned Alt hooks above makes the same point effectively. Ultimately I meant a constructive criticism, and I learnt a lot about DYK nominations and requirements from the particular case, for which I'm grateful. Pete Hobbs (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
DYK nominations do not have to be done-&-dusted within a very short period after the new article's creation. They only have to be nominated within that time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The lead hook's image is a closeup of a sculpture by a living artist: I don't understand how this can be considered public domain under US law, even if it is a work by a German artist and said to be in a public space. The other two pictures in the Karlheinz Oswald article are outdoors, but this one is such a tight shot I'm wondering whether such a reason could be used—because it's there's no justification for any of the three images from Commons including this one, just an "own work" listing and no explanation of the copyright issues involved. Can this image actually be used on the English Wikipedia's front page? If there are any issues with the images being in the article, or on the front page, this needs to be removed from the queue until they can be resolved.
The Rihanna album hook makes no sense as written: how can a just-released "reloaded" album have a 930% increase in sales? (The reload couldn't, since it's brand new; the original album might have, or the rules may combine the sales of the two. I'm not clear on this, and neither is the hook.) This hook needs to be edited, either in place or (if that isn't immediately possible) pulled out of the queue for more work, so it's comprehensible. (And the article, which says much the same thing, should be adjusted as well.)
Finally, it's a bit unusual to have two "Great Eastern Hotel" hooks in a row (for English and Indian hotels of the same name), though I suppose the juxtaposition can be considered a hook in its own right, despite the usual rule not to have similar hooks next to each other; I can understand why they were listed sequentially. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerda, that's good to know. That doesn't address, however, the issue of whether a closeup of a work of art that effectively excludes its outdoor setting is allowed under copyright law, US or otherwise, or under Wikipedia rules regarding main page images. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The rules for freedom of panorama for Germany allow photographs of artwork on display in public places and photographable from public areas; please see commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Germany. I have added templates reflecting this to the photographs used in this article. -- Dianna (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Dianna. It's clear that Germany would allow free usage there; I'm still unclear after reading the linked commons article as to whether US copyright law would consider these under copyright in the US regardless of Germany's treatment: the table does show that the US does not subscribe to freedom of panorama for 2D and 3D art. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently Wikimedia policy allows works which have FOP outside the US to be photographed, hence numerous statues in England and Germany which are used as free images in featured articles. This appears to be a fairly hot-button topic on Commons, but so long as the policy allows it we shouldn't worry too much. I haven't read any court cases related to non-US FOP being tried as a copyvio in the US. If there is no case law, that's why it's still debateable; a court decision would influence our policies too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Further to the points raised by Bluemoonset about the Rhianna hook, the claim that this 930% sales increase is a record in the history of the chart is totally unsupported in the source, which could equally be read as saying that it is the biggest increase that week. Kevin McE (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I would second the point made about the juxtaposition of two hooks about the same hotel chain. We usually try to spread related hooks, and I can see no reason why this shouldn't happen in this case. Kevin McE (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It was my understanding it was a DYK requirement that each paragraph (other than some exceptions such as the lead or plot) in articles should have at least one inline citation hence my comment above. Thanks for fixing it. I'm starting to wonder if perhaps my interpretation of DYK criteria is totally off as I also see the lead hook in Queue 2 is a two article hook yet it's been approved when only one QPQ has been done. SagaciousPhil - Chat08:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that an inline citation per paragraph is a recommendation, not a requirement, - same for qpq, recommended to do article by article. - The hook issue is fixed, thanks to Crisco! - I will have to understand, why Oswald made it to a queue one day after nomination, while other hooks take weeks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, inline citations are presented as a "rule of thumb": it's a rare situation when an independent paragraph wouldn't need that citation. QPQ is now an explicit article-for-article requirement: the wording of that rule changed several months ago, after a formal revision process. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
... that the radar dome on Cass Peak(pictured), with the hill being named for the surveyor Thomas Cass, is part of a network that monitors aircraft position data in New Zealand?
I've got the lead hook in Q2 and have just been given permission for a much better photo from flickr. I was a bit surprised that the hook was chosen for the lead, as the photo as nominated isn't really that hot. But what we've got now is pretty good. Can an admin please swap it over to the one that's posted here? Schwede6609:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I've searched quite hard but I can't find the answer. Yesterday I did my first review. The nominator gave a link to the article they had reviewed so that was fine. However, how can I tell if someone is exempt because of fewer than five nominations? WP:DYKLIST doesn't seem to descend to those depths. Do we take this sort of thing on trust? I can think of all sorts of ways of cheating but maybe this is a well-behaved corner of the universe where people do not do that sort of thing. Is there a way of seeing if someone's reviews exceed their nominations? Thincat (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah. That is a good step forward. It misses a self-nom I did years ago but I don't suppose that matters and it flags a credit I got when I didn't nominate (or even create!). I'll update the reviewers' guide when I feel I know what to write. At the moment QPQ doesn't even seem to be mentioned (but no one should be reviewing without reading the rules). Thincat (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The requirement for an article to article QPQ is H4 in the DYK Supplementary guide which I find is a useful additional guide. By the way, that's a really nifty tool, Maile66, I hadn't come across it before but have now made myself a user box for easy access to it from my user page - Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat13:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I don't think the Update bot counts how many reviews or updates a user has done. I think it's counting actual DYK credits. That is, if you were the nominator or nominee. Maybe somebody else understands this differently than I do. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It's actually counting the number of times DYKUpdateBot has edited the given talk page (and therefore the number of times it has posted DYK credits to that talk page), and not the number of total credits unfortunately. For example, I have 90-something in total but the tool only shows 27. ChamalT•C00:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
that a LEED certified green building for 88 nature-centered preschool students was constructed at Chippewa Nature Center
Pre school children are not students, and more to the point, they do not have a life philosophy developed enough to describe them as nature-centered. The children are not so described in the article. Kevin McE (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Animal species (pace WP:BIRDS) do not take capital letters. Additionally, there is nothing encyclopaedic about describing the purple hairstreak as 'captivating', and 'host' is not the normal collective noun for small wildflowers. Kevin McE (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I was the person who ok'd this one. I did bring up the issue of capitalisation in my review, but the Lepidoptera project seems to prefer all caps. While I agree neither "captivating" nor "host" are "encyclopaedic", they seem to me not misleading and appropriate to make a (not particularly exciting) wood into a viable hook, particularly given this is running in the final position. Also I would like to point out, this has been in the prep area for at least 24 hours, if you had wished to edit it there. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realise that I was obliged to visit every page of Wikipedia every day to be entitled to comment.
Wikipedia also advises against writing in the second person, and what one potentially might see (yet alone "catch") is pure speculation. Kevin McE (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
No; having a quick look through the history of the article, it looks like the fact was in there, but got removed during a re-write. I have pulled the hook from the prep area for the time being. Harriastalk06:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
To get onto the main page TFA or TFP slots, or the weekly FL space, an article needs to go through a full process of being raised to featured status. To appear in OTD, they have to gain approval from a list on Selected Anniversaries. To appear on ITN, they need overwhelming consensus from an extremely argumentative body of debaters. And to appear on DYK, a nod from one other contributor, who has a vested interest in giving such approval in the basis of the QPQ system, is sufficient. The only additional check is a highly variable, sometimes very short, spell in the queues. But this, as an opportunity to check, is plainly not used. Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors currently carries objections to two items about which the same comments were made here but received no response, positive or negative. A few days ago we had the case of Long Churn Cave and its feature called the Cheesepress: it was pointed out that the misleading hook had been intended only for April 1 listing, but that was ignored and it was run anyway. We also had the situation of Flamur Kastrati, in which the nominator agreed to a change of wording, but the admins overlooked it and posted a false hook to the main page.
Is there any willingness to allow serious quality control of hooks or not? If so, the current system does not provide it. Kevin McE (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that reviewers have a "vested interest in giving such approval". A review that rejects a nomination meets the QPQ requirement. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Not true, I think QPQ is the biggest cause of the poor quality of many DYK's. I understand why it exists, since DYK is so heavily flooded with editors, it would be near impossible to get articles reviewed without it; however, editors who review an article because they have to have a tendency to review an article hastily. RyanVesey18:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the weakness or not of the QPQ system, my challenge is about the purpose of this page: the discussion page for the queued hooks. It does not have enough readers to ensure any rigour, the time hooks spend here is sometimes so short that the handful of visitors could easily miss items (and frequently do), and items are posted without any evident reference to the response here to them. I really do not want this to be sidetracked into the rights and wrongs of the QPQ system, which could be a separate thread if desired. To this purpose, without wishing to imply any change in my reservations in the matter, a strikethrough that part of my introduction to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 18:44 19 April 2013
I suggest that the number of hooks displayed per day be reduced in number. This might allow for hooks that are more interesting and of better quality. For content shown on the main page of Wikipedia, too many are wrong, poorly written or underwhelming. SomeFreakOnTheInternet (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the vast majority of your statement Kevin, but what I don't have is any solutions. Do you have any ideas that would improve the quality control, while not deterring people from participating in the DYK process, and could still work fluidly enough to allow DYK to run? (Of course, I would concede that at the moment although DYK runs, it might not be strictly defined as "working".) Harriastalk18:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this has more to do with the limited number of admins monitoring the DYK talk page, rather than the issues being ignored. If an admin doesn't see the issues raised on this page, they won't get fixed in the queues. I suggest we add the next couple of queues to WP:ERRORS (similar to how tomorrow's TFA/OTD are included) and allow editors to raise any concerns there so that there will be more admin eyes on them. It would also help if people could offer possible solutions when reporting problems (for example, an alternative wording for a hook) – I rarely have the time to go through the article thoroughly and do a fact check and think of a different hook, so I often leave them for another admin rather than making a change myself. ChamalT•C18:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
A solution could be to increase the page length requirements and decrease the number of hooks to one set per day. This would give a longer waiting time here for hooks to be discussed before they are posted. It would also decrease the total level of nominations meaning that if reviewers did the same amount of work as normal, there would be more eyes on any one given hook. Furthermore, longer articles usually equate to better researched, higher quality articles. Finally, our readers will learn much more about any given article. Readers of Ezra Meeker learned much more than those of Parole camp or Luke Hancock (chosen because they are both under 2000 which would be the minimum new requirement I would like to see). RyanVesey18:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
What is most needed is a reasonable number of people checking at the queue stage, or items being held at the public review/queue stage until a reasonable minimum number of editors (suggest about 5) have said "Yeah, looks OK". I can't imagine items being posted at ITN without that sort of number of supports. It took seven supports to zero at ITN/C simply to get the two words of Storm Thorgerson's name posted today.
What is minimally needed is some sort of system whereby this talk page is checked for objections or suggested alterations, and that some sort of response to those comments is made, before items are promoted from the list to the Main Page. If that doesn't happen then, as I ask in the title of the thread, what is the point of this [talk] page? Kevin McE (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I still like the idea of increasing the requirements as I noted above, but what would you think about a system where the prep areas had to be discussed before they were moved to the Queaus? RyanVesey19:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
To Kevin McE: I think one problem is that this page is not for discussion of errors in hooks, it is for general discussion relating to the DYK process. It has so much traffic, much of it trivial or repetitive, that it is easy to get overwhelmed and stop watching it. There's also a lot of "OMG hook A is appalling" (it might need a minor correction) type posts, to the point that "OMG hook B is appalling" (it needs pulling) get missed. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Would a dedicated Wikipedia:Did you know/Errors page be a possible solution? So people who watch that page know that the post is related to something that needs fixing. For example, I watch this page, but because of the sheet amount of stuff (important and completely trivial) that can appear here, it is one of the last places I browse to during my daily browse; and often that means I never get to it. If there was a dedicated page, when I saw it appear on my watchlist, I'd know that something needed doing. Just a thought. Harriastalk19:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
One simple change that could help might be to reduce the number of queues to 4 (how often are more than 4 filled, anyway) and increase the number of preps to six. That way non-admins would have longer to scrutinise and edit hooks. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
An errors page might help a little but wouldn't it be better if we could try to ensure reviews were being thoroughly undertaken in the first place? I can understand Kevin McE's frustration but also appreciate the diligent hard work already undertaken by many DYK regulars (particularly Crisco and BlueMoonset but there are many others as well). I have seen nominations approved even when basic DYK criteria has not been met. I have just noticed a nomination, which has been approved that is still assessed as a stub - normally I would simply change it but how will that help the reviewer realise a fundamental DYK requirement has not been checked? I'm sure I am not alone in having removed stub assessments from articles in preps or queues. Another that I looked at has been approved yet the ref for the hook doesn't appear immediately adjacent to the sentence. If these fundamental requirements have been missed, how thorough was the rest of the review? I also tend to agree with Ryan Vesey that some articles barely scrape above the stub category. For me, it makes it feel like articles are being hastily thrown together (and unfortunately, then even more hastily reviewed). I don't know what the solution would be other than trying to improve the quality of the reviews. SagaciousPhil - Chat14:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It is not at all clear what that due to the Panic of 1893 there is a large time gap in the older and newer sections of downtown Helena, Montana? is meant to mean.
If is means that there are physically distinct zones dating from different times in the city centre, and that in one of these all the buildings date from before 1893, and in the other all the buildings were constructed some unspecified, but "large", number of years later, then that is far from explicit in the article. If that is not what is meant, then the hook needs to be clearer. Kevin McE (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Right now only 31 of 222 nominations are approved, and there are 35 empty slots, so we're effectively in the hole again. We have six March nominations needing reviews, and another eighteen from two days, April 3 and 4. Please review these if you can, and taking on older ones is always appreciated. Many thanks.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Charles O'Rear: I see no source other than the photographer himself claiming that Bliss is "the most viewed image of the world". There is therefore no RS for this claim, nor is it verifiable as anything other than a claim. If it is to be included as quote, it should be clear that it is O'Rear himself who is being quoted. Kevin McE (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I think, although others (such as yourself) may disagree, that the quotes already indicate it is an opinion and there is already an implication that the quote originates from O'Rear, owing to the interaction between his expectations and the quote. As such, I don't think it needs to be changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The validity of opinions depends on who expresses them. The opinion of an artist as to the popularity of their own work is not valid. Kevin McE (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, but we are not implicitly or explicitly agreeing with him here. Hence the quote marks. If we assumed it to be true, we would not use quote marks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
"... that the Aldabra atoll in Seychelles, called "one of the wonders of the world" by David Attenborough, has about 100,000 giant tortoises, the largest concentration in the world?"
I have made some MoS tweaks to the hook, but a more substantive issue remains. The Aldabra Atoll is home to almost the entire population of the Aldabra giant tortoise; the other species known as a giant tortoise extant in the wild is separately evolved, of a different genus. So the claim amounts to "... that the Aldabra atoll in Seychelles, called "one of the wonders of the world" by David Attenborough, has about 100,000 native giant tortoises, which is more than the number of unrelated, but similar sized, Galápagos giant tortoises found in the Galápagos Islands?" Kevin McE (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see the implication; the only concentration of a species is also, by definition, the largest. Even then, the article Aldabra giant tortoise states that there are smaller populations of the animal. I'm hating the comma OD. To address it I think the "wonders" bit should be cut.
Done. When part of the ALT2 hook was removed for reasons I don't quite understand, one of the closing brackets was removed with it. It would appear that if there's an open double bracket that doesn't get closed inside the template, the template substitution can't be made. I made sure to add a credit for Ashwin147 with the actual promotion, since there was no way I knew to avoid getting my name on the promotion if I went through with the closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Duplication
The hook for A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush is in prep 1 and prep 4. I don't want to just delete one as I don't know enough about making up sets. SagaciousPhil - Chat06:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been the only one working on this month-old, 16-hook nomination, and was just waiting for the page creator to respond to the last issues on the last page, when I got up this morning to find that the nomination had been moved to Queue 3. As you can see from the template, the last article (first on the list) was not approved. I respectfully request that the nomination be moved back to the nominations page so I can finish working on it. And when it is moved to the Queue, it really should be the first hook, as no one will even glance at it in the second position. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
In the present Queue 3, the two first hooks are both Norwegian-themed. Wouldn't it be better to move the footballer hook to another queue, for the sake of hook diversity? And shouldn't Porsgrunn be linked in the lead hook? It's not exactly a very well known location, for most people. Manxruler (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Split and linked. No need to move them to separate queues as there is not rule against having two hooks from the same country in the same queue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Good to see. Not sure if it's necessary to link the Norway-bit of Porsgrunn, Norway, seeing as that creates a redirect. Porsgrunn is after all the main Porsgrunn. Manxruler (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Prep 3 photo
This photo, of the Indian rock sculpture is unsuitable for DYK. It's narrow, squinty, and unless you blow it up you can't even begin to tell what it is. It needs swapped post haste. PumpkinSkytalk21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Can't someone crop the photo so it more effectively shows the bas-relief? I agree that the image was almost impossible to make out, but there must be a way of cropping it so it's effective. In any event, using a sixteen-article hook as the final hook in a prep set strikes me as inappropriate after the very hard work that's gone into reviewing all those articles. (It also isn't at all quirky.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It's a crappy photo and the hook is way long. Move stuff around if you want but I strongly feel this should not be the lead with photo. A perpetual problem with these long hooks with many articles is they screw up the MP layout. I moved it to slot 2 in prep 2.PumpkinSkytalk01:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Replaced voting templates images
I've been bold and replaced the pictures on the {{DYKtickAGF}} and {{DYK?again}} templates. Style wise, these new vector images cooked up by yours truly now match the other icons. See here: I hope you guys will enjoy them! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK)18:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Amberrock, can you please revert the DYKtickAGF change? Unfortunately, the DYKHousekeepingBot is looking for specific images in determining which nominations have been approved and which haven't, and since it doesn't know about the new picture, approved AGF hooks are not showing up on the tables at the top of the queue and nominations pages. I've dropped a note on Shubinator's talk page (they're his bots), and imagine he'll be replying here sometime soon; Template:Did you know nominations/Fish River (Alaska) was not showing up as approved for the six hours it had the new AGF icon. (The bot doesn't take the "again" icon into consideration, so that change doesn't affect anything that I know of.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:MILTERMS, General Commander in the Abd al-Rahim al-Hajj Muhammad hook needs no capital.
In the article on the Armada Service, the word the is only capitalised at the beginning of a sentence, so it should not be capitalised here. Kevin McE (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The second of these has been addressed, with reference to this page, but not the former. So are the admins who could fix this just going to ignore this and let a grammar fail and breach of MoS appear on the Main Page? Or is anyone going to explain that the existing version is correct? Or is it simply a total waste of time to try to apply some sort of quality control to this feature on a page that has massive daily hits? Kevin McE (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I fixed one issue, not the other, because I wasn't sure about it (after a brief look, it seemed that "General Commander of the Revolt" could be said to be the title applied elsewhere, with capital letters) and by the time I got distracted by something else on my watchlist and took a late-night phone call, it was time for bed and I went there without returning here and explaining my half-compliance with your complaints. My humble apologies. I see Crisco fixed matters before they went on the main page, and as ever we are indebted to him for his work. BencherliteTalk21:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Unless it is to be assumed that our readers are all 2 foot tall, inhabiting buildings with 1 m high ceilings, that hole is not 30 storeys deep. Kevin McE (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The article does indeed say 30m, and metric measurement is usually in Guatemala, so 30m, not 100ft, should be used. Kevin McE (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The article says 100 feet (30 m), the source says 100ft, so we should use that, not have the DYK hook use metric first with a recalculation of 98 feet. BencherliteTalk21:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
... that the 2002 EA Sports 500 featured no cautions despite Talladega Superspeedway being known for "The Big One"?
I know nothing about NASCAR (which will also be true of most Main Page readers), but I cannot see why the fact that there have been 6 crashes in 40 years at that track that are considered as Big Ones should make it a matter of surprise that there were no warnings issued in a race that seems not to have had any serious incidents. Kevin McE (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I think Hawkeye's point about the hook encouraging readers to click and read about it is very valid. However, I do wish that The Big One (NASCAR) article that is included in the hook wasn't in such poor shape with maintenance tags that have been outstanding for over 2 years. AgneCheese/Wine22:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It made me look because I wanted what appears on the front page of an encyclopaedia to make sense. If you are really defending incomprehensible and unsustainable hooks on the grounds of "made you look" then the time has surely come to close DYK down. This is the defence that 6 year olds make for falsely telling their classmates that their fly is open.
So is anyone willing to actually answer the question: why the fact that there have been 6 crashes in 40 years at that track that are considered as Big Ones should make it a matter of surprise that there were no warnings issued in a race that seems not to have had any serious incidents? Kevin McE (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for going to bed and being away from Wikipedia for 12 hours. While your metaphor is cute, it fails in that the juvenile "made you look" ploy is usually for something false while this was more "made you look and now you've learned something"--which is generally the point of every DYK though I'll give you that most April Fools hooks fall into the former. The Big One (NASCAR) article is the key to this hook in explaining why this is a significant part of NASCAR culture (redlinking because I'm surprised there hasn't been an article created on this yet) and ties into one of the main Criticism of NASCAR--that they celebrate these kinds of crashing and market them with the risk of loss of life and injury while (presumably) doing everything possible to avoid loss of life and injury. The importance of that article to this hook is one of the reasons why I believe that the sad shape of that non-bolded article about to be featured on the main page is more of a pressing issue than your concerns about the "surprise factor" in the hook. AgneCheese/Wine19:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Previous version made the extraordinary leap from among most highly decorated Armenian Americans to most highly decorated, with no qualification. Deeply dishonest.
I still have real concern over its veracity. The claim about rare medals is sourced to a local paper, and in the nomination there was no attempt to defend the suggestion that these medals are not actually rare at all. Been challenged at article talk. Suggest pulling until that is clarified. Kevin McE (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
And the defence at the article talk is that it is the range of his medals that is unusual, not that any of those he has "are amongst the rarest given to any U.S. military personnel." But there is no reliable source (or even dodgy source like a local paper) saying that it is an unusual combination of medals to hold, so I have removed it from the article. The claim in the hook is not now in the article, so I am taking it upon myself to remove it from the Prep list.
Actually there's a source explicitly supporting the "among the rarest" wording, but if we have doubts about "rare", we should go with "among the highest", also supported by that source. I think we can agree that the third-highest award is among the highest. Huon (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Self-referential hooks - that is to say, hooks explicitly about Wikipedia or Wikipedians - are pretty rare on DYK and, at least from my experience, seem to be somewhat frowned-upon. That being so, I was surprised to see that the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Gene Hobbs, which ran yesterday, not only describes him as "a regular contributor to Wikipedia's scuba articles" but actually links to his list of contributions. I've certainly never seen the latter before in a DYK hook.
I'm uneasy about this. Wikipedia is supposed to be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "the encyclopedia that blows its own trumpet"; it feels very much like self-advertising. I've been thinking for a while about proposing some topic guidelines, in part as a remedy for situations like the Gibraltarpedia mess, and am wondering whether it might be worth excluding self-referential hooks in future. What do other contributors think about the appropriateness of such hooks? Prioryman (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
My belief is that if there can be an article about it then it can be mentioned on the front page. We have had many Wikipedia-related entries in the DYK section and I fail to see why we should explicitly exempt such entries. As long as any proposed entry complies with all the normal guidelines there shouldn't be an issue.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.22:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm more or less of the same opinion as The Devil's Advocate on what can be shown on DYK. References to Wikipedia in the third-person should be fine. However, the contributions link was unnecessary; there is no way that that is not a self-reference, and a little gratuitous as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I certainly agree on the latter point. Regarding TDA's comment that there have been "many Wikipedia-related entries in the DYK section", we had a DYK for Wikipedian in Residence Sarah Stierch on 21 February this year, another DYK that mentioned Wikipedia in December 2012, 1 in September 2012, 3 in July 2012 and 1 in May 2012. Counting Gene Hobbs (but excluding the April Fool's one on the asteroid called Wikipedia, which isn't directly about WP), that makes 2 articles about Wikipedians and 6 mentioning Wikipedia (though not necessarily directly about it) in the course of a year. That amounts to one every 1.5 months, which is perhaps a higher frequency than I'd expected. My discomfort, I guess, comes from the impression that it makes us look like Wikipedia is advertising itself. Prioryman (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
That would be fairly useless advertising, IMHO, as those who see it are already here . 1.5 months each is not that bad... Indonesian films are at a much higher rate, maybe once every week or so.
I thought the wording of the hook—"destroyed about 61 historically significant buildings"—was odd, especially the "about 61" part of it. The article says that "about 240" buildings in toto were destroyed, but doesn't apply "about" to the number 61, just gives it as a fact. And the sentence which gives "61" is not itself cited, and the inline citation in the following sentence is an offline source, so I can't check to see whether it's the original source for the number and whether it qualifies that number at all. Can these issues please be cleaned up? (It should be possible to do so without removing the hook.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
These issues still need to be addressed, now that the prep has been promoted to queue, or the hook needs to be pulled back if no one does so. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, although "61" or "over 60" (if supported) or even "dozens" would be far more effective than the bland "numerous", which I would interpret as being maybe 10 instead of a startling many times that. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there any way that we could squeeze Thomas Herndon into the hook category, still? I know it's been about five days, and if possible, I would like to expand it over the next day or so, since he is quite popular right now at UMass, and I would like to get it to DYK-status over the weekend. Thanks for any help! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Prep Are 3 currently has a hook "...that the Bhusawal-Kalyan railway line in western India rises by 970 ft (296 m) within a span of 9.5 mi (15 km) across Thul Ghat?" The hook uses four units of foot, meter, mile, kilometer and poses a mathematical problem to readers. Please convert them to one set of units. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
How to crop pictures?
In Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Valencia, I have a picture which might be suitable to use if it is cropped. As stated in the nomination, I don't have the technical abilities to do that. That comment seems to have scared every reviewer away, so I am wondering if anyone could tell me how or where I learn how to crop a picture, so that I learn it till next time I expand an article with a "crop-able" picture :) Mentoz86 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. It's very easy to do with Paint or Photoshop, or GIMP. For paint you just select what you want to focus on, cut it, and paste it as a separate file. Photoshop and GIMP have their own tools especially for cropping, very intuitive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
There are two users, Japanglish and Penwatchdog, who continue creating a "wall of text" and post messages virtually unrelated to any DYK requirements.
I'm posting here because I'm afraid that Amberrock is on the verge of closing the nomination. Because the two users succeeded in annoying him and making the nomination look unreadable. If there remain problems with the tone of the article, I am fully ready to fix them. I already asked two experienced editors, Boneyard90 and LadyofShalott, to help, and they copyedited the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The quote that this hook is dependent upon says, "there is an involuntary element in all unemployment in the sense that no one chooses bad luck over good; there is also a voluntary element in all unemployment, in the sense that, however miserable one's current work options, one can always choose to accept them." In other words, it asserts that involuntary unemployment exists, and it says that the possibility of accepting miserable work options proves that voluntary unemployment exists. How on earth have we then managed to take that to be a text that claims to prove that involuntary unemployment does not exist on the grounds that one could put up with bad conditions? Madness. Kevin McE (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
First of all the debate over involuntary unemployment is often characterized as a debate over whether or not it exists (see here). I added another reference stating this to the article after you removed that claim. You seem to be assuming that I am making inferences just from this one quote. That is not the case. This quote is widely cited in work on the debate over involuntary unemployment as representative of the view of those who oppose the concept.
Another question is whether Lucas is really arguing that "involuntary unemployment" doesn't exist here. In his work, it's clear he doesn't think involuntary unemployment exists as useful concept in economics. He never uses the wording "exists" with "involuntary unemployment," but there's no question he's challenging the concept. Later, in the same work cited, he states that the conept of "full employment," which is defined as the absence of involuntary unemployment, cannot does not exist. I think it's fair to say the quote challenges the existence of involuntary unemployment, but I softened the hook to say he questions its "relevance" because that should be non-controversial.
You also seem to be hung up on the statement itself. The hook is merely stating that this is one point of view. The article contains other points of view. It is supposed to be a provocative statement (I disagree with it too!). That's what makes a good hook. If you think the view is "madness," you're entitled to leave it at that for yourself. Hopefully other people will read the article and investigate the concept farther. I don't think censoring the quote is a good way to go about things. It's a good quote from a major economist on a central topic of clear importance on economics. I don't think I've ever seen an economic theory DYK, so give it a chance. Especially since it's actually an interesting hook.--Bkwillwm (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The statement is what you want to appear on the main page of Wikipedia. As an editor who tries to prevent garbage reaching tha main page of Wikipedia, that is precisely what I am focussing on (I'd prefer not to consider it "being hung up").
I was not assuming anything about your inferences. The article said that both existence and relevance to economic theory were challenged, and then gave two quotes, one of which specifically asserted that it did exist, and the other only referred to relevance, so the claim that existence was challenged was unsupported. That is why I removed it, not because of any assumption about your opinions on the matter.
I wasn't saying that Lucas's theory is madness: that observation was on the idea that an opinion that there is no such thing as involuntary unemployment could be evidenced by a comment about the nature of voluntary unemployment.
The change to questioning relevance is a marginal improvement, although it should be stated what the putative relevance is to (relevant to economic theory): I still think the citation fails to present the grounds for the opinion to the layman. Kevin McE (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
So, what's actually at issue here? Are you challenging that Lucas was challenging the relevance of involuntary unemployment? It's not the job of a citation to "present the grounds for the opinion to the layman." I'm not even sure what you mean by that, but I think you are imposing a non-existent requirement that hooks provide all possible context for a layman. In fact, I think hooks more often do the opposite: they put forward a provocative fact that requires the reader to read the article and engage the topic further.--Bkwillwm (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Still not sure what you want, but for what it's worth, the De Vroey reference in Involuntary unemployment uses the same quote and says "he flatly dismissed the usefulness of the involuntary unemployment concept." I think the hook is completely in keeping with the use of this quote in secondary sources.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
As a slight aside, please could you add inline citations to the second paragraph in the 'Explanations' section and also the first paragraph in the 'Perspectives' section? It is a DYK requirement that each paragraph (other than the lead) has at least one citation. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat20:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
If you want the current proposal, then economists are questioning the relevance to economic theory of involuntary unemployment might be demonstrated by that text. Even economists would not deny the relevance of it to those who are unemployed. Kevin McE (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I have provided citations for the quote, the fact that the existence of "involuntary unemployment" is debated, and for a source that similarly couches the quote. Verification issues have been addressed. The context is established by the linking to involuntary unemployment which discusses the concept in economic theory. You're raising concerns based on your own interpretation of the quote (presumably without having read the source or accompanying material). It's not my responsibility to address that.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
All paragraphs are now referenced as per DYK criteria. I don't know if Kevin's queries have been addressed to his satisfaction so can't help in that respect. SagaciousPhil - Chat21:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
"... that the Image of Camuliana, a miraculous icon of Christ, was carried into battle by Byzantine armies, but probably destroyed in the Byzantine Iconoclasm?"
I am pointing out here how some of the DYK rules are not necessary and quite contradictory to what other non-DYK articles would follow.
(1) Eligibility criteria 3.b states "The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it, since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable." And WP:CITEFOOT says "it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." Adding citation at the end of the hook and then again at the end of the para repeats same ref again, which is not necessary and also not a good style. What we ultimately require is verifiability and if that is achieved, i can't imagine why the location of ref would matter. I would hence propose that a new filed of reference should be added in the nomination itself. That way the hook can be easily verified. This will also help in articles where 5X expansion is extensive and not all references are practically referred by reviewer.
Proposal: Just like WP:ITN, the nomination itself should have a field where reference can be provided.
(2) On the main page, we now have a "Today's articles for improvement" section, which showcases articles where readers can help us improve them. Although placed in a different box, i don't see how readers will not help us improve articles in DYK section. I am partially objecting here to Rule D6: "D6: The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags." I don't objecting to all dispute tags present in the article, but i think that some dispute tags can be present in the article even if the article is to feature on main page. For example, a citation needed, when?, who?, tags which have no relation with the hook should be allowed. Now, how many such tags are allowed and what are considered as ok-ok kinda tags is to be discussed here. My similar proposal for ITN section, OTD section and FP section was like quashed at WT:MP.
Proposal: Some minor dispute tags, which are not related to the hook, should be allowed in the article.
(3) WP:DYKSG also speaks of a "five day old" limit. The purpose of this, which i infer, is to present new hooks on the main page. If the hook is old enough and has been on wiki for quite a long time, there are chances that the hook is hardly hook-y. That's why the article should be new. But we have a special area for holding the hooks and sometimes the hooks remain in review area also for a long time. Unreviewed or disputed hooks which stay for long in the review area are mostly rejected (mostly out of frustration or nominator's baking off). But the reserved area has no limits on holding the hook. Some maximum limit needs to be set up.
Proposal: Maximum days limit should be set up for reserved area hooks.
1: WP:CITE clearly states "Attribute ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.", which is in the same vein as the current wording
"Likely to be challenged" is subjective. For sake of challenging some one could challege every word. What DYK needs a verifiability of hook and if thats done through a citation at the end of para, it should't matter. Also, the new field in the nomation would be helpful for that.§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
If something is extraordinary, then it is reasonably safe to assume it may be challenged. If I stated that X was born on 17 August 1945, it's not that extraordinary. If I state that X led 500 men in a raid on a Nazi bunker while wearing her underwear, that's extraordinary and is likely to be challenged. It seems to me to be a reasonable rule of thumb to assume something extraordinary enough for a DYK hook is extraordinary enough to require a citation immediately afterwards. Of course, if you want to add the ref on the nom page that's fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
"X led 500 men in a raid on a Nazi bunker while wearing her underwear. She was joined by Y and Z, who headed two separate divisions. Starting from the norther frontiers of Blah-town on the mid night of DDMMYY, the troop succesfully raided the bunker by the rise of the sun.[1]" If the next two sentences are supported by same ref, i don't see why the ref has to be present after the proposed hook. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
2: Some tags are. Orphan, for example. We need stable articles for the main page, and thus ongoing edit warring is definitely a no-no.
As said before... "Now, how many such tags are allowed and what are considered as ok-ok kinda tags is to be discussed here." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Five days is to ensure the content is reasonably new in article space. After all, DYK is "from Wikipedia's newest articles". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Crisco, are you talking about holding the hook for maximum six weeks, as a special date-request? I believe the proposal was to reject nomination X days after they was nominated, to prevent having to old hooks on the main page. (like the International Conference on Hollywoodism nomination from March 3) Mentoz86 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
"Maximum days limit should be set up for reserved area hooks." - The only "reserved area hooks" are those specifically put into holding. If the proposal is worded like this, naturally it should be refused as there is already a time frame established for "reserved area hooks" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I think i am not clear here. What i mean to say is that a nomination filed in Jan, approved in Jan should not be hold till July for main page display. There should be some limit to this holding time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
And I quote: "Note: Articles nominated for a special occasion should be nominated (i) within five days of creation or expansion, as usual, and (ii) between five days and six weeks before the occasion, to give reviewers time to check the nomination. April Fools' Day is an exception to these requirements; see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know." (emphasis mine) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I expand an article on 1st Jan 2013. I can nominate it till 5th Jan 2013. The note says that the hook should be nominated "six weeks before the occasion" It does not say "maximum six weeks before the occasion". With the current note, i can propose its appearance to come on 31st Dec 2013. Is holding a hook for a year acceptable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It says in the article that he was one of the first. There is no sourced claim in the article that he may have been the first. Kevin McE (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand how the nomination of the article for John Christian Reid was promoted. As the reviewer of the article, I gave a detailed critique. Then the contributor and another editor, Amber, spent days obsessing and arguing over the subject's date of birth, when it was clear that both of them were doing the math incorrectly, let alone not utilizing the sources. Late yesterday morning (Chicago time), I thought I had finally put the matter to bed by again detailing why they were both wrong, and requesting that the rest of the evaluation be addressed. Instead, the nomination was OK'd early this morning (Chicago time) by Amber and promoted minutes later by PumpkinSky. I don't even understand why the second reviewer became involved in this nomination, because s/he only confused the contributor further and, ultimately, was incorrect and interfered with the review. Items that have not been addressed: (1) I requested that the lead be uncited, because that is far preferable to the existing partially cited lead. (2) Sentence #2. The first half of the sentence is completely uncited, and the second half of the sentence is factually incorrect. Anne (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I support pulling the hook from the prep area so that the remaining issues can be addressed but I don't think anyone should be upset that a second reviewer got involved. While Amberrock may have missed that some of the Anne's concerns were not yet fully addressed, overall I think that editor has been a very welcome second (and even third) voice in helping to get nominations through or bringing them to a close if they aren't progressing. For the longest time it was really only BlueMoonset doing the much needed, but very thankless, job of housekeeping and double checking noms. With DYKs being so prominently featured on the Front Page we need second reviewers on as many nominations as we can get. (NikkiMaria is also a big help with close paraphrasing concerns and Kevin McE with general hook reviews) While no system is foolproof, and we will still have occasional misses, DYK works best when we have these second reviewers get involve. AgneCheese/Wine15:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I think second reviewers can be very helpful when the first reviewer has uncertainty about an issue, is incorrect, or becomes unavailable, delaying the nomination. This was not the case. Rather, I specifically sought out a nomination from March to help a contributor whose nom had been languishing for a bit, and made myself available for feedback from the contributor. However, the first feedback that I received was four days later, not from the contributor, but from Amberrock. S/he essentially took over the review and blew off my concerns, compounding the problem by perpetuating the contributor's error with regard to DOB. It has now been almost 12 days since my original review, and I have yet to receive any direct contact from the original nominator/contributor Siegfried Nugent. Rather, I am continuing to receive unsolicited communications from Amberrock, requesting that I explain myself. This from someone who has subverted the DYK process for this nomination, all the while making errors. Amberrock needs to withdraw from this nomination, and Siegfried Nugent needs to contact me, particularly given the 12 days which have elapsed. Anne (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Anne, just as there is no WP:OWNership of articles, there is no ownership of reviews. DYK is a collaborative process that works at its best when multiple sets of eyes are providing feedback and looking over each article destined for the Main Page. We are all human and even the best reviewer may miss something so even if it doesn't appear that the "first reviewer" is having any issues, the input of other reviewers and other perspectives should always be welcomed. (Note that I'm not saying that you missed anything but rather that you shouldn't take it as an affront if other editors offer feedback because the more attention an article gets, the better.) Also, while I would agree that it would be ideal for the article's creator to be more involved in the process, I fail to see how Amberrock's recent contribution could be described as unhelpful. From an outside perspective it looks like Amberrock is wanting to work with you to see what concerns you still have and what can be done to address them. As far as I can tell Amberrock has "no skin in this game" in terms of using this review for a QpQ or to "help a friend" get a DYK through but is only acting out of a sincere and good faith desire to help the DYK process out. While it is fair to disagree with him on a particular point or interpretation of DYK criteria, etc when he offers his assistance to any review, I don't think essentially asking him to "butt out" is really called for. Again, DYK is a collaborative process that needs many different voices contributing. If everyone is working in good faith and with good intentions there is never a reason to "shush" them. AgneCheese/Wine05:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Solomon Ferris some time ago. It was reviewed by User:Bruzaholm, who doesn't seem to have reviewed before, and though he ticked everything off, he didn't use one of the templates, nor did he respond to a reply to a query of his. It's now been a long long time, and this user edits only sporadically. Given that he seems to have passed everything, just not used one of the approved tick templates, can this be closed now and promoted, or does someone else want to give it a review? Benea (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Next three prep areas need to pull from May 3 special holding areas
All the prep areas are currently full, but the next three that open up will all need to be built drawing heavily from the May 3 special holding areas, where there are 11 approved hooks that should be promoted into one or the other of them. The three special occasions are:
100 Years of Indian Cinema (6 hooks): the first two prep areas will run during the day in India; the third starts at 9:30pm local time and runs into May 4.
World Press Freedom Day (4 hooks)
Anniversary of Mariano Rivera's injury (1 hook)
In addition, there's one hook for the following day, May 4: FA Vase Final. (UK morning slot is suggested, 0900 London time.)
Prep set builders, please keep your eye out! You'll need to put four of these hooks into two of these prep sets and three into the other. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Take in mind: this starts with Queue 3. The other queues for the holding area hooks will open up later today.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK)15:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Although I'm not really a DYK admin, I saw this, and since it looks like that hook is going live on the MP in less than a day, I've simply excised the Bieber portion of the hook from Prep Area 2. If anyone wants to tweak it, feel free. And, not to jump on any bandwagons here, it is disturbing how easily that little factoid got thru to begin with. Thanks for catching that, MC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The editor who inserted the untrue fact, User:TonyTheTiger, has "archived" my talk page message and doesn't appear to want to respond. So my advice would be that people checking his hooks in the future take extra care in verifying that they are true. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I should like to nominate a number of articles created by participants, about works in the Gallery's collections, related artists, their work, and so on.
Andy, you're certainly welcome to nominate, and we always love to get new and interesting articles submitted to DYK, but the qualification criteria limit which ones are likely to qualify. DYK has a newness requirement: articles must be nominated within five days of creation, or within five days of a 5x prose expansion. Oscar Wilde's tomb and Sorrow, having just been started today, can be nominated now or within the next five days: both have well over the minimum 1500 prose characters, and if there are any other issues the reviewer will work with you to get them addressed. The other four were all started around April 21, which means they're about six days too old to qualify as new, and have to qualify under the 5x expansion rule. Both Leo Fitzmaurice and Jochem Hendricks have around 660 prose characters now, which would mean expansions to over 3300 prose characters. Sally Ryan will require a huge expansion, to about 5450 prose characters, and the Garman Ryan looks to be prohibitive, since it's at 3112 now and would require an additional 12K+ prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Business tourism (3.6 B) is a "new", well-referenced article. However, a 2.7 B Business travel, a synonym of Business tourism, already exists. A merge would not be "5x expansion" of the old article; may be a 2x (which only applies to BLPs that were completely unreferenced before expansion). If Business travel - with 2 references - is ignored, it is a new article and pass; else a fail. Thoughts? --RedtigerxyzTalk18:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, this smells an awful lot like gaming the system. I would therefore prefer to see these articles merged. We can't allow two seperate articles on the same topic for the sake of passing through DYK. If merging means the x5 expansion is missed, so be it. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK)20:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
that most residents of Gainesville, Florida, are unaware that the once-beloved recreation area Glen Springs exists within the city limits
The sources seem to be promotional material, and make the illogical leap from 'Only the members of a club and those availing of occasional permission for anglers to visit use the facility' to 'more than 50% of the population are unaware of its existence.' A statistical claim with no statistical basis. Only a tiny %age of the people in my town use the indoor bowling club, but they drive past the signpost, they see occasional mentions in the local paper, etc. Glen Springs was apparently very popular as a public place until 1970: is there no verbal local history? There is no sign at the spring, which is in a wooded area behind a six-foot wall. The only people who have any memory of it are 50+ years old and lifelong residents. Glen Springs was never integrated, so non-white residents were never permitted entry. Gainesville is a very transient town due to the University. People move to Gainesville, get an education, then move on after four years. It was discussed in a local newspaper article in 2003, but evoked no public outcry.
It is mentioned on the Gainesville entry in Wikipedia: has no-one read it? The Wikipedia article was created April 23, 2012, less than a week ago.
It is referenced in a song by a very successful local musician: do the people of Gainesville never discuss a song about Gainsville by one of the town's most famous sons? That song was never a popular hit and was only included on one album.
There is a Glen Springs Road, Glen Springs Church, Glen Springs School, Glen Springs apartment complex. There WAS a Glen Springs Road before the city went to standardized addresses. It became northwest 23rd avenue. All the entities on your list were named over 50 years ago, when the spring was still in use.
Your statistical logic sounds reasonable, but does not stand up to scrutiny.: So where is the data for the statistical survey? It remains no more than a vague "what a shame we don't have a higher profile" comment on promotional primary source. The burden of statistical proof lies with those wishing to make a statistical claim. Kevin McE (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
That may be my wording, but I'm only the messenger here. You can discuss this with the reviewer(s) who raised the issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Why was this promoted again without formal approval from any reviewer or indeed any comment at all? Is there something I missed, or should this be removed for a second time pending an actual discussion? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I made the final change to the hook on May 1. No one took any action on it, so on May 2 I requested that User:Kevin McE approve the change, since he originally objected to the hook. He has not responded, so on May 3 I will request that User:BlueMoonset approve the change, since he objected to the word, "beloved". Mgrē@sŏn12:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Kevin McE's hasn't edited for under 72 hours; I think we can afford to wait another couple of days for him to return and comment. The word "beloved" was dealt with, but I don't know that his issues have been. Something that struck me reading the article is that the flow of the spring is greatly reduced nowadays: might that make an interesting hook that doesn't depend on a word like "many"? (The article also claims that local folks know about it and have since 1854.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
"Many" is speculative and unsourced. Is 100 people many? 1000? If there is nothing more worthwhile to be said about the place than that un unresearched number of people don't know it is there, it probably doesn't merit an article. But looking at the article, there is clearly more that could be said. Kevin McE (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Television was not created by a linguist. ...introduced the fictional tongue of High Valyrian, which was created by a linguist, on television?Kevin McE (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
You do raise an excellent point, but I'm hesitant to change it due to the fact that I'm the submitter of that hook.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK)20:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that though Sant Tukaram (film) appeared on main page at 00:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC) [time of DYK credit]. "Recent additions" says it appeared at "08:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)". Can someone please fix it. --RedtigerxyzTalk10:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I always thought they were listed as the times they are taken off the main page and put into Recent Additions. It certainly seemed that way when I checked out the April Fool's DYKs.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds16:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the expansion is not great enough for DYK. Since the article is no longer new, it is required to be expanded by X5 in the last five days. It is now 11kB of readable prose. At 14:05 on 30 April it was 4786B. This is just over X2 expansion, not enough to count as new, see Wikipedia:Did you know#New. SpinningSpark13:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why you chose that revision as the beginning of expansion. If you look at the third edit before that, done about three and a half hours earlier, the prose size is 2173 characters. It's currently 11141 characters, so the expansion is greater than five times, and is perfectly fine. Gerda, since the other nomination was closed due to the no-longer relevant issue of expansion, I'd say to just start a new subpage; the name of the subpage doesn't matter, so use whatever name you want. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I chose it because it was the nearest edit to 5 days back at the time. But you have a good point, I had not realised the nearest qualifying edit was so close to the borderline. SpinningSpark00:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the oldest nomination listed is from March 3. Despite repeated calls, a reviewer who identied BLP issues with the subject has abandoned the nomination. It's been in need of a new reviewer for some time now, as there are several {{DYK?again}} templates listed. So far, however, nobody has responded to them. I'm unable to find these BLP issues myself, but perhaps someone else is. This nomination is from March 3; over two months ago. It's about time it's wrapped up. Can somebody please lend a hand?—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK)15:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Number error in Queue 3
One of the hooks in the present Queue 3 says: "... that a guard rail around the Vlah Church is made of 1,897 captured Ottoman rifle barrels?". However, according to the article this is incorrect. The guard rail was built in 1897, using 1,550 captured rifles. This needs to be mended. Manxruler (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Need additional input on Duchess Marie of Württemberg in regards to two unreferenced paragraphs. This article is a translation from the German Wikipedia, and the nominator who did much of the translation does not know how to proceed. Neither do I. — Maile (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Magnus Stamnestrø plays, and played in the match in question, for Sogndal. Molde had the worst start to a season for a defending champion. While he is on loan at Sogndal, Sogndal is his club. And even apart from that misunderstanding, a "season opener" would be the first game of a season, and is different from the "start to a season". Kevin McE (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware that "season opener" is the first game of a season, so I guess I messed that up. Would it be better to add "while loaned out to Sogndall" after his name in the hook? Given the bad grammar, would it be better with something like: that Magnus Stamnestrø scored the match-winning goal against his own club Molde, when he spent time on loan with Sogndal? Mentoz86 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
But regardless of what is true and makes sense, the other version appeared on the Main Page anyway. If there is no meaningful review system, DYK does not deserve Main Page space. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, I could have fixed it if you had provided an alternative wording. Just pointing out the problem doesn't exactly help when the solution is not obvious. Chamal's sockSockMaster•C08:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Mentoz commented more than eight hours after I asked for clarification; it didn't make any difference since I was asleep by then. Another admin could have fixed it, but apparently another admin didn't come across it. What I'm saying is it would be helpful if you could provide a solution when you point out a problem, because the solution may not always be as obvious as you think. Chamal's sockSockMaster•C08:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
And no-one would suggest that you are personally culpable. The process is culpable, and the posting of items from queue to main page without looking to see if there are unresolved issues (or, as in this case, resolved but not yet updated issues) is reprehensible.
Where I can see a clear solution, I do propose it. If I believe that the faults are so key to the hook, I can only raise the issue and trust that those with the authority to do so halt the promotion to the main page until the issue is resolved. Such trust is evidently ill-founded. Kevin McE (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
But tell you what, guys, let's just post meaningless crap to the Main Page without even considering or acknowledging well meaning attempts to apply some sort of control of standards. Kevin McE (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Please don't resort to sarcasm. Personally, I didn't think it was "meaningless crap" but quite an interesting hook which would surely raise some interest. Of course this is DYK; we go the extra mile to lure people in.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK)07:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Well at least sarcasm drew some response. The hook has drawn objection at WT:MP, and it relies on a claim that is at best, a radical departure from the meaning of the phrase as normally used. If problems with a hook have been highlighted, that hook should not proceed to the main page without some attempt to address that issue. I have tried threads about responsiveness, I have tried raising the matter at WT:MP, I have frequently raised the issue at WP:ERRORS, I have experienced this morning two further cases of the blatant failure to address or acknowledge issues raised here before posting to the main page.
Corpses are not people: internment of corpses in the same place does not mean that those people spent time together. Encyclopaedias should not peddle untruths as a way of increasing readership, and anyone who thinks they should would be better employed spending their time at Uncyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
But the truth wasn't peddled. Those bodies were actually there during described times. What readers, upon reading the hook, expected beyond that is another matter entirely. DYK is too short anyway to list all relevant matters to the topic in any given case, because of its 200 word limit.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK)08:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely right the truth wasn't peddled: this is lie-peddling. The bodies, as you say, were there. Bodies are not people, and given that time is not a scarce resource for a corpse, the time of those bodies was not spent.
You are overreacting. The expression "get a life" comes to mind, frankly. There are more important things to worry about than a bit of clever wording in a DYK hook. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Intriguing that this comes from the editor the C of E selects to be a third party in a dispute with me below.
Either we take care over what appears on the Main Page of Wikipedia, or we do not. Please provide your reason for thinking that we should not be careful to present what is true. Kevin McE (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a harmless enough play on words. The essential fact is still conveyed accurately - that the two corpses were for a period in proximity - but it is expressed in an artful way that I think helps to make it a more interesting fact. Like I said, there's no need to get worked up about it. Prioryman (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, snark is sometimes necessary to point out when a person is getting worked up about trivia. Kevin is being hyper-pedantic and I'm sure I'm not the only person wishing he would find something more useful to do. Prioryman (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Tony, I removed the section because a nomination is not supposed to go into the special holding area until it has been approved. (It says so very clearly in its intro.) You had placed two unreviewed hooks for a June 10 date and nothing else. Hooks are supposed to be listed under their creation/expansion start date for review. Once one of the hooks has been approved, the section can start, and the nominations can note (as those two do) that they should be promoted at that time. However, as it appears you're planning on having an all-Tony-Award DYK section run in the June 10 at 00:00 UTC time slot, I think that requires a consensus here: even when the Olympics were going full throttle, we didn't post more than three Olympic hooks in any one set. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Established facts that are unlikely to change
I have seen some hooks lately where the hook-fact is something that will happen. The DYK-rules says that "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness." Is it okey to have hooks about things that will happen in the future, also when it means that after the event the hook-fact is no longer valid? I know there has been several hooks like this, but I'm currently in a discussion with User:The C of E at Template:Did you know nominations/2013 FA Cup Final, as the proposed hook is something that isn't true anymore after the final is played. Even if the hook will feature on the main page before the final, is this a hook that pass that particular DYK-rule? A third opinion is requested to join the discussion. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Consensus seems to have been reached on a rephrasing. As to the less specific, I would suggest that just because there is an expression of established facts expressed in a tense that will inevitably change that does not mean that we lack established facts that are unlikely to change.
By the standard attempted here, hooks could never say that anything is a record, that anyone is in a current employment, that any release is recent... Kevin McE (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Should some reminder to check whether there are unresolved issues at WT:DYK not be part of this set of instructions? Or is it officially intended that this page be ignored? Kevin McE (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not see Prep 1 anywhere on this page (it was queue six when it went up). Agree that statements to such an effect may be useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/ Mycale laevis, Porites astreoides
I regret that a space seems to have slipped into the template for the two article hook that I have just nominated for May 4th. This means that any potential reviewer will find an empty page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Although we're generally not supposed to move templates, this is one I consider an exception because you can't review them when clicking on "Review or comment" link. I've moved Cwmhiraeth's, and modified its entry on the T:TDYK page; it now functions as it ought. I'm about to do the same with the Japanese cruiser Ibuki page as well. Article renames should not involve template renames, but this problem with the template creation that affects people being able to edit templates that they can otherwise see, so a move is necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Offspring refers to first generation progeny of individuals: plant variants are hybrids or (per the article) crossings, not offspring. Kevin McE (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hollywoodism conference
Mike Gravel was at one edition of that annual event, and that is now a past event.
... that attendees of the 2013 International Conference on Hollywoodism, held by the government of Iran in Tehran, included a former U.S. senator and presidential candidate? Kevin McE (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
that design is no longer proposed: unpunctuated adjectival phrase at end of question reads awkwardly.
Suggest
... that one proposal of a skyscraper for the Yongsan Dreamhub in Korea was rejected because its design was reminiscent of the 9/11 events? Kevin McE (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Just an FYI, but in ampelography, the progeny of grape varieties are called offspring which is the terminology that the reliable sources cited in the article (namely Wine Grapes) use. It is rather common terminology for describing genetic relationships among wine grapes and can be found in a number of other reliable sources [9][10][11][12][13][14][15], etc AgneCheese/Wine01:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed my first DYK nomination and suggested that a sub-article be made to make the relevance of the hook clearer. That sub-article has now been created and has been added to the first DYK nomination, so this may be a double DYK. But what about the hook in such cases? Must the hook have two catchy points with different references in the two articles for both articles to qualify as DYK articles? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
In general, a dual hook provides just one hook fact, but is linked to two articles. The hook fact need not be stated in both articles (although it's better if it can be found in both of them), but the fact needs to be in at least one article and (of course) it needs to be adequately sourced.
This particular nomination is not ready to be approved until the nominator needs to do a second QPQ review. --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Seems like the nominator is aware he needs to make another QPQ review. (Somewhat unfortunate that I couldn't for him, as my reiview and suggestion created much extra work). I think I will include the point in the hook in the second article as well and we may tweak it slightly. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you figured it out, but in a two-article hook both articles should be reviewed to check that they pass the DYK-rules. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should remove the hook count from the relevant pages for the time being (or blank and lock the hook count page)? Frankly, considering the way it currently looks, we're better off without it. I have got fulll faith in Shubinator's ability to fix the bot, but as we don't know how long it will take him, we may desire an interim solution.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK)21:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
... that Syair Abdul Muluk was either authored by Raja Ali Haji or his sister?
There is no doubt that it was authored. Suggest ... that Syair Abdul Muluk was authored by either Raja Ali Haji or his sister?Kevin McE (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
... that having unmarried adult daughters at home was seen as such a "shame and danger" in Renaissance Northern Italy that a dowry fund was created to help marry them off?
That quote is cited in the article as the reason for a law limiting the size of dowries, not the motivation for creating the fund. Pull and formulate a hook that does not simply push together two unrelated elements of the article with an unsustainable claim of causality. Kevin McE (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Queue 2 Inclosure Act and gratuitous reference to excrement
It is difficult to see this as anything more than an article presented in such a way as to engineer a puerile reference to excrement. Out of thousands of packets of land removed from public access across Great Britain, the one example cited just happens to refer to a tiny insignificant stream called Shit Brook. One ought to assume good faith, but sometimes it is difficult...
But even if that were not manipulative, the claim is not supported by the source. The source states that a road, Sytche Lane, which it is speculated might have eventually connected with the 'Shit Brook' "close to St Milburga's". And that this was under 1775 restrictions, not 1773.
I disagree that it should be pulled because of it's name. Sometimes you can't help that something might have a rude name. Should we have not allowed Fucking Hell to have been on DYK because of the name? Regardless the 1775 restrictions came as a result of the 1773 Act. Also if you check the Shit Brook page, you will see an evolution of the name into what it is today. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)20:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It should be pulled because the cited source says that Sytche Lane was closed, not Shit Brook. The source says that it is probable that Sytche Lane links with Shit Brook, not that they are the same thing, and not that the connection is certain.
It cannot be helped that some places have a rude name: it can be helped if the only example selected is such a place, and it is reprehensible if the name is the only reason it was selected. Source says 1775 Act.
Not relevant to the current discussion, but since you raised it; we should not have been in any more of a hurry to place that particular German beer on the Main Page than any other product of similar sales volume. How many other German beers have you found yourself unable to resist creating articles for? (Anticipating that the answer is none:) Are you going to claim that this is unrelated to the effect of the name on readers? (Anticipating that you will not:) Are you going to deny that this is gratuitously searching out of offensive terms? Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I will point the honourable gentleman towards WP:NOTCENSORED. I think the fact that an independent archeological survey (what I would consider as an RS) has made that connection and that there is nothing to suggest that it is incorrect, it is fair to say that it is what it is pertained to be until there is a source to the contrary saying they definitely are not connected. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say that we should be censored: I said that undue emphasis should not be given to that which is of such puerile attraction. If you believe that a shift in emphasis is proper for an encyclopaedia, please refer to the relevant policy.
The survey said that it is probable that they were connected, not that the closed road was Shit Brook.
I think it is clear that your defence of the proposed text is based primarily on the desire to see language that some people will be offended by on the Main Page. If you wish to make it clear that this is not the case, I invite you to put this DYK item on hold until an alternative example is found. If my assumption is correct, then I would argue that the desire to shock is not grounds for making the leap from "A was probably connected to B" to "A is B and may be referred to by name B". Kevin McE (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, NOTCENSORED. If we're going to now have some new rule that says nothing offensive, I will point you towards Pussy on the front page at the moment and ask if that is objectionable because of the double-entendre? I would feel much more comfortable hearing a third opinion on this however I fail to see the need to ask for a hook that has been checked by an independent Wikipedia editor and by an admin to be pulled just because one person does not like the wording of a geographical location included in it. I would also ask that we refrain from making any further edits to it as we're both close to the 3RR threshold on it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)21:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be confused between an acceptance that the offensive should not be banned, and sufficient discretion to avoid deliberately seeking to cause offence. Wikipedia should not look as though its priorities are set by 9 year old boys sniggering over a dictionary. And the hook on that drink did not deliberately choose one name for the drink from among untold possible examples, and did not stretch the facts as presented in the source to allow inclusion of the contentious term. Kevin McE (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how it is deliberately looking to cause offence just because it happens to have a name with a swear in it. If it was a swear unlinked and on its own without justification I could understand but not when it is integral to the hook. I have asked Prioryman for a 3rd opinion on this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)21:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
"Just because it happens to" ?? Do you really expect me, or any other reader, to believe that this example "just happens to" include language of such a tone? Especially given your role in the German beer example above. Incidentally, what encyclopaedic motivation lead you to choose this example from all the roads that were closed? Kevin McE (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a difference between refusing to omit controversial encyclopedic content in order not to offend, and intentionally trying to use controversial content in order to drive views to a specific page. The former is what WP:NOTCENSORED is about, and is at the heart of the Encyclopedia; the latter is hiding behind WP:NOTCENSORED, and does not benefit the Encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This one I do have slightly mixed feelings about. I don't buy the NOTCENSORED arguments and I think Kevin is overreacting as usual, but I have to say the reference to Shit Brook in the article looks a bit forced: "This often meant that traffic eventually stopped going along certain routes such as the culverted path next to Shit Brook in Much Wenlock." Is there anything that makes Shit Brook a particularly notable example? Why is Shit Brook being picked out in particular, as opposed to (presumably) many other routes in the same circumstances? Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Prioryman; while the expletives in Fucking Hell are unavoidable because that is the name of the beer, the connection of the enclosure act with Shit Brook is a bit gratuitous. Also, the article only just clears the 1500 character threshold despite some bloat. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
And yet, once again, it is allowed to appear on the Main Page. This process is clearly not fit for purpose. Kevin McE (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I have passed several of The C of E's nominations before, and have disagreed with (and insulted) Kevin McE previously, but I have to agree with Kevin that too often things are getting on the main page without consensus over content. Is this a new development with DYK, or is it a recent thing? Hillbillyholidaytalk06:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if it's a case of people saying "oh, it's just Kevin again" and doing the tl;dr thing. I do think he could be more effective if he kept his powder dry to focus on more significant issues. I don't consider this DYK hook to be one of them - nobody's disputing that the hook is accurate, the only question is whether it's "childish", as someone said above. Like it or not, puerility is not a criterion for rejecting a DYK hook. If you think that's wrong, then there's nothing stopping you from trying to get consensus for changing the criteria. Prioryman (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If you think no-one was disputing the accuracy of the hook, you obviously haven't read the discussion. The source talks about a 1775 (not 1773) Act and the closure of Sytche Lane, which might or might not have connected with Shit Brook, not Shit Brook itself. Kevin McE (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I haven't got the slightest issue with puerility, I still fondly remember looking up rude words in the dictionary (and still do for that matter) and my hooklines have had not-so-sly references to homosexual "cruising", a grandmother with big testicles, and "doggers". The issue for me is one of haste. What's the rush when there's disagreement? Hillbillyholidaytalk07:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The only other concern I see from Espresso Addict is that it "just clears the 1500 character threshold". Did I miss something else? Clearly that concern isn't actionable; since it does clear the threshold there surely isn't a problem with its length. Prioryman (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree completely, silly and petty. I proposed extending it to 10 days a while back and I believe there was no consensus. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld17:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me put the final nail in the coffin: five days is five days. This limit may be - in some cases - extended with a few hours. But that's where the leniency ends. Is this unfair? No, the rules are abundantly clear on this matter. But don't let all of this bring you down: there's no age limit on Good Articles: try and submit it there! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK)17:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
"Consensus is calculated by counting the votes on either side of the debate, remembering that each vote cast by an editor with whom you are on good terms should be counted at least twice." — Entry for consensus at Wikispeak. — Hillbillyholidaytalk18:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I think it has been extended a little in the past and is not *that* strict, it has been the case that if there is not a backlog then slightly older articles have been allowed - the so-called "Swahili rule".--GilderienChat|List of good deeds21:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Interesting responses! What no-one has done is to give a reason for the rule being there in the first place. When an article is new, does it matter when it was moved from sandobox to article space? Petergans (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe it is simply to reduce the number of eligible articles to a (nearly) manageable flow. If any article created within the past three months were eligible, the system (such as it is) would be overwhelmed. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
That's understandable, but it begs the question as to what "created" means. The strict interpreation, echoed above, is that the article is created when it is transferred from sandbox to article space. The effect of this is to limit the possibilities of creating articles for DYK that involve collaboration to editors who know of each other and are working in a "private" space such as somone's sandbox, contrary to the spirit of openness which is such a great feature of WP. If one compares the "created" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vibronic_spectroscopy&oldid=535840474) with the "finished one" (Vibronic spectroscopy) the improvement is obvious. All good rules are open to exception and this is a case that I would hope could be treated as such. I've had 20-odd articles accepted for DYK and have never been in this situation before. Petergans (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There's no reason why two editors should not collaborate (by agreement) in one person's sandbox, and wikiprojects can always create collaborative sandboxes for this sort of work. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. Let me make a positive suggestion. A submission to DYK could contain a checklist (a kind of self-assessment) to be filled in by the submitter, which would make it easier for others to assess eligibility and could help to reduce the backlog. It could also include something that is missing from the current process, namely, a statement of importance or relevance to justify inclusion in DYK; the need to include such a statement might dramatically reduce the number of "trivial" submissions. The hook criterion is not effective in this sense. Petergans (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd love to improve the quality of DYK, but -- historically -- there's been little agreement on what is important or interesting, and the nominator might well be the least-competent judge, as few editors bother to write/expand articles they personally find dull. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
A simple way round this is to require the nominator to elaborate on both a) the specialist and b) the wider audiences that would be attracted to view the nomination. For example, vibronic spectroscopy will be of interest to a) spectroscopists and b)chemists and physicists. Petergans (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a notice, the hook I approved in my review was ALT 2, which is slightly different from the original. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
And how on earth did that get approved? In the space of a short hook, it has a missing article, a wrong link, poor translation, random capitalisation, and an indefinite article attached to proper noun. People really ought to be called to account for such sloppy checking. How can this possibly be considered a process adequate for Main Page prominence. Kevin McE (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
You're right. I am very sorry. I should definetely have checked more thoroughly. Part of the problem may also be that English is not my first language and I don't master the nuances of the language. The articles I have reviewed have all been on Scandinavian topics with Scandinavian sources, where I can more easily check sources/facts that ordinary English speakers - but I am less capable of detecting linguistic errors. - Thank you for fixing. Iselilja (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I nominated an article to DYK on Monday, but only belatedly realised I had failed to add it to the queue - thankfully I managed to get it in today on the last day before the 5 day limit expired. Obviously this is my fault as I failed to read the instructions fully but looking down the list it seems one or two others suffered the same fate and it may be that the procedure is not obvious enough. These days most nominations are processed by bots, and I was just wondering if, once created, a bot could not just add the nom to the queue automatically? If this is not possible, then at the very least there should be a clear instruction from the nomination page itself, or preferably a "link" to add to queue, so that things don't get missed. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to Template:Did you know nominations/Kigali City Tower? What the reviewer looks at is the line on the nomination template that says "Created by Amakuru (talk). Self nominated at 18:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)", which was generated when you created the nomination template. I don't think being late on adding it to the queue is that relevant, as long as the nomination template was created within the accepted time frame. — Maile (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the bot should be re-enabled so that it can take care of the untranscluded notifications. As for the hook count, I think a badly-formatted but correct hook count is better than a well-formatted one with obsolete data. Or if people are too disturbed by the formatting, it can be removed from the Queue page until it's fixed, but interested parties could still consult it for current data. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM18:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Could someone help me by putting up a DYK nom for this subject (currently they are covered in a single article). It seems like a very interesting subject, could stand a lot of improvement, and I would like to see it get the attention it needs and deserves to bring it up to snuff. The "further reading" section at the bottom provides a couple sources that could be used to flesh it out and expand it further. There appear to be some negative aspects to the subject as well as the good.. I have no objection to splitting Esther off into her own article. She is certainly notable in her own right. Thanks for any and all assistance. Take care and have a nice day/ night. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Done Here and here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. Fabulous article! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I hope you guys will enjoy them! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 18:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
. 1.5 months each is not that bad... Indonesian films are at a much higher rate, maybe once every week or so.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)