Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 74

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76→Archive 80

Cratochelone

By definition, an extinct animal is not be be found, in Australia or anywhere else. Kevin McE (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

May I ask what definition you are referring to on this?--Kevmin § 20:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess the 'found' in the hook '... that at an estimated 4 metres (13 ft), Cratochelone is the largest of the three extinct protostegid sea turtles found in Australia'. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I was more wondering what definition makes it so an extinct taxon is not to be "found" anywhere.--Kevmin § 21:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the hook means that fossils are found in Australia. Similarly a recent BBC article about a fossil says, "The rhino was found in Tibet's Zanda Basin."[1] Sharktopus talk 22:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that it should be obvious that it refers to the animal's remains. SL93 (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It's obvious to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
As the hook creator I can say that is what I meant, and will also note that the wording is very commonly used in research papers on extinct taxa.--Kevmin § 23:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Outside "research papers on extinct taxa", in the experience of the vast majority of our readers, to say that an animal is found somewhere mens that it exists, alive, in the wild: to say "Wolves are no longer found in Britain" does not mean that the fossil/skeletal record has been removed. Now on main page, so I'll raise it at WP:ERRORS. Kevin McE (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be with you, if it didn't say explicitly "extinct" for clarification. Repeating: it's obvious to me that they don't live any more, so their remains are found. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for another editor to take over reviewing James Underdown

When I nominated Liza Dalby I randomly chose a page to review: [2]. For various reasons I've decided it's better to pass this on to another reviewer. Can someone else please pick it up and finish and let me know? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Instructions for calculating fivefold expansion by hand

At this nomination I noticed some confusion about how fivefold expansion should be calculated. I was about to respond in my usual grumpy way, but then I noticed that the WP:DYK#DYK rules I was about to point to don't actually state this clearly either; they say "expanded fivefold within the past five days", from which you can infer that we mean expansion began within the past five days (rather than expansion ended within the past five days), but maybe it would help to make this more explicit.

What I ended up doing was making step-by-step instructions for calculating this, at User:Rjanag/Calculating fivefold expansion by hand. (I realize DYKcheck can do most of this work, but we probably shouldn't expect nominators to have to install DYKcheck just to nominate their articles.) I was thinking it could be linked from WP:DYK#DYK rules and/or Wikipedia:Did you know/Fivefold. But first I thought I could hear you guys' comments on 1) whether it's good (i.e., will these instructions lead to miscalculations in any circumstances), and 2) whether it's necessary (is there a simpler way to handle this just by rewording the rules). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I personally don't have an issue with the current wording of the rule, as I consider it clear enough. Perhaps rewording it beginning within the past five days would be even clearer. I don't think there could be any confusion with your in-depth explanation, but I feel that a rewording of the rules would be better. Your explanation could be used as a more indepth look, perhaps linked via the footnotes system. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Me neither. I don't think it's ambiguous. The "within" means take the date of nomination, go back 5 days, count from there. It would be counter-intuitive to expect 'expansion ending within the last 5 days' because that would mean potentially being able to string an expansion along indefinitely. Having said that, inserting 'beginning' is fine by me too. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for expansion

In the spirit of collaboration, I would like to make a couple suggestions that people may be interested in. List of death metal bands from Nordic countries is 110 characters of readable prose, with the list portion entirely cited. The deletion discussion turned up several sources which can be used and are English. Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused has several images that were not used because the articles the images are used in are stubs; they could theoretically be expanded easily. Hope this helps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone care to comment?

I am having trouble here - Template:Did you know nominations/The Rise of the Blue Beetle!. The citation area says that it isn't referenced when it is. The interest is listed as "Frankly, boring". The Length wasn't passed although it is 1,742 characters. Adequate citations wasn't passed because there are only four references. Formatted citations was passed, but it said that I didn't format it correctly like most editors. I referenced it using the template with only two things that I found not needed removed. SL93 (talk)

For others reading this, I'm the one who reviewed it. SL93 took great offense to my comments for some reason (possibly because of his openly-admitted Asperger syndrome), so I'd like to break down each of his complaints:
  1. "The citation area says that it isn't referenced when it is." – he (apparently) doesn't understand needing to put a citation right after the sentence in the proposed hook, which is what I was commenting on
  2. "The interest is listed as "Frankly, boring"." – others can make that judgment call, but it is my opinion that it is. Not sure why that issue was being raised here (?)
  3. "The Length wasn't passed although it is 1,742 characters." – I clearly stated that my DYK check wasn't working and needed another (non-nominator) editor to verify for me because the article appears to be borderline in length. I wasn't saying it wasn't long enough, I was saying before I approve it someone will need to let me know.
  4. "Adequate citations wasn't passed because there are only four references." – True. Not sure what to say here.
  5. "Formatted citations was passed, but it said that I didn't format it correctly like most editors." – I said most editors don't know how to format citations, but this one seemed decent enough so I let it pass. This was clearly misreading what I wrote. Anywho, off to be productive on Wikipedia. Toodles. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
"(possibly because of his openly-admitted Asperger syndrome)" Now that makes me mad, but I can get over it. Bad call when all people who have it are different even though you used probably. My Aspergers does not influence my editing and I even don't like that you brought it up in the first place. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Some of these kinds of issues can be avoided by DYK reviewers who play "fixer" sometimes, instead of just playing the role of critic. For example, if you find the source for the hook, but the source is not cited in the "right place" in the article, just add the citation where it's needed in the article. Not only does that avoid arguments, but it is generally easier to do that than it is to explain the problem to the nominator.
I've checked the length; it's OK.
"Adequate citations" is not normally determined by the number of footnotes, but rather by looking for at least one citation for each paragraph and checking to make sure that any extraordinary claims are supported by citations. "Adequacy" is largely a subjective evaluation.
DYK does not require a particular format for citations, but there should be no bare URL citations. Also, if the citation isn't complete, the reader should at least be able to identify "where you got it."
No comments on hook interest. (I'm not a good judge of this, as I wouldn't find any of these hooks very interesting...) --Orlady (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Jrcla2 didn't do anything wrong in the reviewing. It looks like the length issue is fixed; the hook issue is a judgment call, and you guys can either work together to come up with a better hook, or wait to see if other editors think the current one is acceptable; I disagree with Jrcla2 about the citations (I think the number of citations, while not perfect, is adequate for DYK purposes for an article this short), but that doesn't mean he's being abusive or anything.
On a side note, I will point out that putting comments inside the review template, as Jrcla2, is not the right way to do it according to the instructions, which say just to leave your short signature. But I've long since given up on the fantasy that anyone actually reads the instructions I carefully write, and anyway since this is technically just a "trial" of these templates I've decided I should be lenient with people filling them out however they please, at least until we have a consensus on what the "right" way should be. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Rule 3

DYK rule #3 currently states "Cited hook – The nominated hook must contain a fact cited in the article." Could it be made clearer, perhaps "Cited hook – Any facts mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article." I am asking as an editor is interpreting the current rule as requiring only one fact in the hook be cited. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Or, contra-wise, could we have confirmation that the rule means what it seems to mean - that a fact in the hook must be cited (i.e. but that the rule does not imply that all facts in the hook must be cited.) The pertinent discussion, as indicated by Crisco, is Template:Did you know nominations/Brizlee Tower. In that DYK nom, the fact that is not cited is that we can see one tower (a new article) from another tower (also a new article). The uncited fact is a means of getting both new articles into the single DYK. But there is also at least one other uncited fact in the DYK, which is the reference to the third 1st Duke of Nothumberland. I suggest it becomes increasingly difficult to put DYKs together if all facts need to be cited in the article, since some facts may, as in the case of the third in this DYK, be completely legitimate but unsupported by the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Crisco's suggested rewording is in line with what the rule is actually intended to mean. The fact(s) in the hook must be mentioned and cited within the respective article(s). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
To that I would only add the clarification that in the case of multinoms it is acceptable, though not ideal, to have the hook facts spread across more than one nominated article, because there may be occasions when it's not practical to include them all in one of the nominated articles. The main point is that the reader should be able to confirm the hook facts by reading the nominated article or articles. Gatoclass (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
All that being the case, I've amended rule 3. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Notes on the current review templates

Just a couple of notes on the current review templates that are in test mode:

I don't really see the point of the "interest" check. It is a very fickle concept that will vary much to widely based on the person/day/time/mood/hungerfactor/weather/etc... I am one of those who thinks that almost all hooks (but not all, note) are interesting to one group of people or another, even if it may not be interesting to me. As there is no way to create an objective rubric to gauge the relative "interest factor" of a particular hook I would suggest removing it as a checkbox in the template. If there is a serious problem with the hook it can be commented on.--Kevmin § 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the article template, the plagiarism section really should be renamed "no plagiarism" as the current wording looks like we are agreeing there is plagiarism in the article. --Kevmin § 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That at least has the virtue of honesty. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum please clarify the above statement.--Kevmin § 19:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Or else? Plagiarism in DYK is endemic, part of the culture. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh don't encourage him. Interest can be guaged very easily and objectively in retrospect by looking at the hits articles on DYK get. In that way experienced editors can build up a pretty good predictive facility. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
As someone who spends my time writing articles on extinct taxa mainly in the entomological and botanical realms I know that the groups of people who are going to be looking is small compared to many of the DYK noms. I dont think it is a good thing to compare the view stats of different topic groups as the audience sizes are not the same.--Kevmin § 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
DYK appears on the main page, and an attempt to estimate an article's general interest is therefore entirely appropriate. Clever hooks often manage to draw good viewing figures to the most obscure topics, not least in biology. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
But there's the nub. Is DYK about engaging readers, as its name would imply, or rewarding nominators? Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The point of "interest" is not to refuse good articles on scholarly topics but to encourage creators and reviewers to hunt for something true but non-obvious the hook can showcase. Sharktopus talk 20:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
For whose benefit? Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Creating interesting but non-deceptive hooks benefits readers (by engaging their interest in learning something new), article creators (by rewarding their work with readers' interest) and Wikipedia (by attracting some readers who go on to improve the article or otherwise engage with Wikipedia). But surely that question and this answer are both off-topic in a section for discussing the review template. Sharktopus talk 23:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Every question asked of you DYK warriors seems to be off-topic for one reason or another. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I like the new template and am very grateful to Rjanag for finally making it happen. I don't read labels xx as "I checked to ensure that xx is in the article" but as "I checked that the article complies with policy on xx." Presumably anybody doing a check for "plagiarism" would also be checking close paraphrase and copyvio at the same time. Sharktopus talk 20:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is what I had in mind, and is basically the same argument I made in the past when other editors were concerned about the wording. I was trying to keep the template from being too big, so I used abbreviated "label" names where possible. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think Kevmin is right to point out that interest is very subjective . . . and Main Page clickers can be hard to predict, as shown by the stats on my very varied DYKs. But checking for interest is not really about rating the hook as gobsmackingly fascinating; it's about rating it as not too terribly boring, and I think part of the reviewer's job is to point out if the article contains a better potential hook, which a second pair of eyes (and a non-expert one) is often good for. Of course, observations like that can't be fit into a template, but the template is really only a reminder and tally sheet. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    • We must have had an edit conflict when I was trying to express something similar up above. But Yngvadottir said it better than I did. Sharktopus talk 23:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Yngvadottir's comment is pretty much the same as what I told Kevmin when we discussed this at his talkpage. While interest is inherently subjective, there has for a long time been consensus at DYK that we should check hooks for it; "signing off" on hook interest doesn't mean "I think this hook is objectively interesting and no one will ever dispute that", it means "I think this hook is good enough to go on the main page; if anyone disagrees, speak up". The DYK rules also stipulate that hooks should be "interesting". Removing interestingness from whatever template or checklist or what-have-you would require a serious change of consensus about that issue first. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • A good feature of Tony1's review template was that each "label" wikilinked to a relevant policy page or explanation. Sharktopus talk 20:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I left those out on purpose because I was trying to avoid a sea of blue (both for aesthetic reasons and because in the past there has been a concern that more links on T:TDYK might increase load times, although I don't know if we ever found out once and for all if that's true). The template documentation pages, which are linked [I hope prominently] in the editnotice, contain explanations of what all these labels refer to. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I think links are needed because: (a) I spent time doing them on Tony's template and linking to the right sections is not easy; and (b) reviewers may be misunderstanding what they are meant to be reviewing, so a refresher is good. Alternatively, a single link to a page that briefly explains things and links to the relevant places would do as well. Certainly when I've reviewed DYKs, I can never quite remember things and I'm forever referring back to the relevant pages. I think DYK regulars forget sometimes that those who haven't done lots of these reviews don't remember or know what they are meant to be checking for. One good thing to add would be to make sure reviewers read through the whole article. I'm sure some reviewers have in the past just checked the hook and skimmed everything else. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing I dislike about the current template is the multiple repeated signatures when a single editor does all the reviewing. It makes little sense to do this, and it would be better to have a variant of the template that can be used when a single editor has or intends to sign off on everything. Compare this (easy to scan) with this, which is signature overload. Also, just ticking things off on a list doesn't give the submitter any feedback on the article. It should be a two-way discussion leading to article improvements, not a rubber-stamping exercise to meet minimal requirements. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the signature issue, yes, I opened numerous discussions regarding whether signatures should or should not be required and got very little feedback; the version you like (with checks rather than signatures) is the one I was pushing for as well, but the majority of editors kept saying they wanted signatures. (I think many of them didn't understand what the checklists were actually going to look like, so I hoped to just appease them with this trial and then hopefully once things were actually running they would understand why signatures are unnecessary.)
Regarding your other comment: this is really a criticism of the checklist issue as a whole rather than this particular version of it. For what it's worth, I have a similar opinion as you and, in the recent discussions of this, I have been suggesting doing away with a "check-it-off" template entirely (in favor of a clear list of review points in the edit notice, but not necessary a list of stuff actually in the edit window that must be checked off). I intend to formalize this proposal and open up some sort of discussion once this template thing has had a week or two to "trial". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Anna and Bernhard Blume

As announced above, I nominated Anna and Bernhard Blume in memory of him. The funeral is on 8 September. In the German WP that day is given without a ref as his birthday which may be true and would be like him. I wasn't close enough to know. - As said many times before, I go for DYK to make facts known, this one especially, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Joseph Baker (Queue 4)

The claim for the cause of his death has two sources cited: an enquiry on a genealogy forum, and an anonymous response on a football forum. No reason to believe that the source of the info has any more qualification than access to an e-mail account. There is evidently some breadth to the believe in this anecdote, but these are not reliable sources. Kevin McE (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Double nomination from August 17

Hi everyone, I was wondering if anybody could finish reviewing my double nomination from August 17. It is the oldest nomination on the page that has not been fully reviewed yet. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. There is one small query though. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

How would I go about doing this?

My nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Ehrlichia Wisconsin HM543746 was just reviewed, but the formatting of my hook is wrong and I don't know how to fix it. Only Ehrlichia is supposed to be in italics while the rest of it isn't. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Queue 2 - André Watson

Could someone modify the André Watson hook to include a reference to the Rugby World Cup (the next cup starts in the next couple of days)? If length is an issue, Currie Cup can be removed... Something like - ...that André Watson holds records for refereeing the greatest number of finals in the Rugby World Cup, Currie Cup and Super Rugby? Hack (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This is now on the main page on the opening day of the RWC, without the most important part of this guy's career. The fact is referenced, surely someone could edit the hook? Hack (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The power of the lede hook

This is NOT a complaint, and in no way is it any criticism on the compiler of the set of hooks.
Yesterday, my article on St. Lawrence's Church, Mereworth appeared on the main page as part of DYK, for which I'm grateful. Although there was a good image available, it was not chosen as the lead hook. That honour fell to Ophiocomina nigra, which got 4,400 views. Of the three linked articles in my hook, Charles Davis Lucas got 2,400 views (previous 30 day range 6-27 views), Victoria Cross got 1,500 views (previous 30 day range 738-1200 views) and the article on the church got a grand total of 435 views! A little disappointing, but it does go to show the power of the lede image. Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not entirely . . . on 21 August my Jan Buijs was lead DYK article with what I thought was a striking black and white image, but got "only" 2.2K hits (and 436 the next day). The linked article, Architecture of the night, got 5.8K (and 1.1K). I suspect they thought it was about red light districts '-) But I think that offers evidence of the role of reader interest. (Architecture of the night would have been good for DYK in itself except . . . it took too long to write and had no obvious hook anyway. So I'm similarly not grumbling, just noting that it's not simple.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I would have clicked "architecture of the night" too (because I don't know what that is, and it sounds more interesting than some guy). But in response to Mjroots' point, it's not unusual to get just a couple hundred hits (you can see a lot of mine got views like that), and I think we all already knew that the lede hook tends to get more hits than others. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Heck, I reviewed that biography and still clicked over to architecture of the night It depends on a lot of things, including the time of day, the mood of the viewers, the position of the hook, and the subject. Things of obvious encyclopedic value like lakes and islands tend to get at least a thousand hits, while biographies (unless phrased provocatively) may get only 300 or 250. Also depends on the name of the subject, which is why I try to avoid writing the Indonesian name in my hooks; people won't click what they see as gobbledygook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that an article about a Church is the most dull thing I can ever consider reading. — Joseph Fox 23:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Even when it's "the outstanding 18th-century church in Kent" and one of the 0.0005% 0.05% (1 in 2000) of all buildings in England listed as Grade I? Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Did you mean 0.05% or one in 200,000? Kevin McE (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Only 2% of all buildings in England and Wales are listed. Of those 2% that are listed, only 2.5% are Grade I listed. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
That would be 1 in 2000, or 0.05%. Kevin McE (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I always did hate expressing fractions as decimals. Now you know why. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I enjoy articles on churches, but draw the line at windmills. But each to his own, as we know. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
And what is wrong with windmill articles? Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK image checklist???

Shouldn't we have a checklist for the image or at least a parameter in the hook checklist? --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to keep the checklist as simple as possible by not including parameters for items that are not necessary 100% of the times. As images are only included in a minority of cases, I thought it would be best to let reviewers deal with that on their own. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Rule 5

It appears that the current QPQ rule (rule 5) does not indicate that one should review one article for each article nominated, including multiple reviews for multiple articles in one nomination. If nominators should indeed review with a 1:1 ratio, it should be noted in the rules. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Rule 5 rocks ... it made me get off my lazy arse and review where otherwise I would not have done; I very much doubt that amending the rule will lead to a drop in DYK noms, whereas it is likely to lead to faster reviewing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, regardless of whether it's formalized as a rule, common sense states that if you review other nominations then your own nomination will get reviewed faster (since there will be fewer others in line before it). That's why I always reviewed other noms long before QPQ became a rule. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a good idea. The QPQ requirement ought to be hook for hook, not article for article, which I think is how it is currently written, which insures that your hook doesn't add to the backlog. And article for article QPQ would imply that if you review one double hook, that covers 2 of your submissions, (or one triple hook review covers three submissions, etc.) which I didn't think was how it was supposed to work, and would add to the backlog. Rlendog (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it apparently needs to be made clear. I remember the issue coming up previously here and its then being stated that it was one review per hook. Interpretation seems to be swinging. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Numbers software (Q1)

No-one said this is "a page layout and presentation program disguised as a spreadsheet"; the article quotes someone as saying that it is "really a page layout & presentation app disguised as a spreadsheet app". As soon as we paraphrase, we lose the truth in the statement. If we are going to say that someone called it something, we should A) take care not to misquote them, and B) use speech marks to identify the quote. Kevin McE (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And a misquote was allowed Main Page profile for 8 hours... Kevin McE (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Responsiveness at WP:ERRORS is part of the problem, but it also got through the procedures here that should ensure that there is no need to flag it up at WP:ERRORS. Kevin McE (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed this one here. To be honest, I don't really see anything wrong with the hook. It's a paraphrase of the quote, but, as far as I can see, the meaning is preserved. Perhaps the quote should have been used in the hook. Obviously I'm missing something here. —Bruce1eetalk 14:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't see any justification for saying "it has been called a presentation program" when it was called a presentation app. Misquoting can't be the right thing to do. Kevin McE (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
As someone who doesn't know much about programing, what is the notable difference between a program and an app that should have been clarified?--Kevmin § 15:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Without wanting to enter into the substantive discussion, I don't entirely buy your "app in this context would be pretty much exclusively for Apple products". App has had a much broader meaning, as a commonely used diminuitive for application software, for far longer than the apple phone has been around. Apple might wish us to think they now own the word, but, really, they don't. Numbers is clearly an app in the sense I allude to. But I stress I have no opinion on whether or not the hook is sound. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
They do, and IIRC they sued Amazon for alleged use of an apple trademark over its use of the term "app store". Program is a general term. Application software is in contrast to operating system software, or to utilities. But that's enough digressing; I tend to agree with Kevin McE's original post; the changes made were unnecessary and misleading. Quotes should be accurate. It hasn't ben called what our DYK aleges it was called. It was in fact called something just slightly different. We shouldn't do Chinese whispers on wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
'app' long predates the iPhone as it's the file extension used for programs in [Mac] OS X, which live inside the 'Applications' folder (at least on English systems) so is the natural nickname for Mac programs, which are certainly not smaller than programs in general. So on the Mac platform 'app' and 'program' mean the same thing.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw this in ERRORS and deliberately did not act on it - "app" = "program" in this context, and using the word "app" in its place would confuse people not used to Apple's terminology. — Joseph Fox 00:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
But whether it amounts to the same thing is not the issue: once we paraphrase, the statement "X has been called Y" ceases to be true. William Blake did not call England a green and agreeable land, even if it is a synonym. Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Crab and anemone in Prep 3

Just a note to all interested editors. There was a bit of a traffic jam when two editors nominated two articles separately. PFHLai nominated the anemone first on the 6th. Rcej nominated the crab and anemone on the 9th, probably without knowing that PFHLai had nominated the shell. PFHLai then added the crab to his/her nomination on the 10th, probably without knowing that Rcej had already nominated it as such. In the interest of avoiding headaches, I have kept the double nom running but with PFHLai as the nominator for the anemone and Rcej as the nominator for the crab, as they were the first nominators respectively. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Good call, Crisco. Thanks. Actually, I knew about the duplicated double nom. I had meant to add a wikilink on my nom template to link up to the other nom template, but I forgot. --PFHLai (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how important this is, but may I suggest changing Template:Did you know nominations/Pagurus prideaux, Adamsia palliata to "promoted", please? The nominated articles have indeed reached the prep areas. --PFHLai (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems in Prep Area 2

First, the specific problem:

  • ... that Sophie of Isenburg married Prince Georg Friedrich in commemoration of the 950th anniversary of the founding of the House of Hohenzollern?

That is *not* what the source says at all.

Second, the general problem:

  • I thought that (part of) the idea of a subpage was so that everything was in one place making it easier to check that DYKs were properly reviewed. This hook has been moved to the prep area, but there are no subpages on the prep area. Where am I supposed to find the subpage to determine how this faulty hook was put forward? She did not marry to commemorate the event, and that wording is so strange that it stands out on a quick glance of prep, and I'm surprised it was missed. Why aren't the review subpages added to the prep area so that the admins putting them on the mainpage can easily doublecheck?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I found it:
but why should I (or any user) have to figure out how/where to find it and go looking for it? Why isn't it posted to prep so admins can easily review? Why should inexperienced users have to jump through the hoops to figure out how to find a page that experienced DYKers know exists? At any rate, I hope the hook will be fixed. That there was extra pomp and circumstance because of the 950th anniversary does not mean she decided to marry the fellow to commemorate an event, which is most strange wording (noting the tendency of late towards April Foolish DYK hooks, which is not a good one). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
General remark to help: I routinely place the nomination on the article's talk, until the DYK appeared. - If an author doesn't do that, "What links here?" is a good approach, if not too many pages link. Typically the nom appears as the very last entry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The nomination subpages were supposed to be linked from the prep areas automatically, but because of some changes a few weeks ago (regarding the way subpages are named) the part of the code that made that happen stopped working. I hadn't noticed it until now, so I just now fixed it. If you go to T:DYK/P2 now (or any other prep area) you should now see all or most of the nom credits include links to subpages. (There might not be links if it's a multi-nom or if the name of the article is misspelled in the title of the nom subpage; these cases are pretty rare, though, so I think it's not a huge concern; in those cases people can find the subpage on their own.) Anyone is welcome to add instructions regarding this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
(Addendum) And now links to the subpages should always appear from now on, even in the rare cases I mentioned above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks (I didn't understand any of Gerda Arendt's post, btw, but I 'spose it's now moot). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Gerda was saying that she adds a link to the subpage on the article's talk page when she nominates it at DYK and adds that, if no such link has been added, you can always use the "What links here" on the article to find the subpage (It seemed fairly clear to me anyway). Mikenorton (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Prep1

The following hook is somewhat clumsy:

Would the following be somewhat better?

Please note that the alternative hook omits that she is based in England. Schwede66 06:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Gardonyi (Prep 3)

Once we know that Zsolt Gárdonyi composed Mozart Changes, we know that no-one else composed it. That list of "no-one else"s includes his father, but also includes all other composers, living and dead, and indeed, everybody else one can think of, including Alexander of Macedonia and my local newsagent. While I understand the wish to distinguish between Zsolt and Zoltán as composers, it is probable that a tiny minority of main page readers are familiar with either of them, and so such confusion is not a major risk. Following one's father's profession is not remarkable in and of itself (both of my examples of "no-one else"s did likewise). If a link is to be drawn between the work of the Gárdonyis, pere et fils, then the relevant work to focus on is not one which the father had no more (verifiably) to do with than Alexander (who is more likely to be an ancestor of Gárdonyi than is my newsagent). Propose "... that Zsolt Gárdonyi, composer of Mozart Changes, edited his father's Three Motets?" Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • How about "plays his father's organ works in concert", showing that he is a concert organist, rather than editing, + "Three Motets" is a rather insignificant title? Feel free to word it, I will also think about it. I don't think he has to follow his father on the spot, might appear some other day. You could use the Bach cantata instead, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There is only one (hopefully until later today), BWV 137, the reviewer is satisfied after a long discussion but didn't provide a green tick, just filled the last missing position in the review template. I am not sure about the ever changing rules, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Prep 2 lead

  • ... that the Prussian Homage (fragment pictured), by the Polish painter Jan Matejko, will be displayed to the public in Berlin from 23 September 2011 to 9 January 2012?

is a dull advert. Any chance for something more interesting? Materialscientist (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Prep3 tail hook

... that the unmoving Michael Jordan wore the jersey of ice hockey player Jonathan Toews? This might be just me. To me, "wore" means regular action, and thus I would add "once" or alike. More concerning is "the unmoving Michael Jordan", which is a 1 April style wording (for a statue). Materialscientist (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Lancaster Carriage and Wagon Works (Q2)

Rather like the recent Ryan Lavarnway situation, the article appears here to have chosen an obscure and often misinterpreted word (aliens in this case) rather than the more informative (and therefore encyclopaedic) alternative (foreign prisoners) primarily for the purpose of enabling a hook. The usefulness of article content should not be secondary to catchy phrasing on the main page. Kevin McE (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Aliens are foreign by definition. The hook was suggested because the lack of context in the sentence would make it intriguing, something like a "hook" if you will. In the article the meaning of alien is perfectly clear and using it is substantially more informative than using "foreign prisoners" would be. Yomanganitalk 23:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I have a feeling that after a few popular movies, "alien" is regarded as a representative of extraterrestrial life. In some countries it is still a (the) major term for "foreigner" (at least in official use), from planet Earth :-). Materialscientist (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
In modern UK English, it is almost unknown to use alien to meanforeign, and Lancaster is in the UK. I would contend that most readers of the article (and the point here is its inclusion in the article to allow the hook, not the extraction of the hook from the article had the use in the article been "natural") will think "well they can't mean extraterrestrials, so it must mean foreigners" rather than intuitively applying the intended meaning in the first instance. We shouldn't leave our readers needing to do that, and certainly not for the motive of a corny DYK entry for a few hours. Kevin McE (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I was going to agree with you, but when I read the hook it was fine. "enemy alien" is a term that was commonly used in World War I and World War II relating to internment of foreign nationals living and working in the UK or the imperial dominions. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It would be nice to link to an article on that, but there isn't one yet. Have a look at this and this if you want to know more about this. Direct quotes from those sources:

"The Isle of Man was used by the British Government for the internment of enemy aliens during both World War One and World War Two" [...] "After Great Britain entered the First World War in August 1914, the government of Canada issued an Order in Council under the War Measures Act. It required the registration and in certain cases the internment of aliens of "enemy nationality". This included the more than 80,000 Canadians who were formerly citizens of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. These individuals had to register as "enemy aliens" and report to local authorities on a regular basis."

In other words, the term 'enemy alien' is an encyclopedic term and is being used absolutely correctly here. The hook should have used the original wording, though I think it has now been and gone from the main page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • And for the final word on this, it would have been simplicity itself to link to enemy alien. Goodness only knows why this ended up as an argument over whether to be quirky or not or trying to rephrase 'enemy alien' as 'foreign prisoner' when the solution was right there all along: link our readers to the article on the topic. I don't want to be too harsh here, but please, please, don't overlook the obvious next time. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Norbert (1984)

This Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Norbert (1984) looks strange. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Third hook in Queue 5 is missing the question mark

Please correct. Queue 5 is next to go. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Already done. Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Liesl not Leisl

I'm pretty confident about my moving Leisl Tesch to Liesl Tesch; see Talk:Liesl Tesch. I'm less confident about what this does. Art LaPella (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That was the right thing to do; it'll make sure the right talkpage gets tagged and that the credits given to the author and nominator have the name spelled correctly. The only other thing it did is make the link to the nom subpage disappear; if anyone is really concerned about that, they can fix it for this one by adding |subpage=Leisl Tesch in the {DYKmake} template, although I don't think it's really necessary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification required

With all the recent changes can someone confirm that a Stub Class article is not suitable for DYK? I am reviewing the Sioux City Public Museum and while it just long enough in size I would class it as a Stub. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK articles need to be 1,500 characters or more and it is above that. SL93 (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the class=stub, s template, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, Sioux City Public Museum is clearly not a stub. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
How did you come by the decision that its clearly NOT a Stub. Quote A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which — though providing some useful information — is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and which is capable of expansion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rjanag and Gerda. It is a start class article. While obviously it could use some expansion, it has over a dozen sentences of text and references that provide an adequate start for encyclopedic coverage on the subject. As Crisco noted, for subjects of a large scope this may not be enough but for a small city museum this certainly provides more than a stubs worth of coverage on the topic. AgneCheese/Wine 06:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Jim: as the text you quoted says, a stub is a sentence with just a couple sentences. Usually it's barely more than a definition of the topic, and serves as a "placeholder" until someone writes up a real article. For example, Missha is a stub. An article with several paragraphs and 10 references is not a stub just because you believe it could still be expanded more; as others here have said, it's just a short article that could use expansion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Technically, Missha is a WP:SUBSTUB (though the distinction is rarely made any more). Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Now you have added sections I would agree its Start Class. But to return to the original question is a Stub Class article suitable for DYK ? Or do we treat each entry individually, using this example a paragraph of text may be a Start Class for the Sioux City Public Museum, whereas the same amount of text for the British Museum would not be. Or as suggested above it only needs to be over 1,500 characters. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles without section headings

Looking at the Sioux City Public Museum section above, I saw a common problem that came up frequently during WP:1.0 assessments about the line between stubs and starts. Even though it doesn't appear to be written anywhere in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, a rough rule of thumb that we used was that if the article could support at least one separate section heading with a normal WP:LEAD than it was above stub class.
Right now we are basically using the arbitrary 1500 character limits as the dividing line but the conversation above noted examples where editorial discretion is needed since the matter is not always so black and white. I wonder if it would be beneficial to adopt the WP:1.0 "unwritten rule" on starts vs stubs to go along with the 1500 chars requirement. I think most people will agree that a single paragraph of text looks much more stub-like than an an article with section headings. Any thoughts? AgneCheese/Wine 16:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree a Start Class article should have at least a lead and one section of text. Jim Sweeney (talk)
I disagree with the implication that an article should have at least one subheading not to be a stub. I think that depends on the subject area/topic. I would agree that an article should have at least two paragraphs, and I think it is a warning indicator if the first paragraph has references (rather than one or more notes, for example explaining that a person's birthdate or birthplace is disputed) rather than being an introductory overview of material that is then fully explained, with references, in one or more following paragraphs. But whereas topics in the sciences almost always fall into separate sections, and most biographies can be divided into early life, career, and works sections or into career stages, there are far too many topics that don't subdivide, or where the subdivision would introduce clutter and paragraph divisions make the sections clear enough. A set of one-paragraph sections is no clearer than a set of paragraphs on distinct parts of the topic. And there is a large grey area of personal taste. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I would look for paragraphing and article organisation and reasonable content when distinguishing between a stub and start article. Also, some references as well. It is easier to expand an article until it it not a stub, than to be definite about where the line is crossed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm also not sure this would be a suitable requirement. One lead and one section would mean that the lead summarises just that one section? BTW, technically all DYK promotions have at least the section ==References==. Sometimes an article is short enough to not have an upfront summary. For instance Spreetshoogte Pass which was recently passed: Would it really improve the article to have one section "Geography" of one paragraph and one section "History" with two paragraphs? How would the last paragraph then be named, and how would a concise summary be written? --Pgallert (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner

Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner article was plagiarized but nominator doesn't think so; could use an uninvolved reviewer to step in. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)`

  • Junk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Junk? That's a bit flippant. Please don't rely too much on duplication detectors. There is still no substitute for a side-by-side reading of both source and article. This has been further discussed at Talk:Tom Skinner where another editor has done a side-by-side reading and concluded that this is not a case of copyvio or close plagiarism (though maybe something else). There has also been discussion at Rjanag's talk page and my talk page and at ANI (briefly). The nominator reacted badly to all this, so can we please try and remember that the aim is to get articles up to DYK standards, hopefully with collaboration on editing of articles, rather than to argue over DYK nominations. The article has since been edited and I would hope that Rjanag and Crisco would return to the article to state whether their concerns have been addressed. If they have, then possibly the nomination could be reopened. Would that be worth doing? Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Katia Plaschka

A strange line appears after Katia Plaschka. Did I do that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Images protected at Commons

FYI to administrators: The three images now in the prep area are protected at Commons, per a request I made at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to fix the "reviewed=" part of the DYK template so that it links to the direct DYK subpage of the reviewed article, instead of the main T:TDYK page section of it? That way, other users can still access and confirm that the review was done even after it has been promoted and removed from the T:TDYK page, since they'll be going straight to the subpage. SilverserenC 05:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This should do it. (Makes a link if the subpage actually exists, just lists the name if for some reason it doesn't--e.g. if the person misspells the article name or if the subpage name doesn't match the article name.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Still doing Q4Q?

I've been out of the loop for a week or two and things have been moving fast around these parts, so I was wondering if we're still doing Q4Q reviews? Volunteer Marek  11:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you, very observant, just wanted to know if the ALT was acceptable, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Different question: the first five DYK don't require a qpq review. I hope that means: 5 nominations. Example: a new red link user started 6 articles on composers, the third is now on the Main page. I found the people "good to know" and expanded and referenced the articles. The user who started has 3 credits now, but never returned and may still know nothing about the DYK process. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • For a DYK newbie who submitted 6 articles to DYK at the same time, I would not want to insist on a QPQ review for number 6. The general idea of doing 5 self-noms before being subject to QPQ (at least as I understood it) was to give newbies time to learn the process before asking them to do reviews. A newbie with 6 self-noms at the same time has not had a chance to learn from their experience yet. --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The case was different: I submitted three. I told the user about the process, but as s/he never returned (28 August) I don't think any DYK experience should be expected, although there are article credits. So I propose that we better count 5 nominations of own articles until qpq, not just 5 articles, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
We can make an exception for unusual cases like that. That's why we have IAR. Gatoclass (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Eternal life (Christianity)

Eternal life was accepted and promoted without a discussion, Template:Did you know nominations/Eternal life (Christianity). I find the term itself debatable, also the (of course) simplifying hook, and at least one unexplained line in the article, s. talk. But perhaps I am the only one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Seems to be rather unstable. It could be pulled if you are worried about the issues, although "The possibility of attaining eternal life and avoiding the wrath of God is dependent on believing in Jesus, the Son of God." is cited in the lead (poor MOS, I know), and most of the parts without normal intext citations are quoting the bible, with links to the applicable verses. (Crisco) --202.152.243.103 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
If It's been promoted without a discussion then there isn't really anything wrong with it. For example The Bouncy's DYK nomination was promoted without a discussion. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think Gerda is concerned because it was promoted within ten hours of being reviewed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict, no, I am concerned about the terminology of hook and article) A line like "life becomes possible in the person of Jesus Christ" (in the lead) is completely incomprehensible to me - may be my personal language problem. What does "life" mean here? What "becomes possible"? I don't recognize the statement as biblical, and don't see a relation to Rom 3:35 mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I notified the nominator of this discussion, no need to pull, I hope it can be resolved/ explained/changed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion pages in T:AH

Are we going to be including the discussion templates in the T:AH? If so, can we have the bot handle it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that in many cases DYK is the first action, so T:AH may not exist in the article yet.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

Hello all, the reviewer at Template:Did you know nominations/Extermination of Evil has requested a second opinion regarding the use of sources and paraphrasing issues. Could somebody take a look? NB: It is one of my noms. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Queue 5: "}" missing

The {{DYKbotdo}} in Queue 5 is missing a right curly bracket. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by Howcheng Art LaPella (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I missed the explanation...

Hey guys, can someone point me at the explanation on how to close one of the new subpages when moving it to prep? I wanted to help out by making up a couple of prep areas as there isn't any currently made up and only one queue standing too - however I don't know how the new things work! Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook. Instructions for most things like this are all in the table of contents at T:TDYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, seems I wasn't far off doing it right - although I have no idea how I missed that seeing as it's whack bang in the middle of the page. Miyagawa (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Posible problem with nomination

Hi I nominated the 3rd Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom) on 12 September. As it is still waiting to be reviewed I accessed the noms page and using the review or comment link attempted to add an ALT1 suggestion. However the link just goes to a blank page. I cannot duplicate this with any other nomination, and there seems to be a problem with the link. This may be something I did yesterday as when checking the nomination was a red link and I had to reinstate the {{}}. To complicate matters even more if searching for the nomination page in article history (here Template:Did you know nominations/ 3rd Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom)), it does display the check lists etc, when you try to edit. Any thoughts or suggestions on how to fix this. 07:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed. You had put an extra space before the beginning of the article title when creating your nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Q6

I appreciate that this has gone straight to queue at the 11th hour, but a couple of tweaks I would suggest:

  • The picture is of one of the frescoes (or frescos? my dictionary is ambivalent), not of knight's armour.
  • While each saint is shown wearing a knight's armour, they are (presumably) not sharing the wardrobe of a single knights, so suggest knights' armour?
  • Although the subject of the verb to rain is usually the impersonal it, in this sentence it is ambiguous, and gives the impression that Hurricane Estelle rained even after its demise. Suggest ... that even after Hurricane Estelle dissipated, rain continued over Hawaii for three days? Kevin McE (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Tweaked, thanks. I think pictured is Ok, as it refers not to armour, but to the whole phrase "frescoes of military saints in full knights' armour"; placing it after frescoes would also break the phrase. Materialscientist (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Prep2

There is no evidence that File:Kirsopp Lake.jpg is in PD (say, taken in 1914, first published in the 1950s - there are very few, unconfirmed, possibilities it is in PD). If no other ideas, I would use the file to the right (with a minor crop) from hook No. 4. Materialscientist (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Revier engaging in original research

Could an independent reviewer take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Estevan Ochoa. As best as I can determine, the current reviewer is objecting to the proposed hook based upon the assumption that the distance between the center of a circle and a point outside said circle is shorter than the radius of the circle (an impossibility within Euclidean geometry). Alternative proposals from the reviewer have been similarly problematic by either directly contradicting the article's sources or requiring events to occur in reverse chronological order. --Allen3 talk 17:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Running out of hooks?

All hooks at T:TDYK up to Sep 12 have had at least one review, and I've noticed that we are essentially pulling brand new hooks that have already been approved to fill preps. Are we running out of articles? The number on the page has been getting steadily fewer, I believe. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely surprising. Now might be an ideal time to start a trial run of adding a recently promoted GA to the mix. Resolute 16:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd also strongly oppose putting in Good Articles - a completely different kind of thing. Better to encourage people to propose new articles that others have written. I'll also propose one of mine now that I wasn't sure would be accepted, and let the reviewer(s) decide. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Temporarily include only 5 hooks in the DYK. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please don't use any fewer hooks. This will restrict the space on MainPage for ITN and SA/OTD, or result in left-right imbalance on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I meant "Please don't use any fewer hooks per update." --PFHLai (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That appeared clear. I don't know if you are responding to me, but mine was a third suggestion. (BTW, I think the Swahili rule should work for most things you can find that are under 10 days old ATM) Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Please let's remember that fewer shifts per day means longer exposure for good DYKs. I don't know why on earth people worry about a reduced flow: it's still way above that of any other main-page forum, even on two shifts a day. Tony (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Concur with two sets per day, which should go a long ways towards addressing problems long discussed here, and has always been a good plan IMNSHO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Only 75 hooks and we've been running on three updates a day for weeks? I've never seen it remotely as slow as this. I guess all the argumentation and the changes over the last few months have driven many contributors away. We will have to go to two updates a day for now, in the meantime, we might consider adding a notice to the Signpost encouraging more participation. Gatoclass (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, harassment of DYK contributors is taking its predictable toll. --Orlady (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
DYK has not been this slow since late 2005/early 2006. The big difference is that Wikipedia as a whole was still undergoing exponential growth back then so it was easy to find new volunteers to help with the project. With the current linear growth curve there is a much smaller pool of potential volunteers and the imposition of WP:FAC-type civility upon DYK is driving contributors away faster than they can be replaced. --Allen3 talk 16:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Watch out for snipers then! It is just about the end of summer, start of term etc. Things may pick up, & the longer exposure may tempt some back. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, two shifts a day, starting now! Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Another idea could be to turn a blind eye to the maximum character limit, the extra text filling up the space. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The maximum character limit is good: it's a hook, not a blurb—although as long as it's an explicit agreement to go beyond 200 characters, it could be stretched a little occasionally. What is of such benefit about a reduced flow is that hard-working nominators and reviewers have their work exposed for longer, like the other forums. 12 hours, when necessary, up from 8 hours, is still on the short side. Tony (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't remember how to do this, but I've changed User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to a 12 hour cycle assuming that is still in use. There are other things to fix - the late template for example - but I can't recall what else. This stuff should really be documented somewhere. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Shubinator rewrote Template:DYK-Refresh and Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes to key off of User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates about 18 months ago. As a result there is normally no need to change anything other than the one file containing the time between updates. The one gotcha is that the code in Template:DYK-Refresh only understands 6 and 8 hour updates. Should be a simple matter of a couple more if statements to add the logic for 12 and 24 hour updates. I have other commitments today but can make the appropriate changes in a day or two if nobody beats me to the punch. --Allen3 talk 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Update: There is a modified version of DYK-Refresh at User:Allen3/DYK-Refresh that removes the assumption of either 6 or 8 hour updates. It appears to fix the problems with Template:DYK-Refresh, but I have not had the opportunity to fully test the changes for possible problems. --Allen3 talk 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you copy your version onto the template if you haven't already done so? I doubt it will cause any serious problems even if it doesn't work. Gatoclass (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I have performed all the test I could think of without the ability to change the clock on the servers or forcing an error in the update process. The new code appears to work as it should. As a result, the updated code has been moved into place. --Allen3 talk 21:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK error? Stats error?

I have never seen a page view count fall when someone was included in DYK before, but look at http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Heath_Irwin for September 19th. What kind of error am I looking at with page views falling from 462 to 81 on the 19th.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because it didn't actually appear until the 20th, Wikipedia:Recent_additions#19_September_2011, no idea why it says 19th on the talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The talk page has the date of appearing, the recent additions have the date of archiving, the stats depend on the clock and sometimes need to be calculated using both days when it was over midnight. The situation is not great, because the other date may be another year, decade ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, so it was the last set displayed on the 19th - yes that wasn't that clear, but I see it now. I don't know how the page views count works, but I know to wait for a couple of days before checking the numbers. Mikenorton (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like some type of missing day in the raw data. In addition to traffic apparently from the 19th credited to the 18th it appears the article rewrite activity which happened on the 17th is showing up on the 16th. Simplest explanations would seen to be either the date being reported incorrectly or a day earlier in the month being skipped/lost and everything since shifting one position to fill the gap. --Allen3 talk 13:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The Page view tool is currently posting monthly figures to the wrong day. At http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Heath_Irwin the 462 views occurred on the 18th (not correct), whereas at http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Heath_Irwin the 462 views occurred on the 19th (correct). —Bruce1eetalk 13:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Attempts have been made to contact the tool author here about this problem. —Bruce1eetalk 13:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah! That explains why Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash got 8,000 views the day before the crash! Resolute 14:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Update: the monthly figures are now two days off (see the graphs linked in my post above). I don't know what's going on. —Bruce1eetalk 05:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

multinoms follow-up

I know it was briefly discussed about two weeks ago or so, but I am uncertain if a consensus was ever reached regarding the number of reviews a nominator should do when they nominate multiple articles in one hook. Is it one review per hook or one per article in the hook? Im trying to figure if I should review two for the double nom I am finishing up now.--Kevmin § 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's one review per hook. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Good to know, though to me it still seems unbalanced to only review one if the person reviewing my multi-nom hook will have to do at least two full reviews. --Kevmin § 15:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd still do more than one review, especially if you feel that it is unfair for the person who reviews your articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My memory of what was being said around the time this was raised earlier and it was generally agreed that the quid pro quo requirement was one per hook, was that we encourage multiple eyes on each nomination, including having different people review the different articles in a multi unless one reviewer personally wants to do both/all? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't looking here when quid pro quo was originally hashed out. I suspect this very definite "review one hook for each hook" guidance may have been the exchange I was thinking of. Feelings on this do seem to have swung, perhaps because the people participating here have changed. I see above in the section on review templates / edit boxes people strongly preferring that a review cover all articles in a multi; but apart from the evaluation of the hook, that seems to me like multiple reviews. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested image protection at Commons

FYI to admins: I have requested protection at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Pls protect images to be used on EN main page for the next two images (Queue 4 and Prep Area 2). They aren't protected yet, but that should happen within the next 4 hours (before Queue 4 hits the main page). I'll be asleep, so I won't be able to check... --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Eternal Diet

Now in Prep 1, Eternal Diet is playing with words nicely. I would like to see a link which explains "Youngest Recess of ...", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

  • No Vatican knowledge needed, the empire (Reich) just was called Holy. Now I don't understand if it's the recess of the Diet or the empire, and both articles don't tell me, nor what it means. The hook lets me assume it's the recess of the empire?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
de.wiki has an article on it, and fr.wiki has a stub. I've never studied German and my school French is very rusty, but a recess appears to be a document released after a diet, similar to the communiquées after intergovernmental conferences today. As this document declared that the following diet was to be permanent, this would be a never-to-be-followed recess, and thus would forever be the most recent (= youngest) of its kind.
But I'd have to agree that the blurb lacks enough meaning to most readers to even qualify as a pun or a stab at irony. Kevin McE (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Read and released at the disolution. Which why there no newer. Found de:Jüngster Reichsabschied and de:Reichsabschied. Agathoclea (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Learning. If a Recess is a document, that should be said at least in the article if not also in the hook. I had no clue, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Give me a chance to get home from work and if no one else has done so, I'll throw up a translation of de:Reichsabschied. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Propose that we postpone appearance on main page until this is addressed. Kevin McE (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I changed the hook to read "... that the Eternal Diet of the Holy Roman Empire lasted less than 150 years?" Far less obscure, but still sort of cute. --Orlady (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
see also de:Rezess Agathoclea (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Recess (Holy Roman Empire) now exists. I will be tweaking it and adding refs, and an explanation linking to it needs to be added to the article in question. But right now I must co-walk a dog. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
After several decades of being a German I now suddenly realised why when a new law comes out they call it "verabschieden" which sounds like good bye. Then again with living in the UK with its own idiosynchracies for most of my adult life I never had much reason to think about it. It actually makes sense: It is formally send on its way. Agathoclea (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yup, German is so logical, it's sometimes scary :-) The explanatory article now exists and has refs (in English), so if desired, the hook can return to the ALT that was decided on, with this amended linkage: "... that the Eternal Diet, "a bladeless knife without a handle", followed the Youngest Recess of the Holy Roman Empire?" . . . or someone else can whip out a translation to make Youngest Recess a blue link. I must now go to bed, I am afraid.Yngvadottir (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope your fears were eased by a good night's sleep. Kevin McE (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2011 (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:

  1. 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.
  2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

New Harmony and Owenism

FTR, I moved the James Elliott Farm hook from prep area 2 (which was about to go to the queue) to prep area 1 because of concern about two non-new articles linked in the hook. New Harmony Historic District is the link provided for the term "New Harmony commune" and Owenism (a very short unsourced stub) was linked to explain the philosophy behind that commune. Nether article is a particularly satisfactory source of information about the topic identified in the link. I think that other articles exist that would be better items to link to, but I have not thoroughly researched the situation. For example, New Harmony, Indiana has more information about the commune than the historic district article does, and Robert Owen has far more information on the topic of Owenism. I intend to try to resolve this before the hook goes to the main page, but I won't squawk if someone else finds a solution before I get back to this... --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The situation is still far from perfect, but I am now satisfied that the links in the hook are OK for DYK on the main page. I linked "New Harmony commune" to New Harmony, Indiana, changed "Owenist" to "Owenite" in the hook, and made some modest improvements to the article Owenism, which the word "Owenite" links to. --Orlady (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Umm, why was I not notified about this? The historic district is the most relevant article to the commune, and Owenism is about the "organisation" itself, while the Owen article is about the guy; anyway, links are something that you should change rather than delaying the article, especially since links to non-featured pages aren't a reason to delay/hold back/deny/etc. a nomination. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

archaic Greek alphabets (prep 1)

There was some IAR discussion in the proposal discussion over this hook, but I would like to flag it up for further consideration. For example, is it saying that there was an eta that looked like a beta, an epsilon that looked like a beta, an eta that looks like a modern B, an epsilon that looks like a modern B? It is not based on a claim that is explicit in the article, and it is semantically confused to say the least. Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

and article is not new — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.254.82 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The issue raised in the DYK nom page was that the hook fact does not correspond to a single item in the article. That is not relevant, IMO -- it's perfectly acceptable for a hook to be based on multiple points in an article, as long as all are sourced. The hook currently reads as follows:
  • ... that in some archaic Greek alphabets (Corinthian inscription pictured), an Ε could look like a Β, a Β like a C, a Γ like an Ι, an Ι like a Σ, or a Σ like a Μ?
All of these items are included in Archaic Greek alphabets#Summary table, which is supported by a reference citation. Other article content supports some of these statements, such as the sentence "Achaean colonies had a Γ in the form of single Ι-like vertical stroke." IMO, this is OK.
Regarding the allegation that the article is not new, DYKcheck indicates that it was created in User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/sandbox and moved on September 23, 2011. That's new. --Orlady (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I almost changed "a M" to "an M", but according to the article the "M" could be pronounced "san" instead of "em". Art LaPella (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The hook is refering to Greek letters (with the exception of 'C'), so it is actually "a mu" not "an em", just that Greek capital mu (Μ) looks just like Latin capital em (M). Perhaps an admin could correct the miscorrection currently in the hook. BabelStone (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
As right as that is, you find out only after you click that it is "mu", not "em". The thing looks (!) like an M in the hook, therefore imo should read that way. But it is minor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead in prep4

I have changed

... that after his shooting in 1881, U.S. President Garfield was treated by Doctor Doctor

to

... that after his shooting in 1881, U.S. President Garfield was treated by Doctor Bliss

The article presents no evidence that Doctor Willard Bliss (Doctor is the first name, not only title) was called Doctor Doctor - this appear as WP:SYNTH, and Doctor Bliss is equally hooky. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet to be published novel

Hi all, I was wondering if I could have another pair of eyes on Template:Did you know nominations/The Litigators. The novel is not out yet, and as such the article is nearly 75% plot. I feel it is a stub, but would like more input. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Does X mark the spot

Could another editor weigh in at the hook suggestions at Template:Did you know nominations/X (The X-Files)? Mine are a little racy, and the original has a few issues. Thanks in advance. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How does ITN work with DYK?

I recently created the article 2011 US listeriosis outbreak and I was planning on nominating it for DYK, but it has since been nominated for ITN, which is ongoing here. My question is, can an article be nominated for DYK as well as ITN or is it just a one only type thing? If the latter, what should I do in regards to this article, because the ITN nomination process could potentially, but not very likely, take longer than the time period I have to nominate it for DYK. And if it ends up ultimately failing ITN, it might be too late to nominate it for DYK. So...how exactly does this work? SilverserenC 03:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles that have been featured on ITN are ineligible for DYK. If an article is nominated for both at the same time, people will probably just hold off on reviewing the DYK nomination until the ITN is resolved (that's what is done for articles that are on AfD as well). rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK Stats question

Now that DYK is on a 12-hour cycle, I have a question regarding that updating of DYK STATS. Should the number of page views be adjusted (normalized) to put them on an equal footing with the traditional 6/8-hour cycles? We've never bothered when switching between 6 and 8 hours, but this is a big jump to 12 hours. —Bruce1eetalk 05:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it can be truly "normalised", as the conditions are never the same (weekday vs. weekend, 6 h during the day vs. 6h in the night), and what matters in the end is how many people read the article. --Elekhh (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, these stats have never been all that meaningful anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, thanks for wording that, Rjanag, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. —Bruce1eetalk 04:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I have always supported normalization of some sort, although I agree that the absolute numbers column should remain. A "views per hour" column would probably be the best method. Gatoclass (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Following Gatoclass's suggestion, I've added a "views per hour" column. I've populated the September table, but not the Lead and Non-lead hook tables, which I'll work on from time to time. —Bruce1eetalk 10:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I've only noticed now that you've added the "views per hour" column that the "DYK views" colums does not sort correctly. Should we wrap it in a sort template, e.g. {{sort|005723|[http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Widgets 5,723]}}? BabelStone (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right, "DYK views" is not sorting correctly, but looking back I see it wasn't sorting correctly before I added the "Views per hour" column. I can understand it gets it wrong where the column includes a calculation, but I don't understand why when sorting largest to smallest, it puts views less than 10,000 ahead of those above 10,000. Specifying a sort key with the sort template should work, but it'll take a while to implement. —Bruce1eetalk 07:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting the new views per hour column had anything to do with this; just that I have never needed to sort the table before the new column was added (sort by views by hour works OK, but then can't sort by DYK views to get back to the original order). The reason sorting does not work correctly is that it sorts purely by text, not numerically, with the result that when sorting largest to smallest "12,345" sorts after "1,234" because comma is being compared with '2' and as a comma is 'larger' than a digit it therefore sorts before 2. To get the column to sort correctly you need to supply a fixed length sort key with leading zeros, such as "001234", "012345" or "123456", in the sort template. My only concern with this and your change is that some editors may find it overly complicated to additionally provide the total views as a six-digit sort field as well as manually calculate the views per hour. BabelStone (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand now why the sort is not working, and that the need to sort has become necessary since the addition of the new column. And I share your concern that the process of adding a hook has become more complicated. I think we'll have to decide whether the benefits of the new column and the ability to sort is worth the extra editing effort. —Bruce1eetalk 08:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorne

Do we have anything prohibiting me from nominating a Billy Hathorne article? Bryan Hughes (Texas politician) looks like a good candidate to me: it's long enough and new enough, its subject obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN, and I've vetted it for close paraphrasing. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO if he's banned, he's banned, which means his articles can't be nominated. But there should be some sort of process for reviewing the ban, he shouldn't remain indefinitely banned from DYK if he demonstrates that he understands and acknowledges the problem and makes a commitment to reform. Gatoclass (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a difference between banning a person from self-nominating and banning a person's articles from being nominated; as long as the problems with that specific article are resolved (I resolved them myself), and as long as that ban is the only thing standing, I see no reason not to nominate it myself. The whole reason I asked was to find if additional sanctions had been imposed besides the ban on him nominating. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem I see with that line of reasoning is that it allows banned users to game the system, simply by getting someone else to nominate their articles for them. The reason for the ban is to get the user concerned to take responsibility for their actions and to change their approach. They have no incentive to do so if someone is just going to nominate for them. Gatoclass (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. BH is subject to a personal ban at DYK. There was never a ban on all articles which have been worked on by him, from my reading of the ban. Nothing should prohibit another user in good standing from nominating any article xhe judges worthy. The nominator takes on the responsibility for the article. Of course, if they are coming through at a high rate, we will need to examine such noms again. The odd article and responsible third editors should not cause much problem. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The way I'd read a "personal ban at DYK" is "if person X would receive credit for the DYK, don't submit it". - The Bushranger One ping only 05:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
If someone thinks an article is worthy to be nominated - interesting and meeting the requirements - I think that article should be discussed. If it proves ready for the Main page, the better. It would be sad not to present an interesting article only because its author wrote some of less quality before, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Was ALT1 overlooked for Prep 1 item on John Palocaren?

Hello, I'm not sure who I should address this to. Crisco1492 reviewed my self-nom hook on John Palocaren and then moved it to Prep Area 1. In his reviewer comments (see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/John_Palocaren) he said he agreed with me in preferring my ALT1. But then when he BUILT the Prep (DIFF) he used the original hook. I wonder if this was a mistake. I'd still recommend ALT1. -- Presearch (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum (queue 6)

a hook for in about 17 hours is on the Comma Johanneum (evaluated at {{Did_you_know_nominations/Codex_Ravianus}}):

This suggest part of the comma is used in the codices. However, it seems that these codices all contain (complete! the point is that they are very short interjections) commae johanneum, and thus not "just"part of it. Wouldn't contain the spurious biblical text Comma Johanneum be a better ending of the hook? L.tak (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I missed it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I'll request a change with the edit-protected template... L.tak (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


Can an admin implement the new hook at queue 6 (in italics above)?}} L.tak (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Edmondson (Q5)

Her swimming record was not set in a park, it was set at Beatty Park. It is clearly not in a parkland setting. Park would be an abbreviated form of the proper name, and so should be capitalised. I made that change while it was in Prep, but it was not carried over to the Queue stage: no edit note, so I don't know whether that was disagreement or oversight. Kevin McE (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Your earlier edit changed "the [[Beatty Park|park]]" to "the [[Beatty Park|Park]]", which was non-idiomatic. To avoid further misdirections, I changed it to read "at Beatty Park." --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, I reverted that while updating the queue because to set a record in the Park would read odd in a standalone sentence. I didn't change it to Beatty Park because I wasn't sure it is important to mention that specific park, but this latter change is Ok with me. Materialscientist (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Getting rid of the checklists?

It's been over a week since I added the checklists into the nomination template (see here) so I think it's a good time now to start reviewing the pros and cons this trial has revealed. Here are my thoughts so far (in what follows, when I link to examples, I am not trying to rat out any particular people, I'm just providing examples; in all cases, these are things that more than just one or two reviewers are doing):

  • It seems that many reviewers are choosing not to use the template checklist (see e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/8 Air Maintenance Squadron). For reasons I detailed at WT:Did you know/Archive 73#Mandatory?, if the checklist template is going to be optional then it should not be automatically loaded into the nomination pages; and in fact, if it's going to be optional it probably shouldn't be used at all, as it just makes the page more confusing.
  • It seems many reviewers are filling the template out however they feel, in spite of what the instructions say. (Using symbols instead of signatures, using full signatures, signing problem areas rather than leaving them blank, leaving lengthy comments in the template rather than below it.) I tried not to be a nazi about the instructions since they were just something I made up and I figured during a trial period there should be some flexibility to try and reach a descriptive (rather than prescriptive) consensus about how the templates should be used. But now it seems that, with such a variety of ways people are filling these out, they hinder more than help the process of seeing how much of a nom has been reviewed.
  • They add a lot of visual clutter to the page and, contrary to what I and probably several of us expected, I think they actually make it harder to skim through the page and find noms that have been reviewed. (Noms that haven't begun being reviewed are perhaps a bit easier to find, but I don't think they were that hard anyway.)

All in all, for the reasons I described above, I think these templates are just making the page and the reviewing process more confusing and probably more alienating. I also don't think they provide any benefit (as some people have pointed out in previous discussions, someone who's going to do a bad review is just going to do a bad review; forcing them to go through the motions of signing off a few things, as far as I can tell, just gives us more ammo if we want to bite their heads off about it later, but doesn't actually help the project in any way). For these reasons, I think the checklist templates should no longer be auto-included in nominations, and I think their use should be discouraged.

I welcome further input. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I have hinted about this in the discussions linked above: I think rather than having a form reviewers must "sign off" every time they complete a nomination, a less cumbersome way to meet the "community demand" would be to include in every nomination's editnotice a clear "checklist" of things that should be checked in any review. This checklist, a draft of which can be seen here, is basically a version of WP:DYK#DYK rules that is written for reviewers rather than nominators, and made as concise as possible. This would obviate cluttering T:TDYK with a lot of messy table, and obviate forcing reviewers to enter a million signatures every time they want to complete a nom; thus, I think both reviewing noms and skimming T:TDYK would be easier. Also, with this stuff in an edit notice it's easier to make the checklist points actually clear (that is to say, they each are explained in normal prose, with links, whereas the checklist template in the nomination's edit window itself is just a list of obtuse parameters and people have to go to some other page to see what they mean). And, since it would be in a prominent place (the edit notice), it would still serve as a reminder of what needs to be checked in every review, which after all was the whole point of having a checklist. (Some others may argue that the point of a sign-able checklist is "accountability", but personally I don't buy that; all a sign-able checklist gives us is the ability to point fingers even more after something goes wrong, it doesn't actually prevent bad articles from making it to the main page. Besides, editors are still accountable for articles they review, even if they don't sign every point of a checklist individually; placing on an article is, or at least should be, a shorthand way of saying "this article meets all the criteria".) rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support this one. Dump the checklists for now. If there are complaints about removing the checklist, run another RFC. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support this less cumbersome way to meet the "community demand", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Rjanag. The "community demand" is less likely to be met if burdensome checklist and hoops to jumps through are driving quality contributors away from the DYK project. I know that my personal activity here has dropped considerably simply because it is such a headache now to nominate and review articles, despite Rjanag's admirable efforts to try to streamline the process with templates. AgneCheese/Wine 16:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, I think this is best. Having a list of the points to be checked appear right there in the edit window would assist those who are concerned they may not remember to check them all, or what the rules are, but expressing it in prose is easier than a checklist when one needs, as one usually does, to say something qualificatory like "There are no refs in the plot section but that's ok" and "I checked 3/4 of the refs for copyvio/close paraphrasing." And more conducive to careful, article-appropriate checking than making a symbol and then appending a note below on anything special, IMO. I agree that in addition, the checklist still looks daunting in the edit window, especially to someone who hasn't previously mucked about with templates. Accountability is accountability; I don't think those of us who personally prefer not to use review templates are in any way wishing to cut corners on the actual review, or to condone it. This came out pretty clearly in the discussion over length of time that a review takes, IMO. If a review doesn't mention a criterion, it's entirely reasonable to ask - or to do a second review and check just that thing. Those who like to use checklists can always fake one up using short names for all the criteria interspersed with check/tick and X symbols. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Here's an example of a review I did in running prose, to serve as an example. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - the checklist in the edit notice is ideal, and those who want to can copy and paste the headings of that into the review subpage. The running prose example given by Yngvadottir is ideal as well. The article writer gets good feedback but not too much that might overwhelm them. I would also urge reviewers that find articles that may need lots of work to put a nomination on hold and then discuss things at the article talk page, engage in a bit of editing, and then restart the nomination when things have been sorted out. It is a matter of whether only a few points are found in the review, or lots. This will also avoid long discussion on subpages cluttering up the main DYK submissions page. Finally, it would be great if there was a way for the background of the subpage to change colour, or some other prominent change occur, to enable people to pick out DYK submissions that need attention or not. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The checklist lures editors (at least me, on one occasion) into only checking the points explicitly mentioned. Here I forgot completely that the image license needs to be reviewed because it is not in the check list. As far as I remember, I never forgot that when reviewing without templates. --Pgallert (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support, for various reasons given by others. Ideally, all items in the list of review criteria would be numbered to facilitate writing of abbreviated review comments along the general lines of "AGF on items 4 and 5 due to offline sources." Also, ideally, the list would be formatted to limit the vertical real estate required to display it, so that reviewers can see the whole list of items at one time. --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • For me it's possible to see the whole list at once (my screen is at 1366x768) but I don't know if it is for everyone. Also, the "others" list at the bottom is not necessary to review in all nominations, so for the most part I think just being able to see hte top 75% would be fine. To some extent I think it would be good for the list to take up a lot of space, so people can't help noticing it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I can see the whole list on my screen, but there's no room for anything else. As a result, I estimate that while I'm reviewing a nomination, chances are good that the only parts of the review checklist I will be able to see (without scrolling up) will be "Other" and possibly "Hook content". --Orlady (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
        • I guess it might be possible to put this into two columns, which might make it all visible at once. I don't think there's any way to make it shorter content-wise (I feel I already trimmed & simplified the rules pretty relentlessly). rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what an "edit notice" is. How would this work? Is this system going to stop partial reviews and require a single editor to review for everything? If so, it is unrealistic, and is at loggerheads with QPQ and the idea of inducting new editors into WP. Tony (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    • An edit notice is a message that appears above the edit box when editing. (For example, when you edit this page you see an orange box that says "This purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:Did you know.") I don't see any reason why the system I outlined above would preclude partial reviews. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, so all that stuff here will appear in a rather large coloured notice at the top of the edit box. I must say, it's nicely formatted ... could be trimmed a little (may I try?). So then, say I come along and want to say the image doesn't work at squint-size; I just make a comment to that effect, but leave all other issues. This is rather as it was before the community insisted on an explicit ticking off of the aspects via a checklist. How will we know who OKed what? When someone has to tick off that the hook is suitable (i.e., sufficiently interesting, as required by DYK rules), they're taking direct responsibility for that aspect. If there's no signing off of the separate aspects, can you convince us that one or two reviewers won't just make brief comments and wave it through, despite the edit notice? Isn't this a back-door way to return to the previous situation, when reviewing (especially QPQ reviewing) was seriously inadequate? Tony (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
        • I've tried to make the list as concise as possible while still including all the major rules, but I'm open to suggestions for trimming it. (In particular, things like the 2x expansion rule for BLPs are rarely used; Other could maybe hidden inside a {{show}} or something, although I don't think that should be overused; and using bullets rather than level-3 section headers for the headers like "Criteria for the article" may save space.)

          Regarding who OKed what, as I explained in the section above I don't think that's really important. First of all, it should still be easy to know who OKed what (if someone ed the article, that means they are either saying they OK'ed everything or they OK'ed some stuff and they made sure that someone else OK'ed the rest--and the latter should only be happening if someone else has already explicitly said on the nom page "X is ok"). That information may not be visually organized into a table, but it should still all be easily available, and I don't think it makes sense to ask 100% of the reviewers to jump through the hoops they are now just to make it even easier for us to find information that should already have been easy to find, in the maybe 5-10% of cases where there is a need later on to revisit an old nomination.

          Regarding "making brief comments and waving it through", people can still do that no matter what kind of checklist they have to check off—nothing can stop people from just going through the motions of putting their signature in every part and then saying "ok". Either way, they're taking responsibility for their review regardless of whether they sign it once or ten times, and if they're reviewing poorly it will still be possible to notice that and chide/educate them.

          Of course there are some aspects of this proposal that look similar to the previous situation, because as I explained in the section above I don't think the check-off checklists are a net benefit. But I am also trying to honor the outcome of that checklist RfC (which some people here don't even consider valid) by implementing a change that I believe is in the spirit of the checklist thing. Please read my comments in the section above, where I explained clearly what the goal of this proposal is. I'm not just trying to preserve the status quo at all costs (I daresay I've spent a lot more of my free time than you and the DYK critics in trying to make improvements). rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - Seems to me that a week is not nearly long enough to trial something, there is obviously going to be a settling in period, I would have thought a month would be a more reasonable interval to trial the checklist. I do however see some teething problems, with some users commenting in the fields instead of just ticking or adding their signature, which confuses things, but I would think that would rectify itself over time. I also think the checklist could be made more compact by combining the hook checklist and article checklist together, which would aid in legibility. I'm not sure how the system is currently working, but if the checklist was embedded in every nomination in some way it might make for a more consistent appearance.

    I guess we can try the editnotice if that's what people want, but I'm not sure how effective editnotices are, if it proves ineffective we may have to revisit this debate. Gatoclass (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said there are bound to be teething problems with any new system, you have to give people some time to adjust. The checklists are really not that complicated. But I think automatically embedding them in every nom would help encourage conformity. Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
    • As I recall, the rationale for having separate hook and article checklists was to deal with noms with multiple articles and/or multiple ALT hooks (I think the relevant discussion was here). Of course, multi-article nominations are a minority (but still one that might be hard to handle with a single checklist) and personally I think having to fill out a checklist for ever ALT hook is silly, as hook reviewing is less involved than article reviewing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the multis - there should only be one checklist for all the articles in a multi, it's impractical to have multiple checklists. I also think it would be worthwhile to combine the hook and article checklist to reduce clutter. I know I argued for checklists for each alt hook originally but it isn't practical and I now think one checklist for the hook and article is sufficient, so there's no reason not to combine them. Gatoclass (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Gato, hook and article are two very different aspects of DYK, and need to be reviewed discretely.
  • Orlady, I agree that a week is far too short a period for a trial; I also think that you use a trial to refine the system. It's abundantly clear that Rjanag et al. need to write in more explicit instructions, and that no nom should be moved to the next stage without compliance with these. Otherwise, the trial is not given a fair chance.
  • Rjanag: I meant the wording of the notice. I'll quickly do it now for your review, even though I can see it's leading nowhere good.
  • To all, the community's support for an explicitly ticked-off checklist was and still is based on the perception that the individual DYK and site policies and rules were not being applied properly. If we go back to a no-tick-off system, as before, we will be back to square one, and will—it seems to me—go through the same process in which the community comes in to express its disapproval. The glaringly obvious way of proceeding is not to be concerned about what is framed as "clutter", or what is essentially a more rigorous and exacting process for both nominators and reviewers, but to match the output with what can be produced at high(er) quality. There should be no conceptual nexus between (i) newly created/expanded, and (ii) poor quality and policy compliance. So the tools for managing the system are at hand. Tony (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say the hook and article should not be "reviewed discretely", I said we don't need two separate checklist boxes to achieve that. We can combine the two checklists into the one checkbox to cut down on clutter. But the checklists themselves would remain the same. Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"If we go back to a no-tick-off system, as before, we will be back to square one" – from this and similar comments, it seems as if you think any solution that is not your proposed solution is not a solution. To the contrary, numerous editors above have said they feel "an explicitly ticked-off checklist" is not necessarily the only way to solve any problems. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the checklists from nominations and added the list of review criteria to the editnotice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Opinions requested

There's some controversy over the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Naked woman climbing a staircase:

"... that inspiration behind Miró's 1937 Naked woman climbing a staircase came from photos of a woman (pictured) descending a staircase?"

The article has one inline reference which contrasts Miró's painting with one of Duchamp's. The relevant portion of that source says, in its entirety: "In this representation of a woman climbing a staircase, Miró reversed the concept of Marcel Duchamp's Nude descending a staircase." The article has another reference which relates to the influence of Muybridge's photos on Duchamp. These are the only inline sources provided which are relevant to the hook. See the nomination page for the discussion.

Some fresh opinions would be most welcome. Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Eternal life (Christianity)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eternal life (Christianity) shows an failure of the DYK process. An alternate hook was suggested late in the day, and it wasn't found in the references. The article claimed the term wasn't "explicitly defined", whereas the source said it wasn't "defined in detail". Maybe there needs to be a tightening of the process with alternate hooks... StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a content disagreement ([3], [4]). Numerous people expressed that they were ok with the hook at the DYK review page and I don't see anything wrong there. This is not really a place to spread your content dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Be assured that I checked the cited sources before I approved the hook. It is true that the hook was not a verbatim rendering of a statement in a cited source, but Wikipedia doesn't copy sources verbatim. --Orlady (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I seem to have a language problem understanding "An alternate hook was suggested late in the day". The hooks suggested before didn't find approval, so an alternate hook had to be found. "Late in the day": ALT2 was suggested on 26 September and appeared today, there was plenty of time to participate in the discussion. Thanks, Orlady, for approving, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
As Orlady noted, verbatim quoting isn't required (in fact, it's strongly discouraged; in this case I wouldn't have had a problem with using the same terms, but to me "explicitly defined" and "defined in detail" would mean pretty much the same thing anyway; something that isn't defined in detail isn't explicitly defined, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as the content issue goes, a reliable source on the page says that it is explicitly defined, so at the very least the hook was just one person's opinion. Secondly, the citation said "described in detail" not "defined in detail". I'm amazed that people would think "explicitly defined" and "described in detail" are the same thing. That's not a paraphrase at all. The source that says it is defined might not disagree with that - it's explicitly defined, without going into detail. So not only was the alt hook approved poorly (it was given the AGF tick when in fact there was a link to Google books from the article) but that particular hook shouldn't have been the one to appear on the main page - of all the hooks suggested in the discussion, it was by far the poorest option. Which raises the question, how do we come to consensus about which hook to use? Or is it merely at the whim of the promoter? I've posted this issue here because it raises some questions about DYK. StAnselm (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Please define "poorest option". Of three hooks, the one approved (not by me) and appeared was the only one which reached kind of a consensus, that means it was the richest, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there were five hooks. I define poorest to mean, "the one that isn't true". StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess if I say I think the first hook is not true we are talking content and personal belief rather than DYK procedure, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, but if it is a matter of personal belief, then it is not the objective fact needed in a DYK hook. That's why I'm so amazed it was passed - in what sense exactly is it a "fact"? StAnselm (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The first hook which I think is not true was not passed. I would not have passed the article, as you can see from the discussion. But I believe the approved fact to be true, because the New Testament is not about definitions, imho, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Creation structure, Q 4

The article referred to is The Creation structure. It is not recognizable in "... that Haydn's oratorio The Creation is structured in three parts, the first two about the creation as narrated in Genesis, the third about Adam and Eve in Paradise?" which looks like "Structure". If bolding The Creation is structured is not possible, it should be The Creation is structured. The link to The Creation (Haydn) is misleading. Please compare the hook in Talk:Messiah structure, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems ok to me. Frankly these article titles are not grammically correct; they should be "Structure of ...." Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The titles are not about grammar, but about finding them. I asked for a discussion on Classical music. - The hook: if I see only "structure" bold, I think of building, not of Creation, not of music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The hook parallels the opening sentence of the article very closely: The Creation, the German-language oratorio Die Schöpfung, composed by Joseph Haydn in 1796–1798, is structured in three parts. I don't see the problem. Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
My problem is not the wording, only the bolding of it. The emphasis of the DYK article is The Creation (both the bible narration and Haydn's music). That doesn't show if structure is bold and The Creation is not and links to the general article (which is a link on the first word of the DYK article anyway). My suggestion was The Creation is structured, to cover both, because The Creation is ambiguous. Personal note: I will sing the piece in choir this afternoon, the music, not a structure! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Smaller checklist space usage

i would welcome comments about this edit to the new edit notice. It was intended to allow us to have all the same content but while hiding it away, expandable one section at a time. violet/riga [talk] 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said in my revert, I think it's important to make the checklist noticeable and I don't think the amount of space it takes up is a problem (given that it can easily be scrolled past). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I've produced a less-tall version of the page (that is, one that occupies less vertical space) for everyone's consideration. It's at User:Orlady/DYK review criteria. It includes all of the points included in Rjanag's list, plus a couple of others, but it does not exactly follow the terminology enshrined in the review templates currently on the nom pages. --Orlady (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I think not including the stuff from the tables is fine. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I actually like to have it all there because it's explained in a little further detail and I always look at at least some of it, if not all of it. Tall / less tall is a minor issue, imho. Then again, I'm not surgically attached to fifty digital devices with my mind splintered across them all. However, a recurring question for me is whether the 200 ch cap on hook length is including the elipsis and question mark. I've been more successful of late in not maxing out that hook length, but this further explanation of the 200 cap would be nice to have with there, just for us brevity-challenged folk. Marrante (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple articles?

How to nominate multiple articles for a single hook?. I'm a little confused here, no idea what to write at "YOUR ARTICLE TITLE". Is it only for a one article? — Bill william comptonTalk 17:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You can write anything you want in the "YOUR ARTICLE TITLE" field. The place for specifying the exact article titles is in the next step of the process. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

BWV 99

I would be pleased if the next prep could take the Bach cantata for last Sunday BWV 99 (not to be confused please with BWV 95 for next Sunday which is also approved). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hook is currently in Prep 4. --Allen3 talk 21:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Lontar Foundation project to begin; hopefully DYKs to follow

As noted in the Signpost, the collaboration between Wikimedia Indonesia and the Lontar Foundation will begin on Friday. The project is hoped to result in 300 new articles about Indonesian authors, their works, and related organizations and companies (in other words, similar to what I've been doing). I'm hoping that this can also result in at least 100 DYKs, but we will see how that goes. As one of the coordinators for the project, I will try and keep an eye on their articles if nominated; hopefully this will ensure that the reviewer has an easier time. Also, if the Lontar trainees begin nominating DYKs, please contact me if there are any major issues like copvios and whatnot, as it will have to be reported to Wikimedia Indonesia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Image in Prep Area 1

Siti Nurhaliza at the launching of her first English-language album

Am I alone in being a bit bothered by the image currently in Prep Area 1? (Displayed at right.) I think the coloring is a bit "off", I don't find the image particularly interesting (other than its arresting color), and there's always something a bit promotional about a hook focused on a newly released recording. I would not normally question the judgment of the hard-working DYK volunteer who assembled the hook set, but having stumbled upon talk-page evidence that the volunteer who assembled the set had earlier been helping the hook nominator, I wonder if this choice looks "right" to others. At least two of the other hooks in that set also had suitable images nominated (displayed at left). --Orlady (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin Ryerson Tomb in Graceland Cemetery, Chicago

The western side of Dronningegården residential complex in Copenhagen

A crop of the grave would be okay, methinks, but the street in Copenhagen doesn't seem too arresting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The western side of Dronningegården residential complex in Copenhagen

Like so. However, the shadowing is not quite attractive. Perhaps lowering the saturation in the DYK of the Nurhaliza article would look better? (I'll get on it). Appears MSC did it already. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you for looking at this. The edit to the image does help... --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
But it seems still unchanged in the queue, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Prep 1: possible error

My German is a bit rusty these days, but I think the hook fact might be wrong for the second hook (FV 09 Weinheim), based on the article wording and the supporting source. The defeat of Bayern Munich in 1990 was certainly the first first-round defeat, but it looks like they suffered another in 1991 against FC Homburg ... and the article suggests that as well. Could somebody pls check to make sure I've got that right, with a view to correcting the hook if necessary? Danke schön, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the cited page on Bayern's own site says FV Weinheim was the first to pull this off, all the more astonishing since it was a 4th-division amateur club, but the following year FC Homburg, a 2nd division club, managed it in overtime. (And that is the extent of my football knowledge.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry: that was me. In trying to avoid the singular/plural row to do with teams, I carelessly swapped first for only. How to put it while avoiding first first round? I've now changed it to "FC Bayern Munich's first defeat in the first round of the cup": OK? Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not just "... that in August 1990, FC Bayern Munich was defeated in the first round of the cup at amateur side FV 09 Weinheim?" ... or even without the "in August 1990"? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
That looks ideal – thanks. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The answer to "Why not" is that it re-introduces the problem of whether a team takes a singular or plural verb: I think we are better off avoiding that cross-Atlantic row. If you want to use that construction, "FC Bayern Munich were defeated..." would be more consistent with the ENGVAR of the Weinheim article. (Later edit: on a second look, the history section is a horrible mix of ENGVARs: I've raised that at the articles talk, but this hook should be ably to avoid the controversy.) Kevin McE (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Duh. Sorry. That tells you how long I've lived here. I've boldly changed it to "... that in August 1990 FC Bayern Munich lost in the first round of the cup at amateur side FV 09 Weinheim?" Yngvadottir (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a need for the list of noms returned to the noms page?

What is the purpose of Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed? Because the instructions told me to do so, I've listed several noms there recently when I returned the hooks to the noms page from prep areas, but I don't know what purpose this list serves. --Orlady (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have looked through the past few months of this talk page's archives and the closest thing found was a rejected proposal to create daily archives of nominations. Best guess is the page was created under the assumption that because WP:FAC maintains a manually updated set of archives, DYK should do the same. The page's edit history shows the archive page is essentially unused and unless someone can explain what benefit it provides I think it should be listed at WP:MfD for proper disposal. --Allen3 talk 22:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This is unrelated to that archive. Someone wanted a list of articles that have been taken out of the queues (supposedly for records-keeping and analysis of trends). I don't remember the details; you can ask User:Nikkimaria and/or User:SandyGeorgia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
That explains it. I'm happy to keep adding noms to that page, if it helps document that there truly is a quality control process here at DYK, but currently it appears that I'm the only one who is doing so... --Orlady (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

upgrade to MW 1.18 causing problems

Just a heads up: The new MediaWiki 1.18 has been rolled out and there are bugs, one of which is messing up the references in my footnotes on Anna Essinger, currently in Prep 2. For an explanation of what the problem is, see: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#bug in #tag:ref parser function. I assume (hope?) this will be fixed soon. You may want to hold off using this article until the bug is fixed because although the refs work properly, they look awful. A looooong string of gibberish. It gave me quite a start when I went to look at another article with refs in the footnotes. Marrante (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This bug has been fixed. If the page still displays incorrectly in your browser, add "?action=purge" (without the quotes) at the end of the URL and reload the page. Marrante (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot

DYKs two maintenance bots appear to have not survived the MediaWiki 1.18 upgrade. A note has been sent to the bot's owner. Hopefully they will be back up shortly but it appears to be manual updates until then. --Allen3 talk 12:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Allen, thanks. I should be around (the current 12-hour schedule syncs with my timing). Materialscientist (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like there have been changes in the API for 1.18 that affect how logins work and how namespaces are returned in the XML. Bot operator is aware of the issues but may not have time in his schedule to work on a fix for a couple of days. --Allen3 talk 14:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Both bots fixed, in theory. (For the curious, it was a single XML namespace issue; previously, MediaWiki APIs didn't use namespaces at all, and now they do.) DYKHousekeepingBot should run fine since it's successfully completed one run. DYKUpdateBot hasn't had a complete run yet, so there's a decent chance it will crash on the next run. (Sorry for the uncertainty, don't have time right now for a test run.) Will look at DYKcheck later today, assuming nothing crops up with DYKUpdateBot. Shubinator (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Character count Javascripts

It doesn't work for me in Firefox. Does it work for you? --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


Scripts are broken in IE because of a Mediawiki MIME type mismatch (something similar to this). Will look into Firefox next. Shubinator (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Character and word count issue  Fixed for Firefox using the vector skin. Let me know if it doesn't work on your particular browser or skin. (Bypass your browser cache first though to make sure you're seeing the latest version of the script.) Also let me know if you see other issues. Shubinator (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
DYKcheck appears to be working fine in Monobook. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
After clearing my browser cache (Firefox 7.0.1 in the vector skin on Win 7), DYKcheck now works fine, except for one small issue: when I click "DYK check" a second time to clear the results, the prose in the article remains highlighted in yellow. Not a big deal – it's easy enough to simply reload the page. —Bruce1eetalk 07:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK check in Modern skin, Firefox and Windows XP. Prose size/Readable prose reads "0"--Maile66 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I get that if I'm just previewing a page that I'm editing, but the prose size is correct once I've saved the page. Mikenorton (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I saved the page two days ago. It says Zero. Clearing the Cache does nothing. --Maile66 (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, not with me. It never even occurred to me to run the DYK Check in a preview mode. Gremlins, perhaps?Maile66 (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Royal manuscripts, British Library

My nom here is now at Prep area 2, but as the British Library exhibition opens on November 11, can we hold it off until then (the 2nd batch ideally)? Should have thought before. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Request is now in the Special occasion holding area. --Allen3 talk 13:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bunce Court (prep 4)

This nom was moved to prep without actually having been given a tick mark, although essentially approved. The discussion was still going on, as to which of the hooks would be used, plus there was some work requested on the article, which I had (then) not yet done. The reviewer wrote to me on my talk page afterwards and mentioned a preference for a different hook, one that referred to the key aspect of the school, that it had been moved lock, stock and barrel from Germany to England in 1933 to escape Nazism. I had written something to that effect as the main hook, but had not mentioned the reason for the move, making the hook much weaker. Having slept on the reviewer's remark, I would now like to pull the nom from the queue so a better hook can be written. I don't have time to do this at the moment, but wanted to note my desire. I will be able to get to this in several hours, if no one else has pulled by then. Thanks. Marrante (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite alright. And thanks for moving it back. Marrante (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bathing in lava

"... that award-winning director Garin Nugroho (pictured) liked to bathe in lava streams as a child?" is currently at prep area 2. The article and source might be interpreted that way, but he couldn't really bathe in streams of lava, because lava hardens at 700–1200 °C. It has to mean that lava flowed into a stream of water, which heated it up and added some minerals. But that isn't what "bathe in lava streams" will mean to our readers. I found no evidence that either a technical or non-technical reader would interpret the unexplained phrase "lava streams" to mean water heated by lava. Art LaPella (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Maybe change "lava" to "lave-fed"? Materialscientist (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Considering what happens in Yogyakarta after eruptions of Merapi (saw it after the 2010 eruptions), the "cold lava" in the source may actually be lahar. This suggests that the JP translates lahar as cold lava (compare the descriptions) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it would be foolhardy for anyone to bathe in a lahar, but after reading the cited source and the other article that Crisco found, I think Crisco's interpretation probably is correct. I'd feel more comfortable with it if someone could read the interview in the Indonesian language -- is the Jakarta Post published only in English, or is there another version? Neither the article nor the hook should link the term "cold lava" to lava -- that's clearly wrong. --Orlady (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In my experience with The Jakarta Globe (for the Lontar Project), the reporters do the interview in Indonesian and then translate it for publication. It's too much to hope that some of these people speak fluent English, although I'd expect Garin to have a decent command of the language. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll fix the article and hook if it is still in prep. Regarding hot spring, almost certainly not. The Code River (or stream) goes from near the base of Merapi, cuts through Yogyakarta, and if I'm not mistaken empties into the Indian Ocean. It's fairly shallow, and I've yet to see a hot spring yet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem with item in queue

I have just pulled an item from the queue as inadequately reviewed. It seems that it was cleared for posting while only the hook was reviewed. I don't know what other problems might exist, but all I can say is that the prose sucks and needs a lot more work. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is an article of 1770 chars. Isn't is easier to review it and quick-fix than pull out? Are there glaring problems with creation date, size, copyvio, refs? I don't see much upon a cursory look. Not to say that this is an exemplary article, but what is really the reason for pulling off? Promoter might have reviewed it upon moving to preps. Materialscientist (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think non-brilliant prose is in of itself enough of a reason to pull a hook from the queue. (I just skimmed it and I don't see glaring errors; the prose may not be compelling but it's not an obstacle to comprehension either.) I don't see any indication that it fails to meet the DYK criteria, which are not that stringent. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If you feel that DYK should have more stringent criteria regarding prose quality you would be welcome to start a discussion about that issue. But like I said, doesn't currently include any rules about the quality of prose (that is to say, as long as it's not in dire need of copyediting because the text is practically illegible, then it's ok), and it wouldn't be fair to fail someone's article on the basis of ad hoc criteria. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll do a bit of a rewrite, but as noted above the prose doesn't need to be "brilliant" to pass the DYK criteria. It looked to pass the DYK criteria when I promoted it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism and the fivefold rule

Hi.

I'm currently working on an expansion of the article for the former village of Scammonden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I notice that the current content about the bridge plagiarises, if not outright violates the copyright, of this webpage (which is strikingly obvious). Because the text is not a word-for-word copyvio (although Copyscape may find it very fishy), does the supplemental rule about copyvios count? Sceptre (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would lean towards saying yes in this case. The text is bad enough that if I stumbled across this article I would blank it and replace it with a stub, and I think those are the cases that rule is meant to apply to. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported claims

In Maroon Creek Bridge the claim made for it is not supported by the source in the footnote. In Stab wound the claim does not even appear in the article. How do these get approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.147.165 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You can read the review that was conducted for any article by going to the article's talk page and finding the link to the review. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Great idea ... I've done that now (and I appreciate the work you did to set these pages up. Here's what I found:

On Maroon Creek Bridge, Crisco passed a hook that is original research, unsupported by the source, and from a source easily found on google books. It was a Daniel Case DYK ... this seems to cast the whole Quid Pro Quo concern in a new light (DYK regular passing original research hook, unsupported by the source, for another DYK regular). There are other problems with that article and its sourcing, but can't the hook at least be sourced? And again, the checklist here did not prevent an unsupported, in fact untrue, hook from being on the main page (but it did give us the accountability I've long asked for-- Crisco passed both of these hooks).

The stabbing article-- also passed by Crisco-- is even worse-- the alleged "hook" is not even contained anywhere in the article, which was passed with glaring prose problems, other sourcing problems, and nonsensical statements.

So, thanks for the accountability, and that makes two hooks that were unsupported by their sources-- and yet I see a section right above this claiming DYK is ready to up the volume again. What's up with that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A few bad apples don't spoil the bunch. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That was helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've been reviewing approximately 5 articles a day for the past three weeks. If you would prefer I stop doing nominations except for those required for my own nominations, that is fine. I apologize for messing up the two nominations mentioned above. I had noticed that the four times claim in Stab Wounds and forgotten about the comparison with gunshot wounds; I seem to have really dropped the ball on the bridge. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking at page 94 of the source, the "only" seems implied. The source reads "The demolition of the Rio Grande depot eliminated a reminder of the railroad preeminence in the community, leaving Maroon Creek Bridge as a relic of the era of train travel" Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"Seems implied"? As I said, uncited and original research, and apparently from someone who doesn't know the area. More useful than stopping reviewing would be for everyone involved to understand why there is a lack of rigour in this process-- why is it assumed that every DYK must pass, why aren't hooks verified, and why on earth are we seeing some hooks passed on "AGF"? DYK puts content on the mainpage-- can ee apply some rigour to make it worthy, and if not, reduce the volume so that thorough reviews can be done? The stab wound article is too much of a mess to fix, and there was no reason to put it on the mainpage with an uncited hook. Please do keep reviewing, but learn to apply rigour to your reviews rather than to push volume. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"why is it assumed that every DYK must pass," It's not - plenty of nominations get failed due to a lack of meeting standards. "and why on earth are we seeing some hooks passed on "AGF"?" Because Wikipedia does not require that articles have sources available online (and the day it does is the day I stop editing.) If an article is sourced to reputable, hard-copy/offline sources, it has to be taken on good-faith that the citations are accurate, just like any other Wikipedia article. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Seems implied" as in it implied IMHO. Another editor naturally could have a differing opinion. I will work at making the reviews I do even more thorough, although we should keep in mind that every reviewer can make a mistake. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ohconfucius. Regarding the number of shifts, I think we are still at 2. Going back to three would require consensus, which we don't have just yet. I've done another review in case anyone wants to double check to see if I am being thorough enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Selena

Hello there,

I just expanded this article (mostly WP:RS) and was wondering if the article is illegible for a DYK promotion? Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! and that sucks :( but its ok. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
For some reason the DYK check tool doesn't come up with a number of characters of prose before the expansion started, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
This article was already a featured article. The DYK rules clearly state that DYK is for articles that are new or that have been expanded fivefold (i.e., articles that are five times as big now as they were before you did the expansion). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The article is still a featured article btw and alright thanks for clarifying this. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Shite-hawk

I am unable to create a nom page for the article Shite-hawk as 'shit' is blacklisted. Is an article with this name automatically ineligible for DYK (I note that Fucking, Austria was DYK'd in 2009)? And if not, how can I nominate it? BabelStone (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you can give the template any name as long as you document it well, for example link it at the article's talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I just created Template:Did you know nominations/Shite-hawk, with the nomination template commented out. Feel free to go there, fill out the template, and complete the nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, done now. BabelStone (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_4 - JJ Cahill hook shortened and now uninteresting

G'day All. I've raised this at Crisco's talkpage, but I gather that s/he's gone offline because s/he probably has a life, unlike me. When he posted the JJ Cahill hook to Prep 4, he seems to have shortened the hook. I think it's now rather uninteresting, and probably a bit misleading.

I gather that this was done to make sure that everything fits, or something (even though I'm within the 200 character limit), but I don't think we can let this go through as it stands. I'm not keen on it going through to the front page as it is without a discussion on a new hook (if my original proposed one is unacceptable). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've fixed it (very slightly shorter...), but if anyone objects, please return it from prep. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Your definition of "uninteresting" and mine are obviously different. The shortened hook Crisco placed in the set sounded like the school had some type of unusual organization or layout and would have given me reason to click on the link for additional details. The fixed version however makes it clear the administration was simply using students as an inexpensive alternative to a moving company when initially occupying the newly constructed school. The longer hook provides too many details to be interesting and should be replaced in the quirky/funny slot of the set. --Allen3 talk 12:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I think we do have different ideas on interesting. Heh. But I still think that it would be too misleading. Can you suggest something better? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I prefer Danjel's original hook, although I've trimmed it a bit by changing "when construction of [the school] was completed" to "when [the school] was built." I personally have an aversion to hooks that are deliberately misleading. IMO, the ideal hook is one that attracts readers to am article because the hook arouses genuine interest/curiosity about the subject of the article. On the other hand, I have a hunch that hooks that attract readers by distorting information do not make readers particularly happy about Wikipedia. I agree with Allen3 that this hook does not belong in the "quirky" slot. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
None of the hooks, long or short, would attract me to click, and none is quirky. But we don't have to pull it, even if the nominator says so, as there is still time to improve/move it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think Orlady's current revision is good enough. Regarding the last slot, there aren't very many quirkies near the top of the page, and I wanted to keep the older ones moving. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no requirement to fill queues with the oldest approved hooks. I've found that balance in a set of hooks is often most easily achieved by including a couple of the most recent hooks. For prep 4, I found one that I think is sufficiently quirky for the final slot, and I moved another hook to prep 3 to fill the empty space there. --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current state, if everyone else is happy. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy, too, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK on MP with 5 hooks

What happened here? Was the Argo tea hook not replaced? Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it and didn't replace it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Any admins around?

The Queues are all empty, but the Preps are all full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.80.113 (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, all 6 Queues are empty, with all 4 Preps being full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.80.113 (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
And? Moving them faster to the queues does not affect the DYK throughput, but keeping them in preps allows non-admins to correct errors. Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Please keep one prep area open. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.11.237 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Argo Tea hook (that is going to hit the main page in just over an hour)

The Argo tea hook is going to hit the main page in 1 hour and 15 minutes. There was some miscommunication in the modification of the hook. It currently reads "that Argo Tea is a chain of cafés focused on the world's most popular beverage after water?". I had wanted the hook to read "that Argo Tea is the largest chain of cafés focused on the world's most popular beverage after water?" All the ALTs in the DYK nom describe it as the largest and this fact is sourced.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) promoted the hook and discussed the modification with me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
But "largest" where? The source implicitly means largest in the US, but the hook by default suggests largest in the world. And I'm sure that there are main chains of tea-focussed cafés in Asia. BabelStone (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
(ec with babelStone) This simply cannot be true, at least not without some qualification. Some chain with 5 cafes is "the largest chain of tea cafes"? Impossible. It might be the largest in New York City, or it might be the largest [some particular kind of cafe], but it is certainly not "the largest chain" in the world. For instance, in many Asian countries there are tons of tea chains. Plus, the source's claim is shaky at best, it just attributes the claim to one guy: "Darren Tristano, an executive vice-president at Technomic Inc. in Chicago, says Argo Tea is the largest chain focused on tea." rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
(ec)With over 20 cafes it is likely the largest in the U.S. Not sure. Name a larger tea chain in Asia.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Erh, I don't think it's up to us to do your homework, but not even going to Asia, how about Teavana with 150 outlets in US and Mexico? BabelStone (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
And in Canada, Teaopia has over 40 locations. I'm sorry Tony, but your preferred hook is flat out wrong. Resolute 00:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the claim based on number of outlets or revenue generated. Most businesses compare themselves based on sales units or revenue. Argo claims $10million in sales.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the very fact that that question needs to be asked illustrates why people are concerned about this hook. It's just too unclear. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Check this for Teavana - seems much more than that, and no claims that Teavana is exceptionally big. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly so. The meaning of "largest" by the source is so imprecise as to be meaningless, and no-one here should need to guess what it means or do OR to verify it. With this level of concern the "largest" claim should simply be removed from the hook. BabelStone (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

O.K. can it run in the next batch from queue 6 rather than just resume its old slot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that we have resolved to go with the Kevin McE-revised hook, can someone put this back in a queue (preferably) a Western world daytime queue spot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Where was this decided? I don't see any discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Argo Tea and I certainly don't see a resolution here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
My "O.K." above was an agreement to remove the largest from the hook and revert to the version I disputed at the beginning of this post. Do you have an issue with that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively, we can relist Template:Did you know nominations/Argo Tea for resumed/extended discussions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I am just now seeing that this has been relisted at T:TDYK. I will continue my discussions there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion, please

Could somebody weigh in at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Powers regarding choice of hook? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Max Bell (queue 3)

The only possible reason for mentioning a salary of $35 (what currency incidentally? We are only meant to use US$, Euro, or £ sterling without posting an equivalent) is to give the impression of a very low salary. This was, however, at least equivalent to the national average wage, it was a managerial role, and his father owned the company. This was not a case of struggling up from the most menial taskrole and overturning the odds. A highly misleading impression is given by the hook. Kevin McE (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, at that time, the paper was controlled by the bank against a large debt. That said, I suspect $35 a week was actually above average. My goal was simply to point out where he started from and where he peaked in an interesting fashion. And not many people go from mid level manager to newspaper magnate. I think you read too much into it, though I certainly encourage changing to an alt. Might I suggest then something beginning with the debt he faced leading to owning the large chain? Resolute 16:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Not many people inherit a newspaper: that is scarcely insignificant. ... that Max Bell inherited a newspaper company in debt before going on to own Canada's largest newspaper syndicate? Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
He inherited a paper that his father had already lost, so using that alt's format, I would note he had to recover the paper first. Maybe: "...after regaining control of his father's newspaper and paying off its $500,000 debt, Max Bell went on to build Canada's largest newspaper syndicate by 1965?" Resolute 17:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Inheritance is an issue of ownership, not control. To bring that into a <200 character hook is excessive detail. I would argue that mine allows for a contrast, without suggesting that he was not without advantages. As I understand it, simply linking the currency does not address the WP:Currency issue. Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think my alt is better, but we'll probably need someone else to choose between the two. :) If we end up going with yours though, I'd drop the word "company". Bell inherited only a single newspaper. Resolute 17:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as the currency goes, the MOS suggests using C$ in this case, so you are right on that. Resolute 17:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Miro Exhibition

On 15th October, an exhibition opens in Barcelona of Miro paintings. The Wikipedians are curators. 17 of the paintings are described by new Wiki articles in Catalan, English, French, Russian. There are two DYK noms - "caresss of a bird" now in Prep 4 and "Woman ascending a Staicase" which is in the just created 15 October section. Any help appreciated. Victuallers (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Eiler Larsen (Q3)

I removed the description of this man as a vagabond, as was not one when he became the "greeter". I was reverted, on the grounds that it is true that he had been a vagabond, and later became the greeter. In that case, it is equally true to say that he was a pupil at a Danish school before he became the greeter. This looks like an attempt to crowbar onto the main page a word that an editor decided to put into the article, but is not in the cited material, and thus display our ability to use words that many readers will have to look up. Not, I would suggest, a noble use of our main portal. Kevin McE (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who restored the original hook. The article clearly documents that the man was a vagabond in the pure sense of that word -- someone who was a wanderer for many years, with no settled life, before he settled down in Laguna Beach and took on the role of greeter. For me, your removing that term from the hook converted an attention-getting hook into one that I would not give a second glance to. --Orlady (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, for reasons given above. But the pathetic amount of attention that hooks receive before reaching the main page (basically, anything gets there if about three people fail to object) mean that this has appeared without further discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Simple answer to this, really: offer yourself to be another overseer of the process. It's really that simple; the more people looking at the hooks, logically, the closer we get to perfection. Moaning about the "pathetic" nature of the process gets us nowhere. — Joseph Fox 09:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Just in case anyone doesn't know: at WP:ERRORS, Kevin often offers specific suggestions for the Main Page ("overseer") as well as some negative comments ("moaning"). Art LaPella (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Joseph: have you seen how many corrective changes I have made at the prep stage over the last few weeks? The problem is that there are very few eyes at this stage, and many of those are, I believe, more focussed on providing hooks than seeking to hold them to a high standard. Obviously there is a need for the production, but there are too few critical eyes to effectively check them. There was clearly a matter of dispute in the phrasing of this hook, but next to no people aware of the discussion to render anything that might vaguely be considered a consensus before it went to the main page.
Art: I'm sorry that you choose to interpret some of my contributions as moaning. I don't believe that I have knowing ever made observations at WP:ERRORS that have not been intended to improve the encyclopaedia, or at least draw the attention of others to that which needs attention. If you think you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to discuss it at my talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-mandatory addition of something to the nominated article's talk page

I just nominated an article, and when I did that I saw that I could add something to the article's talk page, but I forgot to do so. It wasn't mandatory to do so, but I'd still like to know what that was. Could anyone advice? Manxruler (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC) 

== Time to return to 3 hook sets per day? ==

The hook supply has been growing, leading me to think that it may be time to return to 3 sets per day (one every 8 hours). Alternatively, we could increase the number of hooks in each set to 7. Note that three sets per day increases output by 50%, whereas an increase to 7 hooks per set increases it only 17%. 

Regardless of the number of queues per day, I'd prefer larger hook sets, as it is easier to balance the content of a hook collection when there are 7 or 8 hooks than when there are only six. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 14:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
*I think we're ready. Looking at the bot's report, we currently have approximately 18 nominations a day. At 3 preps a day, we would be using 18 to 21 hooks a day; this would keep the number of hooks on T:TDYK stable. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
*More haste, less speed. --<small>[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt 'kristen itc';text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]]</small> 04:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
*From what I see below, the system is not coping at all well with two shifts a day. [[User:Tony1|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><span style="color: darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color: darkgreen">(talk)</font ></span>]] 06:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:: Too early to return to 3 per day IMO - I would at least wait until the hook count is over 200. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

::Regretfully concurring that it's a bit early to be sure of a trend, although I'd like to see us back at 3 a day soon, let's first increase the number of hooks per set and revisit the issue after Hallowe'en. (I'm also thinking we don't yet have enough Hallowe'en hooks for 3 sets that day to be spooky enough.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

:::I think it's time to return to 7 hooks per set. Before we increase, we need to warn the other Main Page projects, so I've inquired at [[Talk:Main Page]]. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 14:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

== DYK nomination ==

{{Template:Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE}}
rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It would be handy if this were mandatory or automatic, at least until after it has appeared on the MP. At present, to trace how a hook was arrived at, one has to trawl through the What links here list (which even for new pages can be lengthy if the page is in templates). Is such a thing possible? Kevin McE (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Some editors are automatically adding that to the article talk page, but I don't see the need; the template title always has the same format so I can find it by remembering what that is. It usually comes up as a suggestion in the search box when I start typing in the article name after the beginning bit. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to make it mandatory. There are links to the DYK nomination pages in the prep areas and the queues (so if you're reading articles in the queues it should be easy for you to get to the nomination page), and after it runs there's a link to it on the article talk page. Furthermore, as Yngvadottir pointed out, you can usually find it easily even without a link. If anyone wants to make a bot that will do this automatically, they are welcome to, but I don't see a reason to require people to do it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Once a hook is in the prep area or the queue, the discussion as to how that hook was arrived at is not any longer at T:TDYK. Although it is available after the hook has appeared, discussion on it then is futile. It is precisely at the time that the nomination is made available for wider discussion that it is least accessible. Kevin McE (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry: am I missing something really obvious here? I look, for example, at the queue page, and in the Prep 1 section I see a hook on the Lost River sucker. Are you telling me that, when looking at that, there is a one click jump to [[Template:Did you know nominations/Lost River sucker]]? If so, where? At present, I either have to type 35 characters into the search box, or click on the article, then on the "What links here" tab, then search down the list. If I am being really daft and missing the obvious, please point me at it so that I can kick myself. Kevin McE (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
From there, if you click the link to prep area 1, you will find links to all the nomination pages (each labelled "View nom subpage"). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah: that's what everyone meant. Thank you. Problem arose from confusion of the page called queue that has all the queues and prep areas transcluded, and the 6 pages called Queue 1, Queue 2 etc. Kevin McE (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter Beck (prep 2)

I can find no evidence for the claim of this man becoming figurehead of the city. One colour piece in one Sunday paper refers to him as a symbol. That is no more establishment of a fact than is the same article's description of the people of Sheffield as blunt or of Beck's hairstyle as a thatch. To be a figurehead is to be a leader and inspiration, to be a symbol is to be a recogniseable person associated with the place. Suggest that after the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, dean Peter Beck (pictured) was described as a "symbol of the city"? Kevin McE (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed in Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Beck and I found the hook in Prep 3. I agree that the hook fact does not accurately represent what the source says. I'm moving it back to the noms page for additional discussion. PS - I, for one, really appreciate having links to the items that are discussed on this page. --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination month not showing up when pages are created

Hello everyone, I noticed something odd while building the preps. It appears that the month of the nomination is not showing up automatically when the nomination is created. I verified this by creating a fake nomination and it didn't show up. It appears this has been so for a few days (5 maybe), and I thought that we needed the categories to keep the entire process easily accessible. Could someone fix the template? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the MediaWiki update has broken some stuff about the way the {REVISIONMONTH} and {REVISIONYEAR} magic words work, and those are what was used to fill in the month and year. I'll have to leave a message at the village pump about it; I don't know if it will be possible to fix the template until that stuff is dealt with.
In the meantime, people doing promoting of the hooks can just fill in the nomination month and year manually while promoting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I fixed it. (There is still a problem with the magic words; I just switched to some different magic words that can accomplish the same thing. The new version is actually more appropriate anyway. ) rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian rabbis

The discussion for "Palestinian rabbis" has been on the noms page for over 2 months, during which time the article has survived an AfD and a couple of requested-move discussions and has undergone extensive editing to resolve multiple issues of copyvio that I identified. There also have been 6 or 7 different hooks proposed, of which I believe only one (ALT4) is supported by the article and RS citations therein.

The article creator is adamant that his preferred hook, which I contend is not supported by the article, must be used. I have given him the choice of using ALT4 or failing the nomination. He doesn't like my opinion, and now is saying "If you are not happy with approving this hook, please don't reject this nom, but request comment from others." He also has suggested that Gatoclass thought one of his hooks was OK.

I've expended an inordinate amount of time reviewing this nomination, but now I'm wondering why I bothered. I am not interested in receiving the inevitable flak that will ensue when this controversially-titled article goes to the main page in DYK if I am also going to get flak from the article creator.

Accordingly, "comments from others" are requested. --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the discussion at all but I think it should be failed. It's nothing close to "new", and the fact that it's taken 2 months and still there's no agreement over it indicates that it's probably not stable or ready for the main page either. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've read and closed the discussion as "no consensus" to promote. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad hooks

There's seems to be a trend here towards more and more catchy or sensationalist hooks, resulting (at least three times this week that I know of) in original research and false statements (see Talk:Maroon Creek Bridge and stab wound). If we're going to put something as a "factoid" on the main page, we really should make sure it's right. If we're going to put words in a dead man's mouth, do we not have some sort of responsibility (to his surviving family and friends, for example) to get it right?

  • Did you know ... that immunologist and AIDS advocate Robert Frascino considered himself privileged after being infected with HIV?

No where is that found in the sources, it's a supposition and original research, trying too hard to be hooky, and inspired by the DYK reviewer, Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Frascino-- not wording that was originally proposed by the article writer. I wonder if his family, on reading that, considered him "privileged" to be dead? Please, let's be more careful on the mainpage to avoid original research-- if the man had said he was "privileged", it would not be plagiarism to restate that, but he did not say that. Neither is Maroon Creek Bridge the only significant remnant of rail travel on that line, as anyone who has taken a train to ski in CO will know. It's on the mainpage-- please stop stretching hooks to make them catchy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, its gone off the main page some 2 hrs ago. Materialscientist (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I was speaking generally ... as I recall, the original Billy Hathorn problem (finally) came to broader light because the same reviewer moved forward an unreviewed hook. There seems to be generally an overemphasis on catchy hooks, that is resulting in original research, and it often seems to be passed by the same reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
PS: the sources say Marook Creek Bridge is a relic. They do not say it's the most significant, nor do they say it's the most visible. [5] Would a primer on following sources correctly help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
In its current form, the Frascino article quotes him saying he considered it a privilege to be able to care for his dying brother. That happened after he was diagnosed, and it clearly indicates he considered himself privileged, so the hook is true, albeit sneakily worded. I verified that element of the hook before I moved the hooks from the prep area to the queue. The same cited source (quote not currently in the article) also quotes him as saying "I quickly realized as an HIV-positive physician, I held a unique and privileged position. I was able to speak with the knowledge and authority of a physician specialist but also with the eyes, heart and soul of an HIV-positive patient.” If I had read all of the article's sources before approving the queue, I probably would have added that to the article, but I didn't. Regardless, the hook was not original research. --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Orlady-- it's that "sneakily worded" business that DYK might stop striving so hard for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That's beyond sneaky, that's deliberately misleading. Kevin McE (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the omission from the article of that quotation in which he actually used the word "privileged", it's clear from the article as a whole that he received his infection in much the same way that a devout Christian would receive a calling to ministry. For example, a boxed quotation in the article says, in part: "Maybe I was meant to get this disease for a purpose." --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That's not the same as "privileged"; can we please review hooks for sourcing, avoiding original research and personal opinions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick check would be appreciated

I just submitted my first DYK, at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the birth control movement in the United States. Could some DYK black-belt please check to make sure I've followed the process correctly, and that my submission meets the requirements? I read the instructions, but you never know. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll grab a newspaper to read while I'm waiting :-) --Noleander (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Anniversary

I recently expanded one article (HMS Temeraire (1798)) and created another (Thomas Fortescue Kennedy), and since both are strongly linked to the Battle of Trafalgar (fought on 21 October 1805) I thought it would be good to have them displayed on the impending anniversary, Trafalgar Day. Temeraire has been updated and moved to the queue to appear on that day, but the Kennedy nomination, though approved, is still in the regular queues. I wonder if I could get some action on that before it might be too late? It would also be a nice gesture if the image with the Kennedy nom could be used as well, though perhaps suitably cropped (seen here)? The battle isn't appearing in the 'on this day' section, so this would be the only way to give it some prominence. I don't have a problem though if people would rather not do so for any reason, I'm happy to abide by what people here think. Benea (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert regarding the Kennedy hook. I have moved it to one of the prep areas that will go to the main page on 21 October. --Orlady (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Al Hamma (q6)

A village cannot be a railway station; it can have a railway station. Kevin McE (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Karet Bivak, Q1

"more than 48,000 graves on just 16.2 hectares (40 acres)": comparison with some London cemeteries suggests that this is by no means a densely packed cemetery: Highgate Cemetery has 53000 in 37 acres; West Norwood Cemetery is also 40 acres, but has more than 3 times as many burials as Karet Bivak at 160,000; Bunhill Fields has 10 times the density. The word just is not defensible. Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This cemetery is in Jakarta, not London, so it seems like you're comparing apples to oranges. The source also seems to be about crowding issues in cemeteries. Admittedly this is not the most exciting hook, but I don't see a problem with it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Further to Rjanag... The first proposed hook said that the cemetery was at capacity and burials were now being stacked. It was correctly pointed out on the nom page that stacking of burials is not unusual; also, I found that the sourcing for that statement was weak -- notably, that they were only stacking graves of people in the same family. I wrote the new hook because I was satisfied that the fact was supported by reliable sources. Different cultures have different burial practices, and it's apparent that this cemetery is densely packed in the context of burial practices in Indonesia. --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That just suggests that it is exceptionally crowded. Comparison with other cemeteries shows that this is not the case. The impression given is misleading, and an encyclopaedia should not mislead. If there is a factual hook that can be compiled about the local perception of it being crowded, or steps being taken, that is a different matter. Kevin McE (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You've cited examples of three cemeteries (in another part of the world) that are more crowded. That doesn't mean anything; who knows how many are less crowded. Clearly there is some subjectivity in determining what constitutes "crowded", but the sources suggest the cemetery is crowded and you haven't provided any real evidence that it's not, so I don't see anything misleading here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I wish I could be surprised that the regulars here would rather defend a proposed hook than avoid misleading readers of Wikipedia's most visited page. Kevin McE (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, please don't give up-- I think you may be DYK's only hope (and I note that you work in many areas of the mainpage as well). Now, as to DYK-- this is exactly like the other recent cases-- original research. The question(s) should not be those raised here, nor the defense of another poor hook, but 1) what exactly do the sources say, 2) why isn't that text even in the article, and 3) just fix it, for gosh sakes, instead of constantly defending the status quo here. Do y'all ever consider how many very good editors have left DYK, even Wikipedia, in disgust over what goes on here? Just fix it-- we have too many reviewers trying to write sensationalist, catchy hooks, resulting too often in original research. I remember that once, just once, when a problem was found at DYK, the nominator just fixed it. It doesn't have to be that rare, and you don't have to keep causing good editors to give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Personally, I think cutting the "on just so many acres" is fine. I didn't include the size of the cemetery as I didn't think it was overly interesting (and to avoid using something like "just"). If they want to see how packed it is, there are two pictures there that can be used to give them an idea. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The point, Sandy, is that I (and apparently some of the other commenters) don't agree anything needs to be fixed. It's no wonder many people have stopped contributing to DYK when merely disagreeing with someone subjects them to rants like this where they're accused of being "defensive" and driving people away from the project. Can we all just agree to grow up and accept that there are differences of opinion without attacking one another?

    Regarding the actual content issue: In this context, it doesn't need to be the case that the cemetery is unique for the word "just" to be OK. All that "just" implies is that, from the point of view of the person saying it, "16.2" hectares is a small amount of space to put "48,000 graves" in; there's no requirement that it be uniquely small. It seems that from the point of view of the person who wrote the source this is indeed a small amount of space. Thus, I don't see anything misleading about saying "just". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I changed the wording from "on just" to "in a space of". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
See how easy that was? [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
When it was demonstrated that 10 times the density is achieved in a manner considered perfectly socially acceptable in an affluent city like London, inclusion of judgemental words is flying in the face of evidence. It is not the place of an encyclopaedia to pass such judgements, and when the inclusion of unencyclopaedic content is proposed and flagged up, I would hope that encyclopaedic standard, rather than the text as proposed, is the defaulkt position as to what should be defended. Kevin McE (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Article renamed to be more concise, please verify

I nominate an article a few days ago. I just renamed it to be more concise: from History of the birth control movement in the United States to Birth control movement in the United States The DYK nom is at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the birth control movement in the United States. Could someone please validate that I did not screw up any links or transclusions? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

DYKmake

Is this right? Art LaPella (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Furthermore, in the past the update bot would not issue credits from lines like {{DYKmake|Palacio de las Dueñas|Dr. Blofeld|subpage=Palacio de las Dueñas}} , but Shubinator said he fixed that. Materialscientist (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, what you did was correct. It looks like the nominator messed up the credit templates here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio checks

Why was Alicia Aberley not checked for close paraphrasing?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The link to ref#1 in the article is not working for me, so it's hard to see what your concern is. I just checked four other references using Duplication Detector and found no problems, although I appreciate that the first one is used to support more text than the others. Mikenorton (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
OK it's become available again and most of the matches are lists of events, e.g. "record for the 50 metres 100 metres and 200 metres breaststroke" which are pretty much factual. I would regard these examples as borderline too close paraphrasing at worst, but I'm no expert. Mikenorton (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I honestly didn't intend to do word those the same for those phrases found on hansard. I'm just not certain how to otherwise word them for she broke the world record for these events. World record can't really be reworded. The events she set them in are rather specific. Changing the order from longest to shortest isn't standard for how to list. Swimming and athletics tends to pretty consistently do shortest to longest. Just not sure how to fix that. :( --LauraHale (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't think of anyway to reword this either. Calling this out for close paraphrasing feels nitpicky, since there's no way around that unless we start adding modifiers or reverse the order, which doesn't work. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Wizardman. The world of sport is full of names and facts that can only reasonably be described by a rather specific string of words. I find it very hard to imagine anyone claiming copyright over a phrase like "in the 200 metres individual medley and the 50 and 100 metres freestyle" -- and even less likely any court would uphold such a claim. Running the detector can be useful, and it's worth considering its results; automatically assuming its reports are overly close paraphrases, though, wouldn't be an appropriate use of the tool. Sandy, I hope all you were suggesting was the former? -Pete (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed this nomination. Like others have said, there really isn't any other way to write those phrases because they are just the event names. - PM800 (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks ok to me as well. For future reviews, though, it would always be good to indicate that you've checked for this (i.e., something like "Length, date, and hook verified, and no copyvio problems" or something like that. If you checked it, might as well take credit for checking it :) rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I feel the same as Wizardman and followers. Some facts loose the very facts we should go for in rewording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's always curious to me when copyvio concerns are met with responses based only on wording-- copyvio occurs when structure is copied also. "There's only one way to word it" isn't the right answer in those cases. Besides, the question was, was it checked, or have we already stopped checking ?? Since there is still no directorate at DYK, when admins pass the hooks to the mainpage, do they verify that necessary checks have been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, in calling attention to this issue, the only explanation you gave was to the results of a bot, which highlights specific word matches. If you feel there is something deeper going on here, you might find we could be persuaded -- but it's much more likely that will happen if you share your thinking with us. -Pete (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't typically use any of the copyvio detection tools (it may be the first time I have), but I saw elsewhere that this particular tool can be helpful in looking at the structure of the article around the instances of similar wording. I'm more curious that it seems that copyvio checks are no longer being done on some nominations, so I checked one. I disagree that with the entire premise that there is no other way to write this article, but since it's not a hugely egregious case, my real question is, was it checked or not? The history at DYK for many years has been that as soon as non-DYK regulars stop shining a light on plagiarism here, DYK goes back to business as usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm finally beginning to understand where you're coming from: you've got a WP:POINT and this just happens to be the article you're seeking to demonstrate it on. Personally, I don't feel that's very kind to the writer, the nominator, or the reviewer of this particular article. So I'm going to disengage. If this particular instance isn't hugely egregious, I'll just watch for a discussion that doesn't unnecessarily ensnare good faith contributors in cross-fire. -Pete (talk)
So Sandy, your original question was "How can I tell if Alicia Aberley has been checked for close paraphrasing?", because it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the review. I personally think it's helpful to specifically mention it in the review, but you would get a clearer answer if your question was clearer. Mikenorton (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Why was Alicia Aberley not checked for close paraphrasing?

Looks pretty clear to me ... still concerned about the close paraphrasing and structure, and still wonder if y'all have just stopped checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I asked Moonriddengirl for assistance related to the plagiarism issue. Moonriddengirl did not find a problem. Is your issue that you believe there are genuine plagiarism issues in this article? If so, I would be more than happy to try to fix them, but I'm just not certain where they are based on the link you provided, which suggests possible issues. Are there other parts of the article, that upon further investigation you think warrant a deeper look at this article? (Do you have suggestions for how to fix it and can you elaborate on structural issues? I've honestly never seen structural issues cited for copyvio related complaints.) Are you singling out the reviewer of the article for not using the tool you used for not saying "I checked using this tool. It highlighted potential problems, but they do not appear to be copyvios," or are you criticising the people who moved the DYK to the holding pen for not having followed up to make sure all DYKs have been checked for potential copyright issues? I guess that is where the clarity issue comes in. --LauraHale (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
No, her issue is that she has a WP:POINT to make about DYK, but she is pissing in the wind here. For the record, as the nominator, I checked the article for copyvios, and, like everybody else here, found none. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Expansion

I am in the process of expanding BWV 169. I remember that DYKcheck gave me a result for any in-between state, such as when expansion began 2 days ago, to compare, - but no more. Help, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that if you bring up the version from 10 September, that DYKcheck won't give you the character count? It gives me 1143 characters for that version compared to 4027 now. Mikenorton (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I don't quite understand what "bring up" means. I used to click on "prev" for a certain version, and then DYK check, and got a result, yellow for the prose, char count etc. When I do that now for an older version, nothing happens. It works for me for the current version only. I guess I overlook something simple? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I just tried it and it worked fine for me. Open the version from 10 September and run DYK check or prosesize.js and it'll give you the character count. If not, it's probably a problem with your browser or skin, try clearing your cache. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on with DYKcheck, it's been playing up for the last few days (see also here), for instance it no longer gives me results when I use preview, a pain because I use it to check hook lengths in one of my sandboxes and I now have to save each version for comparison. I just clicked on prev for the 10 September version and it gave me the same character count of 1143 characters. Mikenorton (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, helped, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick note on Prep 1

Today I took a clearer picture of Jubilee Library, Brighton, to replace the photo that was in the article's infobox. The old photo has also been used in Prep 1, but as it is no longer in the article I imagine it needs to be replaced by the new photo (File:Jubilee Library and Jubilee Square (from Southwest), Brighton.JPG). I haven't changed the prep area myself as it is my hook. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Image swap completed. --Allen3 talk 22:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK if not 5x expansion

If articles are not expanded 5x, they do not qualify for DYK. Some articles are large to begin with and are expanded 2-4x. Is there any way for them to appear on DYK? For example, see Childhood amnesia.

It's disappointing to the students to not be able to qualify for DYK because their article was too large when they started to qualify for DYK. If the article was sufficiently improved, more than 2x with a number of rs, can we IAR the 5x requirement?Smallman12q (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  • IAR-ing an expansion requires consensus; some, like Conan the Barbarian acquire it. Others, like Babe Ruth Award, don't. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • There's no reason for DYK to change its criteria to satisfy a few people's assignments. Professors who are making the assignments should understand the criteria before starting a Wikipedia-based class project. Really, they shouldn't be making assignments that require students to get a DYK or GA or whatever unless they have already determined a clear list of articles that would be feasible—it's not fair for editors here to be faced with people telling them "if you don't pass this article then [I / my students] will get a bad grade". The bottom line is, people can do Wikipedia class projects without forcing existing Wikiprojects to change how they work. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
      • We shouldn't think of this in terms of assignments. Students are irrelevant to DYK. That said, I do think that it is unfair to treat new noms the same as expansions. Having written over 300 DYKs, I can certify that expansion is often much, much harder. We should use a size criteria: for example 5x for <100 words, 4x for under 100-250 words, and so on on, ending with 2x for large articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DYKcheck bugfixes

I've applied a few bugfixes to DYKcheck for the bugs mentioned here. Thanks to Bruce1ee, Maile66, and Mikenorton for bringing up the three bugs. As always, if you find a bug, let me know. (And sorry for the long delay on these three.) Shubinator (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Shubinator, it works fine on preview now. Mikenorton (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The bug I reported (yellow highlight not clearing when pressing "DYK check" a second time) is fixed now. Thanks Shubinator. —Bruce1eetalk 07:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_74&oldid=1148085527"