Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Slow loading times at T:TDYK

Anyone else having this problem in the last week or so? The page loads 99%, and then just stops for half a minute or more, apparently doing nothing. I'm starting to find it pretty irritating, it didn't used to do this. Has anyone added some new code or something to the page which might account for this behaviour? Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Same thing with me. So much so that when I fill a prep area or two, I have to have two tabs dedicated to TTDYK. But nothing can really be done about it...--Giants27 (c|s) 12:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

T:TDYK works ok for me so far. But I do get this problem on some other pages. Time for wikimedia to use those donations on a bit of upgrading I guess. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have driven away quite a few contributors, we are down to only 14 verified hooks now, from over 80 just a couple of weeks ago. Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What's with the random code insertions?

Anyone know why
<style type="text/css"> /* Fix the sidebar's position while you scroll */ div[id=column-one] { /* Using the attribute selector hides this from IE */ position: fixed; height: 100%; /* If you shrink the browser too small, the */ overflow: auto; /* side column will become scrollable, so stuff */ z-index: 2; /* is always accessible, albeit ugly */ } #p-logo { /* Make logo inline with other divs */ position:static; } #column-one { /* Sidebar column start at the top screen edge */ padding-top: 0; } #p-lang .pBody ul{ /* Sets the language box to a fixed height and */ height: 6em; /* scrollable if too long to fit on screen */ overflow: auto; } /* Fix the background image, too, so it looks nice as you scroll */ body { background-attachment: fixed; } /* Fix the footer so it looks nice and doesn't overlap the sidebar */ #footer { margin-left: 13.6em; border-left: solid 1px rgb(250, 189, 35); -moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 1em; } /* Keep personal links at the top right */ #p-personal { width:100%; white-space:nowrap; padding:0 0 0 0; margin:0; position:absolute; left:0px; top:0px; z-index: 0; border: none; background: none; overflow: visible; line-height: 1.2em; } #p-personal h5 { display:none; } #p-personal .portlet, #p-personal .pBody { padding:0; margin:0; border: none; z-index:0; overflow: visible; background: none; } /* this is the ul contained in the portlet */ #p-personal ul { border: none; line-height: 1.4em; color: #2f6fab; padding: 0em 2em 0 3em; margin: 0; text-align: right; text-transform: lowercase; list-style: none; z-index:0; background: none; } #p-personal li { z-index:0; border:none; padding:0; display: inline; color: #2f6fab; margin-left: 1em; line-height: 1.2em; background: none; } #p-personal li a { text-decoration: none; color: #005896; padding-bottom: 0.2em; background: none; } #p-personal li a:hover { background-color: White; padding-bottom: 0.2em; text-decoration: none; } </style>
is being randomly inserted on the suggestions page? See for example this diff. Oddly, some of the edits I made to remove it are not in the edit history. Otto4711 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's coming from DYKcheck. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How odd. I don't know how that would happen; DYKcheck doesn't edit. (It most definitely is coming from DYKcheck though.) Shubinator (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible crash of DYKadminBot

I have noticed that DYKadminBot (talk · contribs) has not completed the 10:00, August 20, 2009 (UTC) update. The last edit performed by the bot occurring part way through the {{dyktalk}} insertions. An e-mail has been sent to the bot operator reporting the problem, but I do not know if he will be able to respond before the next scheduled update. Are there any actions that should occur before the 15:00 update to ensure normal continuation of updates? --Allen3 ^talk 10:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Argh! The bot is working, but it is getting hung up somewhere and not doing its full job. It is not clearing the old queue and is not incrementing the "next queue" page. Instead it is repeatedly updating DYK with the same hook set, and re-issuing the same set of credits. --Orlady (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reset queue 4 (the one that the bot keeps updating the template from), incremented the counter to point to queue 5 as "next", and manually changed the update time to force the next update in less than one hour. We can see if the bot does the next one correctly, or gets hung up again... --Orlady (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And I just removed all the double credits from the user talk pages.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Giants27. I'm pleased to report that the 'bot seems to have completed the last update (from Queue 5) correctly. Phew! --Orlady (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

From the history, it appears that the bot got hung up at different places in the process in its multiple passes through Queue 4. Maybe someone can looks at the logs and figure out what caused the problem... --Orlady (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Another hiccup

There was another hiccup during the 05:00, August 23, 2009 (UTC) update. The bot stopped after performing the last needed talk page update. Queue 3 (the queue used by the update) has been manually reset and User:DYKadminBot/count incremented. Hopefully the bot will perform the next update properly. --Allen3 ^talk 09:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

11:00, August 23, 2009 (UTC) update completed normally. --Allen3 ^talk 11:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is so weird...--Giants27 (c|s) 12:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

At least we have what looks like a functional work around—manually complete any uncompleted update. In the mean time I would recommend that anyone who sees a hiccup log the interruption here so that an admin can update protected files and the bot owner will know what time stamps to look for in his logs when he again becomes available. --Allen3 ^talk 21:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver down

The toolserver is currently experiencing problems.[1] This is the apparent reason for the bot missing the 17:00, August 24, 2009 (UTC) update. --Allen3 ^talk 20:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems again

Well, it has been nine hours since the last update, probably because the toolserver is still down; can an admin manually do it? Thanks, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, after the next update, we will have only one queue (#4) left... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd do it but I don't know how.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know either. :P I think PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) is on it... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone clear Q3? As it appears as though he's forgotten about that.--Giants27 (c|s) 21:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Queue counter has also been updated. --Allen3 ^talk 21:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Queue 4 (next up) should have "Hepburn" linked to Katharine Hepburn (not the redirect at "Katherine"). (Are random editors allowed to fix things like that after the queue has been assembled?) - PKM (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever did the article talk page creds; I forgot and then had to go to work. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone willing to throw a couple of sets together?--Giants27 (c|s) 03:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) filled P1 and most of P2. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so the last update (16:40-ish) was perfect. Go bot go! Here's to hoping everything is now back to normal... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with 23:14, August 30, 2009 (UTC) update

This update hung in the middle of tagging article talk pages with {{dyktalk}} templates. Update has been manually completed.--Allen3 ^talk 00:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

{{editprotected}}

The note at the top of Template:Did_you_know/Queue should say: "If there are 3 or more empty queues, this page will report as a backlog." and not "If are 3 or more empty queues, this page will report as a backlog." Smartse (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Verified hooks = Very low

The number of verified hooks are growing dangerously low. If you guys could take a bit of extra time to verify a couple extra hooks today (especially those without images), it would be much appreciated. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple of grammatical errors in Queue 4

1. "Greg Maddux' personal catcher" is a highly nonstandard possessive construct. It's more correct to write "Greg Maddux's personal catcher"
2. "the 1930 musical The New Yorkers received critics for bad taste." The word "critics" should be "criticism" here.

Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed both errors. Thanks, JamieS93 22:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Stupid hook

... that kids are people too!

Who approves this garbage? --NE2 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I share your dislike of the hook... but in answer to your question, you can find out very easily who approved any article, just by searching the revision history of Template talk:Did you know. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 18:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The full discussion of the hook is available here, if you have anything constructive to say about it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was an amusing hook, and it looked better than anything else that could work from the article. Do you have a better suggestion? NW (Talk) 20:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I came here to comment on the hook, too. It's...weird. Definitely belongs better on April Fools' Day than the normal DYK rounds. It's amusing from a DYK'er perspective, so in a way I like the hook. But it's just plain strange, possibly stupid-looking, from a reader's perspective. Thousands of people are viewing this; can we consider taking it down? It's not damaging, like an inaccurate or libelous hook could be, but just strange. A sentence ending in ! doesn't look right on the home page of an encyclopedia. JamieS93 20:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It'll come down automatically in about two hours. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time a hook such as this has appeared on DYK. The last one I remember is the hook for Who Stole the Cookie from the Cookie Jar? on 29 September 2007. --Allen3 ^talk 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was funny. Can't always be completely serious, can we----even here? :-)Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the hook worked. The primary purpose of any hook is to get people intrigued enough to read the article... and hopefully improve it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It certainly got me to click on it and read the page. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 22:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would not be surprised if the article is the most clicked on article during its time slot, nor would I be surprised if it qualifies for the DYKSTATS page, and I feel that way moreso now that I see NE2's comment above!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

@Vicenarian - that was why I promoted it to the prep area. It makes you think twice and want to know what the heck it is about—isn't that the point of DYK? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. 8.8k. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That IS what it's about - enticing readers to new content. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 02:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Might have worked well as an April Fools' day hook, but I don't see anything wrong with this one really. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Could have worked on April 1 as well... but I have a better one in mind for April 1st...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Shhh, don't spoil it! Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those sentiments as well. The hooks should be designed to intrigue people to read an article and that hook surely managed to do that. Mission accomplished I'd say. I have not seen a reason here why this hook should be considered "garbage". Regards SoWhy 17:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh is that what it's all about! And all the while I though we were trying to create a quality encyclopaedia here. Let's just take the whole shit down then and put up a link to a Britney Spears crotch shot, I'm sure that will set new records.

I think it's important that editors understand that DYKSTATS is not a competition. Personally I don't feel strongly about this hook one way or another, but if anyone has legitimate concerns with specific hooks, then that needs to be discussed without reference to the view count. It was because a lot of people didn't understand this that the name was changed from DYKBEST to DYKSTATS. Lampman (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Grammar problem in queue 3

The hook should read something like "... that in 1987, 13 years after its citizens voted to repeal the city's gay rights ordinance, Boulder, Colorado became the only American city to adopt a gay rights law through popular referendum?" This was suggested as an ALT because the existing hook is grammatically strained. Otto4711 (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That did sound weird. Fixed. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation from other language Wikipedia?

If an article is a translation of an article on a different language Wikipedia, is it considered a new article, or should it be expanded 5x per "Additional Rule" A5? I was referred here from the "Additional rules" talkpage. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's new here, but the sourcing and other rules apply. If you translate an unsourced or bad article from another Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, it's still an unsourced or bad article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Italian hook

Hi, my Anglo-Italian Cup hook is currently in queue 2 having been put there by NW.[2] (thanks by the way). If it is a reasonable request and this is seen in time, would it be okay to change it to the second hook that I suggested which was verified by Decltype, because I feel it is much more interesting. I'd do it myself but I don't think it is right to change one's own work without approval once it has got to the protected stage. Also, if regulars know a reason why the alternative hook is not suitable please ignore this request. Finally, a thank you. I really don't want this to sound like a complaint of any kind (it doesn't bother me much) and I think you all do fantastic work in keeping these suggestions turning over to the main page. So, because it isn't said to all you DYK regulars enough, thanks for all your hard work! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 20:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I preferred the original hook, so I chose that one, but the other one is quite fine with me. I have no problem with the swap, and I accept your thanks with gratitude :) NW (Talk) 22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Counting footnotes as "readable prose"

Recently there was a bit of a brouhaha over whether or not informational footnotes (as opposed to reference notes) should be considered "readable prose" for purposes of DYK eligibility. My argument in favor of inclusion is that such asides, designed to offer additional relevant information that may be distracting if placed directly within the article, qualify as readable prose and do not fall under any exclusion listed either in the selection criteria (infoboxes, categories, references, lists, tables) or in the additional rules (block quotes, headers, images and captions, the "See also" section if any, the references section, Table of Contents, edit buttons and all superscript like [6] and [citation needed]). The argument against counting them was that DYK Check excludes them. I don't know how often this situation arises, but when it comes up again I'd like clarification that footnotes are definitely in or definitely out. Obviously, my !vote is for definitely in. Otto4711 (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd like such a clarification. I don't have a strong opinion on the footnotes themselves, but if we are going to count them, I hope that will be automated with DYKcheck. Art LaPella (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes should be counted I think, because they form part of the article. They are used for clarifying something, and are used at the end so that it won't get in the way of the main subject matter (or the flow of the article, if you like). I'm not sure if it would be able to make them counted using automated tools, however, because they use the same method as references. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessary lawyering. No offense intended, just let me explain.

Clearly there is no way to make this automated. Explanatory footnotes and reference notes are, usually, mixed up together. Sometimes people have them listed separately (for example, in my big articles the reference notes are <ref name="whatever">bla bla bla</ref> and extra/explanatory footnotes use the "group" attribute, <ref group="note">By the way...</ref>). But that's mostly personal editing preference, and there is no time in the foreseeable future when this will be standard across the project. Long story short, there's no good way for a script or any other tool to tell the difference between an "informational footnote" and a "reference footnote" across the project; these characters would have to be added by hand (using a cut & paste character counter, word processor, or whatever) after getting the automated count.

So why not do it manually, might you ask? Well, to be frank, if an article is so close to the borderline that a couple footnotes are going to make the difference between "5x expansion" or not, there's really no point lawyering about it. If an article is at 4.9x expansion or whatever, I see no reason for people to be rejecting it without a good reason. If, on the other hand, your article is only at 2x expansion but if the footnotes were counted it would be at 5x, then obviously your footnotes make up way too much of the article and you need to reconsider its writing style anyway—in such a case I would the article just for needing cleanup, regardless of the character count. Either way, I don't see any reason for the the footnote character count to be the deciding factor in whether an article passes or not. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Limitations of a tool should not get in the way of something that has no other problems IMO. But I agree that the footnotes should not be a major factor in deciding the character count. But in a major expansion, it may make a bit of a difference. In short, what I think is that footnotes can count, but how much they will count should be decided using only one tool—the brain. As the rules say, whether a hook passes or fails should be decided on the "discretion of the selecting reviewers". ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think limitations of the tool should determine what we quote as "prose". We can still approve a nomination anyway. For instance, if a nomination has 1000 bytes of prose and 5000 bytes of list, with a couple hundred bytes of text for each item on the list, I will note that there isn't enough prose according to the rules, but this is a good candidate for an exception. But if we have to manually find the footnotes in each nomination (7 every 6 hours plus rejects), count the characters, and add them before we can say "1346 bytes of prose", then that is a major waste of time better spent on other issues, such as spell checking the article for instance. Art LaPella (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be difficult to program DYKcheck to find prose on the footnotes for one page, and since different editors footnote differently, there isn't a reasonable way to do it that would work for any page. (I say reasonable because I could fetch wikitext, but that would slow down the script quite a bit.) Plus someone could game the system by putting all the refs in a "notes" group. No comment now on the actual rule; might chime in later. Shubinator (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If people other than Otto4711 start arguing that something is really prose, we could solve it semantically by calling it "DYKcheck prose". That would be a hard number, and any debates should be about whether to approve despite that number. (I've long considered the entire prose-only concept to be more trouble than it's worth, but that's another issue.) Art LaPella (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but getting back to the footnotes issue, it looks like everyone thinks including footnotes in our character count is not a problem, but should be treated with some common sense in every situation, am I right? It seems to me that it would be very rare for something like this to occur, and then we can talk about it and decide if necessary. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No way should footnotes be counted as prose. Footnotes are nothing more than just notes about random things in the article and should be treated as such. If footnotes are allowed we might as well start counting references and external links since they're in principle the same thing, non-prose. We should stick to prose and not every little thing at the end of an article.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes are footnotes, not prose. While I agree with Otto4711 that the "[citation needed]' flag was improperly counted, we should be setting firm minimums for articles. 1,500 is a rather short article and we should be aiming for articles at double that size. Rather than finding ways to tip a 1,400-character article to scrape by 1,500, we should be increasing the minimum and holding firm on the minimum. In retrospect, Otto4711 was at 5x when DYKcheck said he wasn't. Let's recognize that while DYKcheck is not perfect, we should hold by its prose number unless an appropriate case can be made that there is an issue with its count and any bugs in the count should be identified and resolved ASAP. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite imagine an article of less than 1,500c that has a footnote "prosy" enough to be worth counting. Rather than change the rules on "informational" notes, rather than refs, in such short articles they should just be edited into the main text, surely? Even for expansions, I'd just add them temporarily if its an issue. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is more likely to arise with the expansion of an article already quite considerable in size IMO, rather than a new article. I thought it would be ok to include this, but considering that infoboxes etc are also a main part of the article, it just dawned on me that my argument is null :) Looks like WP:DYKCN is going to get another to the list. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

IRC channel

Hey guys. I know some of you are on IRC, but I have recently been made aware of the presence of #wikipedia-en-dyk ^connect. I've been idling in it for a week or two and haven't seen any activity; perhaps it is time we advertise it on the main WP:DYK page, or WP:IRC? At the very least, it will provide a venue for experienced DYK reviewers to get in live contact with potential nominees etc much in the same way #wikipedia-en-help ^connect operates. Thoughts? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know. Who made this and then kept it secret? :P Anyway, I've added it to WP:IRC since we are after all a 'major' project here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Size check tool

Could someone with the tool very kindly check if there is a 5x expansion in Dutch Golden Age painting between this version and the latest (please say which this was)? I normally just cut & paste, but this is way too long. Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr pda/prosesize.js reports an expansion from 6874 B (1084 words) to 38 kB (6194 words) "readable prose size", so the answer to your question is the article has undergone a 5x expansion. --Allen3 ^talk 23:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks very much! Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

CSCT and Charles of Lorraine-Commercy

Did anyone else notice that the hook for CSCT, now in prep area 1, relies on a primary source? Dahn (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. More specifically the primary source in question is a corporate press release. The usage also appears to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves as the release is not about a third-party, unduly self-serving, or making questionable claims. Furthermore the article includes independent third-party sources and does not use the primary sources for analysis but instead simply as a source for numerical data as allowed by Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. --Allen3 ^talk 12:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It being "the largest" is not numerical data, and does involve claims about third parties (the ones that are not as large). Presumably, if the fact is true, it should also be notorious, and easily sourced from a secondary source. It's not. And yes, as long as it's not verified by a secondary source, it is potentially "unduly self-serving" and "making questionable claims". Dahn (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also: it's not that big an issue, but I did state an objection to the hook about Charles of Lorraine-Commercy - namely, that the hook about him being "one of the most trusted lieutenants" is another way of saying that he was in service to Prince Eugene of Savoy. This admittedly is not an interesting hook in itself, unless going with "... did you know that Abraham Lincoln was a US President?" is interesting. It's another way of saying "... did you know that the subject of my article was once alive?", or "... did you know that clicking this link will get you to an article?" I had commented on that, but there was no reply, and the hook was simply picked as such, with no change whatsoever. Dahn (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Anybody out there? Dahn (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest somebody move the CSCT hook back to the suggestions page then so that a discussion about this can take place, before it is copied to a queue. I'd have done it myself, but my current connection is too damned slow to be doing anything except commenting here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The CSCT article could certainly use another independent source, but I don't really think this is such a significant issue that it needs to be pulled having been promoted already. I also think it highly unlikely that the company would be promoting itself as the largest terminal were that not the case.

As for the Charles of Lorraine-Commercy hook - interest is often in the eye of the beholder, and while it's not a hook to set the world on fire I think it's passable. Gatoclass (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

File:SMS Kurfuerst Friedrich Wilhelm 1900.jpg

Please get this image (now on p1) protected before it is moved to the queue. I added it to p1 intending to get it done, but I'm experiencing connection problems again. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Allen3 has done it. Gatoclass (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted from enwiki and protected on Commons (by Durova), as the special template does not work on enwiki. NW (Talk) 00:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Curly Top

Unfortunately, the DYK related to this article already has reached the main page, but it provides a good lesson for those editors who approve hooks. I don't believe it's sufficient to make sure an article has been expanded 5x. The content that has been added needs to be examined as well. In the case of this article, most of what had been added violated film project guidelines and WP:SYNTH. It included two long sections that sounded like they had been written for a film appreciation course and were not related directly to the subject matter. It also included a biography of Shirley Temple. All this material has been excised from the article. May I respectfully request that in the future editors approving DYK nominations give the article enough of a glance to determine if it meets Wikipedia standards and not just the length requirement? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The 5x rule (all of which must be new content) is not changing anytime soon however aside from those obvious problems with the article, and you really can't expect somebody to know every random guideline from a wikiproject. But there were other problems with it as you mentioned, which should of been sorted out during the review process. But they didn't which happens sometimes when somebody just looks for the hook fact and doesn't read the article (heck, I do that sometimes too).--Giants27 (c|s) 13:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note Allen3 (talk · contribs) (verifier, mover to queue) and NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) (mover to prep area) should be notified of this discussion.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

While I did look the article over some, I didn't give it as full of a look through as I normally would, because the hook had already been verified by an experienced DYK administrator. I shall try to be more careful in the future. NW (Talk) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

With the core problem being a lack of volunteers willing to perform the work needed to fully vet articles and still keep DYK functioning at a rate that allows for regular updates and a manageable queue size, there is plenty of blame to go around. As Giant27 noted, this was a case of the hook fact being checked but the rest of the article not being examined in detail. Admonishments of the half-dozen to dozen people who perform the majority of the work needed to keep DYK functioning, telling them to work harder or do a better job, are however unlikely to create the desired result as they do not address the core problem. For more information on this phenomena, please see User:Art LaPella/Is this criticism constructive?. --Allen3 ^talk 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to "admonish" anyone, and I'm sorry you took it that way. I merely was trying to point out that while the rule about 5x expansion is stringent, it's ironic that the added material - beyond the hook - wasn't checked to determine if it belonged in the article. I think that was a valid observation and, while I prefer not to use a word as negative as "criticism," I believe my comment was "constructive." LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps you didn't know that we have software to enforce the 5x rule (although exceptions make it not so automatic). Subjective judgments require more time and volunteers. Art LaPella (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone reviewing hooks regularly here has messed up a bit once or twice. While we should be more careful, it just isn't feasible to give an article a thorough review with the high number of nominations. We should be thankful to the people who point out those mistakes, since we can at least learn from them and avoid them in the future (one such lesson we have learned the hard way is about BLP related hooks). As Giants27 said, the reviewer should try to give the article a quick read to spot any bias etc but that doesn't always happen. I guess that's something you learn with experience, and we are all still learning. ≈ Chamal (sock) ^{Master · talk} 10:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I checked - 3850 characters starting out minus the list. Approximately 25300 characters including the two "lists" that are more developed than just a list. I would have easily passed this as a 5x expansion. I do not see the synthesis problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rescue theme?

I notice a bunch of rescue themed hooks / articles on the nominations page right now. Would it be good or bad for them to appear all together on the Main Page? --Una Smith (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad, if there's no date connection (ie, if it's not a special Halloween update or Darwin Day update or whatever). It would be better just to spread them out, 1 per update. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps move them to Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_for_September_11? Cirt (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course! That's why I expanded an article with a rescue theme (duh), but I forgot all about the theme holding pens. --Una Smith (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Can these hooks be scheduled to appear on the Main Page during mid-morning in the eastern US time zone? --Una Smith (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Timing is difficult, but for sure they can be for that date. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the List of accidents and incidents involving the Vickers Viscount has been moved to the 11 Sept holding area. This date is associated with aviation terrorism (World Trade Centre attacks). The accident mentioned in the hook was not the result of terrorism, nor were the vast majority of the accidents and incidents mentioned. I'm not sure that this date is the most appropriate for the hook to appear. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved it. I was undecided what exactly the theme should be: accidents/crashes/disasters, or rescue/heroism. On reflection, I prefer the second theme. Shall we put that nom back where it was before? --Una Smith (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So, Queue1 would be the best time? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, in my opinion, Q6-Q3 will work since they're all timed on 9/11 in America.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

NGC 300

The picture is from ultraviolet light and should be thus indicated (ultraviolet image pictured) instead of (pictured) as currently slated for listing. WilliamKF (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so no one else goes looking, I saw that you made the edit yourself. Thanks for helping out! NW (Talk) 20:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Got only 1 credit on a double hook

I did a double hook for Not by Bread Alone and Vladimir Dudintsev but only got a credit for the first one. I know it is not a big deal, but could someone take care of a cred for Dudintsev? That way, my DYK total stays easily verifiable.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You do know that you can fix it yourself and don't have to worry about people complaining. :) I've found various errors in hooks before, and it isn't really a problem (sometimes there is a slip in filling in the information for the bot, so it gets lost in the automated process). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess. I'll just insert it in the hook credit and if I ever run for President I am sure it will be held against me.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Quad nomination Thierry Gueorgiou, Anders Nordberg, Michal Smola, Martin Johansson

was moved to prep area and then something happened - a single nom Thierry Gueorgiou was split out of it, and I do not know what to do with other honest 3 noms. Una Smith reposted them individually, with his own hooks (kind of weird situation, as he actually did not expand them), which was a great help though as I would be absolutely clueless, still could anyone give a comment. It is not that I'm really complaining, but IMO, at least some explanation had to be given to me as a nominator. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just now saw this discussion, and I'd like to insert an aside re "weird situation". Materialscientist expanded articles 2–4 with a big chunk of text derived from my own expansion of article 1. (Maybe the incident(s) in the WOC relay should be spun off as a separate article.) I am delighted to have so much timely help! Materialscientist made us co-noms on the quad hook; I kept the status quo when re-nominating the 3 articles that didn't get used. I apologize for any insult Materialscientist may have taken. I have added something to each article, mostly to support the best hook I could find (and source!) in each. I also got a great Team Fairplay photo licensed on Commons, and have been fixing a related dab and redirects and incoming links. --Una Smith (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no any slight to you here. IMO, you did great at all stages. No slight to the article contents - it is not easy to decide how to describe one event related to 4 people in 4 articles. As to my complains, I know mistakes happen at DYK and take it easy. My suggestion for the future was (i) to keep all major rewritings of the hooks at T:TDYK area, which is transparent and has a traceable history (ii) notify the nominators in case of major rewriting. The current DYK spirit is, from the nominator side, "do what you want with my hook but put it up". Sooner or later someone will come up with "what the hell have you done with my hook up there". Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's fine as it is (with the other 3 re-nommed). It looks like the promoter just didn't see the other 3. If you want to make a triple hook, merge the noms (or make it very clear that a triple hook exists in another section). Shubinator (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Argh.. No. The promoter cut off the other three noms, linked in all and any possible ways in the code of the joint nomination, ignoring ALT hooks and discussion. All those articles are on a rare topic (who watches the sport of orienteering ?) and were expanded only to join the nice rescue story, which happened once in a lifetime in this sport, under one umbrella hook. Now that hook is already aired, with one nom, leaving three others hookless. Una Smith is trying to save them by other hooks, kudos to him, but the train is gone. There is no use crying over split milk here - it is about the system. Speaking in language of Matrix-3, you've got dark areas, like T:DYK/P1, where a Trainman can do anything and I can do nothing. I would be much happier if all discussions happen at T:TDYK or user talk pages, if more appropriate, but once a nom leaves T:TDYK then no drastic action is normally taken. Obviously, I am not at peace now, and you can ignore all this, I'm just asking myself why should I write for DYK anymore. Materialscientist (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

How would you like the system to change? To me it seems like an error by one user, and users will make mistakes within any system. I haven't seen Matrix 3 (or 2 for that matter), so I missed the analogy. The prep areas aren't protected though; anyone can edit them. Depending on how full the queues are, sets sometimes wait a day or more in the queues, so if you notice something's wrong during that time, you can holler. After a nom enters the numbered queues you can leave a message here to get an admin to fix it. You're right, we don't get very many urgent requests, but the option is there and people are free to use it. Shubinator (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the hook was moved to prep area at 22:11 and aired in two hours at 00:28. I was inactive those few hrs. Sure blunders happen, perhaps every day at DYK. I guess I just wanted to hear that it was a blunder, but I'm not sure it was - hooks get entirely rewritten, in prep area, every so often. IMO, this should happen at T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To Materialscientist: You did an excellent job expanding these articles! They were even all on my watchlist (check who created them back in 2008...) Agree that the quadruple hook would have been a brilliant way to present the extraordinary incident. I think what happened was that the time pressure to have it on a specific day, combined with the ok-tick on the selected first hook alternative only, was the reason this was prematurely selected. (In retrospect, things like this can easily be avoided if the nominators strike out or remove unwanted alternative hooks). But the situation is not bad at all: Having the four biographies spread on four different hooks (with two of the hooks related to the incident) probably give these a higher total exposure than a quadruple hook would. Oceanh (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

I chose not to strike out the first hook. I too thought the quadruple hook was way cool, but it was also way long and I agree with Oceanh that far more people will read about this race incident and orienteering more generally if the 4 articles appear in 4 separate hooks. I don't know what happened between when the nom was taken to prep and when the hook appeared on the Main page; I too missed that 2-hour window. I think Materialscientist is saying this step is opaque, and I tend to agree but I go with the flow. This is not the first time I have been surprised at what became of "my" nom and hook, but generally I do see some wisdom in what was done. --Una Smith (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is true that splitting quad nom into individual ones had its benefits, but. When I started this thread, I haven't read your ALT hooks and simply thought other 3 noms are just lost, as they have no stories to tell. That you found ALT hooks, recovered the nominations and reposted them is all great, but that does not mean thing happened the way they should. Materialscientist (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like it if, when a nomination gets taken to prep, a copy of the nomination section at that point goes to an archive page. Page histories are hard to search, and this one is harder than most. --Una Smith (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving has been proposed before, but always rejected as something that is practically very difficult to implement. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New bot problem

For some unknown reason the bot has made two updates in less than 30 minutes.[3] As the first of these updates has received less than 10% of the time it should normally receive, I have rescheduled it for a another appearance. Not sure what caused this hiccup. The only unusual thing I have spotted is a database delay reported with user contributions that was over 10,000 seconds but has now dropped to less than half that value. At the same time as user contributions is showing this large lag, my watchlist shows no indication of a database lag. Thus this problem may be due to different database tables being out of sync. --Allen3 ^talk 19:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

633 second database backlog for me, which may or may not have cause the hiccup.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What ever table was backlogged seems to have caught up. Guess it is back to the standard watchful waiting. --Allen3 ^talk 19:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Will the bot be giving out double credits? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably yes. From the bot's perspective the rescheduled update should look like a completely new update and the bot would thus perform all its usual actions. --Allen3 ^talk 21:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just remove the credits since it won't do it if the credits section is empty.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 22:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it also added the wrong hook to at least one article. I fixed that one, but there might be others. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

September 12 missing

The Articles created/expanded on September 12 sub-section is missing after that edit. I'm not experienced enough to fix it --KrebMarkt 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now. For future reference, you don't need any experience to fix these things, you just paste back in whatever you saw get taken out. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. Sometimes content is present in the code, but becomes invisible after wrong tag insertion. Materialscientist (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New edit reports

Do we really need SoxBot to report changes to T:TDYK at our IRC channel? This is a page that can have several edits in a minute, and the channel is full of these reports at times. I've tried a couple of times to ask something about the queues there in the past two days, and both went unnoticed among all those reports. It's all right to report changes to this page (WT:DYK), but I think it's really unnecessary to report T:TDYK changes. It's more like a report page than something used for relevant discussion on DYK. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I've never been to the channel but the reports sound unnecessary and unnecessary. Can someone contact the bot operator to have them turned off, or is that something the maker of the IRC channel would have to take care of? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive of suggestion page?

Where does the content of the suggestions page go when it falls off the bottom? It doesn't go to the Archive... Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

They don't fall of the bottom. If a nom has been unreviewed it will be reviewed eventually and stay on the page. However if a nom was reviewed and problems were raised and those problems went unanswered for 8 days a nom is removed. The "archive" for T:TDYK is basically the history.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh geez, there are hundreds of edits a day! You can't follow the edits to a single hook that way, not without great difficultly anyway. Someone removes the material from the end, shouldn't it be put somewhere better than "nowhere"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the nom that had problems was failed, WP:GAN doesn't put failed noms anywhere and I see no need for DYK to start either.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically, I think you can watch a section of a page using the "watchlist-like functionality" described at related changes, however I've not been able to get this to work. cmadler (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Aren't all GA noms copied to a subpage of the article's talk page? Like this: Talk:Small shelly fauna/GA1; Talk:Small shelly fauna has a template link the subpage. --Una Smith (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, the situation is very different from GA. The number of entries we have to deal with in one day is way higher, we have enough trouble moving hooks to the prep areas and removing from the suggestions page, and we have very few people to do it. Adding a requirement to archive would mean more work for them, resulting in larger backlogs and slower preparing of the queues. This is easier said than done. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Putting DYK hooks in individual subpages is not going to happen any time in the near future, this has been the subject of numerous discussions here and as far as I can remember no one wants it. (Putting subpages for each date, like they do at TfD and stuff, has a little more support...although I don't think that is going to happen either).

More importantly, though, I don't see any problem that needs to be solved here. When you nominate an article, it's really not difficult to just come back and check every couple days. You don't need to "follow hundreds of edits a day"; just open the page every now and then and search for your hook (takes about 2 seconds) and read whatever comments have been left. If your hook has disappeared, it's not hard to find in the page's recent history (also, if your hook has disappeared that generally means you had several days during which you could have commented, and you dropped the ball). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@Maury: here is what happened to your hook. It wasn't removed, it was promoted. It took me less than 1 minute to find this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When looking through the history, choose a larger number to be shown like 250 instead of the default 50; you'll find it faster without having to go to the next page. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's still sub-optimal though. You have to search for a keyword, find an edit, click on the page version and then search again to find it. I'm going to play with the related changes thing and see if that helps. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is somebody monitoring the special occasions?

Sept 17 is almost here, and the hook for the occasion is still in the "T:TDYK#Special_occasion_holding_area". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We can use it on queue 2. Around midday in Europe. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Update needed

The bot hiccuped on the last run and only did user credits; it didn't update the template. Could an admin either 1) manually update, or 2) clear the credits from queue 3 and wait for the bot to update in 30 minutes? Shubinator (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, it's more complicated than I realized. The bot didn't finish its run at 13:14. So revised plan; can an admin increment User:DYKadminBot/count to 3 and clear queue 2? Shubinator (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done already. Gatoclass (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, done by Bencherlite and NuclearWarfare. A few minutes more for the bot to try again I think, so let's keep our fingers crossed :) Can someone find out what went wrong? I copied the hooks to Q2 so I'm guessing I must have done something. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WTH? All queues are empty. Filling up Q3 now. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done there, Chamal--Chanaka L (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like queue 2 was fine. The bot error was probably due to server lag again. I'll help out with the sets. Shubinator (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another hiccup

The bot (see contribs) seems to have died mid-way in tagging talk pages on the last run, so it might be down currently. Could someone take care about that, I am about to go offline for the next hours and cannot take care of it myself. Regards SoWhy 15:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Time for eight+ hour rotations?

We have only one full queue, 163 total hooks on T:TDYK—16 of which are verified. Of the rest, many have or underneath... Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot updated at the 8-hour mark last time; I can't find a reason for it. It might be better to reduce the number of hooks per set instead of increasing time between updates. Shubinator (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

New hook rule

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

---

Lately there's been some controversy about what is and what is not permissible in a DYK hook, and I was hoping we could bring some clarity to this issue. Let's face it; DYK is the special ed class of Wikipedia; while anyone can write a DYK in about an hour, writing an FA takes about a month, yet a DYK gets almost the same exposure as an FA does (in fact, an FA isn't even guaranteed a Main Page spot, which a DYK is). That is why it's particularly important that DYK does not compromise the overall quality of the Wikipedia project.

Just like Jon Bon Jovi wished that every day could be like Christmas, there seems to be some editors on DYK who wish every day could be like April Fool's day. On this day we allow some caprice in our hooks, but we should not let this be the norm. Yet the tendency towards this is largely driven by the DYKSTATS project, where there seems to be a competition to get as many hits as possible on each DYK. This was not the original purpose of this page; rather it was intended to celebrate good hooks, not to incite a "race for the bottom" to maximise hits. That was why it was renamed from the original DYKBEST to DYKSTATS. To avoid these unfortunate hooks, I would like to suggest some additional guidelines (with illustrations from last year's April Fool's day's hooks):

• Hooks should be interesting, but not misleading: (... that Gordon Brown and Kim Jong-Il are both known for their athletic abilities?) – we're obviously not talking about the state leaders here, but about other people by the same names.
• Hooks can be tantalising, but not obscene: (... that German seamen forced a lesbian to go down during the First World War, and the French did the same during the Second World War?) – here we're being led to believe a lesbian is forced to perform felatio, while it's actually a matter of ships being sunk.
• Hooks can be puzzling, but not cryptic: (... that Wikipedia now has an article about everything?) – obviously it doesn't, but it has an article on the concept of "everything".

All of this could easily be summed up in one addition to the additional rules :

• C7: Hooks should not be deliberatively misleading, gratuitously provocative, or completely enigmatic simply to increase hits, since this can damage the credibility of the project.

If anyone objects to this, please say so here, and we can discuss it. Lampman (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. User:Balloonman/DYK hooks sums up why. NW (Talk) 00:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've already read that, but all he's saying is the rather self-evident fact that interesting hooks get more hits than boring ones. This essay doesn't really address the issues presented by the trend of maximising hits at any cost. Lampman (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The average DYK gets about 500 views and is up for 6 hours. The average FA gets about 20,000 views and is up for 24. There is a major difference between the exposure levels. Also, my DYK pages tend to take quite a few days to put together. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's great, respect to you, but I was talking about minimums. And the main point here was really about hook standards. Lampman (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree also. They can be "misleading" up to the point where you follow the links. Sadly, few of our hooks are as intriguing as the ones you quote. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Hooks are supposed to be interesting and not misleading. None of those are misleading nor are they provocative. If your first thought when reading the lesbian hook is fellatio that's your problem not DYKs as when I read it I think of a battle because all you have to do is take "seamen" which is obviously a boat operator/mariner not a porn star. Thus I disagree.--Giants27(c|s) 02:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"If your first thought when reading the lesbian hook is fellatio etc." - that, I'm afraid, is a spin. Of course they are supposed to be read that way, and we both know that just about person will read them that way or, at best, both possible ways. The issue is that this is a pun, and it's a pun completely fabricated by the editor. It's not a regular DYK, it's the advertising department of the Barnum Circus. Dahn (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. While we ought not be deliberatively misleading or pornographic, hooks that are puzzling, humorous, enigmatic, appropriately provocative, etc., will draw more people to the article. It's not a matter of a "race for the bottom." It's a matter of what DYK's purpose is. As I've always understood it, the purpose is to draw attention to new articles, and interesting/provocative/humorous hooks that draw more eyes to the article serve the purpose of the project. Cbl62 (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree (as I have said in the past). Hooks should provide accurate information, not false advertising. Our purpose is not to deceive readers into clicking the links and sharing a joke with them if they do (a joke which, might I add, is most often puerile), but to provide factual info that happens to be interesting. One might add that the hooks cited above by Lampman all take liberties with the requirement that the fact up for DYK needs to be referenced in the article, with no interpretation, by contextualizing the subject in such a manner as to add or suggest an editorial opinion. Dahn (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The 'Special Ed' class of Wikipedia? I don't who should find that more offensive - those in Special Ed or those who spend time at DYK. What an inviting analogy to open a discussion. Law _{type! snype?} 02:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed that as well I think 'stepping stone' or 'first benchmark' might be more appropiate.--Giants27(c|s) 03:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree. Our grown-ups may be better-written, but our Kids Are People Too! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see how that relates to the "special ed" comment just above, and I can see how it would relate to the "Rule creep toward B-class reference level" section on this page, but how does it relate to this thread? I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just saying that I for one can't see how, and that it might not address the issue (which is about the way hooks are formulated). Dahn (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Disagree with new rule proposal. The rule would have to be extremely vague, to the point of ineffectiveness (who is to say what is "misleading"?) and smacks to me like creepy-crawling. Hooks should be provocative, that's the whole point of DYK - the idea is to draw readers into new content, that is not necessarily the BEST content, and hope that they give back by joining in and editing, to make it BETTER content. Oh, and King of Hearts, rock on! :) PS: I find the "special ed" comparison slightly offensive. The V-Matey ^{(Said · Done)} 03:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, was gonna say the same thing as Vicenarian: the suggested rule is too vague to be of any use (the same arguments will keep on happening), and against the spirit of DYK anyway. And this is not the first time Lampman has dropped in out of nowhere with a very unpopular proposal... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree, this sort of thing is subjective, and each hook should be looked at individually. In general, we shouldn't cross the (not-so-clear) line from tantalizing to misleading; but there are exceptions. April Fools is one massive exception. (Also, you're case would be stronger if you didn't use April Fools hooks, because that's a different cup of tea.) Shubinator (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I have to disagree with Lampman that there is an increasing trend toward misleading hooks. We have always got a small number of submissions that try to be funny or intriguing in one way or another, and most of these don't make it to the front page because of objections. Occasionally we get one that is funny or clever enough to be featured, but not very often. So I certainly don't see any sort of "race to the bottom" happening here. Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree - sorry but comparing this to FA is not getting what DYK is about. And its getting a little difficult to come up with interesting hooks that DYK reviewers are demanding as we are not really supposed to have trivia in articles. So being a little vague helps make the hooks easier to swallow for those intent on them being interesting. In fact, if you want to avoid the race to the bottom, maybe get rid of the interestingness "requirement" and go for dry sentences of pure facts. Maybe make it a race for the most dry, plain, boring, fact riddled sentences we can? Aboutmovies (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree. Proposal is highly subjective and works against DYK's purpose of attracting attention to new articles. As per User:Balloonman/DYK hooks, it would forcefully change DYK hooks, short snippets designed to attract attention, to DYK trivia, short factoids to be ignored at the reader's leisure. --Allen3 ^talk 10:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think consensus is clear at this point, and there is unlikely to be any benefit from continuing this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Declining number of hooks

We are currently down to less than 150 hooks again. So I think either we need to go back to six hooks per update for a while, or else somebody needs to do a lot of third party noms in a hurry. Since the latter seems unlikely given the generally low level of interest over the last few days, I suggest we go with the six per update solution. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm back from holiday, I'll try to find a few to nominate, to help a bit in the short term. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How about extending the eligibility period from 5 days to 10? DS (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I'll write some. I stopped writing a few as I tohught there was a surplus. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) has the right idea here! :) Cirt (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

With only six hooks, it is difficult to maintain Main Page balance. I will have to use old hooks in the archive as fillers if we really have to go back to six per update. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to maintain page balance? How so? There's never been any problem before. It just means you have to remove a couple of entries from ITN / OTD, and then leave it that way until we go back to eight per update, which might be a week or so. Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually both ITN and OTD have to have minimum five items, and they are already down to the minimum at the moment. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How about keep it to 8 hooks, but extend slightly the time they are on the Main Page? Cirt (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that option, actually. How about 8 hours per update, with only 7 hooks? --BorgQueen (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess we could go to eight hours per update. But I don't think we will need both, so if we're going to eight hours per update, we might as well leave it at eight hooks per update. The numbers will build quickly enough with one less update per day. Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've set the bot's time template to update every 8 hours. [4] Now I am going to add one more item to the loaded queue to make it eight hooks. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Where's the prose length widget?

Can someone run it on space debris? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Using Dr pda's prosesize tool, it's 48kb readable prose, up from 12kb.  Skomorokh  12:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So I'm good to nom? (Sorry, very tired today, very dense) Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be a "fivefold" expansion; I'm not sure if that means that the new version has to be five times the size of the old, or if you have to add five times as much as the original, but according to either metric you're still a bit off I'm afraid (48kb = 12kb x4).  Skomorokh  21:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

5 times the size of the old (see M3). And we prefer DYKcheck to prosesize because it's no harder to use, and because it automates several details including the detail discussed above. Art LaPella (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Miriam Sakewitz

• ... that Miriam Sakewitz had 88 dead bunnies in her freezers at her home in Hillsboro, Oregon?

Currently on T:DYK. I'm concerned that this falls afoul of our selection criteria, which states "Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." DYK should not be a forum for "let's laugh at the crazy person" hooks. Thoughts?  Skomorokh  22:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Should not appear on the main page. Focusing on an obsession and possible mental illness is exactly what we need to avoid at DYK and clearly fails the hook criteria. Law _{type! snype?} 00:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Having just come across this, I must admit I am uncomfortable with this being on or linked from the main page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This should be taken it off the main page immediately clearly inappropiate.--Giants27(c|s) 01:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Who promoted this? Why bother having WP:BLP if we are going to have that article, let alone put it on the Main Page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I've removed it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question on the promoter/verifier: Javert (talk · contribs) verified the hook while BorgQueen (talk · contribs) moved it to prep1 and then to queue 5.--Giants27(c|s) 02:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Notified both of this discussion.--Giants27(c|s) 02:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a BLP issue, since the individual concerned has been convicted of these crimes and that is public knowledge, possibly WP:ONEEVENT might have come into play. But then, no-one seems to have nominated the article for deletion, which is what one would expect for an article that fails ONEEVENT. Gatoclass (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it could be called a borderline case, but we really shouldn't be putting even borderline cases up like that. The hook is clearly negative, and we have had complaints about putting up negative claims that were even widely covered in the media and well known throughout the world. I would not be surprised if we get more complaints from the BLP watchdogs about this. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, what is negative about having rabbits in one's freezer? It is not illegal in that jurisdiction (owning 4+ live rabbits is), and rabbits are raised as food (she was not arrested for having rabbits in her freezer, only for how they died in the first place). That is to say, that the facts here speak for themselves and any negative thoughts are those added by the readers as to if having 88 dead rabbits in a freezer is a bad thing (thoughts about highlighting any perceived mental illness are untrue, as there is nothing in the hook about that). Secondly, BLP does not exist to save people from themselves. It exists to prevent this type of problem, not where someone is actually convicted of a crime. We don't whitewash the G. Gordon Liddy article of his time in prison for Watergate just because he is still alive. BLP is there to protect against defamation (to which truth is almost always a complete defense), not verifiable facts, that's why the second sentence at BLP is about adhering to US law, not "please don't write any bad things about living people because their feelings might get hurt". The rule exists, and it should, to prevent the Seigenthaler type incidents. We don't have that here. As to ONEEVENT, that is not applicable, there are a series of events over nearly three years that have received national and international attention. There is the initial raid, then she stole her bunnies back, then years later is caught in a hotel with a bunch more. Had this only been the initial raid, there would not be an article. Go beyond that, then you meet NOTE. Not to mention, ONEEVENT only would determine if we have an article on the event, or the person, and here I think it would be clear that the person is the correct choice as she was the only player in all of the events.

Secondly, as to the actual DYK hook rule, there is a key word that people seem to ignore, unduly. Generally when you create rules, you don't add qualifiers such as unduly just for fun. In the legal world, we use rules of construction to read rules, and we tend to give weight and meaning to all the words and not make qualifiers superfluous. That is to say, here, there is no way this could be considered unduly (and as I said above, negative thoughts are those of the readers). It is what she is known for. An unduly situation is something along the lines of "... that Richard Jewell had his home searched after being considered a person of interest in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing?" All true, but it focuses on something negative that turned out to be a mistake by the FBI since someone else did the bombing. That is undue. Saying that Eric Robert Rudolph bombed the Olympics is not unduly, as he not only pled guilty to it, he openly admitted to doing it. When the early version of this rule was added there was not consensus for a complete ban on negative BLP hooks. If we want to develop one now, fine, but that is not what the rule says now, nor should it. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. First of all, regardless of whether having bunnies in your freezer is inherently negative, presenting it in this way ("Hey, wanna hear something crazy? This lady had....") is negative. Secondly, your discussion of "whitewashing" articles is irrelevant. No one was complaining about what's in the article; the issue is showing it off on the front page. This topic has come up repeatedly at DYK: there are some things that, yes, sure, we have articles about them and that's fine...but they're not appropriate things to cheer about on the main page. Yes, people can't be saved from having articles written about them if they've been significantly covered; but, at the same time, there's no need to unnecessarily ridicule a living person on the front page. Having an article created is plenty. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not missing the point, I simply disagree (and yes, people were complaining about there being an article "Why bother having WP:BLP if we are going to have that article" and the mention of ONEEVENT). I could not care less about anything negative appearing on the mainpage or elsewhere in Wikipedia about BLPs or dead people, I only care about the core policies. And things like BLP speak to this type of situation in that the general BLP rules are not about keeping this type of info out of Wikipedia, its about keeping potentially defamatory info or info not known to the general public out. Now, again, the rule about DYK hooks uses a qualifier, unduly. You are arguing to make that word meaningless. If that is what the consensus turns out to be, so be it and remove that word, but until that consensus is developed, that is the term used. If you think in this instance it is unduly, fine, but I don't. But I think your argument is more along the lines of: we shall not place negative info about BLPs on DYK. And that is simply not what the rule says, and there has yet to be clear consensus to change that. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag. You're quite correct about what BLP policy is. However, about the hook; it clearly gives a negative impression about the subject to the reader, as the responses above show. It doesn't take a genius to know that something is wrong with that person when you read the hook. We don't have to go to the level of some third class tabloid just to get an interesting hook. The hook appears entirely negative to the reader, and that is 'unduly negative' enough IMHO. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one where common sense should tell us the hook just doesn't belong on the front page. Rules or no rules. We don't need to disparage or ridicule folks. I note the article is at AfD anyway ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've had to bring one of these hooks to this page; this is something has arisen and will arise again, so IAR is not particularly helpful. We need to firmly establish what our norms are in this situation and apply them consistently.  Skomorokh  20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a missed point - BLP makes it clear that there must be heavy coverage, and coverage in only local newspapers counts as if they were only one for terms of sources. As such, there was no way to claim that there was any notability, as there was nothing outside of Oregon cited. This should have been seen when looking at the page, and an AfD should have been started on this basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but where exactly can you cite your local newspaper sources rule from (also note The Oregonian is not a local paper, it is a regional paper, as the Hillsboro Argus also cited is the local paper, but both pass as RS)? And before we send things to AfD the Guide to Deletion says you look for sources (the AfD tempate even makes it easy by providing links to a Google News search) and if one did that as one is expected to, then one would find a whole bunch of non-Oregon sources. Not to mention the New York Post citation that has always been there, which is outside of Oregon. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I went bold and removed "unduly" from Wikipedia:Did you know/Article. The main rule set for the hook is WP:DYKHN, which clearly says negative hooks should be avoided. Each will interpret "unduly" by their own standards, so we might as well say "go ahead, put up a negative hook". That word there creates confusion rather than clarifying the problem, so I don't think it's really needed there. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted, I don't see any option but to leave this caveat in. What are we going to do when we get an article about a notorious criminal? Run a hook about how he was a good family man? A little common sense is required here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, then we need to decide what we are going to stick with. WP:DYKHN specifically says avoid negative hooks, while Wikipedia:Did you know/Article says avoid unduly negative hooks. What do we say to someone who comes and asks us something about a negative hook, other than keep repeating this argument about whether it was 'negative enough' or not? And do you really think a hook about a notorious criminal will say something like "that x has murdered 5 people"? No it won't. Even if something like that makes it to the main page, it won't stay there for long. We should have learned this by now from past experiences. It's time we stopped kidding ourselves; hooks about living persons that focus on their negative aspects always kick up a row here. Why the heck do we keep doing it? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No they don't "always kick up a row", we've had a couple of controversies lately, that's all. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and it's simply unrealistic in my view to avoid negative hooks for some topics and some individuals. Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Digimon Adventure episodes

that the 1999 anime series Digimon Adventure was first seen as an imitation of Nintendo's Pokémon franchise when its episodes first aired in North America?

Is this no longer seen to be the case? In fact, with Pokemon first being sprung upon the world over a year earlier, is that not the case? WookMuff (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC) The article has a source to verify that the show was seen this way "at first"; there isn't any source about perceptions later. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Queues

Just a heads up: All the queues are empty at this point. LittleMountain5 14:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Borgqueen has been feeding the beast for the past few days, but she hasn't had much help. I've been concentrating on verifications to try and give BQ some variety to choose from, but I'm too tired to do an update myself now, so someone else will have to do one. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for recognising my recent effots. The bright side is that we are not going to suffer from backlog anytime soon even though the update process is being slow, since what we are suffering from is precisely the opposite... Perhaps I should try to submit some DYK candidates myself, instead of updating the queues, for a while. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

They definitely didn't go unnoticed :) Queue 5 is ready now, but not much variety – not easy to get hooks on different topics with very few verified. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I mixed 'em up a bit more. Do you know you can take hooks from anywhere on the page? Some updaters seem to think they can only take them from the older hooks, but that isn't the case. Gatoclass (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass. While promoting older hooks is preferable, taking one or two hooks from more recent submissions is justifiable when it is necessary for the variety issue. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have done that before. But since a lot of old hooks were unreviewed, I passed some myself and added them on this occasion. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

September 24

There are two hooks listed for today's date just in case they aren't spotted. By the way (in relation to the above), I've been told not to queue any newer ones by (I think) an administrator in the past... and when I have I've been reverted and had the hooks moved back to the submissions page so that was discouraging. Has that rule changed now? --candle•wicke 00:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Was that during the time when we had like 60+ verified or when we had 10-20 verified? If it's the latter then the admin was mistaken as any verified hook is available to use when we need hooks. However if there's a lot to choose from it's discouraged.--Giants27(c|s) 00:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was in July and I was having to review the hooks myself before moving them through so even 10 might be an overstatement. :) --candle•wicke 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All the approved hooks get promoted eventually, so it doesn't matter a whole lot where you take them from, although obviously we don't want people just taking new hooks from the top of the page and leaving the old ones to languish. The important thing is that you end up with a nice balanced update that's interesting to read. Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Rule creep toward B-class reference level

Here, here and here I have seen an editor asking for at least one reference per paragraph as a prerequisite for DYK approval. In the rules and additional rules there is no mention of this. I see this new stipulation as rule creep in the direction of requiring DYK articles to meet B-class standards in terms of inline references. The DYK rules forbidding Stub class brings me to conclude that a Start-class article, one with the hook adequately referenced, is all that is needed in order to be approved. If consensus here determines that B-class references are required, then the rules should be changed to reflect this. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The rules were changed recently, and multiple sources are generally expected now (see WP:DYKDN). Some editors look for 1 RS per paragraph, but that is a personal preference. The requirement of at least 1 RS per paragraph is actually a GA requirement, so I personally don't expect to see that kind of sourcing from every DYK article. But a decent level of sourcing is necessary and expected by all reviewers, and you won't get an article promoted these days by having just the inline cite for the hook fact. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there is no GA requirement demanding at least one RS per paragraph. The GA requirement is that an article must provide "in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I 'get' multiple sources, and I agree, but that requirement is not the same as "at least one per paragraph" stated by Shubinator. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason this has yet to be clearly stated in the rules is that it's not that easy to come up with a formula that won't be open to misconception. Certainly the last thing we would want to encourage is "cite bombing", where editors feel they have to cite every sentence to get a DYK, but unfortunately this tends to happen at times when one asks for more citations. So I'm not sure if "at least one per paragraph" is a phrase that is likely to give the right impression. We don't want to be too rigid about this.

My own view is that the majority of the article should be cited, but I may overlook a paragraph here and there unless it is dealing with contentious material. And part of the reason I take that view is that sometimes I will leave a paragraph or two uncited in my own articles, for the simple reason that the statements therein come from considerable familiarity with the topic in question but which may be extremely difficult to satisfactorily cite. So I do think we have to exercise some flexibility. Which leads us back to the problem of how to ask for adequate citing without encouraging overzealousness. Gatoclass (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I view rule creep, such as this, as a deterrent to new DYK contributors. So I oppose it. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for a rule saying "one ref per paragraph". But we already say, more or less, that the article should be well-referenced throughout. If you have big fat paragraphs with no references, it's likely the article isn't well-referenced throughout (i.e., it's likely there's a bunch of unreferenced junk). So, while there's no need to make a new rule about this, it is already a part of an existing rule. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Shubinator, when ever I review an article the first thing I look for (other than the hook fact or facts) is that every paragraph has 1 reference. Every line doesn't have to one, but just slap one of the end if it covers the paragraph and that's good enough for me to move on.--Giants27(c|s) 19:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you check that the citations actually say what it's claimed that they say, or do you just count little blue numbers? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Absolutely. Clearly you didn't read the line where I said, "slap one of the end if it covers the paragraph", which I said to mean add a reference so it can be verified that the info is there and it's not OR.--Giants27(c|s) 22:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just poked my head in and saw this thread. Specifically, for [5], out of 4 paragraphs, 1 doesn't have citations. True, it's just one, but 25% of the article (33% if you don't count the lead) is a sizable chunk. For [6], which looked like this, 4 paragraphs were uncited. Plus Israel (and Palestine) articles get more scrutiny. For [7], which looked like this, 9 paragraphs had no inline citations. I sometimes leave a comment like We ask for at least one per paragraph for users new to DYK who aren't sure about the level of citation expected. As a few others have said above, we have guidelines for inline citations in the article: the article in general should use inline, cited sources. This is usually interpreted to be 1 per paragraph. However, like any guideline, it isn't strict. Shubinator (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The article about Rancho Buena Ventura appears to be judged in this case by volume rather than upon its own merits or upon the quality of its references. First off, the article is about a historic geopolitical entity about which there is no controversy or doubt. Secondly, the mass of it was written by an expert editor, Emargie, who has written a great number of similar articles and organized them most thoroughly. The final 25% or 33% of the article is written in the same vein as the rest of the article, and doesn't introduce a reference-requiring statement. It's just a continuation, a dry recital of facts drawn from old documents. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If they're being recited from old documents, why not indicate what documents the information is being regurgitated from—that's what referencing is. The fact that something's true or boring doesn't make it exempt from being referenced...the whole point of Verifiability is being able to know where the information came from. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you in spirit. I think that articles should be written with a full brace of named references supporting all text that is drawn from that source, and one reference per paragraph is a fine minimum goal that I strive toward myself. I think that all articles should be improved to meet that goal. However, your assertion that everything, even true or boring facts, must be referenced doesn't match up with the established GA-class requirements. What I'm bringing up here for discussion is whether we hold the feet to the fire at DYK, or allow for some AGF looseness in non-hook parts of the article. Why not wait until the article is up for Good Article assessment to question whether it has "...in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons... and make certain it contains no original research?" Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say the reason we don't wait until the article makes it to GA to ask for an acceptable number of citations is because DYK articles are going to the front page whereas GA articles are not, and so I think we have an extra responsibility to try to ensure that the article is accurate.

Just by way of example, someone recently submitted an article about a Nazi concentration camp guard that had a paragraph or two of unsourced assertions including one where it was implied the individual in question had a major influence on the culture of cruelty in the camp. As I felt this claim needed a citation, I asked for one for the paragraph, and it turned out the submitter didn't have a source, it seems he had fallen for the temptation to embellish the article a little with some extrapolations of his own.

That is why I think we need to insist on an adequate level of citations for DYKs. It helps ensure that misinformation does not make it to the front page. Gatoclass (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If I see something uncited, I check to see if it was plagiarized from other places. If not, I tend to pass it as long as the hook is cited. If I see something cited, I check the sources and elsewhere to see if it was plagiarized. If not, I pass it. Those are my only concerns. The rest is common sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think RosieStep's point got lost. OK, reffing is great and contentious facts need citing and one per para is good practice. However we need to encourage newbies to DYK. Currently the DYK suggestions queue looks like a system for disapproving, not approving hooks. We have hooks hanging around for two weeks or so whilst a debate goes on. Can we work out how to approve more? Can we help them instead? Victuallers (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. And delete them promptly if they are unsolvable.

Wikipedia is for readers, not for editors. If an article can damage the overall image of the project, then the impact that article can have on readers must be considered above the moral effect on the editor. Although I'm generally against instruction creep, this is one area where I feel stricter rules would be beneficial. A "one ref per paragraph" rule may seem overly pedantic, yet I would maintain that an article that doesn't even have that much has no business on the Main Page. The official rules may need to be changed, but in any case, it's is in any reviewer's discretion to reject substandard articles. When it comes to referencing, DYK should follow the same strict guidelines GA does (and even though it's not explicit, just try to get a GA accepted with unreferenced paragraphs in it). Lampman (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The fact is that there is no requirement for one cite per paragraph and approvers should stop claiming that there is. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

True, and another fact is that nominators don't have a "right" to see their article passed if it doesn't have one cite per paragraph (or for any reason for that matter), and nominators should stop behaving that there is. Shubinator (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

True enough. But the point is, you should edit the article with the intention of improving it, and not for the sole purpose of getting that "your article was featured on DYK" message on your talk page. No offense to anyone, but if you really are improving an article, you'd add a bit more than just one single ref only for the DYK fact. There have been complaints that DYK is not focusing enough on quality, and I don't think there is any need to reduce the standards like that. I mean, it doesn't take 15 minutes to do a google search and find some refs. Exceptions can be made in cases where it is hard to find sources, as mentioned in D4. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 18:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is most undesirable if different standards develop between individual reviewers. I think it is clear that there only one or two reviewers objecting on these grounds, as opposed to many who object if only the hook fact is referenced. While the rules are as they are they should reflect the general interpretation of them, and in particular not make misleading implications about "common practices" and the like. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why's it undesirable if different reviewers use different standards? They're not robots, and if a nominator is dissatisfied he can always post here or somewhere to ask for more opinions. And most other areas also allow reviewers to exercise their judgment as well. (Pardon the comparison to GA, since DYK approaching GA is anathema to many editors, but anyway, GA reviewers' standards vary wildly.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the rules have evolved to be wholly objective. Obviously hooks & some areas have an element of subjectivity, but it is better all round if these are kept to the minimum. At the moment I can't think of another areas where DYK has consistently double standards. The subjectivity of GA assessment is precisely the horrible example we should try to avoid. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, reviewers prefer flexible rules, either so they can adapt to unusual situations, or so they can simply do whatever they feel like. The reviewed prefer predictable rules (although they may want the rules waived for their particular case), and we have no way to count how many nominators give up rather than risk an unpredictable rejection. Art LaPella (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The second is certainly true, but I'm sure many reviewers, like myself, prefer not to have to excercise judgements on knotty problems they are not much interested in. It also reduces the scope for nominators arguing the toss with them. Unusual situations are not really what we are talking about here, & people who bring such to this page, or just raise the matter at the suggestion, usually get a helpful & quick response. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you can get a consensus for clarifying rules, maybe we could clean up things like WP:DYKAR#"Rules" sometimes invoked but lacking a consensus while we're at it. Art LaPella (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

How much interaction (i.e. editing) do we expect readers to have with B/GA class articles at DYK? Part of the original purpose and charm of DYK was that it showcased the dynamism of Wikipedia by featuring our newest (and yes, raw) articles. While the daily FAs featured everything that we aspire to be as an encyclopedia, DYK was the peak behind the curtain for readers into the birth and growth of an article--a growth that they too could be a part of. From simple tweaks in grammar and formatting to minor expansion of content, readers were invited to take part in the Wikipedia experience via the "Edit this page" button at the top of their screens. It wasn't just the button alone that allowed DYKs to encourage reader action but also the motivation ("This should be fixed") and the confidence ("Hey I could do something like this") that moves them to interact with a DYK article and by extension participate in Wikipedia. In this DYK was a completely unique feature on the Main Page-more than just a thematic regurgitation of content already created (such as ITN and OTD) but an immensely valuable asset that benefited so many aspects of the projects from the readers, the editors and the articles themselves.
But as DYK continues its evolution towards requiring B/GA class standards, I think the question should be posed "How much interaction do we expect readers to have with B/GA class articles at DYK?" How much motivation and confidence do readers have to not just simply read but interact with articles like Vishtaspa, Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling and Vasili Bazhenov (current DYKs on the MP)? All excellent articles and enjoyable to read but, in all honesty, these articles are closer to FAs than being a true representation of "Wikipedia's newest articles"-the kind of articles that need growth, development and attention from readers. Without that interaction, DYK serves no different purpose on the Main Page than simply being a regurgitation of content like ITN and OTD only without a "theme". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said! I'm a relative latecomer to DYK, and your observations are news to me. I like thinking of DYK as dynamic and new. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I do too but I think its pretty clear that the culture is changing (for good or bad). While none of the current group of regulars answered the question above, I would strongly suspect the answer would be "We don't expect any interaction from readers with DYK articles...only need them to click on it so we get the page views for Wikipedia:DYKSTATS". Reading the article and getting page views is now more important than interacting with the article and getting new editors involved, which maybe one of the reasons why Time Magazine is wondering "Is Wikipedia a Victim of Its Own Success?" because our growth as a community is slowing. Could this be due to the changing focus of the Project's mainpage recruitment tool (DYK)? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I had never thought of DYK primarily (or even substantially) as an editor-recruiting tool, but more as a method of highlighting Wikipedia's ever-flowing barrage of new and interesting content on diverse topics.  Skomorokh  20:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to dig through the archives to find the discussions from 2004 that lead to the birth of DYK but a big focus was on what was the benefit of showing new content so prominently on the main page. The most widely touted benefit was that it would get new articles out in front of a large readership that would hopefully interact with the article and project. A secondary benefit was that both the constant creation of new articles and the front and center dynamism of readers becoming editors by interacting with these articles showcased what was unique about Wikipedia. They all sort of flow together and DYK was the net by which many Wikipedian were "hooked". Times and culture change, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, but maybe the regular crew of DYK should re-ask themselves that early question from DYK's birth-"What is the benefit of showing new content so prominently on the main page?" In particular the focus on "new"-if we just wanted to highlight "Interesting content on diverse topics", we could start posting GAs (which I'm against BTW). But what is the benefit of highlighting "new" content? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points, Agne. (And I love those articles you've written, btw!) But could you be more specific about your suggestions - would you say we should lower or relax some of our criteria? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying lower or relax seems to indicate a step backwards. That's not what anyone wants. What I would honestly like to see is some frank introspection and reflection among the DYK crew about what is the purpose of DYK and what direction it is taking. If you were to step out of your skin and look at DYK from a reader or new editor's perspective....what would be your honest thought about a project that has several pages of rules and another unofficial guide? What should a new user think about discussions such as the above regarding reviewers adding their own rules on top of these several pages of other rules, etc? Then I would compare that introspection with the sentiments expressed in the Time article about the declining growth of the Wikipedia community and wonder how that ties into what we see happening here. I'm not against the idea of change, it is healthy and natural, but when little changes start adding up to major changes in the entire culture and direction of the project--then we should take a step back and reflect on whether this is what we really want or should do. Watching this page over the last 2 years I see a lot of "window dressing" discussions on small individual details and changes but I have yet to see a frank "Big Picture" discussion about really why we are all here and where this project is going. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know about DYK for the first year I was here. Whatever its function, DYK is different from the other main page items, being more diverse and less formulaic, I think. True, the standards are higher than in the past, but that is true for all of Wikipedia. —mattisse (Talk) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is increasingly complete, so there should be fewer changes, and those changes should be reviewed more harshly. If DYK is to give outsiders something to edit, does that mean I should stop fixing mistakes? Or even that I should add mistakes instead?! Art LaPella (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think we should do anything apart from the natural evolution and development of articles. Very few articles are "born" sitting at FA/A/B/GA levels. They all start somewhere and are brought up to those levels by the work and efforts of various people. I disagree that Wikipedia's "completeness" means that we should start reviewing more "harshly". I think the vast population of stub articles show that Wikipedia is far from being complete. We need people to still have the desire, motivation and confidence to work on those articles and contribute to Wikipedia. To that extent we should strive to be more user friendly and to encourage interaction and participation. The opposite of featuring fully referenced B/GA class articles is not featuring nothing but utter crap. There is a middle ground there that we've lost sight of in our continuing drive to "review harsher". When the objective of a review is to find reasons to fail an article....how much encouraging of interaction and participation are we really doing? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• My articles range from 10-25k because people were complaining about large sets of pages that were only about 5k. If you want me to stop writing developed literature articles then please say so. It seems from Agne above that she would want it to end. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You should feel free to continue writing the same high quality articles that you enjoy writing. Fret not Ottava, this discussion is not about you but rather I'm calling for more focus away from individual self-centered concerns towards asking for more reflection and introspection by the project on how we are serving Wikipedia and how we are contributing to the growth/decline of the Wikipedia community. In fact, I'm curious how the shift in focus on "DYKSTATS"( "How many page views did my article get?") has pushed people's focus away from what can DYK do for the community and readers towards what is in it for me? How does this affect the articles that I write?, etc Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I have to make sure because there are always things I miss and then people have problems. I have no problem with conforming to whatever set structures as long as I know about them. Anyway, you might be interested in what I have stated on the issue you mentioned above to Malleus (one of our heavy content contributors who had constant doubts against DYK). User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Ainsworth 2 and elsewhere (I can't remember where though). Basically, what I was stating is that one article on an author can sometimes be exciting. However, sometimes you need to take some of the lesser works and clump them together in order to get that solid low page view (500-1000) to check out all of them. Out of that, possible a handful would be interested in the topic long term and when another set comes out, they will be further intrigued by the topic. Either they come and work on the area or they simply have new information for the future. That is just how I attempt to use DYK. In order to accomplish that, it requires reasonably well written articles so people look at it and see it as something that is academically informative instead of just pop culture. Also, I like to work with many people on making these sets simply to get those who aren't involved in literature to participate. A more proactive method of getting interest in the field. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#V, "vanity [is] The principal motive for all contributions to the project." But to emphasize DYKSTATS implies that DYK is here to be interesting, and DYKSTATS measures that quality more effectively than any subjective evaluation is likely to accomplish.

I can still find plenty of things to fix on Wikipedia, and most of them are associated with the Main Page where everyone will see them. But it used to be worse. Art LaPella (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Query

I am inquiring about the possibility of installing [hide] templates within the Main Page templates. Is this at all possible?-- OsirisV (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In theory, yes it is possible. In practice, this is a Main page layout problem requiring consensus from more than just DYK regulars before implementation. As this change would by definition affect the Main page, it would be better to discuss this proposal at Talk:Main Page. You should also expect questions on what you wish to have hidden and why this change would be good for the overall project. --Allen3 ^talk 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

I was working on creating the Norman Shepard article here User:Remember/Sandbox to get it up to quality for a DYK (e.g., that Norman Shepard is the only college basketball coach in history to go undefeated in his first season), but I am not very familar with the DYK process and don't want to upload the article and have it fail DYK. I would appreciate any advice that someone could give on this issue. Remember (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, as long as nothing is plagiarized. The basic DYK criteria are listed at WP:DYK#DYK rules. when you're ready, you can move the article into mainspace and nominate it at DYK using the following template:

{{NewDYKnom
 | article=Norman Shepard
 | author=Remember
 | status=new
 | hook= ... that .........?
}}

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! Remember (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot updated to an empty queue?

[8] = what is going on with this? Cirt (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've updated manually just now. The credits appear to have been done by the bot. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Cirt (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The queue was missing a <!--Hooks-->. Not the first time this has happened. Shubinator (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

After the manual updating of DYK, User:DYKadminBot/count needs to be manually updated to "4" by a sysop. --74.14.17.249 (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. BorgQueen has done the manual update already. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

IP approving hooks?

I was under the impression that only registered users can approve hooks. However, looking at the rules, I couldn't find anything that says this. An IP just approved a hook and moved to p1 ([9]). It's still there, and I'm not sure whether to revert or not since the rules do not explicitly say this. This is a quite obvious and necessary restriction that should be there, for the simple reason that you can just log out and verify your own nomination. Any thoughts? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 16:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He has done quite a few now. See Special:Contributions/12.234.250.75. Approving admin, please consider this before moving p1 hooks to a queue. If they are ok, then fine; but no need to take chances right? I don't doubt that he is doing it in good faith, and it may even be a DYK regular who hasn't logged in, but the uncertainty is there. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

74.xxx has been anonymously helping with DYK upkeep and contributing to discussions here since before I even had an account, and has been an asset to the project... granted, this IP may be different, but either way, I don't see a reason to bar IPs from helping out (unless they're obviously promoting bad hooks on purpose, or are sockpuppets of nominators, etc.). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say, in this regard, follow Ronnie's lead and Trust but verify. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the 74 IP has been an enormous help with identifying problems with the nominations and his contributions are appreciated by all of us, but the problem here is about verifying hooks. You can just nominate a hook, log out and verify it as an IP. It's for the same reason that GAN allows only registered users to review articles I believe. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You could also nominate a hook and then log in under a different account to do the same thing. :-) I don't see it as a major problem, and who knows; 12.xxx could become a great help here. —Ed (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that 12.234.250.75 is a registered contributor, and one who has been active in DYK, whose login expired unexpectedly in mid-session. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Orlady. Shubinator (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK then. Since everybody agrees this is not a major problem, there's no need for me to worry about it too much :) Maybe I'm a bit paranoid. I seem to be doing that a lot these days :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I tried unsuccessfully to get IP's banned from promoting hooks ages ago, so you're not the first to bring this up ;) Gatoclass (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Template instructions

I think this makes things a lot clearer. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 17:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think these examples would be better placed in the template documentation (Template:NewDYKnomination/doc) rather than this instruction page. Sound files are extremely rare on DYK, and video files even more so (in fact, I've never seen one, although I'm sure a couple have happened). This should just be brief instructions to cover normal situations; the full, more detailed instructions should be limited to the template documentation, so people can find them if they go out of their way looking but the rest of the nominators don't have to see it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the template is linked there and if anyone needs more details they can follow it. I think the only thing we need is something like "For additional parameters and details on using the template, see the template documentation", and list only the commonly used format(s) here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 17:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're seriously proposing replacing the basic information about including alternate media formats with a note - pretty much just as long as the information being removed - but which removes all mention of sound and video as possibilities from the page, instead just mentioning "other parameters".

I'm sorry, but you havent thought this through at all: With them included, people know they're a possibility, and can easily check if they need to. If we don't include them - and they would be the ONLY possibilities we weren't including, noone will know it's even possible, and anyone considering it will not for a moment suspect that "for additional parameters = whole entire types of media.

If you want to ban sounds and video, we can discuss that, but we shouldn't for a moment think of doing it for no reason at all.

Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 11:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not moron enough to make a comment here or anywhere else without thinking it through. Our rules pages are too long already. There's no need to do the same to our suggestions page and make that confusing to some editor who comes there to nominate an article. What I'm saying is what we need to include there are only the examples that are most common. If we go including every possible example like that we might as well transclude the whole template documentation there. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And why have you reverted it again? You boldly made a change to that page; fine. It was reverted, and there were comments opposing your edit here. When there is opposition and consensus is not yet clear on whether your edit is good or not, you are supposed to discuss it. You have instead gone back there and re-reverted based only on your own opinion that it is appropriate. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actuialy, information on sound files have been on the page for years. You deleted long standing material and kept the bold change of explaining how to have multiple creators and things. Video wasn't there, yes. but sound was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The template itself hasn't even existed for a year yet... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that information on using the sound formatting templates for DYK predated it. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 14:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Chamal, and I don't think moving sound & video information to the template documentation amounts to "banning" it—the fact is that a very, very small portion of new articles even have sound & video at all (I'm not just talking to how many nominate sound & video files here; most don't even have sound or video to nominate) so for the vast majority of people this is irrelevant. But rather than arguing, how about a compromise: we'll go back to the way I had it, but change the final note to say:

1. For additional parameters and details on using the template, including parameters for sound and video files, see the template documentation

(adding the part that's in italics.) I don't think it's necessary, but whatever, it will hopefully satisfy all parties. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point. That statement is itself a bit longer than just including the parameters for one of them, and links to a page that doesn't include copy-paste strings for sound and video, nor does it even bother to explain how to use them.

Furthermore, the word "including" is misleading: at the moment, every single parameter is documented at Template:DYKnomstrings. Hence, it wouldn't be "including", that would be the only information not present.

Given the proposed new text is essentially information-free, links to a page that does not actually include direct documentation on how to use sound and video, and is nearly as long as the information-rich text it's intended to replace, I see no reason to do this, and think it's highly counter-productive. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 13:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the documentation of the other features:

In current nominations (ignoring "older nominations")

• 5 have multiple authors
• 2 have more than one DYK-article in the hook.
• About 15 have Alt hooks (though how manywere done with the template, I don't know)

That works out to those features being used hundreds of times a year, as I estimate. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 14:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I prefer Rjanag's wording. Sound and video files are rarely used, so we shouldn't clutter up the edit message with the full strings. I have added the examples to the template documentation page. Shubinator (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with that wording. It's concise but gets the job done. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)