View source for Wikipedia talk:Did you know

[[Category:DYK/Discussion pages]]<!-- 
-->
<div class="toccolours" style="float: right;"><small>'''[[#footer|SKIP TO THE BOTTOM]]'''</small></div></br>
{{ombox
 |style=color:black; background-color:#fff; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1.5em; border: 2px solid #a00; text-align: center; clear:all;
 |text=<div style="font-size:150%;">'''Error reports'''</div>Please '''do not''' post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to [[Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors]]. If you post an error report on one of the [[T:DYK/Q|queues]] here, please include a '''link''' to the queue in question. Thank you.
}}
{{DYKbox|style=font-size:88%; width:23em;  table-layout:fixed;}}
{{shortcut|WT:DYK}}
{{archives|• [[Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals|2011 reform proposals]]
|style  = font-size:88%; width:23em;
|auto   = yes
|editbox= no
|search = yes
|prefix = Wikipedia_talk:Did you know/Archive
|index  = /Archive index
|bot=MiszaBot
|age=7

<!-- |1=<p style="text-align:center;">[[/Archive index|Archive index]]</p> -->
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 90
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}

{{DYK-Refresh}}

This is where the '''[[Wikipedia:Did you know|Did you know]]''' section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at [[Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals]].<br><br>  Proposals for handling GibraltarpediA nominations were discussed at [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/GibraltarPediA_Options|Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options]]

== World War I 100th Anniversary ==

The 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War is on 28 July 2014, just less than 18 months away. The question is, what should we do for DYK? The obvious thing to do would be to do what we did for the Olympics etc, and some six weeks prior to the date begin to set aside appropriate topics. However, while this would certainly generate some articles, I think that this date warrants some special attention. 

What I would like to suggest is that the nomination date is opened up as with Fish day, so from 28 July 2013, editors can begin to nominate WW1 related articles which once approved are moved off to their own page to hold them (rather than clog up the nominations page for a year). I think that the aim should be to fill all sets for a 24 hour period with WW1 related topics (and preferably not just ones on Western military hardware). If we manage to go over the numbers for that then we have several choices which could be considered - either increasing the number of hooks for one day, moving the unused nominations back into the normal pool, keep filling hook sets until we run out, or holding appropriate hooks off for Remembrance Sunday during 2014. 

I'm just spitballing here, what does everyone else think? I think we can guarantee that on the 28 July 2014, WW1 will be all over the news, and the other elements on the front page will be themed to the topic, so I'd hate for DYK to look under-represented. [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 16:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
:I agree. I think at the very least we should aim for having every article in DYK on that day being WW1 related. A Build-up would be good secondary however I think the actual day being filled with related hooks is the main priority. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E  </font><font color="blue"> God save The Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 17:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

::Hiya, I've just popped along from the Milhist talk page. One thought I had reading this proposal is that although war broke out between two countries on 28 July, it took a full week for all the main countries to make their declarations of war. I rather anticipate that (in the UK at least), commemorative news, events and suchlike will be heavily in evidence for the entire week, rather than just the 28 July. Theoretically, if you have too many DYK noms (and I'd anticipate a lot), it might be worth spreading them over that week, rather than pushing them all into a 24 hr period.
::As another idea, lots of new articles will start to pop up for particular event anniversaries (specific battles etc...) over the following 4 years. Perhaps it might be worth using a special WW1 nom page for the entire 4 years (or at least a subsection as you have for Gibraltar themed articles)? I should point out though that this is just an idea - aside from the occasional nom and review I have little to do with DYK, so I can't appreciate the logistics of this. [[User:Ranger Steve|<span style="color:darkgreen">Ranger Steve</span>]] [[User talk:Ranger Steve|<span style="color:darkgreen"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 18:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
:::The only concern I have with that we'd be constantly crossing DYK hooks from the WWI page to the main nomination page in order to make sure they get picked up for the prep areas in time. I imagine that this would be permissible for the first week to keep a separate WWI page going (especially based on the expected volume) and so we could theme hooks throughout that first week based on the different events, but going on longer than that is likely to annoy some folks and lead to mistakes. Plus I think the ongoing hooks can be dealt with as normal (although in four years time we might want to think about something similar for the end of the war too. For the ongoing hooks, specific dates can be specified as normal if required, or moved to a general WW1 subsection (as per Gibraltar) on the nominations page (instead of being hosted on a separate page). [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 20:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::::That makes perfect sense - I can see the difficulty in keeping two pages running for such a length of time. [[User:Ranger Steve|<span style="color:darkgreen">Ranger Steve</span>]] [[User talk:Ranger Steve|<span style="color:darkgreen"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Ok, so whats the next step? An RFC or is there something we can do on here instead? [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::I think it's really a question of creating something similar to the April Fools page. We could do an RFC but I can't really see too many people objecting to something being held in advance to be used on the centenary of a major historical event. I think just create a page and mention in the lead and/or in the holding area section about it.
:::::::Ok cool, I'll get something drawn up in the next couple of days in userspace and shift it over to mainspace once it looks stable. We've got a few months we hit 12 months prior and that should give us the time to iron out any wrinkles. It also means that DYK will be the first section listed on [[Wikipedia:World War I Centenary]], which at the moment is looking a bit bare. [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::I've drawn together a page to start with at [[User:Miyagawa/sandbox4]], based upon the April Fools page. I would suggest [[Wikipedia:World War I Centenary/DYK]] as a potential spot to save it at. [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 22:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Ok, that's now been implemented. Once we're at a year to go, I'll add a link to the page in a holding area on the normal nomination page. [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 09:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

== This week's old hooks needing reviewing ==

We have 268 DYK nominations submitted at the moment, of which only 54 are approved, a difference which continues to be over 200. All included hooks here are well over half a month old. Many thanks for your continuing assistance.

*<s>January 8: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Hummer]] (a four-article hook)</s>
*<s>January 14: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Lejos]]</s> I'm taking care of this '''''[[User:Moswento|Moswento]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Moswento|talky]]</sup> 10:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 17: [[Template:Did you know nominations/48th Street Theatre]]</s> Approved '''''[[User:Moswento|Moswento]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Moswento|talky]]</sup> 11:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 19: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl]]</s> [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 19: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Jonathan Sisson]]</s> Approved '''''[[User:Moswento|Moswento]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Moswento|talky]]</sup> 11:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 19: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Indian National Commission for Co-Operation with UNESCO]]</s> [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 07:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
*January 20: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipedian in Residence]]
*<s>January 20: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Tabo Monastery]]</s> <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E  </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 20: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Bachelor's Double]]</s> Approved '''''[[User:Moswento|Moswento]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Moswento|talky]]</sup> 14:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*January 20: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Bhadra Fort]]
*January 20: [[Template:Did you know nominations/P. Shilu Ao]]
*January 20: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Automotive industry in Thailand]]
*January 21: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2011]]
*January 22: [[Template:Did you know nominations/K-140 (Kansas highway)]]
*<s>January 22: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Litvinova]]</s> [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 12:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*January 22: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Ecoregions in Poland]]
*<s>January 22: [[Template:Did you know nominations/International Criminal Court investigation in Mali]]</s> (on hold) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E  </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 23: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Ola Kamara]]</s> <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E  </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 10:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 23: [[Template:Did you know nominations/1900 College Football All-America Team]]</s> [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 23: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Óscar Guerrero Silva]]</s> [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 12:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*January 24: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Black Anvil]]
*<s>January 24: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Ro Khanna]]</s> [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 13:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 24: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Sooranporu]]</s> [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 13:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*January 24: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Lion Pagoda of Hwaeomsa]]
*<s>January 25: [[Template:Did you know nominations/John Treadwell (miner)]]</s> [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
*January 25: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan]]
*January 25: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Émile Mayade]]
*January 25: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Dockwise Vanguard]]
*January 25: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Pobre Corazón]]

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Thank you very much! [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 06:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:Sometimes I think that it might be better that once something is cleared, it might be a good idea to remove it from the list and replace it with the next unreviewed nomination so maybe we could have a conveyor belt system so noms like [[Template:Did you know nominations/The Power of Four]] get done quicker rather than waiting a week for the next list of unreviewed noms to be published. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E  </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
::Do you think it would be feasible or helpful if we had something along those lines just permanently at the top of the nomination page? Something similar to the one on the [[WP:GAN]] page? [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 19:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:::That is a very good suggestion, and something I've missed; it's always hard to find the oldest nominations at [[t:tdyk]].. Wouldn't be that much work to keep a list of the 20 oldest unreviewed nomination at the top of the nomination page, would it? [[User:Mentoz86|Mentoz86]] ([[User talk:Mentoz86|talk]]) 15:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

== Blank template ==

I reviewed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Paranapiacaba&action=edit this nomination] of the article [[Paranapiacaba]] but when I came to approve it, the template was blank. How come? [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 07:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:It looks like the template was set up with a space between the slash and Paranapiacaba. Although we're supposed to avoid renaming templates, that's just too weird, so I renamed it and fixed the [[T:TDYK]] transclusion and the contents of the template itself. You should be able to get to it now. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 07:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
::Thank you. I have reviewed the nomination now. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 10:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

*I have now come across [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Christian_Thomsen_Carl another blank template], this time for the new article [[Christian Thomsen Carl]]. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 09:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:*Review [[Template:Did you know nominations/Christian Thomesen Carl|here]]. Typo.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 10:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::*Thank you. I have reviewed the article now and I see that the problem was caused by a spelling error. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 10:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

== Proposed addition to DYK nomination instructions ==

I imagine changing the DYK nomination instructions (even by one sentence) by someone completely uninvolved with the DYK process would be a bit ''too'' bold, so I'm proposing it here.  I suggest that when the nominator is not the person who created/expanded the article, that we add a requirement to notify the creator/expander of the nomination, so they can comment ''before'' it's approved or not. For two reasons.  First, because it's courteous.  Second, because they would be in the best position to catch factual errors in the proposed hook. I just ran across a case where a factually incorrect hook made it to the main page, and the article's author (who was not told of the nomination before it got to the main page) had to use [[WP:ERRORS]] to get the hook changed. Aside from the annoyance of adding more words to the instructions, I can't see a downside to this. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 23:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:I think that would be very sensible. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

::Does this mean we'd have to reject every DYK where a notification was not done? Or, at the very least, put a hold on the submission until the notification was done? Or do we put it in the instructions but not enforce it? I'd like to see some thought go into how this would work in practice before any change is made. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 07:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::And furthermore to the above, if the creator is not active for a period of time afterwards (or even retired) then would the nom have be held indefinitely until the creator reappears? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E  </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 07:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I don't think any of that would be necessary. If no notification had been done, the reviewer could simply ask the nominator to do it (or do it themselves). As long as the notification had been done, the author would have been informed. There'd be no requirement for the author to comment - if they didn't, I imagine we would proceed on a "silence means assent" basis. I think Floquenbeam's point is that the author should have the ''opportunity'' to comment, rather than a requirement to actually do so. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Yes, that's exactly it. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 20:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Exactly what Prioryman said and I'm 100% in support.&nbsp;[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']]&nbsp;[[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::I was once encouraged to transclude the nomination on the creators talk page and the articles talk page. It wouldn't be a misstep to start requiring this. I always do. &mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 20:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:This is just another step in the instruction creep that has, over years, made DYK so incredibly unappealing to participate in. But,  I'm certain the proposal will be accepted nonetheless, just as a number of other terrible proposals have been accepted.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] ([[User talk:Carabinieri|talk]]) 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::I agree with Carabinieri that this is a bad idea per [[WP:CREEP]]. It also seems like a tacit endorsement of [[WP:OWN|article ownership]]. [[User:IronGargoyle|IronGargoyle]] ([[User talk:IronGargoyle|talk]]) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::It's hardly ownership though, is it? All this amounts to is saying on someone's talk page something like, ''Hello, I have nominated <article> to appear in the Did You Know...? section on the Main Page. If you have any views on this nomination, please comment at <nomination page>.'' There'd be no obligation to respond and no suggestion of ownership. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 11:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I agree that this is a bad idea — we have too many rules already, and imposing yet another one won't help anything.  Much better to add something saying "It is strongly recommended that you notify the creator", because this would get the point across without causing WP:CREEP problems.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 22:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Nyttend - adding another rule is not a good idea and I think we should recommend to notify the creator instead - maybe it would be the best thing to create a template that the nominator could substitute into the creator's talkpage, kinda like [[Template:DYKproblem]]? [[User:Mentoz86|Mentoz86]] ([[User talk:Mentoz86|talk]]) 15:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::I'm new-ish and wandered here by accident, so discount if I'm off-base. But doesn't such a template already exist?  It seems the DYKNom does the trick (says almost exactly what Prioryman wants it to say). I don't know anything about it (but see [[Template:DYKNom]]), but it seems like this could be in the guidelines as a suggestion (Nyttend's idea) and see if that resolves the few cases where this happens. I can't find the mention of this template anywhere on the nominations page (but maybe I'm just missing it), so making it more prominent might solve the rare mistakes, not lead to any rule creep, and help us all be courteous. Hope that helps. [[User:AbstractIllusions|AbstractIllusions]] ([[User talk:AbstractIllusions|talk]]) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::{{tlc|DYKNom}} is an option for sure. I'll update the template's syntax to ensure it call's {{tlc|NewDYKnomination}} for its substitution values and verify the documentation is up to date. I also added a parameter to {{tlc|Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} so if it is transcluded on the article's talk page, or the article creator's talk page, it will display under its own level two header, of which the entire header and transclusion will disappear once the nomination is archived. And they are good options, I believe. I also agree that instead of requiring it in the form of an instruction, we ought simply maintain the good options, and encourage their use by electing to demonstrate their use, which as I stated, I currently do, and will continue. If someone "freaks out", being "creeped", or extrapolates my actions as endorsing ownership, it is their error to correct, and not a limiting factor of reasonably prudent measures.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 13:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Without reading all this, for lack of time, what I do is place the link to the nomination on the article's talk page, thus informing anybody - hopefully including the author(s), I often work with more than one - who is interested in the article. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 13:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:I'd agree to encouraging/suggesting something like this as a solution to all nominators, but I have to agree with Carabinieri on making it compulsory. I visited T:TDYK last week after several months, and was surprised to see hooks being put on hold for very minor issues that the reviewers themselves could have fixed without becoming an "involved" contributor (e.g. a spelling mistake). Adding another rule to be strictly enforced means inviting the backlog to become even longer. BTW just to clarify, I'm not trying to say "things were better in the good old days" like a grumpy old man; this is just an honest observation. [[User:Chamal_N|Chamal]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Chamal_N|<span style="color:#808080;">T</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Chamal_N|C]]</sup> 14:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

== Proposal to ban DYKs relating to Spain and Morocco ==

Jayen466 has proposed a one-year ban on all DYKs for articles relating to a large area of Spain and Morocco. Please see [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs#Proposal for one-year moratorium on Gibraltarpedia DYKs]]. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 14:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

:Prioryman, violating [[WP:POINT]] can get you blocked (again). Of course, plain ol' lying should get one blocked too, though that happens rarely on Wikipedia.<span style="color:Blue">[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer ]]</span><span style="color:Orange">[[User talk:Volunteer Marek|Marek]]</span> 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

::It's hardly [[WP:POINT]]y to post a notification. Jayen466's proposal would affect an area covering approximately {{convert|500|mi2|km2}} and including three countries. That's definitely something that needs to be widely discussed. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 14:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

:::It's not a "notification". It's blatant bad faithed canvassing which intentionally mischaracterizes the proposal and is intended to [[poison the well]]. It's WP:POINT battleground.<span style="color:Blue">[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer ]]</span><span style="color:Orange">[[User talk:Volunteer Marek|Marek]]</span> 15:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

::::I hate to say it Priory but in my opinion that looks slightly like scaremongering. You neglected to mention Gibraltar as what the actual suggestion was to stop any Gibraltarpedia related hooks from coming through, not just Spain or Morocco related hooks. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<font color="red">The C of E  </font><font color="blue"> God Save the Queen!</font>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]])</span> 18:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::Fact is that the vast majority of editors have no idea what Gibraltarpedia is - it's meaningless to them. Jayen466 takes the view that any article within the Gibraltarpedia geographical area is a "Gibraltarpedia article", even if it has no connection with Gibraltar or Gibraltarpedia; he cited my own article [[Royal Fair of Algeciras]] in support of his proposal. The practical effect of his proposal is that anyone in WikiProject Spain or Morocco who wants to write an article about a place or person or event within the Gibraltarpedia geographical area will be caught by his ban. That's the point I was making. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 21:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::No, the fact is that the proposal covers Gibraltar and Gibraltar-related articles. To the extent that some (!) editors have been trying to skirt around the present restrictions, or any potential restrictions on Gibraltar by coming up with very-close-to-Gibraltar-but-not-exactly kind of DYK noms - in other words, engaging in a lot of [[WP:GAME|GAMING]] - it's possible that the current proposal would also affect these GAME-Y "very-close-to-Gibraltar-but-not-exactly" kind of DYK noms. But that's on the people who like to play games. Not on the proposal. 
::::::You're basically saying "here is a way to game restrictions", then blaming others when they come up with proposals that would take account of this gaming. It's backwards and your wording above is, to put it politely, "inaccurate".<span style="color:Blue">[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer ]]</span><span style="color:Orange">[[User talk:Volunteer Marek|Marek]]</span> 21:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::No. As I pointed out in my proposal on the subpage, the original restrictions are badly worded. They do not restrict ''Gibraltarpedia'' articles, they restrict ''Gibraltar-related'' articles. An article (let's say about a north Moroccan village) might come under Gibraltarpedia but it has nothing to do with Gibraltar. Jayen466 is pushing a bogus claim that any article produced on any place, event or person in the {{convert|500|mi2|km2}} covered by the project is somehow a "tourist promotion" for Gibraltar, even if [[Torre de los Adalides|the place was destroyed 115 years ago]], [[First Siege of Gibraltar|the event happened 700 years ago]] or [[José Cruz Herrera|the person never lived or worked in Gibraltar]]. His position is, not to put too fine a point on it, batshit crazy. Fortunately the vast majority of people can see that and are opposing it. What are you doing supporting a batshit crazy position, though? [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::::"Batshit crazy" Prioryman, and twice in the same paragraph? Whatever else I may have thought of you, "vocabulary deficient" wasn't on the list. This scare tactic goes right along with your opening remarks in this section: over-the-top to the point of absurdity. You do yourself and your cause only ill with such tactics. Lest we forget, the original restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs was a result of a "product placement" commitment for the WP Main Page that Bamkin had sold to the Gibraltar Tourist Board - a commitment he had no right to sell. Thus, anything considered a part of the Gibraltar Tourist Board's remit should be a part of any restriction. Eminently logical, I would have thought. [[User:Bielle|Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 22:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::The only thing that's "over-the-top to the point of absurdity" are the proposed restrictions, and words conveying that sentiment are scarce but welcome. [[User:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''GRAPPLE'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''X'''</small></span>]] 22:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

::Prioryman has said it how it is, it is utterly ludicrous to think that an old tower in Andalucia is an advert saying "Come to Gibraltar". I'm surprised at you Volunteer for not seeing this. Contrary to what you think, the Gibraltar Tourist Board doesn't own any of our articles or DYK, they continue to function as encyclopedia articles. That Roger succeeded in selling this to Gibraltar doesn't change the fact that the articles are ''ours'' and DYK is ''ours''. Most readers couldn't give a baboon's left testicle about Gibraltar or Gibraltarpedia and I'm certain if you did a survey to see how many people directly came to Gibraltar after seeing a DYK on an old tower not even in the country which appeared on wikipedia at the bottom of a front page for 6 hours it would be extremely low. The Indonesian film production companies could pay Crisco and myself to create articles on old movies to raise interest in Indonesian cinema and attract new investment, so we would get lucky and earn personally from it but the fact is it changes nothing about the articles themselves which would be a neutral and independent of any commercial value that has been placed upon them. It is ''fact'' that most of the articles being DYK'ed are well withint content guidelines. i'm sure Gibraltar are not the only ones who indirectly gain from having articles on wikipedia, arguably anybody and anything would and as we speak people are writing content on here which have a commercial value. What about all of the Beyonce songs and such articles, how much are the record companies benefitting from it? Yet most of them were written by an obviously innocent young lad from the Seychelles who simply just loves Beyonce. Most of the Gibraltarpedia contributors have some interest in Gibraltar and Cadiz, regardless of whatever commercial label has been placed on them. You are giving more power to the Gibraltar government by implying they have the power to dominate DYK and manipulate us than they actually have in practice, regardless of whatever package you believe has been sold to them. And I don't believe that the sole goal on both sides of the agreement is entirely about money. There is a lot of cultural interest in Gibraltar and people who genuinely want to build up knowledge resources. DYK above all is insignificant in comparison to any long term benefit any article on Gibraltar might reap for them anyway! ♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#000">Dr. ☠ Blofeld</span>]] 22:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::*<small>Then again, considering the value of the rupiah... {{p}}</small> I agree wholeheartedly with Dr B. here. I'm not any more interested in going to [[Bone Regency|Bone]] or [[Dairi Regency|Dairi]] after writing about them, or reading hooks on them. Maybe some of the churches and mosques, because I ''do'' like architecture, but that's it.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 23:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::*I dunno, I have found myself wanting to take a [[Fucking, Austria|Fucking]] holiday as of [[Template:Did you know nominations/Fucking Hell|late]]. [[User:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''GRAPPLE'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''X'''</small></span>]] 23:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::::*And we'll soon find ourselves up [[Shit Brook|Shit Creek]] without a paddle.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 23:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::*I hear [[Brown Willy]]'s lovely at this time of year... [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 23:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::*Indeed, but you'd have to be a [[John le Fucker|magnificent Fucker]] to climb it.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 23:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::*It is fun, but it also distracts from the fact that the title of this section was over the top, and while I don't think references to blocking are useful, it might be worth Prioryman considering more neutral, and accurate, wording about this subject. '''[[User:Harrias|<font color="#00cc33">Harrias</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Harrias|<font color="#009900">talk</font>]]</sup> 23:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::*The title of this section is "Proposal to ban DYKs relating to Spain and Morocco", and the effect of the proposal is to ban DYKs relating to Spain and Morocco. Don't believe me? [[:File:Gibraltarpedia map of interest.jpg|Here's the map]] of the area that Jayen466 wants to ban from DYK. (The bit at the top is Spain, the bit at the bottom is Morocco.) [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 23:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::*The section title is 100% accurate, Harrias. [[User:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''GRAPPLE'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''X'''</small></span>]] 00:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::**[[File:Gibraltarpedia map of interest.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Gibraltarpedia scope]]Anyone reading the section title will think that this applies to ''all'' articles about Spain and Morocco, rather than the perhaps 200 sq mi. of ''land area'' (not 500; Tanger is ''30 miles'' from Ceuta; Tarifa is less than 20 miles from Gibraltar: so we are talking an area of about 150 sq mi. in Morocco, and perhaps 50 sq mi. in Spain) that are ''actually'' within the paid-for scope of the Gibraltarpedia tourism promotion project (an area which is quite obviously based around the ferry ports of Tarifa, Algeciras, Tanger and Ceuta, all of which enable day trips from Gibraltar). Of course, if you count the open sea as well, you arrive at 500 sq mi! This sort of presentation goes wonderfully well with the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rO6ZrWJeaOM#t=742s dodgy ethics] of the project's [https://twitter.com/Victuallers/status/235775535450554369 business model]. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 00:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Andreas, the problem with your position is that you claim that ''absolutely every topic'' relating to the entire region on either side of the Strait of Gibraltar has some kind of "tourist value". I concede that some places are genuine tourist attractions; see for instance [[:Category:Visitor attractions in Gibraltar]]. But what on earth is the tourist value of [[Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid|a Muslim warlord]] who died nearly 700 years ago? He's not commemorated anywhere, nobody knows exactly where he died (and he didn't even die in Gibraltar), there's nowhere for a tourist to see that relates to him. And yet you consider this to be somehow promotional and worthy of restriction. Your problem, Andreas, is that you are obsessed with that YouTube video. You interpret everything in the light of that video, without ever justifying your claim that a particular article has the commercial usefulness which you're ascribing to it. That's why you're getting into ridiculous overreaches like claiming that Gibraltarian tourism will benefit from an article on a demolished tower in Spain or an historical figure who died centuries ago or a remote village in Morocco (seriously, who is going to be going there from Gibraltar?). You haven't even attempted to justify such claims - you just present off-the-wall claims as facts and expect everyone else to take you seriously. That might work for someone in a cult but it doesn't work on people who have actual critical thinking skills, so you shouldn't be surprised that your proposal is currently being thrashed to within an inch of its life. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 01:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

:I'm sorry but the cynicism and dishonesty in the above comment by Prioryman is just staggering. He says:
:''But what on earth is the tourist value of [[Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid|a Muslim warlord]] who died nearly 700 years ago? ''
:Answer: The DYK hook you put it under.
:Well, let's freaking see. The hook for that DYK article was:
:''... that Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid, the one-eyed son of Moroccan sultan Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Othman, captured '''''<u>GIBRALTAR</u>''''' in 1333 but fell victim to a Castilian ambush six years later?"''
:Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar  Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar Gibraltar  = plastered all over the main page.
:That's what this whole DYK Gibraltar campaign is about, and if a Moroccan sultan who is only barely related to the place can be used as an excuse to put '''''<u>GIBRALTAR</u>''''' one more time on the front page, then you do it. That's how <u>product placement</u> works. You don't put a flashing sign that says "<s>Visit Gibraltar</s> Drink Pepsi Now!" everywhere, you just put the word "<s>Gibraltar</s> Pepsi" where everyone can see it as much as possible as many times as possible. This is Marketing 101 and it's obvious to anyone with half a brain but hey, I guess your estimate of the average Wikipedian's intelligence may not be that far off from the objective value.
:So... in addition to restricting the direct Gibraltar ads on the main page, just the word "Gibraltar" itself should be limited.<span style="color:Blue">[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer ]]</span><span style="color:Orange">[[User talk:Volunteer Marek|Marek]]</span> 02:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::* +1 — [[User:Hex|<span style="color:#000">'''Hex'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Hex|<span title="Hex's talk page"><span style="color:#000">(❝</span>'''<span style="color:#900">?!</span>'''<span style="color:#000">❞)</span></span>]] 17:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::*That's insane. The current set mentions Cornwall, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Mexico, Spain, and Niger. They all sound like good holiday destinations to me. It also mentions Usher, the musician, and the Huffington Post (and a drug cartel). They could all potentially benefit from this publicity.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] ([[User talk:Carabinieri|talk]]) 17:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::Okay, I think all parties involved should just step back from the situation for awhile. Does the word "Indonesia" on the main page make me anymore likely to visit there? No. Is there some sort of subliminal product placement going on to get me to eat mushrooms, spend money at the racetrack or buy Beyonce CDs just by having the words on the mainpage? If that is the case we should not have any article links on the mainpage, just a giant search bar. Then no one could be influenced by anything ever again. But to ban a word is just silly. [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 03:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::You are aware, aren't you, that Indonesia is a bit larger than Gibraltar? [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 04:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::And are you aware that you are getting into the "size matters" argument that has thwarted many a man for centuries? If I was to do multiple articles on Lesotho, Luxemburg or Vatican City, would they then be banned from the mainpage because the size of the city/country doesn't warrant multiple articles? [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 04:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::What do you think should happen if they were paying you? Are main page pay-for-play schemes alright? [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 04:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Actual pay for editing would be a conflict of interest and the parties involved should be dealt with (as they were in this case). What is going on here is that one organization may have been paid for services and there was a contest incentive to generate articles. There is no longer a monetary incentive and the parties involved have confessed and moved on. What is left are editors that never received a tangible reward for their services (some that even have no affiliation with Gibraltar and are writing on different subjects). Now it just has an aura of a witch hunt and unjustified retribution on people that have nothing to do with WMUK or Victuallers. [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 05:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Are you saying that the Gibraltarpedia project is now dormant, and that the consultancy contract has run its course? That would change things, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Wikimedia UK said the other day that their future involvement in the Gibraltarpedia project would still have to be defined, so it seems the project will be ongoing for some time. The purpose of that paid project has always included getting people to create Wikipedia content within the project scope, and someone has been—and, as far as I know, is—getting paid to coordinate that. I really don't have a problem with the content, or the editors creating it; but if Gibraltar keeps being overrepresented on the main page because of that project ...  [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 06:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:They spent something like [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rO6ZrWJeaOM#t=742s three minutes] explaining how they "made the front pages of the main Wikipedias", and how many thousands people read the corresponding articles. And as the video says right at the end, the whole thing is "a phenomenally cheap, very very imaginative way to absolutely energise a city and put a city on the map." Whether it works as well as they claimed in their sales pitch does not matter: that was the pitch that Gibraltar bought. And if my ideas are so off-the-wall, why do you go to all the trouble to canvas dozens of people with bogus and inflammatory messages? [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 04:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Just a word . . . like "Coke" or "Microsoft" or Bell" or. . .. "Just a word" is what brand marketing is all about. Just a word on the main page of Wikipedia, what wouldn't any one the above three pay for 10 mentions a month? Instead, the Tourist Board of Gibraltar seems to have bought for an undisclosed sum paid to a WMUK trustee. And we are continuing to permit it to happen. [[User:Bielle|Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 04:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Well then ban those words too. The point I am trying to make is what makes "Gibraltar" a bigger marketing device (if it is they got a lousier deal than the free Olympics coverage) than any of the multitude of TV shows, music, products or companies featured at DYK over the years? Is it the connection to WMUK, edit for hire? Is it some sort of retribution to ban mention of an entire geographical area? If that's the case should we continue to punish Gibraltar for the next 20 years, eye for an eye style? [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 04:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::As far as I am concerned, they can come back on the main page when they've stopped paying someone to run the project. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 04:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::But would you believe them if they said it was not a paid position? Hasn't really helped so far. [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 04:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Well, this gives away your agenda, doesn't it. It's all about your hatred of Victuallers. This has nothing to do with the frequency with which the articles have appeared, or their quality, or their effect on tourism. All you're concerned about is whether Victuallers is getting paid by the government of Gibraltar for his involvement in the project, ''even though'' he has no involvement whatsoever with DYKs. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 10:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::That's complete nonsense. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2013-February/010316.html][http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=29762#p29762][http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-February/123971.html][http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5804#p5804] This was a new situation. For all the great points of the project, Roger and others mishandled various aspects of it. I can quite understand how that happened, and it is not a capital crime. My opposition to the DYKs is rather based on the spectre that we may have one day Volkswagen hooks on our main page, resulting from a similar collaboration with someone like the Volkswagen Auto Museum. The main page should be kept at arm's length from editing drives coordinated by a paid consultant; that's all. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 13:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I confess to having paid little attention to this debate up to now. But don't we currently have a restriction of no more than one Gibraltar-related hook at DYK per day? That seems to me a sufficient check. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 06:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:There is a proposal to lift that restriction: [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Gibraltar-related_DYKs]] [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 06:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:We do have that restriction but it is no longer necessary given that we have only had 2 nominations for new Gibraltar-related hooks since the start of this year. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 10:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

::To be fair, Andreas has said that he doesn't have a problem with the articles being created and the editors creating them and does see their encyclopedic purpose. I just think he's concerned, perhaps excessively so, about showcasing Gibraltarpedia articles on the front page and resents that anybody would even think about linking the main page of an encyclopedia with the promotion of tourism. Which is fair enough, I can see why he dislikes it. But I think its a rather extreme view to topic ban all articles including towers which no longer exist in Spain which don't even mention Gibraltar than those articles are automatically part of some advertising scam. And it also implies that we've put the articles there and through DYK as employees of the Gibraltar government rather than being independent editors with our own interests. I'm pretty sure Roger isn't solely focused on tourism and DYK, I think he would have mentioned that having a high number of articles on wikipedia which raise interest about a place through the google search engine would have a positive impact upon local tourism, but I don't believe he is solely commercially oriented as he's been labelled. And even in Gibraltar I don't think the purpose is entirely tourism, I am aware that there is a cultural interest in Gibraltar to build up resources on Gibraltar which can be accessed through the Qpedia codes making Gibraltar an encyclopedic place. If that increases tourism, great, and I'm sure that was Roger's view on it. I believe his first and foremost purpose is to run an effective Qpedia project which provides detailed information about landmarks, I seem to be one of the few people here who still respect the guy for this. ♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#000">Dr. ☠ Blofeld</span>]] 10:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that this debate has been going on so long, it's difficult to identify the core concerns here, but if the concern is that some people might be motivated to write lots of articles on a given topic because of some sort of promotional competition being run, couldn't we just ban any articles from DYK on the given topic that were written or nominated by anyone involved in the competition? [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 17:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

:The competition ended on 26 December and there have been only 2 new nominations of Gibraltar-related articles in the whole of 2013. What is happening now is that people are explicitly voting to sustain the restrictions as a means of punishing Gibraltar and Victuallers personally. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 18:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

::The competition only brought the "product placement" purchased by the Gibraltar Tourist Board to light.  I am unsure what Prioryman means to suggest by "there have been only 2 new nominations of Gibraltar-related articles in the whole of 2013", except to mislead us. The whole of 2013 so far is 7 weeks (out of 52, in case he has forgotten). In those 7 weeks, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Gibraltar-related_DYKs#Bar_chart_based_on_the_actual_data 18 mentions of Gibraltar] have appeared on Wikipedia's main page. Each placement is a fulfillment of Bamkin's paid consultancy - a commitment he made to abuse Wikipedia's success for his personal financial gain. Far from "punishing" either Gibraltar or Victuallers (Bamkin), we have not even stopped the abuse. I am still uncertain as to why this blatant sale of Wikipedia's main page does not offend more Wikipedians. [[User:Bielle|Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 19:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Bielle, only two new nominations have been submitted so far this year - [[Martin's Cave]] (5 January) and [[CITIPEG]] (16 February). Only Martin's Cave has run so far. Of the 18 other mentions that you cite, 17 were from nominations submitted in 2012 - some as long ago as October. There's no "misleading" involved, just a misunderstanding on your part. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 22:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

:That would be a good arrangement going forward, and I would support writing that in the DYK rule book. If this had applied to Gibraltarpedia, a key part of the problem would have been avoided. And it [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_UK/Governance_Review_discussion#Communitypedia_projects sounds like] Roger (Victuallers) would not have a problem with that. Please suggest it as rule to apply in future. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 22:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

::::There is no misunderstanding on my part, Prioryman. Thank you for your concern. [[User:Bielle|Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 00:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::::*"there have been only 2 new nominations" - If you did not misunderstand this, perhaps owing to a lack of familiarity with the DYK process, then you deliberately misinterpreted it. Nomination =/= a blurb running. See [[T:TDYK]] for ''nominations'' which may or may not run.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 00:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Nor did I misinterpret, Crisco 1492, but thank you for your concern. [[User:Bielle|Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

== Changes to listings of future Gibraltar-related DYK nominations ==

The way that Gibraltar-related nominations have been handled so far has had mixed success. Although nominations have received enhanced scrutiny through having two reviewers and the release rate has been limited to one a day at maximum, there have been extremely long delays in getting reviews completed. This is because the nominations have been listed solely in a special holding area at the very bottom of [[Template talk:Did you know]]. People do not look there for articles to review and it has never before been used to hold unreviewed articles. As a result, articles have gone unreviewed for extended periods and have been delayed by up to three and a half months (the last one to run, earlier this month, was nominated in October 2012). BlueMoonset has often ended up listing them all here on this page just to get them reviewed.

I'm addressing this problem by doing two things:

:'''1.''' The current [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options|restrictions]] require that nominations "will go into a special holding area from the time they are nominated". They do not require that nominations will ''solely'' go into the special holding area. I will therefore be listing any new nominations in the holding area and under the date on which the nomination is submitted. This is consistent with the way that other nominations in special holding areas, such as for April Fool's Day, are treated - listing by date and again in a special holding area. We routinely dual-list other special nominations and there is no benefit in not dual-listing these, nor is dual-listing precluded by the wording of the restrictions.

:'''2.''' The requirement for two reviews is unusual and a likely cause of confusion. If editors see that a review has already been done, they are likely to skip past a nomination without realising that a second review is needed. To address this, I will be adding red-and-green "traffic light" messages to the nominations to indicate whether a review is required or has been completed. The restrictions do not prescribe any particular format for the reviewing template, so we are free to use any format we like. (In fact, the prior template - see [[Template:Did you know nominations/Bruce Cooper]] for an example - was devised by me.) 

I've implemented this "live" for a new Gibraltar-related article that {{user|Soman}} (who I think is one of our Spanish editors) has submitted - see [[Template:Did you know nominations/CITIPEG]]. You can how it looks on the full nominations page at [[Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on February 16]]. These changes should make it easier to process any future nominations while still respecting the restrictions. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 00:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:To increase visibility, just move the holding area so that it displays at the top of the nomination page instead of the bottom. Leave them in the holding area only so as not to further confuse editors. [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 03:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

::Prioryman, I believe that dual-listing the hooks is going against the interpretation and spirit of the restrictions as they have been implemented over the past several months. Hooks on [[T:TDYK]] are supposed to be listed in only one place—April Fools is a special case—and I'm not in favor of changing how we handle the placement of Gibraltar-related hooks at the present time, unless the restrictions are lifted. So unless there is consensus to your 1., I think we should retain our previous practice. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 07:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Let's be blunt - it's ''your'' interpretation. The restrictions do not at any point require the nominations to be single-listed. If you are saying that the restrictions should be changed to require that the nominations should be single-listed, I will be demanding that you put that to a vote. I am coming at this from a starting point of not making the process unnecessarily difficult for reviewers. You know better than almost anyone else, since you list unreviewed articles each week, that the single-listing of these nominations in an area that has never been used before for that purpose has had a massive impact on the length of time taken in reviewing them. To make that point crystal clear, here is a table showing the time taken to review a random selection of Gibraltar-related DYKs:

{| class="wikitable"
|Article
|Nomination
|Review 1
|Review 2
|Time to R1 (days)
|Time to R2 (days)
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Green's Lodge Battery]]
|06-Nov-12
|02-Dec-12
|13-Jan-13
|26
|68
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Project Vitello]]
|01-Nov-12
|06-Nov-12
|09-Dec-12
|5
|38
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid]]
|27-Dec-12
|28-Dec-12
|18-Jan-13
|1
|22
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Soldier Artificer Company]]
|18-Dec-12
|31-Dec-12
|20-Jan-13
|13
|33
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Spur Battery]]
|30-Oct-12
|05-Jan-13
|13-Jan-13
|67
|75
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Tracer, Gibraltar]]
|20-Nov-12
|18-Dec-12
|29-Dec-12
|28
|39
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/William Green (general)]]
|05-Nov-12
|05-Dec-12
|05-Dec-12
|30
|30
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Luis Bravo de Acuña]]
|18-Oct-12
|22-Nov-12
|26-Dec-12
|35
|69
|----
|'''Average review times''' (days)
|
|
|
|25.625
|46.75
|----
|}

:::And non-Gibraltar DYKs:

{| class="wikitable"
|Article
|Nomination
|Review
|Time to Review (days)
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Moulsecoomb Place]]
|22-Dec-12
|26-Dec-12
|4
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/St Laurence's Church, Church Stretton]]
|19-Dec-12
|19-Dec-12
|0
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Gómez "Chicuelo"]]
|17-Dec-12
|23-Dec-12
|6
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/The Peninsula Beverly Hills]]
|14-Dec-12
|18-Dec-12
|4
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Neville, 2nd Baron Latimer]]
|16-Dec-12
|19-Dec-12
|3
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Demon Gaze]]
|09-Dec-12
|16-Dec-12
|7
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Augustus Barrows]]
|01-Dec-12
|15-Dec-12
|14
|----
|[[Template:Did you know nominations/Clifton Nicholson]]
|13-Nov-12
|02-Dec-12
|19
|----
|'''Average review time''' (days)
|
|
|7.125
|----
|}

:::What you can see from above is that the time taken just to get to the first review is massively longer than for DYKs listed normally - in fact, four times longer. The ''average'' time to get to the first review is longer than the ''longest'' time for the non-Gibraltar articles. The length of time taken to complete the reviews is even worse - 6 times longer than for non-Gibraltar articles, with the longest being a massive 69 days (that's 9 weeks). The fact is that single-listing these articles is actively sabotaging the review process. I carried out an experiment last December when I deliberately single-listed two articles I'd written, [[Fifth Siege of Gibraltar]] and [[Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid]], under the dates. They were reviewed within 3 hours and 17 hours respectively. When I moved them to the holding area for the second review, it took a further 31 and 22 days for the reviews to be completed. '''That''' is the impact of single-listing in the holding area, and it's unacceptable. It's especially egregious considering that nothing in the restrictions prohibits single-listing. Why should someone have to wait 9 weeks for [[Template:Did you know nominations/Luis Bravo de Acuña|a completely uncontentious review of a completely uncontentious article]] to be done? If you have a better solution than dual-listing, let's hear it. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::With all respect Prioryman, this issue should probably be taken up after the current discussion of whether to continue the restrictions on Gibraltar articles has ended. To the detractors, double listing the entries will look like DYK is trying to subvert the current restrictions. Also the long processing time is actually working toward Gibraltar's (your?) advantage because we can say that the nominations have not been rushed through, each having 2-9 weeks of hold time for any objections/possible COI to be brought up. At this time (especially while the process is being reviewed?) the articles are considered contentious. Like I said before, just move the section to the top of the page so it doesn't look like we are trying to hide the Gibraltar articles. [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 19:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Prioryman, there is no point in sequestering them if they're also going to appear in the main section and be visible for promotion from there. The whole point in sequestering them was to help ensure they would not be promoted by mistake. It is not only my interpretation as it is the one we have all been operating under for many months. As I noted above, if there is a consensus to change our method of operation, I'm perfectly willing to go along with it. But a unilateral change by you to current established practice: no. Froggerlaura, the Gibraltar hooks are supposed to be in the special occasion holding area, which is at the bottom of [[T:TDYK]]. If we move it to the top of that section, date-dependent ones are more likely to be missed than they are now. Are you suggesting that we move the entire section to the top of [[T:TDYK]], just below the instructions but before the regular dates? I'm not sure that would work well: I think it would confuse newcomers. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your proposal. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 19:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Laura, I disagree profoundly that it is in some way "subversive" of the restrictions. It does not in fact contradict or change ''anything''. Two reviews are still needed, the nominations are still listed in the special holding area, etc. The one and only difference is that the nominations are given the same visibility as any other DYK by dual-listing them, which the restrictions do not prohibit. I also disagree that the restrictions are working towards anyone's advantage. The long hold times are not permitting "objections/possible COI to be brought up" - the hold times are solely because nobody is noticing the nominations! (And there have never been any COI issues brought up with any of these articles in the first place.) The excessive delays do cause harm - it is demoralising for the editors involved, as I know from personal experience, having to wait weeks or months for their nominations to be noticed. I would turn the question around the other way and ask you what possible harm dual-listing could cause. When these restrictions were put in place, nobody contemplated that they would cause huge delays in reviewing articles - that is entirely an accidental and unforeseen consequence. This was simply not intended to happen. We are stuck with using the special holding area for the time being, but we can at least minimise the negative impact that it is causing. As I said above, the restrictions do not require single-listing. 
:::::::It may not look that way to you, but the timing of this proposal is , you have to admit, suspect given the current discussion. It looks bad, so stop shooting yourself in the foot and let the chips fall where they may. [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 19:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::No, I don't admit it, and frankly I am fed up with "appearances" being put ahead of practical concerns. What is this, an encyclopedia or a fashion show? [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 19:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Nope it's essentially a high school (or job, civilization they all work on the same principles) and reason unfortunately doesn't factor very often. [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 20:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::BlueMoonset, if you want to impose single-listing that is a substantial new addition to the restrictions and I will demand a vote on it, which I will strongly oppose. I have raised this issue with you before but the problem has persisted. I repeat my question to you above: what is your solution to this problem? Do you consider it acceptable for uncontentious articles to go 69 days before being approved? If not, what are you going to do about it? [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 19:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::: The restriction was that they should go in a holding area to avoid early promotion. I suggest moving the Gibraltar section out of the special date section as none of them will be airing on any one date and that section is for approved hooks only anyway (probably part of the problem since no one looks down there to review hooks). If the Gibraltar section was moved to the top or bottom of the current or older nomination areas, they might receive more attention. With the instructions accompanying the holding area, I think reviewers would be able to figure it out and more eyes would look at the articles before they are approved. [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 19:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::: The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/GibraltarPediA_Options original rationale for the holding area] was mentioned by Graham Bartlett, who commented: "We only need a special holding area if there is a build up of approved DYKs faster than appearance." That hasn't happened at ''any'' point, as far as I know. Note that the summary of the restrictions states that the use of the holding area met with "Consensus, but qualified by an editor as being required only if incoming rate is high enough." Does that give us leeway to discontinue the use of the holding area, given that there have been only been 2 new nominations in the whole of 2013 so far? And what does "early promotion" mean? There is a restriction of one article appearing per day so would it even matter if, say, 5 were approved on the same day? If you have a queue of 5 in the holding area, they're still not going to appear on the Main Page faster than the 1 per day limit. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 19:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::What the original restriction as passed says is: "All DYK Gibraltar-related nominations will go into a special holding area from the time they are nominated". It doesn't say that they are allowed to remain in the regular area while they also go into the holding area, it says they go. As in get moved there. That has been the interpretation for four months, and I think it would be an odd reinterpretation that allows both "go" and "stay". There is no leeway to discontinue a holding area, nor, in my view, to allow hooks be in two places at once as Prioryman is arguing for (or even discard the holding area entirely, as above). Froggerlaura does have a point that the holding area doesn't have to be the special occasion holding area—I think that one was chosen because it already existed and was on the actual [[T:TDYK]] page, but a holding area it must be until or unless the restrictions are lifted or modified. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::The point I am making is that the restriction does not say they must ''only'' go in the special holding area. The only reason "that has been the interpretation" is because that has been ''your'' interpretation, which nobody has seen fit to challenge until now. I will repeat my question to you until you answer it (this is the third time now): what is your solution to this problem? Do you consider it acceptable for uncontentious articles to go 69 days before being approved? If not, what are you going to do about it? Please answer this question. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 20:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::Are the nominations going to burst into flames if they go over 70 days? I've had noms sit for around 4 weeks (really boring ones anyway) before review and I don't feel slighted. 69 days is not the norm for these articles. Why does speed to the mainpage matter? DYK is not supposed to be a contest. [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 20:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::People who submit articles to DYK have a reasonable expectation, I think, that their nominations are going to be dealt with in a reasonable time. Look at the figures I gave above. The average wait for a non-Gibraltar review to be completed in my sample was 7 days. The average for a Gibraltar-related review is 46 days. That's 6 weeks, just as an average! Okay, so you've have occasionally noms "sit for around 4 weeks". Have you ever had, or ever come across, a situation where ''every'' DYK you submit on a particular topic is going to sit around for half as long again? This kind of delay was never intended to happen. We did not design the restrictions to deliberately obstruct reviewers. The undisputed fact is that reviewers ''are'' being obstructed. Your idea of moving the holding area is interesting, but it does not get around the fundamental problem that reviewers do not look in holding areas for articles to review. We know that for a fact - we can see it in the review data I posted. The only way around that is to follow the way that reviews are normally done, and list them by date as well. In fact, we can see that this approach is working - Soman's dual-listed article has just received its first review after less than a day, as compared to the average of 25 days to the first review that I demonstrated in my dataset above. At the very least we should operate this as a trial to see if it cuts down on the delays. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 20:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Prioryman, I can't believe that anyone would think that a 69-day wait for DYK approval is a good thing. I think it's highly unfortunate fallout from the Gibraltar restrictions that were put in place in the hopes of preventing something worse, like a moratorium of many months, if not years. There may be ways to streamline the reviewing process, and I'm open to considering them. As you noted, inclusion in my lists of old nominations needing review was not as successful as hoped, though I believe it did help somewhat.

:::::::::::::However, this comes in the context of the latest attempt to remove or redefine the restrictions failing, so I'm a bit skeptical of yet another redefinition attempt, this time of "All DYK Gibraltar-related nominations will go into a special holding area from the time they are nominated." You're claiming that it doesn't specifically say that they can't be in two places at once, which therefore means they can be in the holding area and the nomination area. But this ignores the fact that voters on the restrictions would have known how the actual nominating process works, and would have understood it to be:
:::::::::::::#User creates a Gibraltar-related nomination template in the usual way
:::::::::::::#User adds nomination transclusion under its proper date in the [[T:TDYK]] nomination area per instructions.
:::::::::::::#The nomination transclusion then goes to the special holding area.
:::::::::::::It doesn't say "will be duplicated into" or "will be copied into" or even "will also go", it says "will go". In short, it will no longer be among the other nominees in the usual area, but gone—moved—into the special holding area. 

:::::::::::::That's how it's been done since the temporary moratorium on Gibraltar-related hooks was lifted last fall in favor of the just-passed restrictions that remain in force today. If moving rather than duplicating was wrong, the day the nominations were all moved into the holding area we have now was the time to say so, yet no one did. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 18:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 
::::::::::::::I'm glad you recognise that there's a real problem. However, I'm afraid you're missing the fact that nobody knew in advance what the effect of using the holding area for unprocessed nominations would be, because that had never been done before in the entire history of DYK. If someone had said, "this will cause delays of months in reviewing nominations", I have no doubt that the holding area idea would have been dropped. Nobody involved in the restrictions discussion had any intention of deliberately making it difficult for articles to be reviewed. It became apparent within only a few weeks that single-listing was causing massive delays. I brought this up on your user talk page [[User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 7#Avoiding another Gibraltar backlog|here]] in October 2012, only about a month after the restrictions were imposed, and I pointed out back then that the restrictions didn't require single-listing. I realise I'm repeating myself, but I will point out again that "will go" does not say "will only go". There is no requirement of exclusivity '''whatsoever''' in the restrictions and adding a such a requirement is in fact a "redefinition", as you put it. We are now nearly six months into the restrictions and the problem has only got worse. I've repeatedly asked you what your solution is and I've not yet seen any answer to that question. 

::::::::::::::Let's turn this around a bit. The only practical issue that anyone has raised with dual-listing is Froggerlaura's concern that articles might be promoted "early", i.e. without completing the two reviews. I addressed that with the second change that I described - adding "traffic lights" to the review template. You can see at a glance ([[Template:Did you know nominations/CITIPEG|here it is again]]) that currently one review has been done but one more is required. The requirement for two reviews is stated in bold above. There is no possibility that anyone is going to look at this and think that it's ready for promotion. Dual-listing thus doesn't cause any harm, as the traffic lights will prevent anyone from promoting an article prematurely. It has the positive benefit of ensuring that the articles are visible and can get reviewed in a normal timescale. It also respects the restrictions by continuing to list the articles in the holding area. It actually benefits the goal of the restrictions, as Carabinieri says below, by ensuring that the articles get proper scrutiny, which single-listing hinders. It does not in any way compromise the restrictions. Arguing for single-listing is, in effect, an argument that reviewers ''should'' be hindered, which benefits absolutely nobody. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 19:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I'm waiting for a groundswell of disapproval for my interpretation that "go" was clearly intended for a move rather than a duplication—or of approval for yours that "will go" also means "will be duplicated"—and I'm not seeing it. I frankly think yours stretches logic to the breaking point, and did when you made the statement back on my talk page (enough so that I forgot about it until you reminded me just now). To my mind there is a requirement—"go" is most commonly from point A to point B—and that's what I'm sticking with until people other than you tell me that they thought it meant duplication was clearly implied. I see what you've done with the current nom, but arguing that a restriction is bad and shouldn't be followed (although you're actually arguing that the restriction doesn't really say what it says in addition to pointing out its problems and consequences) is an argument I just don't buy. Carabinieri (who is the reviewer of that current nom, possibly because he saw the discussion here) makes the sensible and pragmatic point, but, you know, there are lots of things about the rules of Wikipedia that I find far from sensible or pragmatic but I do them because those are the rules and restrictions Wikipedia operates under. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 19:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I am '''not''' arguing that "a restriction is bad and shouldn't be followed". Please do not misrepresent me. I have said consistently in this discussion that the restriction ''is'' being followed. Articles are still being listed in the special holding area, which is exactly what the restrictions require. Once again, they do not require they they must ''only'' be listed in the special holding area, and I will not accept you adding a requirement of exclusivity without a vote. I have asked you, I think four times now, what your solution is to this problem and you have yet to answer me. Let me ask you again for a fifth time: what is your solution to this problem? Ignoring it won't make it go away. I'm glad you acknowledge that the delays are a bad thing but I'm not seeing any attempt from you to resolve them while keeping within the bounds of the restrictions, which is the point of my changes. I'd be very happy to see you propose a solution, so let's hear what you suggest. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 19:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I have consistently said in this discussion that I believe your interpretation of the restriction's wording is not reasonable. I am stating that the original wording, if interpreted by a reasonable person knowing how DYK typically works, means that it is a move rather than a duplication, and has since the original consensus was reached. Until we establish this point one way or the other, I am not interested in continuing this discussion, since my answers on any solution, of necessity, would start from the restriction as its been done since the moratorium was lifted, and you're unwilling to accept that as a starting point. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman, you can't make unilateral change to accepted practice that has been used for months, and then demand that other editors who dispute this need to achieve consensus first. Anyone is fully within their rights to revert that move, and in that case it is you who needs to achieve consensus for new procedure. Not everything is always specifically spelled out, because we aren't fucking lawyers here. [[WP:EDITCONCENSUS]] fully applies.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:It isn't me who is being unilateral here. I am simply pointing out that the restrictions do not prohibit dual-listing. If you or someone else believes that they should, put it to a vote. We are certainly not going to add extra restrictions without consensus. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 21:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
*The fact that Gibraltar DYKs are being delayed is not something that can be changed by more rules. What we are observing is the collective opinion of the DYK volunteers. They are voting with their actions, and their actions show that the Gibraltar project fouled itself. I disagree with the idea that a double entry for Gibraltar DYK entries would be in the spirit of the restrictions. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 21:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:* No DYK volunteer has ever said in a review that "the Gibraltar project fouled itself", whatever that means. People are clearly willing to do the reviews. Nobody has ever said, to the best of my knowledge, that they don't want to review these articles. If you look at the reviews, they have been pretty complimentary about the quality of the articles. There have, in fact, been very few quality complaints and I don't think any of the articles have proved controversial once they got onto the Main Page. You disagree that double-listing would be "be in the spirit of the restrictions" but as I have repeatedly pointed out, the letter of the restrictions does not prohibit it. We are not getting into "emanations and penumbras" here. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 21:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::*Whatever one may think about Prioryman's other actions during this spat, listing Gibraltar-related hooks under the relevant date seems fairly sensible and pragmatic. I, for one, would probably have missed any nomination in the holding area and not reviewed it. The spirit of the restrictions, as I understand it, is that Gibraltar-related hooks need to be looked at particularly carefully before they appear. Hiding the nominations in a special holding area actually hinders this. The way Prioryman listed the "pilot" nomination under the relevant date makes the special circumstances of this nomination pretty clear and there's no chance it will be accidentally promoted without being given the scrutiny it requires.--[[User:Carabinieri|Carabinieri]] ([[User talk:Carabinieri|talk]]) 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::* "Will go" means "move", any other interpretation is just playing with words <span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;">[[User:Tuxlie|<font style="color:white ;background:red">&nbsp;'''TUXLIE'''&nbsp;</font>]]</span> 16:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

== Holding a DYK whilst a second article is created ==

I [[Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dockwise_Vanguard|approved a hook recently]] which ''might'' be improved if we waited for a new article ([[Aasta Hansteen spar]]), mentioned in the hook, to be produced. Is that allowed? I should add that I have not asked the nominator's permission, though I will direct the nominator to this discussion --<span class="vcard" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span class="fn">[[User:Senra|Senra]]</span>&nbsp;([[User Talk:Senra|talk]])</span> 15:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:I have created a stub, but am too tired to work on it further.[[w:User:Martin451|Martin'''<font style="color:#FB0">4</font><font style="color:#F00">5</font><font style="color:#F60">1</font>''']] ([[w:User talk:Martin451#top|talk]]) 01:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

== DYKbot off by twelve minutes ==

For a reason I can't understand, the bot is updating pages twelve minutes before normal, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=538563389 here] at 14:48 instead of 15:00.  Accordingly, I've adjusted [[User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates|the timer]] so that it gets an additional twelve minutes.  I'll be at church when that update goes through, so I'll be unable to perform the needed self-revert, and I'll probably forget about it by the time I leave.  '''PLEASE REVERT''' my edit immediately after the next update!  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 22:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:If you check the times at which DYKUpdateBot began the last four updates you will find they occurred at:
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=538726820 15:33, February 17, 2013 (UTC)]
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=538680937 07:18, February 17, 2013 (UTC)]
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=538627907 23:03, February 17, 2013 (UTC)]
:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=538563389 14:48, February 17, 2013 (UTC)]
:The common theme is that while [[User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates]] has been set for updates every 8 hours, for the last few days updates have been 8 hours and 15 minutes apart.  This is an intentional feature of the bot that allows it to automatically resync with midnight (please see [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know#DYK schedule]] for the most recent discussion of this issue).  Your change of the time between updates has been reversed as unneeded.  Once the updates are resynced the bot will automatically return to 8 hour updates. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 22:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::But...that doesn't help the problem.  No matter how many 8-hour-and-15-minute updates it makes, it's always going to be twelve minutes off.  Eventually it will be updating at 07:48, 15:48, and 23:48 daily, rather than at 08:00, 16:00, and 00:00.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 05:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:::No, it doesn't. The adjustment process is smart enough to know where its end goal is, and makes a final sub-15-minute adjustment (if necessary) to get to the even hours it's looking for. As it has done now, and on many past occasions. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 07:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

== DYK hooks need reviewing ==

Reviews would greatly be appreciated. We currently don't have enough approved hooks to fill the prep areas, with only 14 to fill 24 slots. We have 231 DYK nominations submitted in total, and those undone or incomplete now number 217. I've listed three dozen of the older ones that need reviewing: all are at least two weeks old. Many thanks for your continuing assistance.

*<s>December 14: [[Template:Did you know nominations/First Battle of Warsaw (1794)]]</s>
*<s>January 20: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipedian in Residence]]</s>
*<s>January 20: [[Template:Did you know nominations/P. Shilu Ao]]</s>
*<s>January 21: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Saeed Abedini]]</s>
*January 21: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2011]] (Review attempted. See {{oldid|User talk:Yulia Romero#Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2011 at DYK|539087177|User talk:Yulia ...}}) --<span class="vcard" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span class="fn">[[User:Senra|Senra]]</span>&nbsp;([[User Talk:Senra|talk]])</span> 00:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 22: [[Template:Did you know nominations/K-140 (Kansas highway)]] (needs another reviewer)</s> --<span class="vcard" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span class="fn">[[User:Senra|Senra]]</span>&nbsp;([[User Talk:Senra|talk]])</span> 21:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 
*<s>January 24: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Black Anvil]]</s>
*<s>January 24: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Lion Pagoda of Hwaeomsa]]</s> Good to go. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
*January 25: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan]]
*<s>January 25: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Dockwise Vanguard]] Good to go after ALT3 is reviewed --<span class="vcard" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span class="fn">[[User:Senra|Senra]]</span>&nbsp;([[User Talk:Senra|talk]])</span> 09:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)</s> 
*<s>January 27: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Omar Derdour]]</s>
*<s>January 27: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Dickie Dodds]] awaiting confirmation of QPQ compliance otherwise GTG --<span class="vcard" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span class="fn">[[User:Senra|Senra]]</span>&nbsp;([[User Talk:Senra|talk]])</span> 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)</s> <!-- I have to say that this editors QPQ compliance review of [[Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Joseph_G._Sanders]] seemed half-hearted and not in the spirit of DYK -->
*<s>January 27: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Neal Evenhuis]]</s>
*<s>January 28: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Solomon Northup's Odyssey]]</s>
*<s>January 29: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Den Frie Udstilling]]</s>
*January 29: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Malawi–Malaysia relations]]
*<s>January 29: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law]]</s> Review underway. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 29: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Tornada (Occitan literary term)]]</s>
*<s>January 30: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Nicolai Rygg]]</s> Good to go. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 30: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Fergie Sutherland]]</s> Approved '''''[[User:Moswento|Moswento]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Moswento|talky]]</sup> 10:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 31: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Stevens]] (ALT5a needs reviewing) GTG --<span class="vcard" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span class="fn">[[User:Senra|Senra]]</span>&nbsp;([[User Talk:Senra|talk]])</span> 11:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC) </s>
*<s>January 31: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Apikoğlu Brothers]]</s>
*<s>January 31: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Friedrich Gorenstein]]</s> Good to go. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>January 31: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Ahn Jun]]</s>
*<s>January 31: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Sexplosion!]]</s>
*<s>February 1: [[Template:Did you know nominations/1 kroon coin (1934)]]</s>
*<s>February 1: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Ben Guez]]</s> Approved '''''[[User:Moswento|Moswento]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Moswento|talky]]</sup> 10:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>February 1: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Benie Hoose, Pettigarths Field Cairns, Standing Stones of Yoxie, Huxter Fort]] (four-article hook)</s>
*<s>February 1: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Kollafjørður]]</s>
*<s>February 1: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Symbister, Symbister House]] (two-article hook) Further review needed. Hook source may not be [[WP:RS]]</s> --<span class="vcard" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span class="fn">[[User:Senra|Senra]]</span>&nbsp;([[User Talk:Senra|talk]])</span> 00:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>February 1: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Onésime Dorval]]</s>
*February 1: [[Template:Did you know nominations/The Light: Swami Vivekananda]]
*February 2: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Auguste Doriot]]
*February 2: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Shavarsh Krissian]]
*February 2: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Te Aroha by-election, 1891]]
*February 2: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Race and ethnic history of New York City]]
*<s>February 3: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Gedser wind turbine]]</s>
*<s>February 3: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Ulf Schirmer]]</s>
*February 3: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Planyavsky]]
*<s>February 3: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Whatever It Takes (Leona Lewis song)]]</s> Taking care of this '''''[[User:Moswento|Moswento]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Moswento|talky]]</sup> 22:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
*<s>February 3: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Eugen, Duke of Närke]]</s>

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Thank you very much! [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 08:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

'''Comment''': I am struggling. I have (valiantly?) attempted to review the earliest articles. Specifically:
:* [[Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipedian in Residence|Wikipedian in Residence]] I found the [[Sarah Stierch]] article far too flattering for a biography and in the end, decided I could not review it. The article needs very careful treatment as Stierch is a WMF employee. If her history is not as rosy as the article claims, we will look bad showing it on the front-page (IMHO). I did look at [[Wikipedian in Residence]] too (e.g. ''oftentimes'' is too vague)
:* [[Template:Did you know nominations/P. Shilu Ao|P. Shilu Ao]] Good to go
:* [[Template:Did you know nominations/Saeed Abedini|Saeed Abedini]] IMHO article is unbalanced. All sources are western
:* [[Template:Did you know nominations/Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2011|Criminal cases against Yulia Tymoshenko since 2011]] This is a highly political article that seems to be well-sourced. The many single-sentence sections and paragraphs, however, make it hard to read. The tone of the whole article seems to be the western perspective on Ukrainian politics using the Tymoshenko trials as its vehicle. I don't think it is balanced but I find it hard to judge this accurately. [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%AE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%AF%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B0 See also Russian Wikipedia] article which is tagged for neutrality too
: --<span class="vcard" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span class="fn">[[User:Senra|Senra]]</span>&nbsp;([[User Talk:Senra|talk]])</span> 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

== Reuse ==

I was looking for an unreviewed article to review, and noticed [[Template:Did you know nominations/Western Appeal]]. Most of the text comes from MNopedia, which is published with a Creative Commons license, and has a template saying so. No copyright concerns, then, but can it be considered "new"? [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:I think so - it would be new on Wikipedia, which is what counts. There may be a problem with the MNopedia sourcing though. Although it has an attribution to the Minnesota Historical Society, it appears to be an open wiki and as such it would be excluded as a reliable source by [[WP:SPS]]. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 20:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:{{ec}} The material reused from MNopedia (or any other public domain source) is not considered new for DYK purposes. There need to be at least 1500 prose characters that are not from the PD sources. (It can be fine for Wikipedia yet not qualify for DYK.) [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 20:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::I stand corrected! But I think we would have to exclude the MNopedia content as an unreliable source anyway, unfortunately. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Very true about the exclusion for open wiki material. If it's sourced, the original sources (if online or otherwise available) could potentially be mined for the same basic information, though it would have to be paraphrased differently under the circumstances. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 21:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::::MNopedia is not an open wiki. The text in question was written by [http://www.minnpost.com/author/molly-huber Molly Huber] and is without a doubt a reliable source. I'll withdraw the nom; I overlooked the fact that reusing made the prose ineligible. [[User:Gobonobo|<font face="DejaVu Sans" color="333300">Gobōnobō</font>]] [[User_talk:Gobonobo|<sup>+</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Gobonobo|<sup>c</sup>]] 01:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

== Symbols ==

We are currently showing this editing aid on the nominations page:
-------------
{{multicol}}
* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYKtick}}</charinsert></code>
* [[File:Pictogram voting keep.svg|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYKtickAGF}}</charinsert></code>
{{multicol-break}}
* [[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYK?}}</charinsert></code>
* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYK?no}}</charinsert></code>
{{multicol-break}} 
* [[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYKno}}</charinsert></code>
* [[File:Symbol redirect vote4.png|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYK?again}}</charinsert></code>
{{multicol-end}}
<small>If you click the link at the right of the symbol, it will be inserted at your cursor's location. For more information on symbols, see the <b>[[Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide#Finishing the review|DYK reviewing guide]]</b>. You may notify the nominator of problems with</small>:&nbsp;&nbsp;<b><code>{{subst:DYKproblem{{!}}{{#ifeq:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Did you know nominations|{{#ifexist:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|''Article''}}|''Article''}}|header=yes|sig=yes}}</code></b>

I was hoping to expand the symbols available and if not substantially opposed would like to change the above to include the expandable section as shown below:
-------------
{{DYK cbox|text-align2=left|htext=
{{multicol}}
* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYKtick}}</charinsert></code>
* [[File:Pictogram voting keep.svg|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYKtickAGF}}</charinsert></code>
{{multicol-break}}
* [[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYK?}}</charinsert></code>
* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYK?no}}</charinsert></code>
{{multicol-break}} 
* [[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYKno}}</charinsert></code>
* [[File:Symbol redirect vote4.png|16px]] <code><charinsert>{{subst:DYK?again}}</charinsert></code>
{{multicol-end}}
<small>If you click the link at the right of the symbol, it will be inserted at your cursor's location. For more information on symbols, see the <b>[[Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide#Finishing the review|DYK reviewing guide]]</b>. You may notify the nominator of problems with</small>:&nbsp;&nbsp;<b><code>{{subst:DYKproblem{{!}}{{#ifeq:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Did you know nominations|{{#ifexist:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|''Article''}}|''Article''}}|header=yes|sig=yes}}</code></b>|
{{multicol}}
00&mdash;[[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol delete vote.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|00}}</charinsert></code></b>

01&mdash;[[File:Artículo bueno.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Artículo bueno.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|01}}</charinsert></code></b>

02&mdash;[[File:Symbol kept vote.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol kept vote.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|02}}</charinsert></code></b>

03&mdash;[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol support vote.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|03}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
04&mdash;[[File:Symbol question green.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol question green.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|04}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
05&mdash;[[File:Symbol plain green.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol plain green.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|05}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
06&mdash;[[File:Symbol information vote.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol information vote.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|06}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
07&mdash;[[File:Symbol remind vote.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol remind vote.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|07}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
08&mdash;[[File:Symbol declined.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol declined.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|08}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
09&mdash;[[File:Symbol unrelated.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol unrelated.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|09}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
10&mdash;[[File:Symbol redirect vote4.png|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol redirect vote4.png&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|10}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
11&mdash;[[File:Artículo bueno.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;''(Duplicated file, please leave it in place)''&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|11}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
12&mdash;[[File:Symbol arrow down.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol arrow down.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|12}}</charinsert></code></b>
{{multicol-break}} 
13&mdash;[[File:Artículo bueno-blue.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Artículo bueno-blue.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|13}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
14&mdash;[[File:Symbol keep vote.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol keep vote.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|14}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
15&mdash;[[File:Symbol support2 vote.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol support2 vote.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|15}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
16&mdash;[[File:Symbol question.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol question.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|16}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
17&mdash;[[File:Symbol plain blue.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol plain blue.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|17}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
18&mdash;[[File:Symbol opinion vote.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol opinion vote.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|18}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
19&mdash;[[File:Symbol reply.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol reply.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|19}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
20&mdash;[[File:Symbol oppose vote.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol oppose vote.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|20}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
21&mdash;[[File:Symbol delete vote darkened.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol delete vote darkened.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|21}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
22&mdash;[[File:Symbol redirect vote2.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol redirect vote2.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|22}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
23&mdash;[[File:Symbol arrow up.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol arrow up.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|23}}</charinsert></code></b>
 
24&mdash;[[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Symbol possible vote.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|24}}</charinsert></code></b>

25&mdash;[[File:Pictogram voting keep.svg|{{{px|17}}}x{{{px|17}}}px|link={{{link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYK}}}|alt={{{alt|Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination}}}]]&mdash;Pictogram voting keep.svg&nbsp;<b><code><charinsert>{{DYKF|25}}</charinsert></code></b>
{{multicol-end}}
}}
Is it too much?&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 10:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

::Umm, the coding is very different (many times longer), but the only difference I see in the resulting display is the use of a bolder font for the text. What are you trying to do here? --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 14:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Click "Show" to see the additions. I don't understand the purpose either, though. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 14:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
::::As a simple reply: yes, it looks far too much; like Demiurge1000 says, I don't understand the need for all those additional symbols? '''[[User:Harrias|<font color="#00cc33">Harrias</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Harrias|<font color="#009900">talk</font>]]</sup> 14:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Fair enough, of course it never needed to be all of them, or any, but thanks all the same.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 14:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Aha, the "show" entry explains it! Now that I see it, it's an impressive display, but I think it's excessive. The symbols we have now are supposed to provide quickly interpretable visual information to supplement the text comments -- particularly for the benefit of volunteers who are skimming the noms page for various reasons. They are also used by the bot(s) to classify the status of a review. The need for quick interpretation means we need to ''keep this simple''. (I, for one, don't want to have to study a long list of symbols in order to try to figure out what somebody's comment was supposed to mean.) If there is a perceived need for a couple more easily recognizable symbols, we can consider adding them to the existing template, but let's not go beyond that. Reviewers should provide their comments in words -- and use pictographs only to communicate a quick summary. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Adding myself to the substantial opposition. I'd go even further: any additions to the list of symbols should be considered one at a time, and would require significant and cogent explanation of why the existing symbols don't adequately cover the situation. (It could be the explanation of how to use the existing symbols needs tweaking.) [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::To follow up: yes, I believe these additional symbols are indeed too much, and I'm puzzled as to why My76Strat is using them anyway in subsequent reviews, as witness [[Template:Did you know nominations/Apikoğlu Brothers]]. I found this quite confusing. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 06:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

*'''Ugh'''. No. Thanks, but no. The page should be made easier to read, not harder.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 06:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

== Added table to top of T:TDYK ==

I added the "List of DYK hooks by date" table to the top of the [[T:TDYK]] page. I canvassed this notion on this page some time ago and since there were no objections, decided per [[WP:BEBOLD]] to go ahead with it. IMO it should be useful to both reviewers and updaters to be able to see how many hooks still need reviewing in each section and how many have already been approved. 

Having done so, however, it has occurred to me that the table of contents below it is now largely redundant, except that it contains links to the Special occasion holding area which the other table doesn't include. Would it be possible to add the special occasion sections to the other table? If so, we could eliminate the TOC altogether. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 14:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:It can be done, if there's a stomach for it.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 15:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
::I was just looking at your table and I do like it.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 15:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Seems like this was a good move. I agree that it seems excessive to have both this table and a conventional TOC. In addition to the special occasion area, I see one other situation where the old TOC still may have relevance. That one situation involves the display of changes (dates added or deleted) since the last time the bot updated the "hooks by date" table. Normally that's not a big deal, as the bot runs fairly often, but when the bot stops working, it sometimes takes a couple of days to get the table updated again. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 15:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

::{{ec}} But this makes it much harder for new people to DYK to find out how (or where) to submit. I don't think making it harder for submitters and newcomers is a worthwhile trade for making it a bit easier for reviewers and updaters. Before the change, the ToC was in the first screen you see, along with its "Instructions for nominators" link. It's now a couple of screens down, out of sight, and removing the ToC listing would leave newcomers even more in the dark about what [[T:TDYK]] contains. We want to welcome new people, not hide the keys. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 15:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

::: I'm not sure I agree that it will make it harder for noobs, but if that is a concern, the table could be moved below the TOC. I'm quite keen on retaining the table on the page, because I am already finding it very useful. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 15:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I don't think it would make it any harder as well, and it could be easier even now.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 15:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:I do like the table, but understand BlueMoonset's point about page navigation. Is there a way to make it collapsible or place it after the instructions? [[User:Froggerlaura|<font color="darkgreen">Froggerlaura</font>]] [[User talk:Froggerlaura|<sup><font color="maroon">ribbit</font>]]</sup> 15:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:: Well, you could make it collapsible just by putting it inside a collapsible template, but it would be more elegant to have a collapse button in the table itself. I'm not that keen on the idea of making it collapsible though, because I don't want to have to continually uncollapse it, it's become such a chore to try and negotiate this hugely long page that I want to keep it as simple as possible. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 15:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:What about moving the new table below the table of contents and changing the TOClimit to 3? This would essentially mean that the new table would be a more helpful version of the 4th level of the current TOC. Newcomers would still see what the page contains, and a prominent link to the instructions, but reviewers would be aided by a more helpful date-by-date navigation. '''''[[User:Moswento|Moswento]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Moswento|talky]]</sup> 15:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:: So you lose all the "Articles created on ... " subsections in the TOC? That sounds like a workable solution. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:: Okay, I rearranged the tables according to your suggestion Moswento. That seems like a pretty good compromise to me. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 16:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:: Anyhow, I am about to go offline now, so won't be able to contribute further to this discussion until tomorrow. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 16:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:::I like that a lot: makes the page more informative, easy (or easier) to find things, and the only thing you lose from the ToC is the special occasion subsections, which isn't ideal but seems a reasonable balance to me. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:::: I notice that since the table was added, the number of approved nominations has leapt in roughly 24 hours from 26 to 53, which looks encouraging. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 16:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

== DYK is almost overdue ==

<!-- 2013-02-21T08:00:00Z -->
In less than two hours [[Template:Did you know|Did you know]] will need to be updated, however the '''[[Template:Did you know/Queue/6|next queue]]''' either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
# Check the '''[[Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1|prep areas]]'''; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the '''[[Template talk:Did you know|suggestions page]]''' and add them and the credits as required.
# Once completed edit '''[[Template:Did you know/Queue/6|queue #6]]''' and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
# Add <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:DYKbotdo|DYKbotdo]]<nowiki>|~~~}}</nowiki> to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template.
Thanks and have a good day, [[User:DYKUpdateBot|DYKUpdateBot]] ([[User talk:DYKUpdateBot|talk]]) 22:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

== About the nominations page ==

I was checking the guidelines on T:TDYK because it's been a while since I was last here, and I noticed that the instructions on reviewing noms are listed under "Instructions for nominators". Not really a big deal, but shouldn't it go under the "Instructions for other editors" section? 
Also, on the individual nomination sub pages, do we fill in the "passed" parameter in the DYKsubpage template when we pass the nomination, or is it something to do with moving hooks to the queues? 
Sorry if that sounds stupid, but it's better than making a mistake that breaks the whole page and kills the bot :) [[User:Chamal_N|Chamal]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Chamal_N|<span style="color:#808080;">T</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Chamal_N|C]]</sup> 03:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:The instructions on reviewing noms are listed under "Instructions for nominators" because nominators are expected, under the quid pro quo system, to review one nomination for each nomination they submit (after getting a pass on the first five). The "Instructions for other editors" section is actually about building prep areas, which is something most nominators don't ever do (and you should never promote a hook to a prep area that you nominated or reviewed). This may not be an ideal name for the section, but it seems to serve.
:I'm very glad you asked, because you should definitely ''not'' fill in the "passed" parameter, or indeed anything at the top of the DYKsubpage template. There is a comment about ten lines down on the template that clearly states "Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion." It's there for a reason: the discussion is closed and parameters filled in only at the time the article is promoted or finally rejected (and rejection should also not be done by the reviewer). If you have any further questions, please ask, or you can take a look at the [[WP:DYK]] (rules) and [[WP:DYKSG]] (more rules) pages. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 03:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
::Alright, thanks. I think I got it. [[User:Chamal_N|Chamal]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Chamal_N|<span style="color:#808080;">T</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Chamal_N|C]]</sup> 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

== a "Treasure" ==

I'm not sure how best to fix it, but the current "treasure" language in the hook (emphasis added) "that the Lion Pagoda, '''a Treasure of South Korea''', is one of Hwaeomsa's four stone pagodas?" ... seems awk, probably unnecessary, has an odd capitalization, and does not appear in the article itself.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 07:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:It seems to be covered in the opening phrase of the Significance section: it's Treasure 300, and therefore "a Treasure" seemed apt when I looked at it prior to promoting it. AGF on the offline source, of course. I'm not sure how you'd convey that it's considered special without the capitalized "Treasure", but I think that actually adds to the hook's interest. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 07:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:<small>([[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflict]])</small> I'm not sure about the wording of the hook, but the article does state does that it was "designated Treasure 300" and is "one of the four stone pagodas of Hwaeomsa" and both are sourced. The hook is currently in Prep area 4, in case anybody wants to check. [[User:Chamal_N|Chamal]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Chamal_N|<span style="color:#808080;">T</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Chamal_N|C]]</sup> 07:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
::Sorry -- partially my error.  My find bar is now case-sensitive for some reason (inadvertent check of the match case box), and missed Treasure in my search for treasure.  As to whether it should be initial cap, I can't see the off-line source.  On-line info is mixed, see, eg, [https://www.google.com/search?num=40&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=0MS&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&biw=939&bih=498&tbm=bks&q=Treasures+of+Hwaeomsa&oq=Treasures+of+Hwaeomsa&gs_l=serp.3...10328.10328.0.10703.1.1.0.0.0.0.80.80.1.1.0...0.0...1c.1.4.serp.Q-l4F60vfS4 here]--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 07:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

== DYK is almost overdue ==

<!-- 2013-02-22T00:00:00Z -->
In less than two hours [[Template:Did you know|Did you know]] will need to be updated, however the '''[[Template:Did you know/Queue/2|next queue]]''' either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
# Check the '''[[Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1|prep areas]]'''; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the '''[[Template talk:Did you know|suggestions page]]''' and add them and the credits as required.
# Once completed edit '''[[Template:Did you know/Queue/2|queue #2]]''' and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
# Add <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:DYKbotdo|DYKbotdo]]<nowiki>|~~~}}</nowiki> to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template.
Thanks and have a good day, [[User:DYKUpdateBot|DYKUpdateBot]] ([[User talk:DYKUpdateBot|talk]]) 14:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

== Image protection ==

Shouldn't the images in Queues 3, 4 and 5 have [[Template:Pp-main-page]] added to their pages? —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 21:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:No. Images that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons are protected there. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 13:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:*When the bot feels like it.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 13:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

== If sources are affiliated with the article subject, does it pass policy for DYK? ==

I couldn't find a clear answer to this question and have been seeing some cases which made me question the issue.  But I finally found a test case for the extreme. The DYK [[Template:Did you know nominations/Christina Maranci]] uses three sources (1. the person's university promotion, 2. a chapter she wrote, and 3. a book she wrote).  All three sources are directly related to the subject, would this pass policy or not?  My interpretation, and please correct, is that these can be used to provide the drywall, but the frame of an article has to come from unaffiliated/secondary sources. Just wondering as I work on improving my reviewing. Thanks. [[User:AbstractIllusions|AbstractIllusions]] ([[User talk:AbstractIllusions|talk]]) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:Carabinieri has just raised notability issues with this nomination on the template, and reversed its promotion. I believe you are correct in your assessment: that secondary sources are not used, and needed to be. The article is at this minute being revised by its author, so the unaffiliated/secondary sources may be forthcoming. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 06:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::As always, thanks to all for helping clarify things. [[User:AbstractIllusions|AbstractIllusions]] ([[User talk:AbstractIllusions|talk]]) 12:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

== Promotion error ==

I just tried to promote an article for the first time and I think I messed up the template on Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Rick_DiBernardo because there are extra tags displaying. I think I got it moved to prep area 4 correctly. Can someone take a look and let me know what I did wrong? Thanks! [[User:Allecher|Allecher]] ([[User talk:Allecher|talk]]) 02:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:It looks like the comma after subpage needs to go, and then save it.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::I'm sorry; I didn't see this before noting the issue, and putting through the promotion myself so it didn't continue to be transcluded on the [[T:TDYK]] page. If it doesn't appear like it does now at [[Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Rick_DiBernardo]] when you preview it (with the box around it, the blue background, and the header), then there's something wrong. You don't need to remove anything when you promote: just substitute the template and add the "yes" to the "passed" parameter. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 05:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Thanks for correcting it, BlueMoonset! I'll get brave and try another one soon. [[User:Allecher|Allecher]] ([[User talk:Allecher|talk]]) 18:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

== Question of protocol ==

I have a general question and would like to see the opinion of as many DYK regulars who are willing to answer. If a reviewer notices that a DYK submission only includes positive aspects of the subject, and the same reviewer is well aware of notable controversy, is there any requirement, however construed, that the reviewer ought to ensure that a submission has some semblance of a balanced and proportionate inclusion of both the bad, and the good?&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 05:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:Well, the article itself should be balanced.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 05:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:*If an obvious controversy is missing, and it's been reported in reliable sources, it should be in the article. But if there is no controversy about a subject, forcing some into an article is not good.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 05:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:In addition to the neutrality issue that applies anywhere in Wikipedia, we have [[Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Supplementary_guidelines#Other_supplementary_rules_for_the_article|supplementary rule D7]] which says articles should be reasonably complete. Of course "complete" in DYK doesn't have the same meaning it does in a GA review - what DYK would be looking for is obvious gaping holes in the article. So if the article puts a lot of [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] on either the good or bad and more or less ignores the other side, it should be put on hold until that's fixed I think. But if it's just something that can be fixed with an additional line or two in the article, then why not go ahead and do it? [[User:Chamal_N|Chamal]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Chamal_N|<span style="color:#808080;">T</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Chamal_N|C]]</sup> 14:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
::I feel similarly and wanted to see if others felt this as reasonable. Thank you.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 12:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

== Scientology "Hole" article magically knocked off DYK ==

One minute it was there at the top and the a refresh later magically disappeared?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.23.57.28|98.23.57.28]] ([[User talk:98.23.57.28|talk]]) 08:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Each set of DYK hooks is on the Main Page for eight hours. They [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&curid=482254&diff=539862446&oldid=539789227 were changed] between your initial viewing and your refresh, sixteen minutes before you left your note. [[User:Mandarax|<span style="color:green">M<small>AN</small>d<small>ARAX</small></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:blue">•</span>&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandarax|<span style="color:#999900"><small>XAЯA</small>b<small>ИA</small>M</span>]] 09:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::That's correct, it appeared at 00:00 UTC and was replaced by the next set of hooks at 08:00. Hope that clears things up for the IP editor. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 09:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::But is it really magic?&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 12:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::::[[Clarke's three laws|Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic]]. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 12:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::"[[In the kingdom of the blind]], the one-eyed man is king" [[Desiderius Erasmus]] 1536&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 12:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::I was referring to the bots... can anyone prove they're ''not'' magic? [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Not with the [[Third Eye Blind|third eye blind]].&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 13:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

== New code... what's with making it so complicated? ==

*Call me old fashioned, but what's the point of having features like "If you click the link at the right of the symbol, it will be inserted at your cursor's location." I get what it means (terrible grammar though, as my ''mouse'' cursor is naturally going to be at the button), but this means we have to scroll down, click, scroll up, and click. Copy/paste is much faster.
:Also, there are various changes which seem to have piled up. The new icons look tiny in the edit notice, {{t|DYKC}} has no notice to ''what'' it does but shows up in new nominations, {{t|*mp}} shows up in front of the "comment" and "reviewed" fields, where it shouldn't be, and this no longer uses Wikicode to mark bold or italics but HTML. Has any of this been discussed?&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 14:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Why do you say <code><nowiki>{{*mp}}</nowiki></code> should not be used in front of review or comment? All that template does is compensate for older versions of Firefox in the off chance someone is using that version. If it is worth including this patch for the hook, why not include it on the others as well? As long as you get a blue bullet for your point being made what is being hurt. I need to updated the documentation for {{tlc|DYKC}} when it was added I did indicate that it creates a level 2 header if the template is transcluded on a user talk or article talk page and that otherwise it has no effect in the project space. Wiki mark vs html I didn't know you needed permission to use one over the other. What I do know is that in templates there are times that wiki markup breaks the code and I started favoring html over wiki code when working with templates. Otherwise you have to ensure you use an entourage of additional templates to compensate for the markup errors, like <nowiki>{{!}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{'}}</nowiki> for example. Nevertheless, I will go back where I made changes and ensure wiki markup is used. As a matter of fact I'm going to revert all the changes I've made to any DYK pages and you can do whatever you like with it.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 
:::::*Strat, we use {{t|*mp}} on the main page (hence why there's an MP in the template name). For things which won't show on the mp, the template is essentially redundant. {{t|DYKC}} may be usable, but does it just create a header or does it also provide a link when the nomination is closed? Don't forget, if nominations are closed then they disappear automatically. Your reasoning for the html sounds a bit more solid, although when the line starts with an indent and is immediately followed by ''Comment'' or ''Reviewed'' I don't see much chance of the bot breaking something. Sometimes, although we mean well, what we have is a solution in search of a problem.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 23:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::*:{{tl|DYKC}} is in the <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> portion of the template when it closes so right now it does disappear when the nomination closes. The problem I was having in the past where I transcluded the nomination on talk pages was the header I put the transclusion under remained but the content was gone, and that seemed improvable. I understand your assertions regarding the main page and that the other bullets do not appear on the main page. But the problem that can occur on the main page is as potential on the nomination page if not patched. In fact this is how the nomination page was acting if the comment and the reviewed were not used; before the fix:
;Fergie Sutherland
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Fergie Sutherland|Fergie Sutherland}}
<!--  

                   Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion.

-->
{{*mp}}... that [[Imperial Call]] winner of the 1996 [[Cheltenham Gold Cup]] was trained by one legged [[Korean War]] veteran '''[[Fergie Sutherland]]'''?
<!--
-->
<small>Created  by [[User:Finnegas|Finnegas]] ([[User talk:Finnegas|talk]]).  Self nom at 18:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)</small>
<!--
*{{DYKmake|Fergie Sutherland|Finnegas}}
-->

:*<!--Make first comment here-->
{{-}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
:::::::Notice how the "Created by" line is sucked into the hook ''(not cool)''. And now that no longer happens. Yes there was discussion both here<sup><span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MSGJ#Template_help_needed]</span></sup> and here.<sup><span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:NewDYKnomination#Problems]</span></sup> I do see that it would have been better to use <nowiki>{{*}}</nowiki> to avoid the main page confusion and I will make that change.
:::::::As far as creating problems trying to fix them, yes I've learned this valuable lesson, It won't happen again.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 05:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)    
:::::::*Alright, I noticed this with the Sarah Stierch talk page. {{tl|DYKC}} seems to have been a good idea, nice work!&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 07:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::*:To briefly follow up on my last comment. I attempted to change <nowiki>{{*mp}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{*}}</nowiki> for bullets that would never appear on the main page but it caused the bullet to display even if no comment followed it. <nowiki>{{*mp}}</nowiki> does not render the bullet unless it is followed by a comment. So it seems we will either have to accept the occasions when no comment or reviewed is added, that the credits will bunch into the hook, ''([[Template:Did you know nominations/Abd al-Wahab al-Shawaf|see this archived example]])'' or use the <nowiki>{{*mp}}</nowiki> template, which only indicates that it is suitable for the main page, even though it will not be used there. The suitability serves the purpose of improving the appearance of the nomination and that seems like an improvement to me. Nevertheless, as I stated below, I will cease editing the project pages and templates unless there is prior discussion. And I apologize where I did not do this adequately in the past.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 08:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:*Thirdly, the new "TOC" we have, although it looks nice, is a nightmare to click on for those with poor connections or limited bandwidth. It forces the multi-megabyte T:TDYK page to reload, just to go to a section. Any way to avoid this?&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 14:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::*IMHO, the issue with the page reloading is the kind of serious unintended consequence that warrants restoration of a standard TOC. No comment yet on the other two items.--[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 14:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::: Well, you are not ''forced'' to click on it. If you find it too slow because of limited bandwidth, I suggest you use the old TOC to navigate instead. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 15:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:::*It's a good idea, which is why I'm asking about a workaround. The goal was, after all, to be more user-friendly. As for the old TOC... how can I use that, when we have a TOC limit? 

::::: You don't have the same level you had before, but is that such a big deal? What do you need the TOC for anyway? I have never actually used it that much. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 15:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)    
:::::*When one is nominating an article (this includes all editors), it's best to go straight to the section where it should be nominated. That's the most important use of the original TOC, I think, as well as reminding us of any special occasions hooks (they get missed easily enough as it is... and this new table doesn't show 'em). If we are trying to make this page easier for nominators and reviewers, a question like "is that a big deal" is not going to help. There are people who stopped nominating because of QPQ, or because of the extensive rule creep over the past year... some even gave up after the nomination template was created, even though I find it much easier.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 15:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::: Yes, sorry, I forgot when I posted the above that the individual day sections are gone. Okay you have a point there, if push comes to shove we can restore the 4-level TOC and just leave the other table below it, but I can't help thinking there ought to be a more elegant solution. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 16:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)    
::::::::*I was thinking, if someone can code it, something that functions like this:
::::::::::If page=Template talk:Did you know nominations, then link=#Articles created/expanded on (date)
::::::::::If page =/=Template talk:Did you know nominations, then link=Template talk:Did you know nominations#Articles created/expanded on (date).
:::::::::Anyone able to express this as code, for a template or bot?&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 23:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Write the links in the template as <code><nowiki>[[{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template talk:Did you know||Template talk:Did you know}}#Articles created/expanded on (date)|(date)]]</nowiki></code>. This will use the absolute pagename only if FULLPAGENAME != [[Template talk:Did you know]]. [[User:Jcgoble3|jcgoble3]] ([[User talk:Jcgoble3|talk]]) 02:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::: What does this do, prevent the page from reloading? That would probably be the best solution, has someone implemented this change yet? [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 05:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)    
:::::::::::*I think it should, although the code above still needs the magic word for date (I know there ''is'' one, as a couple warning templates use something similar)&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 05:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::*In the code, "(date)" is just a placeholder for the actual date of each section which would be inserted by the bot. Using magic words (such as <code><nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki></code>) would insert the current date for each line. BTW, none of this is an issue for me, as my browser (Firefox 15.0.1) does ''not'' reload when I click on one of the date links; it just skips down to the correct section. [[User:Mandarax|<span style="color:green">M<small>AN</small>d<small>ARAX</small></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:blue">•</span>&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandarax|<span style="color:#999900"><small>XAЯA</small>b<small>ИA</small>M</span>]] 07:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::*Hmm... this computer's not doing it either. So we could code the bot to use <code><nowiki>[[{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template talk:Did you know||Template talk:Did you know}}#Articles created/expanded on {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]]</nowiki></code>? Anyone up to that?&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 07:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::::*I think you misread what I wrote. The magic words would ''not'' be used; if they were, every line would be the same and every one except the one for the current date would be incorrect. As for the bot programming, [[User:Shubinator|Shubinator]] handles that. [[User:Mandarax|<span style="color:green">M<small>AN</small>d<small>ARAX</small></span>]]&nbsp;<span style="color:blue">•</span>&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandarax|<span style="color:#999900"><small>XAЯA</small>b<small>ИA</small>M</span>]] 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*Alright... I'll try and ping him/her later.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 08:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

::::Another issue... the mess of what we call "categories". I see no difference between [[:Category:DYK/Successful nominations from November 2012]] (the new format) and [[:Category:Passed DYK nominations from November 2012]] (old one). The undiscussed change result in several hundred nominations having the new style added manually and has split our passed nominations in categories with two different naming styles.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 15:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::::: Where are these new categories? The example you gave is just a redlink. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 16:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Any category that was in use is still in use just as it was. The red linked category you showed does not exist, if it did it would be empty as far as I can tell. Yes, a few that are populating may be redundant, I'll empty them and delete the newer category. I personally dislike [[:Category:Failed DYK nominations]], and would prefer Successful and Unsuccessful over Passed and Failed, but that is just me.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 17:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::*Also, why is [[Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Sherlock Holmes, London]] listed in the rejected category, when it clearly appeared on January 19?--<span style="">[[User:Gilderien|Gilderien]] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">[[User talk:Gilderien|Chat]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Gilderien|List of good deeds]]</span></span> 17:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::*:That looks like a human error. it was closed with no when it should have been yes. The no, or yes is appended by human hand so it could not be a syntax error or bot malfunction. I'll correct it and ensure it is credited properly.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 20:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::*::Gato, I said the new format. If you check [[:Category:DYK/Successful nominations from January 2013]] you can see it is blue, while [[:Category:Passed DYK nominations from January 2013]] is likewise used. There does not seem to have been any discussion&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 23:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::: It seems my76strat has been making a number of changes without discussion. Given the concerns expressed above, I think it would be appropriate for him to start discussing such changes before making them in future. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 05:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::: I agree and will comply.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 06:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Thanks. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 06:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

== Antedon mediterranea ==

I reviewed [[Antedon mediterranea]] a while ago, see it in the archive as appeared on 16 February (piped to "feathered star"), but no notice on the article talk, didn't check the user, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 15:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:I had caused a div tag to be in the wrong place and it looks like this was one of the consequences. It is fixed but was out of place a few days, the 19th being one. I'll go back and check them all and make sure to correct any that were caught up in my error. Sorry for this.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::Fine, no problem for me, I was just the reviewer ;) - Will the articles and authors get credit then? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 20:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Yes I'll see to it.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">[[User:My76Strat|<font color="black">My</font><font color="#ff4500;">76</font><font color="black">Strat</font>]]{{*}}[[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]{{*}}[[Special:EmailUser/My76Strat|email]] </sub></font>''''' 20:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Thank you! --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

== Main page error -- please read nominations and article before supporting/promoting ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Marie_Fox Marie Fox's nomination] says that "Did you know ... that Marie Fox (pictured), a foundling whose parentage remains a mystery," but the article says she was born "to Victoire Magny of Soissons and an unknown father."

Her parentage is not a mystery, her father is unknown, according to the article. Please edit this inaccuracy off of the main page. 

One sentence in the DYK and the supporting sentence in the article says something completely different. How about some standards? -[[Special:Contributions/68.99.89.234|68.99.89.234]] ([[User talk:68.99.89.234|talk]]) 21:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
*See the discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&oldid=539974457#Errors_in_the_current_or_next_Did_you_know... WP:ERRORS]. I note that it's not as simple as you make it out to be.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
**Standards or the discussion about the name? As the latter was being discussed at main page errors and now belongs on the article talk page, probably you don't mean that. Lack of standards is not usually all that simple, but as these missing standards have been brought up again and again in regards to DYK articles and their  hooks, you are probably right that it is not that simple. -[[Special:Contributions/68.99.89.234|68.99.89.234]] ([[User talk:68.99.89.234|talk]]) 01:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
***The issue you are pointing out, about "unknown", is not as clear cut as you would have it appear in your post. If you are concerned about the quality of reviews, perhaps pitch in and check them before they reach the main page?&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
****I'm not sure what you mean by "unknown" is not as clear cut as I would have it in my post. Should I discuss the entire article here rather than just raising the issue about the bad review? Then you can accuse me of posting my complaint in multiple forums. I'll be glad to debate the entire issue here, in addition to the article talk page, where the discussion will actually, hopefully, improve the article, if everyone promises to avoid the "multiple forums" accusations....
****The hook should have had a better review; the editor who approved/promoted it should have read the paragraph and seen the contradiction between stating her mother's name and that her biological parentage was a mystery. If that is the hook, then maybe the rest of the article should support it, rather than demanding that the reader know all the back issues as the author of the article is now explaining on the talk page rather than providing to the article. It doesn't matter if it is not so clear cut, what matters is that it appears contradictory, as the template says, and as another reader agreed, and as the extensive arguments to make it seem not so seem to be indicating it actually is contradictory.
****-[[Special:Contributions/68.99.89.234|68.99.89.234]] ([[User talk:68.99.89.234|talk]]) 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

::::: I'm not sure it's entirely correct to describe this as a "contradiction" - the language of the original hook was imprecise but not exactly wrong IMO because if someone's parentage is ''partly'' unknown, then broadly speaking it is still "unknown". [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 06:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::*Exactly. Hence the "not so simple".&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 07:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Even the part that was "known" was hotly disputed, making it entirely appropriate to refer to her parentage as unknown or as a mystery. The Earl of Ilchester, a family relative who wrote about Princess Marie, explicitly described her parentage as a mystery. It is all referenced. This appears to be nothing more than a lousy attempt to discredit DYK. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 11:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Surely there's no need to go as far as calling this an attempt to discredit DYK? The IP made a valid point and Crisco and Gatoclass have countered it adequately. That said, mistakes happen (if this is a mistake) not only in DYK but even in the featured article of the day. That's why we have the [[WP:ERRORS]] page. We don't hang reviewers or nominators in DYK for making mistakes anyway, the hook was reworded by an admin after the report, and the relevant sentences in the article have been changed as well. Let's not keep beating the dead horse. [[User:Chamal_N|Chamal]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Chamal_N|<span style="color:#808080;">T</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Chamal_N|C]]</sup> 12:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::But her parentage ''is'' a mystery... right? I mean her father is unknown, so how can her parentage be known??? I think the Original Poster is assuming that "parentage" means "(biological) social class", but IMO this is a secondary use and the usual meaning is "(of or pertaining to) one's parents" -- both of them, I would have to say. Or maybe the Original Poster is saying that it should have been "parentage remains ''partly'' a mystery" or maybe "''paternal'' parentage remains a mystery" or something. Is that the problem? Because while we could have done that, it's at least arguably unnecessary and excess verbiage. A puzzle half-solved is still unsolved, and half a mystery is still a mystery. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 21:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

==Possible legal problems with DYK and hook in prep 2==

I've been looking at [[CITIPEG]], which is currently in [[Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2|Prep 2]], with a view to expanding it before it goes onto the Main Page. Unfortunately it appears that both the hook and the article may be misleading and, worse, possibly legally problematic as the specific issue highlighted in the hook (alleged discrimination) has been the subject of a libel action and a subsequent settlement - neither of which is mentioned in the article.[http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=27813][http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=27952] The hook looks to me like it is dangerously close to repeating the original alleged libel. I think this needs a pretty thorough review before it reaches the Main Page and the hook will probably have to be changed. Could someone please swap out the CITPEG hook from Prep 2 and replace it with something else while I look into this? [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 21:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:I have removed the hook, and will look for a replacement hook next. I was surprised to see that the hook had been promoted by one of the people who approved it, and disappointed to note that before then, once the nomination had received the second approval, it was not placed exclusively in the Gibraltar holding area to await promotion. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 22:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks. I see that [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide]] says "When possible, it is also best to avoid selecting the same article that you reviewed", which sounds more like discretionary advice than a hard rule; what is the rationale behind it? It might be worth advising the promoter. As for the holding area, you're right about that - I guess nobody thought of it on this occasion. I'll make sure the next one's placed properly. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 23:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:::The rationale, as it was explained to me (and makes a great deal of sense), is that you have another independent check before the hook is promoted: a new set of eyes might spot something that was missed earlier. (Indeed, many approved hooks, instead of being promoted, instead have their approval overridden by a request for additional work.) I've not yet known it to be impossible to select another article in such a circumstance. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::::That does make sense. Thanks for the explanation. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 00:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)