Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

Poker - All in

What's the deal with all the poker stuff in DYK? DYKs are supposed to be "interesting to a wide audience". These things could only possibly be of interest to other poker players. 159.83.4.148 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Some people are interested in poker. Others like Bach cantatas, others like the "organ music" of Micronecta scholtzi. One way to interest a wide audience is to show items for a wide range of audiences. Sharktopus ^talk 21:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

And others like obscure (to a Western audience) Indonesian pop and rock music. All editors at DYK work on things that interest them, which can sometimes be rather uninteresting to a wide audience. That is why the hook is also important. We may not care who Jan Claudius de Cock is, but say that a de Cock decorated a ceiling in a palace and we may draw readers. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hook languishing in special occasion holding area

Terry Fullerton is still sitting in the special occasion holding area for July 10, so could an admin move it to Queue 6? It's been approved since 4 July. OCNative (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What's a 5k expansion

I read some of the articles in Did You Know just now. Then I clicked on the "newest articles" link on the main page out of curiosity and found out 5 times expanded articles are eligible too. I've been adding to Table Mountain Wilderness, but I'm not sure if it's eligible or not. How is this expanded article eligibility determined? Is this article eligible or do I have to add more to it? Thank you. PumpkinSky (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• 5x expansion means that the prose portion of the article has been expanded fivefold. Table Mountain Wilderness was 332 characters before your expansion, so a 5x expansion would be 1660 characters. Your expansion began on July 9 and has now reached 1869 characters, so Table Mountain Wilderness is eligible for DYK.
  For your reference, the exact wording in the DYK rules is: "Former redirects, stubs, and other articles in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past five days are also acceptable as 'new' articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles. The length of both the old and new versions of the article is calculated based on prose character count, not word count." Welcome to DYK! OCNative (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Interesting. Thanks. I rather doubt people count the prose by hand. Do you paste the prose in Word and use that word count or is there somewhere to click to do that?PumpkinSky (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

AHA. Found it. I see people on the nominations page refer to "DYKCheck". I did a search for it and found nothing. But a search for "WP:DYKcheck" found it and I set it up on my page. Neat tool!PumpkinSky (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Occasionally, you may want to double check your character counts with Microsoft Word because there's been a few times where DYKCheck has miscalculated. OCNative (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, but shouldn't a sub-stub two sentences long (such as the article referred to here) should be considered as "new"? In any case there's really no material difference between expansion and being new as the length should be around the same. –HTD 17:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a sub-stub two sentences long can qualify as "new" if created within the past five days. However, "newness" is not the only criterion for DYK; it must also be long enough. So while a sub-stub is "new", it's not eligible for DYK. DYK eligibility requires meeting all the criteria, not just one of them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What if the sub-stub was created a year ago and had 200 characters; if you'd expand that 5x that'll only be 1,000 characters, still less than 1.5k. That's why I'm looking for an exemption for really short stubs to classify them as "new" regardless when they were created as sometimes expansion won't cut it. An example would be René Lavocat that has 283 characters. –HTD 17:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No "exemption" is necessary. The expansion requirement is not exactly 5x, but at least 5x and at least 1500 prose characters. So, while expanding a year-old 200-character stub to 1500 or more would not qualify as a new article, it would be perfectly fine as an expansion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

5 DYK credits rule

What is the current position with regard to DYK "self-nominators" with 5 or more DYK credits? Is it still a requirement that they review another DYK nomination? If so, where is this now made clear? IIRC, there used to be a large Yellow panel on top of the nominations page. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is still in effect, but isn't "large yellow" anymore, because most contributors know. It must be somewhere, but I never looked. Reviewers are encouraged to gently remind if a reference to such a "qui pro quo" review is missing in a nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Where's my DYK? (Majority Judgment)

I was notified that my DYK for Majority Judgment made it to the main page on July 11. That's today, but I don't see it there. I'm expect that I don't understand the process right - can someone explain to me what's going on? Homunq (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured it out: according to Wikipedia:Recent_additions, it only lasted for 8 hours. Homunq (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Be happy, until recently it would have been only 6 hours. (I remember the feeling at my first DYK.) If you watch the queue before it appears, you can see in advance when it is scheduled to appear your area of the world (and I have successfully interfered if that was in the middle of the night there). Welcome here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Move Special Occasion Hook to Q6

Hi, Leroy Petry was sitting in the Special Occasion Holding Area, approved for July 12 (in the U.S.) until this move three hours ago, so could an admin move the hook to Queue 6? (The hook is "... that Leroy Petry (pictured) is receiving the U.S. Medal of Honor today, marking only the second time that the award has been bestowed upon a living soldier for actions after the end of the Vietnam War?") OCNative (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! OCNative (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK#District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act

Any chance this could be stuck in a queue for later today (July 12)? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In Q5. Materialscientist (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

May I?

I expanded this article Techno Cumbia today (and yesterday, hours apart though) and was wondering can I nominate it? Not sure if its 5x expanded. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK check says expansion is enough, stub classification. That should go. I didn't dig deeper, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I was told that I shouldn't assess any article that I had expanded to any class, that it should be done by someone uninvolved with the article. So that's why I didn't move it up to "B-Class". So should I? lolz, cause you didn't "dig deeper". Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just leave "class=" blank, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. AJona1992 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing and moving to prep/queue for July 14 of France-related articles

Tomorrow is France's Fête Nationale, and we have a special category for July 14. Could I solicit some reviewers to take a look at relevant articles not yet confirmed at T:TDYK? Searching the page for France/French, I came up with ...

• Palace of Versailles Research Centre
• Musée d'Ethnographie du Trocadéro

(I didn't have to look very hard to find those, since I just did clean-up on one and nominated the other. What I mean is, I could not find any more besides those.) Anybody else with some great ideas, a French-twist to put on an article already up for DYK, or the savvy to nominate somebody else's new France-related article, it is not too late yet! Sharktopus ^talk 13:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to Gerda for reviewing these! Could somebody more uninvolved (and more competent) than Sharktopus move them to Prep for Main Paging tomorrow? Sharktopus ^talk 18:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

:And another possible with mentionable Paris ... Sharktopus ^talk 20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Object (Le Déjeuner en fourrure)

Main page features

A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

All the queues are empty. All the preps are full.

Also, please try to have France-themed articles show up on the front page during a part of July 14 when France is awake, not asleep. Thanks! Sharktopus ^talk 01:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have filled out one and a bit prep areas. If someone could continue loading prep areas, that'd be great. I can upload to queue later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done four more, and Crisco 1492 has done another. The biggest problem I see is that most of the many nominations from before 9 July had not been reviewed at all. I've spent several hours today wading through a lot of these, and have posted initial evaluations. Most of those that checked out have already been moved to a prep area. As for the others, I've marked some as having unusable hooks, or as needing copy editing of the article itself. However, there are still many nominations in need of checking, even if it's just a preliminary check. Most of these are biographies or buildings.

Prep areas 1, 3, and 4 currently contain nominations I've selected, so someone else should double-check and set those into a queue (when space allows). A few of those nominations were older, unreviewed noms that I reviewed and moved in one fell swoop, so a double check of my work is in order. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Church Cottage, Tutshill

Just drawing attention to my self-nomination of that article, started yesterday, about J. K. Rowling's childhood home. The new (final) Harry Potter movie is in theatres tomorrow, hint hint. I will find something to review. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've verified this nomination, if someone could please move it to Prep 4 to feature on the Main page tommorow. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Moved. Materialscientist (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wording of hook for Harley-Davidson XR-750

Hi everyone, I was wondering if anyone is interested on weighing in on the wording of the hook for Harley-Davidson XR-750, located at Template talk:Did you know#Harley-Davidson XR-750. I am looking for a second opinion. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Up or out: "From Wikipedia's newest content"

When I was making up Prep last night, I wanted to clear some of the backlog of older articles but most of them didn't have the magic checkmark. Three items created July 2 do not have even one review. I suggest we review articles from the backlog, NOT articles recently added, until the backlog is cleared. Sharktopus ^talk 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As I say above, I noticed this problem as well. I've reviewed and moved quite a few of these, and have noted problems with a few more.

Current statistic: about 25 nominations in 2-6 July, but only 3 of those cleared for use.

However, I've now been at DYK for nearly four five hours straight and will need a break to do other things now :P --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, EncycloPetey, your work is appreciated! Sharktopus ^talk 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Verifying science articles

I've seen a fair number of science articles get posted to DYK lately that have absurd claims or outright misinformation in them. I'm not talking about scientific controversies, just basic facts that are wrong or extremely outdated. Can reviewers PLEASE post requests to review scientific or technical articles to the relevant WikiProjects BEFORE the DYK goes live? Otherwise our DYK section is going to erode Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already a lot of work going on just to keep up with DYK without requiring the volunteeers to post an additional set of notices. If the relevant projects wish to check in and review nominated articles, they can always do that, and it will help the overtaxed DYK project when they do. Any nominated article can be checked, often a week or more before selected for the Main Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You mention "a fair number" of articles "lately" with "absurd claims"; please do give a few recent examples so we can see where we went wrong. We haven't had many chemistry or physics articles, but we do have a lot of articles about animal and plant species. As a member of WikiProject Life, I posted an invitation over there,[1] more eyes are always welcome. Sharktopus ^talk 21:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We could try including the specific source, page, link, etc. in the comments for all science articles? The main problem with them is that their 'facts' are often not as clear cut and easy to find as normal news, website, or book-cited articles By providing source info, we save the reviewer the hassle of searching for them inside journals.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, these should be raised at the time and on an individual basis. Even retrospectively is helpful so we can review process. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that no matter how well DYK volunteers review the articles and check the sources, if the article is on an obscure topic, only people from the respective WikiProjects are going to be able to tell if the articles are actually accurate or not. In the case of science articles especially, we have a problem with people using outdated sources, since those are generally the ones most likely to be accessible online (ironically). Then there is also the problem of people simply not understanding the subject they are writing about. I think if no one is available to review a technical or scientific article for accuracy, it shouldn't be approved for DYK, no matter how many citations it has. Otherwise, we are just spreading misinformation. Kaldari (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• The rule change you propose would be a substantial one. Could you give examples of a few recent science DYKs showing a problem with "spreading misinformation" and/or "absurd claims"? Sharktopus ^talk 12:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not embarrass the authors as I'm sure they were written with the best of intentions. Perhaps I should amend my proposal to say articles on obscure topics, as this doesn't seem to be much of a problem with run-of-the-mill science articles (where the reviewer would probably have a basic knowledge). And I'm sure the same problem could happen with an article on 17th century Russian literature or any other obscure topic. Basically, I would suggest that if the reviewer has no knowledge of an article's subject whatsoever, they request the nominator to get someone from a relevant WikiProject to vouch for the article. And they don't have to vouch for every detail, just vouch for the fact that the article wouldn't sound absurd to someone familiar with the field. Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Good articles redux

Given this trial at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_62#Introduce_Good_Articles_to_DYK which ended 22/18 after one month of voting - is it worth relooking at as a trial? There is some discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features. I'd normally not do anything but I doubt there will be clear consensus or plan of action on that page for a couple of months. So how about the following, which is modest and doesn't disrupt the existing process much. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To whit - I am proposing a modest trial outlined below, that doesn't impact greatly on the current process but give us a flavour of possible how it'd work?

• Recently Listed Good Articles eligible - i.e. within five days of Listing.

• A limit of 1 (or 2) GAs per set of hooks (please specify number below).

• Change mainpage from "newest articles" (which 5x expansions aren't anyway) to "newest and newly-improved articles"

• Review after a month and see how folks feel about it.

Support

1. Support It has to be acknowledged that Wikipedia is ten years old and needs to slightly shift focus from quantity to quality. Since DYK includes quantitative improvements (i.e. 5x size) it should also allow major qualitative improvements (i.e. reaching GA status). I think a short trial as proposed is a good idea with no major risks involved and it would be fair to test the assumptions of both supporters and opposers of the proposal. GA's which already featured as DYK should be excluded IMO. I think one GA per set of hooks would suffice for the trial, but I would like to see it at the top of the group. --Elekhh (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I don't see any harm in a trial, but care must be taken so that we aren't biased towards a certain topic area. The arts and sports articles have a higher GA rate than other areas. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Support, with a caveat, which is probably obvious anyway, that newly made GAs that had previously been on DYK are not eligible and don't get to be featured twice. For the most part this is of no practical significance, but I have seen some articles go from new->DYK->GA very quickly (one of mine travelled this path in less than two weeks). The inclusion of GAs in DYK should be a reward for genuine old-article improvement, which is the essence of this proposal as I understand it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Great idea, let's at least try it and see how it goes. Malleus Fatuorum 07:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
5. I'm a bit wary, but let's see how a trial goes. There's no harm in that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
6. I'd like to see a trial of this. It seems like a way to get some more high-quality content on the main page, encourage GA writers and reviewers, and foster a bit of crossover between DYK reviewing and GA reviewing. The Interior (Talk) 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The way GA has been running lately, there is little difference between GA and FA for many reviewers. Articles up for GA are often pushed to FA standards, so those articles should soon have a chance for the Main Page anyway. I also prefer a uniform set of criteria, not a this-or-that blend in DYK. It makes the entire process much easier to manage. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   Please consider that in the last ten years there were 3,335 FAs produced while 12,336 GAs which means there are four times more GAs than FAs. Most FAs have been promoted without being GAs before. Those editors who wish to bring the article from GA further to FA most likely will not bother to nominate for DYK. So doubling wouldn't be frequent, probably not more than between DYKs and FAs anyway. Your other argument is about the difficulty to manage an extra rule. Well, why not be friendly towards those who think that this is a good idea and allow for a trial. Than the results could be evaluated and your concerns proven to be justified. --Elekhh (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

2. In just the past couple of weeks I have seen proposals from Tony1 to reduce the number of DYKs per day to 8 and to replace an unspecified fraction of DYK with a large image promoting one article. SandyGeorgia now proposes getting rid of DYK entirely, to make more room for more featured content. DYK is a wonderful feature of the Main Page and it is there to promote creation of new content. There are many other wonderful goals in the world, but it would be better to do a very good job on DYK's own good goals than to start pursuing radically different good goals. Sharktopus ^talk 03:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   I thought DYK and GA have the same goal, which is to improve Wikipedia. This is a proposal to trial a possible improvement of DYK. If this minor proposal cannot be tested, I'm afraid the number of those calling for truly radical change will increase. --Elekhh (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   The goal of DYK is giving "publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles. This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles and the encyclopedia, and brings new and expanded articles to the attention of readers who view the Main Page." That is the way we "improve Wikipedia" here. Of course the goal of every feature on the Main Page is to improve Wikipedia," but reviewing and selecting GAs for exposure is much closer to the mission and expertise of the FA section than to DYK's. Sharktopus ^talk 11:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   I'm afraid you're misguided, GA is not about reviewing and selecting, it is about qualitative improvement. I don't think the concept of having a DYK which stands only for quantity is tenable. --Elekhh (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   DYK is about reviewing and selecting new content of quality. But I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion, and perhaps you don't either? Sharktopus ^talk 14:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

3. If there is a need to feature recently promoted GAs on the main page, why not propose just that as its own section? DYK's purpose is to feature new content, encouraging both new editors and frequent content creators. Diverting 25-33% of the slots to freshly-minted GAs would divert DYK from its mission, create a slippery slope towards the de facto destruction of DYK as the same tiny group of editors propose these changes over and over until something sticks, and only add to the workload of DYK reviewers with no benefit to DTK's mission. - Dravecky (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

   There are about 100 times more new articles than GAs. That's 1% not 25-33%. No reason to be scared. --Elekhh (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

4. For the same reasons I have given in all the previous repetitions of this perennial proposal (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page#break, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 62#Allow some DYK hooks to go into newly promoted Good Articles?, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 33#Radical suggestion). GA status means nothing to our readers, most of them don't even know what a GA is; this proposal has always seemed to me to be more about editors wanting to scratch their own backs then about improving the experience for readers. Is there anything new in this proposal that hasn't already been gone over in the numerous previous discussions? rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
5. I agree with Dravecky that this would be better done in a separate section (and I'd support it there), as mixing these two in one section would confuse and dilute the important mission of DYK in encouraging new content creation. -- Khazar (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think if GAs are going on the front page, they should be highlighted as good articles. That is, I don't want them mixed in the same box with new articles. I think a better idea would be to highlight GAs some days and new articles other days (like every other day), or have a separate box for GAs entirely. —Designate (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  DYKs are a mix of new articles and old articles improved through quantitative expansion (5x). Adding qualitatively improved articles does not really change the current new-old mix. The difference between new, 5x-expanded and GA articles might be important for editors, but readers just want to see quality content. --Elekhh (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  The 5x expanded articles are at least 80%-new prose and usually more than that so they genuinely are 'new' content. I do support the idea of a separate box for newly promoted GAs, perhaps in a screen-wide box under the featured picture. - Dravecky (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  If people cared about providing readers with quality content, then they would be arguing for the inclusion of new FAs, which are of higher quality than GAs. Ever since this was first proposed nearly 3 years ago (and there may be earlier proposals I'm not aware of), people have been wanting this as a way to reward editors who write GAs, not as a way to improve the experience for readers. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I argued with Tony1 about this over beers on Friday night. I am thinking we do this instead of reducing, and was thinking of 1 (or 2) initially so the reduction would be minor only and we could see how it goes and how folks enjoyed it. I also think that as many GAs are only reviewed by one reviewer, it might be a good way of a fair number of them just getting a second pair of eyes on them before (hopefully) going to FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Should we set a designated 'end' date to possibly blunt some of the opposers' wariness? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's part of the proposal, it says clearly that is for one month. --Elekhh (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat separate but not really thought

Regardless of the vote above, I think the wording on the Main Page should be changed to some form of "newest and newly-improved articles", as 5x expansions are never "new" articles. Am I alone in thinking this? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It says "From Wikipedia's newest content:", which is not the same as "new articles". The content is new, in the form of at least 4/5 new prose. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What Adabow said. Furthermore, adding "newly-improved" is not a good idea, as it opens the door to precisely the kind of nominations DYK has been rejecting for years (e.g., articles that have been copyedited or otherwise improved without any substantial expansion). rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement that I would like others to look at

One of our waiting-a-while hooks connects 4 articles -- a nonfiction book and three people who were the subject of the book. To my regret, I think the articles overlap so much that a reader clicking through from this hook on the main page would not discover 4 articles "worth" of new content. The creator disagrees. Could others check out the issues described in this thread? [2] Thanks for taking a look. Sharktopus ^talk 03:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs new text, not re-use of text that's already in other articles. That's already in the DYK rules. Simple as that. Re-use of text is not eligible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I requested a citation for your "simple as that" claim already. You didn't provide it there, do you care to do so here? The four articles were created in main space more or less simultaneously; it seems obvious that since the four are connected there would be re-used text...simple as that, to borrow a phrase. If the rules really state that "re-use of text is not eligible", I'll withdraw the nomination. I've gone back (again) and read both Wikipedia:DYK and Wikipedia:DYKAR, and I just don't see it. The fact that these four articles were added simultaneously precludes use of WP:DYKAR#A5, since none of these articles is being nominated on the basis of expansion but rather as newly-created articles. Invoke WP:IAR, call WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or something else...but without a citation for "not eligible", you'll have to send this to /dev/null without my approval.  Frank  |  talk  03:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

General reply. Reuse of one's own new content is well allowed, unless it is misused (willingly or not) for reaching the 1500 char (or 5x expansion) limit in the individual articles, or is simply unreasonable. Whether or not this is the case depends on a personal view on what information should be in what article. My personal view is that the current overlap is such that Zoya Fyodorova, Victoria Fyodorova and The Admiral's Daughter articles could well be merged into one article. They could also stand on their own, provided they are expanded individually and the overlap is reduced. Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Practically speaking this seems to be just a disagreement over semantics. There is at least one DYK article in there, right? So pick one article, feature it, with that particular article's title bolded, de-emphasize the rest in the hook (though of course retain the wlinks) and we're good to go. The only way I can see this mattering is if somebody's bean-counting their DYKs and wants to have "credit" (whatever that really is) for 4 DYKs rather than 1. But I'm not sure that should really be a consideration.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for very helpful replies, and to Volunteer Marek for a practical suggestion on resolving the disagreement. I have suggested a couple of alt hooks that would point to two out of these four articles. I feel that having a DYK hook pointing from our Main Page to 4 articles that all tell essentially the same story is not appropriate. If somebody else could review the nomination so we can move it up to Prep, that would be good. Sharktopus ^talk 14:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)