Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

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}}
	v; t; e;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:54, 25 April 2011

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

...that ?

Would we lose anything (except an extra, repetitive word) by removing "that" from DYK's entirely? When I read over the list, I see as string of non-informative words before the unique facts. If grammar were an issue, we could move 'that' to the header (Did you know that...). So, better to present interesting facts without the 'that' in front? Ocaasi ^c 23:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we'd be WP:DYK...T now? :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think you might actually have a point. I remember thinking the same thing when I first came to DYK, but accepted the status quo because I thought the "that" makes things a little neater grammatically speaking. But now I'm not so sure. The "that" is not really required for grammatical correctness, it looks redundant being added to every hook, and when I think about it, it probably makes the hooks that much more difficult to read - as well as making all the hooks longer of course. Maybe it's time we had a rethink about this? Gatoclass (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can vote for elimination of "that". The "From Wikipedia's newest articles" bit in the main page layout would become ungrammatical, and I don't know what to do about it (remove?). New users might start capitalizing first letter of the hook, but I guess we can cope. Some hooks don't start with "that", but their number is so small that we can sacrifice those. Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would become ungrammatical, unless you count it as being part of every hook, ie "Did you know from wikipedia's newest articles: that ... ?". But it isn't actually written that way in any case, because the word "From" is capitalized. Gatoclass (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Started a thread here. Materialscientist (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...there's never been a consensus for requiring hooks to start with "that"? cmadler (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current format, I don't see how "that" can be removed without rendering the resultant sentence structure grammatically incorrect.
If we want to make the section more readable and eliminate unnecessary clutter, we should abandon the question gimmick entirely. In other words, we should switch from

... that the extinct parasitic wasp genus Aspidopleura is known from only two fossils found in Baltic amber?

to

The extinct parasitic wasp genus Aspidopleura is known from only two fossils found in Baltic amber.

The section could be renamed "Did you know?" (replacing the ellipsis with a question mark). —David Levy 16:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is grammatically correct either way:

Did you know the extinct parasitic wasp genus Aspidopleura is known from only two fossils found in Baltic amber? is grammatically correct. The "that" might make it slightly smoother but both versions are acceptable English. But when you are talking about a series of hooks on the front page, the "that" is adding nothing essential and just looks redundant. Gatoclass (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that seems grammatically sloppy. I'm unaware of your nationality, so I don't know whether this is an English variety issue. (I'm American.)

In any case, I believe that the section's question gimmick (with or without the inclusion of "that") is the greatest barrier to ease of reading. What is your opinion of my above suggestion? —David Levy 17:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's another issue, which would require a separate discussion. One thing at a time. Gatoclass (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, as I understand it, is that we want to eliminate extraneous copy and make the section easier to read. I'm suggesting an alternative implementation. I see no need for separate discussions. —David Levy 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like your suggestion of changing the section title to "Did you know?", eliminating both the ellipsis and the "that," and turning hooks into stand-alone sentences. For most hooks, as long as the ellipsis is in place, my ear requires the "that", but the proposed change in structure would fix things. --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also would result in a much more straightforward presentation (of particular benefit to readers with limited English comprehension). It might be cute to word declarations as interrogative sentence fragments intended to be combined with separate text, but it certainly doesn't make the section easier to read. We seek to tell people things, so let's simply tell them. —David Levy 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support dropping "that" as superfluous wording. I agree with Gatoclass it is gramatically correct to remove it altogether and retain a complete and correct sentence. As a second choice, I would support putting "that" once before the opening colon instead of repeating it in each hook. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support dropping the "that", because the example above reads to me like "Did you know the extinct parasitic wasp (personally)?" I would support full sentences. The German Wikipedia does that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It reads that way to me too. —David Levy 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. It's quite clear from the context it means no such thing. In any case, the whole current format is ungrammatical. Sentences are currently in the format: "Did you know ... From Wikipedia's newest articles: ... that ? It's completely ungrammatical, removing the "that" will not change that, but it will reduce the length of the hooks and make them easier to read. Gatoclass (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that a person fluent in English would arrive at such an interpretation after reading the complete text. The point is that it seems ungrammatical to some of us (perhaps depending on our national English varieties), with the beginning parsing as described above.

2.The "From Wikipedia's newest articles:" portion is not intended to be included as part of the sentence. However, I agree that this fragmented format is unnecessary and potentially confusing (particularly to those with limited English comprehension). That's why I propose that we eliminate it entirely, thereby reducing the length of the hooks and making them easier to read. —David Levy 05:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current flow just fine, so consider this is a nod for the status quo. Seems to emphasize the questioning nature more and keeps the top to the snappy "Did you know," and "that" is basically invisible to those reading it. Reminds me how they tell new writers that it's okay to repeat words like "said" a lot, as the average reader filters them out, and needlessly adding synonyms is only distraction. If we did switch, I agree that going to "Did you know?" with complete sentences as entries would be preferred. SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the idea of simply dropping "that", ~~but rewording to form full sentences suits me fine.~~ Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that each hook was an extension of the sentence "Did you know that....." set-up as Did you know...that (insert hook here), But rather than adding a redundant Did you know to each hook, as it is stated at the header with the three eclipse. If we change the header to just "Did you know", drop the ..., and list the hooks as a set of facts it would fit more in line with what is being done at ITN (main page set consistency). Also agree to drop the "from Wikipedia's newest articles bit", as has been brought up, as many are indeed from expanded, not new articles. The second part might be more controversial, but the first still keeps the spirit of the project, while keeping the grammar "clean". Does kind of change the concept of a "hook" to more of an interesting "fact". Calmer Waters 07:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about "consistency" as though it's necessarily a positive, but in this case that's not at all clear. I've always seen the DYK question format as providing some welcome variety to the main page, that invites a response from the reader. I'm not at all persuaded that dropping the format in favour of yet another plain list of facts would be a good idea. Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cute gimmick. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that it's as unwieldy as it is cute. I'm not confident that the cuteness outweighs the impracticality, and I'm even less convinced that it effectively "invites a response from the reader." It might be eye-catching, but I seriously doubt that it evokes reactions along the lines of "No, I didn't know that Ruislip Manor was largely undeveloped rural land at the turn of the 20th century until the arrival of the Metropolitan Railway in 1912!". —David Levy 12:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will work. I gave it a try in my sandbox. The questionmark emphasizes the unusual nature of the info being presented - without it most of the hooks look flat and dull. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. To me, the question mark simply renders the sentence interrogative, which amounts to unnecessary (and potentially confusing) window dressing for something truly declarative in nature.

Also, most of the information isn't particularly surprising or unusual. And that's fine, but I see no need to pretend that we're delivering something along the lines of Ripley's Believe It or Not!. —David Levy 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look for yourself.[1] Gatoclass (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked yesterday. Sorry, I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. In my opinion, the use of a question mark instead of a full stop adds no sense of excitement or wonderment. —David Levy 16:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Gatoclass. I was originally fine either way, but seeing the actual examples swayed me. The current format may be a little gimmicky, but it's a gimmick that works. Without it, the hooks seem to lose their "sparkle" and just appear as dry facts. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox example changed my mind, too. Keep the status quo. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing it, but it obviously is a matter of opinion. :) —David Levy 06:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem in the sandbox, but it doesn't look great enough to change an working established system. I saw signs in a Spanish nature park, pointing out nature facts in DYK style, with the "?" Made me smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Composers sleep in, q5

Can the hook in Queue 5 about 3 living European composers (Redmann, Duda, Waterhouse) please be swapped to a time when they are less likely to sleep? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Swapped to P1 that should be online the next morning in Europe. Regards So Why 14:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 -- the parasitic wasp

The hook says "...that the only side of the extinct parasitic wasp Neanaperiallus visible is the left side?"

If it's extinct, how is it visible to us? We need to explain, something like "...that the only visible side of the extinct parasitic wasp Neanaperiallus which is fossilized in amber is the left side?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the article, this extinct wasp has only one known sample. This sample is preserved in amber. Other stuff in trapped in the same piece of amber which blocks views of the wasp's right side. Thus the only visible side of the only known sample is the left. Q.E.D. --Allen3 ^talk 01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I know that. You really should have commented on my point instead. Moriori (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the hook - please correct me at will (I don't think it is essential to the main page reader which side is visible). Materialscientist (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, much better. Moriori (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamfisted multiple DYK frenzy

Hi,
In the last couple of days I've written a small pile of articles.

The "parent" is Taxation in the Ottoman empire. The "children" are Nüzül, Tekalif-i orfiye, Emin (Ottoman official), Resm-i çift, Rav akçesi, Ispence, Avariz, Adet-i Ağnam, Resm-i arusane, Tuz resmi, Muafiyet, Resm-i bennak, Bedl-i askeri, Gümrük resmi. Sursat, Muskirat resmi, Temettu, Adet-i destbani, and Damga resmi. There are a few more children which are currently short of the size requirement - but rather than expand them, but I'd prefer to concentrate on cleanup of the ones already listed here (especially improving the refs).
All of those are a series of different taxes, apart from Emin (a tax official) and Muafiyet (an exemption from tax), so writing a hook would take a little work, but it shouldn't be impossible. Probably a hook along the lines of "... that A, B, C, ... M, N, and O were Taxes in the Ottoman empire, whilst Muafiyet were exemptions, and Emins were tax-collectors?"

Anyway, I'm new to your arcane arts of DYK, and don't want to tread on any toes; what's the best way to set about a big multiple-DYK? Are there any unwritten rules which I should worry about? If the first of those articles appeared 3 days ago, should I spend the next 2 days on refining the existing ones, or is there spare time to create a few more, or should I spend time lavishing gifts and flattery on whoever is foolhardy enough to try reviewing them all? My understanding is that the 200-character limit can be stretched for multiple DYKs, but how far could it stretch?
All suggestions welcome, before I drop the bomb on the suggestions page... bobrayner (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 200-char limit, the way I generally apply it for multis is to not count the characters for each additional hook over one. But you probably have some extra flexibility there anyway. As for what you should do for writing multis, you should keep them all in your sandbox until you've finished the lot, and then add them to mainspace at the same time, to ensure they are all eligible. Gatoclass (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fine points. However, my first sandbox draft gathered dust for months - bringing it into article-space provided motivation to write everything else; there's no incentive like a deadline!

bobrayner (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have them into mainspace already, I'd say put your nomination in by the time the oldest article hits 5 days. If you then manage to write further articles whilst this is going through the motions, we can amend the hook. Post a note here when you've nominated, and I'll add some suggestions to the nomination as for the review process. Schwede66 04:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy; thanks. 25 now on the suggestions page; there's a few more I could write but it's time to stop, go out in the sun, and do something non-wikipedia for a while. bobrayner (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday

I would like to see De Nederlandse Bachvereniging on Good Friday, with their tradition of a Bach Passion since 1922. I faced problems referencing, but hope now, and invite to look at it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins: Please note!

I just approved a hook which should go into the queue on 22 April (Good Friday). Thank you for putting it in the right prep area. Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Supper in Christian art

I'd like to claim a co-nom for this as I have added 50% or more of the article as it now stands. It's at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3. Reviewed Marilyn's Cross. I won't add myself. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Materialscientist (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight saving

Queue 4 says "... that due to the long sunlight hours of the climate of the Falkland Islands the government decided to keep daylight saving time in winter?" But Climate of the Falkland Islands#Sunshine actually says that in summer (not winter) there are long daylight hours (not sunlight hours) because of the latitude, but not much sunlight summer or winter because of the clouds. So what did you really mean? Art LaPella (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight hours it should be then, not sunlight. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean "... that due to the long daylight hours of the climate of the Falkland Islands the government decided to keep daylight saving time in winter?" The long daylight hours are in summer, (according to the source; that assumes that summer starts before the solstice, which isn't true in the U.S.; see Summer#Timing) but that phrasing sounds like long daylight hours in winter. Does it mean "... that due to the long summer daylight hours of the climate of the Falkland Islands the government decided to keep daylight saving time in winter?" Maybe, but why would they decide timekeeping in winter based on daylight in summer? Art LaPella (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Returned to T:TDYK because the source doesn't elaborate on the reasons of this governmental decision. Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on an article that is next in the queue

One of the articles in queue 6 (the next to go to the mainpage) has been turned to a redirect. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 now redirects to SAFE Port Act, I suppose it should be replaced with something in the prep area until settled but want to see how someone with more experience handle's this. J04n(talk page) 02:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I returned it the suggestions page, pending further developments. Since queue 6 has 6 long hooks, I am not replacing it with anything else. (I think it's plenty long enough with those 6 hooks.) --Orlady (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:SAFE Port Act#Merger with Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006? for those who wish to discuss the issue. OCNative (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up - Good Friday hook needs putting in Q

There's a verified hook for Good Friday which is still at the bottom of the suggestions page. It needs to go into a queue so that it appears on the day. Mjroots (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved De Nederlandse Bachvereniging to preps (I think this thread was about this nom). Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That it was. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (from author) to everyone involved (s.a.), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten hook about Oregon Oregon newspaper

I suggest the following shortening, given that the Hoss Award and the U. of O. are not the subjects of the story ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 00:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)) :[reply]

... that, after The Redmond Spokesman won the Hoss award for Oregon's best weekly newspaper three times in five years, the trophy was retired and awarded to The Spokesman's publisher?

The current hook is too long (and should spell-out "3" and "5"), and needs two commas:

... that after The Redmond Spokesman won University of Oregon's Hal E. Hoss trophy for the best weekly newspaper in Oregon 3 times in 5 years the award was retired and given to The Spokesman's publisher?

How to find whether an article has already been in DYK?

I have a few ideas, but I would have guessed that at least should be on DYK. Is there any way to check on this? If an article has already been on DYK, can it appear again with a different hook? (subject to a further 5x expansion, which I may be able to do as I usually go for GA) --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, there should be a DYK tag on the talk page of that article. We've had a discussion on how long should we wait for a second-time nomination of the same article. There was no certain number, but it was something longer than 2 years as I recall. Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that the 5x expansion requirement is there to select articles which are effectively new because almost all of the content has been newly-written. In that case, should it matter how long ago any previous DYK was? It's not the same article any more. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want to encourage two-step expansions (sparing details for the next expansion). Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the previous discussion mentioned by Materialscientist, I believe there was widespread agreement that an article can't repeat within 2 years, and can't repeat for the same editor(s). There was, however, no clear consensus on changing the rule to allow repeats beyond that, so I'd say that, barring a consensus here, the longstanding rule that an article can only appear on DYK once still stands. cmadler (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last discussion on the issue was here, which led to this. So yes, only one DYK per article. Shubinator (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click on image, go to article

I'd like to propose that clicking on a DYK image takes one to the article rather than to the image page. As the hook image is required to be present in the article, people wishing to see the image page can still click on the image when they get to the article. The purpose of DYK is to highlight new article content, but the images often get many more hits than the articles. Let's face it – for most of the articles featured in DYK, this is their one and only chance to get widespread exposure. I think that opportunity should be maximized instead of directing people away when they click on the image. Going to the article is often what is intended anyways; I myself have sometimes mistakenly clicked on an image when I wanted to go to the article because I'm so used to things happening that way on so many other sites.

This is something which I've been thinking about for a long time, and I finally decided to suggest it after reading comments by Gatoclass about USRC Wayanda. The following are some example stats for recent articles:

article views		image views
Conservation of slow lorises	0.9k	image	3.0k
USRC Wayanda	7.4k	image	21.3k
Salaì	12.9k	image	33.4k
Spirit of the Dead Watching	3.8k	image	7.8k
Lernaeocera branchialis	7.3k	image	11.6k

I only checked very few, so there are certainly many more examples, probably many with even more dramatic statistics. And even for the ones that aren't so dramatic, a significant number of people are still seeing a pretty picture rather than reading the article which someone worked so hard to write. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I suspect most people expect clicking the image to take them to the article rather than to a file description page. I've always kind of wondered why it wasn't set up that way. 28bytes (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we are allowed to do this. PD images would be fine, but with CC images we must provide a link to the image page. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Adabow is right. A helpful alternative, however, might be to add some template on top of hte image page (for the duration of the time it's on DYK) saying something to the effect of "This is the description page for the image X.jpg. If you were looking for the article about Y, click [[here]]". rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the CC images should be present in the linked article (and in most cases are the first image, so there when loaded), we may be able to get away with linking to the article and letting them follow through. Two points, though:

a) changing the behaviour of in-text images for only some images in the encyclopedia is likely to confuse as many readers as it helps - the one good thing about our unusual "click image to go to description page" system is that it's consistent and, presumably, while a lot of people get it wrong a lot more have remembered how it works by now;

b) and on a similar note, if we want to do this we really need to do it for all four in-text images on the main page at once (FA, DYK, ITN and OTD; obviously not FP). Shimgray | talk | 22:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this in principle. I'd just like to point out that it would totally skew the long term DYK stats, unless somebody goes through and adds the image views to the stats. Also, the threshold would probably have to be increased. Schwede66 20:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 punctuation

I realize I'm being horribly pedantic, but shouldn't the comma come after "(pictured)" in the Queue 3 lead hook, rather than before it? OCNative (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Although personally I'd refactor it slightly;

Current: ...also designed St Mary's Church, Itchen Stoke, (pictured) in Hampshire?

My idea: ...also designed St Mary's Church (pictured) in Itchen Stoke, Hampshire?

Of course, Hampshire could also be wiki-linked but personally I see that as unnecessary 'field of blue' - 'coz the Itchen link clearly says where Hampshire is anyway. Chzz ► 00:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to .. also designed St Mary's Church (pictured) in Itchen Stoke .. as I also try to avoid those multiple "geography" commas. Materialscientist (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

Hook 6 in Queue 4 is missing a leading "that". I don't know if this was deliberate in light of the recent discussion on "that", but I don't think consensus was reached. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Botching hooks

I realise that WP:DYK says "Please note that hooks are subject without notice to copyediting as they move to the main page". However, with no restrictions put on who can queue hooks from the suggestions page into the preparation area (and once in there, they're pretty much through), I wonder about the sense in allowing any random editor to change well considered and consensus approved hooks on their own whim. While one of the main concerns may be to shorten overly verbose hooks, when it leads to hooks losing their meaning or potentially being made wrong, or punchy hooks losing their impact, it's clearly a bad thing. I think this 'rule' needs reconsidering, and a better process needs to be adopted. --jjron (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can see the hooks that are in the queue, and can leave a note here if they notice the hook has been changed to something incorrect. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general this situation is best handled by admins simply being aware that ill advised edits, or even vandalism, can occur on rare occasion and performing basic sanity checks. When moving sets to the queues, I do check the edit history to see what kinds of changes have been made since the set was composed. Only once have I found anything other than the types of changes that are encouraged. The one exception was when a user decided to completely rewrite a hook, using facts that were not present in the highlighted article. This change was reverted before the set was moved to the queues. --Allen3 ^talk 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of editors who keep an eye on the prep areas, and many useful tweaks are made before hooks progress to the queue. I'd say that this is working really well, but that's not to say that things can go wrong, too. Have you got a specific example, Jjron, that prompted you to voice your concerns? Schwede66 20:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, a great many hooks have been improved on their way to the main page or after getting there, I can think of few if any examples where the opposite was the case. Gatoclass (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4: James C. Nelson

I was wondering if the James C. Nelson hook could be moved out of Queue 4 since that queue will appear on the main page in the middle of the night in the United States, and few people in the U.S. will be awake. Thank you. OCNative (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been featured, but basically, we don't move hooks just because they'll be featured in the middle of the night in the relevant country without good reason, because otherwise, we'd have all US hooks at one time of day, all British ones at another, etc. Gatoclass (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding - for example - European topics when Europe is asleep, would still leave a mix of the rest of the world for that time and seems a good idea, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So there is just Europe and the rest of the world? Asia and America are also asleep at different times and different from Europe. Australasia is different again. This proposal amounts to ghettoisation of DYK. It is also unworkable because there is not a neat balance of articles from all round the world. SpinningSpark 00:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I say "for example"? Replace Europe by Australia ... you name it. I see enough diversity in the rest of the world if one region is representent less when it is asleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it wouldn't be moved, but I thought I'd give it a shot since one person lucked out on #Composers sleep in, q5 above. OCNative (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iffy ref in article

I have reviewed Clement W. Payton and raised a concern with the proposer about the reliability of the referencing for the hook. The proposer has modified the hook and found a new (and acceptable) reference. The proposer appears to accept my concerns about the source, but the challenged fact is still in the article, although no longer in the hook. I am not sure what DYKs position on this sort of thing is nowadays so I have come here for advice. I am inclined to pass it as I could not say the source is definitely wrong, or even likely to be wrong. But there may be other ideas... SpinningSpark 23:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Special timing requests

I'm new to special timing requests for DYK, and I RTFM'd a little late I guess. I've made a request for Garden of Ridván, Baghdad to show on the main page on either the 29th of April or 2nd of May. Is there anything else I have to do besides make the request (which is done)? --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 03:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You actually did what you were supposed to do. After it has been reviewed, it will be moved to the Special occasion holding area. I have done so for Garden of Ridván, Baghdad. For future reference, the nomination does need to be made at least five days before but no more than six weeks before the occasion (incidentally, you nominated Garden of Ridván, Baghdad six days before the date, so your timing was actually fine). OCNative (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! ^_^ I wasn't sure about the timing, but I figured it'd be OK since there are actually two major Bahá'í holy days coming up, and either one would be fine. Cheers, dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators and reviews

Is it only self-nominators that should review other DYK nominations, or is it all nominators that should do a reciprocal review? I'm asking because I noticed several nominations where the nominator hadn't mentioned or linked to another nomination they had reviewed. Also, should reviewers check that reviews have been done by the nominator if no diff has been supplied for checking, or is it acceptable to ask for a diff to be provided? Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only self nominators with 5 or more DYK credits have to do a reciprocal review. It makes sense to make sure a review has been done if required - you can always ask, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'm not entirely sure it makes sense to exempt those nominating other articles (what happens if two editors nominate each other's articles for instance?), but at least that answers my question. Maybe it should be made clearer in the instructions? I also saw at least one case where a nominator cited a review they did, once for one nomination, and then again for another nomination. I only noticed because I was searching the template talk page for the mentions of 'La Maison de la Magie Robert-Houdin'. Though the diffs are different. It seems that returning to a review after (say) asking a question, and then completing the review, counts as a new review? I would consider it all part of a single review. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right about that, reviews are counted by hook, not by number of responses. So feel welcome to point out when a reviewer does that so he can be set on the right track. Gatoclass (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 307: / Line 307: @@
 :Only self nominators with 5 or more DYK credits have to do a reciprocal review. It makes sense to make sure a review has been done if required - you can always ask, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 ::OK, thanks. I'm not entirely sure it makes sense to exempt those nominating other articles (what happens if two editors nominate each other's articles for instance?), but at least that answers my question. Maybe it should be made clearer in the instructions? I also saw at least one case where a nominator cited a review they did, once for one nomination, and then again for another nomination. I only noticed because I was searching the template talk page for the mentions of 'La Maison de la Magie Robert-Houdin'. Though the diffs are different. It seems that returning to a review after (say) asking a question, and then completing the review, counts as a new review? I would consider it all part of a single review. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 14:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
+::: Yes, you are right about that, reviews are counted by hook, not by number of responses. So feel welcome to point out when a reviewer does that so he can be set on the right track. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)